[Malone LaVeigh]

I really haven't made my mind up about this issue, but I've seen a lot of controversy about it here before, so thought I'd share it.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1023-01.htm

Published on Thursday, October 23, 2003 by the Associated Press

Cover-Up Alleged in Probe of USS Liberty
by Jennifer C. Kerr

WASHINGTON - A former Navy attorney who helped lead the military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American servicemen says former President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the inquiry conclude the incident was an accident.

In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference, retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara told those heading the Navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

He said he felt compelled to "share the truth" following the publication of a recent book, "The Liberty Incident," which concluded the attack was unintentional.

The USS Liberty was an electronic intelligence-gathering ship that was cruising international waters off the Egyptian coast on June 8, 1967. Israeli planes and torpedo boats opened fire on the Liberty in the midst of what became known as the Israeli-Arab Six-Day War.

In addition to the 34 Americans killed, more than 170 were wounded.

Israel has long maintained that the attack was a case of mistaken identity, an explanation that the Johnson administration did not formally challenge. Israel claimed its forces thought the ship was an Egyptian vessel and apologized to the United States.

After the attack, a Navy court of inquiry concluded there was insufficient information to make a judgment about why Israel attacked the ship, stopping short of assigning blame or determining whether it was an accident.

It was "one of the classic all-American cover-ups," said Ret. Adm. Thomas Moorer, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who spent a year investigating the attack as part of an independent panel he formed with other former military officials. The panel also included a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins.

"Why in the world would our government put Israel's interest ahead of our own?" Moorer asked from his wheelchair at the news conference. He was chief of naval operations at the time of the attack.

Moorer, who has long held that the attack was a deliberate act, wants Congress to investigate.

Israeli Embassy spokesman Mark Regev disputed any notion that Israel knowingly went after American sailors.

"I can say unequivocally that the Liberty tragedy was a terrible accident, that the Israeli pilots involved believed they were attacking an enemy ship," Regev said. "This was in the middle of a war. This is something that we are not proud of."

Calls to the Navy seeking comment were not immediately returned.

David Lewis of Lemington, Vt., was on the Liberty when it was attacked. In an interview, he said Israel had to know it was targeting an American ship. He said a U.S. flag was flying that day and Israel shot it full of holes. The sailors on the ship, he said, quickly hoisted another American flag, a much bigger one, to show Israel it was a U.S. vessel.

"No trained individual could be that inept," said Lewis of the Israeli forces.

In Capt. Boston's statement, he does not say why Johnson would have ordered a cover-up. Later in a phone interview from his home in Coronado, Calif., Boston said Johnson may have worried the inquiry would hurt him politically with Jewish voters.

Moorer's panel suggested several possible reasons Israel might have wanted to attack a U.S. ship. Among them: Israel intended to sink the ship and blame Egypt because it might have brought the United States into the 1967 war.

On the Net:
USS Liberty Memorial Web site: http://www.ussliberty.org

[Keith]

Fog of war...

The US ship was ID'd (wrongly, of course) as Egyptian by some intelligence dweebs. It got bombed and strafed in consequence.

That they were flying an American flag means nothing. Even if the pilots saw it, why would they believe it? Any ship can hoist a flag of any nation.

These were fighter pilots and like all pilots they are aggressive and sometimes shoot first and ask questions later. We bomb our own troops (and allies) in every conflict, and so does every other nation.

Keith

[C.R.Sam]

In harm's way.

Sam

[Malone LaVeigh]

Well Keith, apparently your version of events is the one that one of the lead investigators that presented that conclusion is now repudiating. Doesn't that raise some questions for you?

[Keith]

Nope, it doesn't change a thing. In every event in history somebody comes crawling out of the woodwork with a tinfoil hat to cry "conspiracy".

Keith

[agricola]

as an aside, how many other ships in the area were attacked during that conflict? did the Egyptian Navy have similar shipping in its registry? was the Liberty identifiable as a warship?

[aikidoka-mks]

I have discussed this issue with a coworker. He believes that the evidence shows that Israel attacked the ship intentionally while knowing it was an American ship. The motive is that the ship was close enough to intercept ground communications regarding killing enemy soldiers that had surrendered.

The latest news and I will be interested to see how he responds, is here:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=315949&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

[El Tejon]

Who's saying this, Lincoln Rockwell or the politician in Malaysia?:rolleyes:

Every few years they "rediscover" this "coverup". Must be time for a appropriations vote to Israel.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Who's saying this, Lincoln Rockwell or the politician in Malaysia?I guess anti-Semitism has become the last refuge of someone without an argument. Read the article. Does "A former Navy attorney who helped lead the military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American servicemen" sound like "the politician in Malaysia"?

Like I said, I don't know much about this, but it bothers me to see the knee-jerk reaction whenever anyone brings up anything to make Israel look bad.

[Keith]

The motive is that the ship was close enough to intercept ground communications regarding killing enemy soldiers that had surrendered.

Let's think about that. If the motive was to cover up something the Liberty picked up, then why didn't they sink the ship? Why did they call off the attacks when they realized it was American?

Keith

[agricola]

because the Sixth Fleet's QRA were on the way?

[El Tejon]

Malone, the Liberty is an old warhouse of wackos such as the National Alliance. As you say, I'd find out more about the motivations of this person.

[Destructo6]

Didn't the pilot who lead the attack recently speak about this?

agricola, it would be interesting to know what other ships, if any, were in the area and whether they were attacked also. I couldn't tell you and I wouldn't know where to begin to look. The Liberty was probably standard US Navy Haze Gray, which is a fairly generic color for any navy.

[Keith]

The entire US fleet was ordered to stay 100 miles off the coast. Through some foul-up (or naval arrogance), the Liberty was sent in to monitor radio traffic 14 miles off the coast. Yet, Israel was assured that no US ships were within 100 miles of the coast, by both military and diplomatic authorities.

The reason for that was the Israeli standing orders to attack any vessel near the coast - and that fact had been passed to the US at a number of military and diplomatic levels. We agreed to stay out of the designated area, as did every other neutral nation. This is standard procedure in any conflict. We KNEW about all of this and yet somehow the Liberty ended up 14 miles off the coast!

An Egyptian vessel had come in the night before and shelled Israeli positions in the Gaza strip and... the rest is history.

The thing that should deflate the conspiracy nuts is that the air attacks were from some planes that had no armaments capable of taking out a ship. The only weapons they had were 30mm cannons!
Think about that for a moment - if this was a conspiracy to sink an American ship why didn't they send planes armed with weapons capable of taking out a ship?
The fact that they didn't lends credence to the story that the decision to attack the vessel was done in the heat of battle - they had simply diverted the nearest planes to hit this ship reported off the coast. With only a short delay they could have launched planes equipped with anti-ship weapons.

Keith

[agricola]

keith,

that ignores survivors testimony.

[Keith]

that ignores survivors testimony.

All of the statements above are true. The various military and diplomatic messages have been released. Those prove that the US had assured Israel that no US vessels were within 100 miles of the coast. It was a free-fire zone and we KNEW it. The Liberty shouldn't have been there. Or, if it was we should have told the Israeli's it was there.

You can argue the actual exchange of fire till the cows come home. Should the Israeli's have noted the US flag? Was that flag even there after the initial strafing? Should a combatant even pay attention to a flag in a free fire zone since anybody can raise a flag of any nation...
Those are legitimate questions, but there are no answers to them. In a battle people get tunnel vision and simply react. Every nation in every conflict have cases of "friendly fire" - sometimes against their own troops, sometimes against an ally, sometimes against neutral nations or civilians. It's war and people are exhausted and frightened and angry. It's Clausewitz' "Fog Of War".

Keith

[agricola]

http://www.ussliberty.org/chapter6.htm

[bobdobalina]

I thought all of this was cleared up a few months ago.

For all of you conspiracy theorists, how do you interpret this?

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030710/NEWS/307100403/1007/BUSINESS

[Bigjake]

What the hell would israel gain from bombing thier closest ally?

[Keith]

Yup, the Liberty survivors are mad as hell. I don't blame them since they got screwed by their own government.
The navy clamped the lid on the whole thing to protect itself rather than the Israeli's. The Liberty should not have been sent in there since it was contrary to standing orders to keep all vessels 100 miles off the coast.

And then they put the screws to these sailors to hush up the issue.

I spent twenty years in the Coast Guard identifying and investigating vessels at sea. You have no idea who you are dealing with until you get next to them and read the writing on the stern - and even then you don't really know who you are dealing with because a vessel can assume any identity if they wish to deceive you. It's difficult even under those circumstances when they aren't shooting at us!
I have video of several vessels I took in the early nineties. No flags, no identification at all... There they were almost day of the year sailing in circles in international water near the Aleutians to (we assume) monitor US subs passing into the Bering Sea. We'd get right next to them sometimes to harrass them, and the only response we'd get would be a middle finger from guys standing on deck. We knew who they were and what they were doin, and they knew we knew. And when we got used to one vessel, another would show up - an old cargo vessel, a big fishing boat - anything. They were almost certainly Russian, but they could have been Chinese or North Korean or anybody. If it had been a war zone, we'd have sunk them without a second thought.

In the Liberty case, it WAS a war zone and the governments of both nations (and many other nations) had assured each other that no vessels would enter this defined fire zone. The Liberty went in and got shot at - and nobody should be surprised.

Keith

[Bainx]

Hmm....I seem to recall something about a U.S. warship tracking what turned out to be an Iranian airliner [for several minutes] and shooting it down.

All a conspiracy I guess

[aikidoka-mks]

Well my coworker responded by saying the NSA has never released info like this before and that there never was a congressional inquiry because congress is so tied to Israel and its supporters money. He restated the view that the coverup is to hide the battlefield slaughter of surrendering soldiers an act he compared to the SS of WWII. He says Israel is a belligerent state and this is proved by it attacking first in the 6 day war and attacking the iraqi nuclear plant both without formal declarations of war. He says our support of such a nation is without precedence in our history and the muslim worl has good reason to believe Israel wants to destroy muslim nations. He finished by implying that our foreign policy of supporting Israel at all costs and not being nuetral in the Middle East is why we got 9-11.

I'm trying to be open minded but I feel that blowing off the new NSA data is not warranted. He constantly brings up the survivors accounts but I guess doesnt care about the Israeli pilot that has spoken out recently. Seems to me that there are other plausible reasons for avoiding a congressional inquiry, not just to cover up a battlefield war crime. Ie - navy brass or some other beuaracrat screwed up by sending the ship into a free fire zone. He also of course brings up the article that started this thread. I dont know what to think of that guy's claims just yet.

Mark

[Keith]

He restated the view that the coverup is to hide the battlefield slaughter of surrendering soldiers an act he compared to the SS of WWII. He says Israel is a belligerent state and this is proved by it attacking first in the 6 day war and attacking the iraqi nuclear plant both without formal declarations of war. He says our support of such a nation is without precedence in our history and the muslim worl has good reason to believe Israel wants to destroy muslim nations.

Well, your coworker is mad as a hatter! These are nothing less than the ramblings of an insane mind.

Keith

[aikidoka-mks]

Well, your coworker is mad as a hatter! These are nothing less than the ramblings of an insane mind.

Keith,

I wouldnt go that far. He is certainly left/socialist leaning in his views. Unfortunately He has far more data at his fingertips than I do. We may get into heated discussions but we can discuss things. I doubt I will sway him, dismissing the newly released NSA data indicates he is pretty rigid in his view on this.

I did have to laugh at him when he said the BBC was more objective/nuetral then our media. His response was something about Dan Rather? responding to the President with "yes sir - whatever you say sir" that compared to that the BBC was more objective. I just kept laughing and mentioned a good online source for BBC bias about the war on terrorism and he blew that off as well.

He is certainly intelligent and challenging in debates. So long as he doesnt throw a punch Im fine with it.

Mark

[Orthonym]

Liberty put up their huge holiday ensign/battle flag after the first one was shot off. (Both streaming in the wind and plainly visible.) Before the attack started, Israel's Air Force did LOTS of low-level recon flights with hand-waving between sailors and pilots. Anti-Semitism? Dog Poo! The Chief Engineer of the the ship was a Jew, and HE'S still hoppin' mad.

Don't forget the Israeli torpedo boats' shooting up the life rafts, an act which is against Int'l Law, if not tantamount to piracy!

[aikidoka-mks]

This seems pretty detailed and up to date:

http://www.shalem.org.il/azure/9-Oren.htm

I will have to send it to my coworker for his response.

Mark

[Malone LaVeigh]

By strange coincidence, I heard a very chilling account of this on my commute home tonight. According to the eyewitness accounts presented from the documentary called "Loss of Liberty" the attack went on for about two hours in which the ship was fired on by missles, torpedos and cannon. The Israelis tried hard to sink it, and even sank lifeboats that had been launched.

A high-ranking 4-star admiral was interviewed who claimed there had never been an investigation, pointing out the discrepancy between that and every other attack against US forces, such as the US Cole, etc. A long list of other military figures were also interviewed that claimed that ID of the ship should have been easy. It was a clear day, and several close flights by jets and helicopters were made in the hours before the attack. I'm writing all of this from memory, but it sounded like an outrageous coverup to me.

For all of you conspiracy theorists, how do you interpret this?

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/p...3/1007/BUSINESS What I read there would be consistent with the helicopter pilots being mislead into thinking they were attacking an Egyptian target. It's not necessary that everyone in on the attack was aware of the identity of the target.

This seems pretty detailed and up to date:

http://www.shalem.org.il/azure/9-Oren.htm I find it curious that they claim there have been several investigations in the US. The only one I've heard about is the one that the investigator is now recanting. There was never, according to the report I heard tonight, a Congressional inquiry nor was the FBI ever brought in as they were for the other cases.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Just found this: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/27/1625213

There's a link to the program I heard. I know a lot of you will discount it because it's a leftist source. Try listening with an open mind.

[Orthonym]

Look at USS Liberty.org. Read the whole thing. It'll make your blood boil, be ye Jew or Gentile.

[JoshM]

From the article
Moorer's panel suggested several possible reasons Israel might have wanted to attack a U.S. ship. Among them: Israel intended to sink the ship and blame Egypt because it might have brought the United States into the 1967 war.

Egypt does not use Mirage jets. Also if this was an Israeli black op why would they be broadcasting the details of the interception/strike?

If this really was an elaborate/brutal "cover up" for the murder of Egyptian POWs. Then where are the bodies? It's been more then two decades, I'd expect the Egyptian government to have some solid evidence by now.

Released transcripts of the Liberty attack.
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/liberty.html

[bobdobalina]

When I first read the story about the Israeli pilots a few months ago I decided to do a little research on the USS Liberty thing and on one of the websites I looked at I saw references to a massacre by Israeli troops. I next tried to see if there were any credible sources to support this allegation. I got nothing. zippo. nada. Of course there were the usual neo-nazi websites, etc. But no ap, reuters, bbc, etc. Maybe I would come up with something if I could search in Arabic or Hebrew. But the lack of any concrete reports leads me to believe the "massacre coverup" allegation is nothing but an unfounded conspiracy theory. This sort of reminds me of the recent "massacre" in the Jenin refugee camp, which turned out to be bogus. If anybody has a reputable source documenting the "massacre" the Liberty was supposedly investigating, please post it, I'd be interested in taking a look at it.

[Boats]

Hmm....I seem to recall something about a U.S. warship tracking what turned out to be an Iranian airliner [for several minutes] and shooting it down.

I know this is getting to be ancient history, but it was the USS Vincennes which shot down an Iranian Airlines Airbus that was flying without its transponder on. Given the narrow nautical confines of the Persian Gulf, the track of the plane, and the capability of ASM weapons, the decision to fire was made to the everlasting regret of all involved. I was there on a different ship.

However, in a hostile area, if it looks like a duck, and flies like a duck, sorry to say it, but it is duck season.

Anyone who thinks a ship is going to be identified merely through the ensign it hoists, (especially as jets zip by) has never intercepted ships at sea. A previous Coastie poster nailed it on the head. Anyone out there can be anyone they pretend to be until proven otherwise. As erstwhile "allies," the DoD and the Navy owed a duty to the IDF that they be informed we'd have assets in the area if we didn't want to run the heightened risk of fratricide.

That said, I do believe the Israelis deliberately attacked the USS Liberty, though a credible motive seems to be lacking. I do fault the US Sixth Fleet for creating the conditions that made such an attack possible--no escort on the edge of a war zone, and no declaration of the ship to the Israelis before its taking station.

[Orthonym]

I believe the tradition at sea has always been that you can fly any colors you like, yes, with intent to deceive, as long as you hoist the true ones at least a microsecond before commencing fire.

That said, it doesn't really matter in this case. The Israelis, I believe, reconned the ship for HOURS before going after her. According to the survivors, they went after the litter carriers and firefighters with particular attention.

Things like this are some of the reasons I vote Libertarian. Nation-States can talk otherwise decent, honorable folks into doing really nasty, horrible things to complete strangers, just because said strangers happen to be employed by a different Nation-State.

[Keith]

According to the survivors, they went after the litter carriers and firefighters with particular attention.

It's statements like these that should give you the most pause. Do you really think that aircraft and long range fire were picking out specific individuals to shoot at?

And look at this theory about the massacre of prisoners - do you actually think that if someone had shot some prisoners, they were bragging about it on the airwaves for Liberty (and the Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians) to hear?

Liberty was in a war zone and OUR government failed to tell any of the combatants that it had entered the zone. In fact, it told them just the opposite; that no US ships would enter the zone. As far as the Israeli's were concerned, since it wasn't theirs (or any neutral nation which had all assured them they would not enter the free-fire zone) it had to be Egyptian.

Keith

[Malone LaVeigh]

It's statements like these that should give you the most pause.Aren't you the guy that said they only had 30mm cannons? I'd be careful about what statements might give the most pause.

No the "massacre of prisoners" theory doesn't make sense to me, but the "bring the US in to the war" seems plausable. You said something about the Egyptians not flying mirages, but what does that have to do with it? The Liberty, as I understand it, is a pretty small ship. The first attack targeted radio equipment and should have knocked it all out, except there was one antenna off line for repair. (Again, this is from my memory of the testimony of crewmembers on the show.) Then they attacked with multiple missles and torpedos. And they attacked launched lifeboats.

It doesn't sound to me implausible that they didn't expect any survivors to testify about what kind of jet was used in the attack.

[Orthonym]

She was a "Victory Ship", about 10,000 tons displacement, turbines and single-screw. Otherwise, I think you have it about right.

IMHO, the main problem about that event was that it managed to flick everyone on a sensitive, raw, unmentionable place: The special relation between the USA and the State of Israel. (Not to mention the sensitive, raw, unmentionable places in the bodies of American seamen transfixed by red-hot flying metal)

[agricola]

Think about that for a moment - if this was a conspiracy to sink an American ship why didn't they send planes armed with weapons capable of taking out a ship?


http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/evidence/alternatingfacts.html


"Again, the Yerushalmi Report:


"On the assumption that they were facing an enemy target an order was given to the aircraft to attack. During the first stage of the attack the aircraft strafed the ship with cannon and machine guns, and during the second stage dropped bombs on it, which caused fires, and smoke was seen to rise from the ship.


"At 1400 hours the 'Mirage' planes attacked the Liberty and executed four strafing runs, firing only with their guns since they had no other ordinance available. Good hits were scored by the strafing runs. Damage could be discerned on the body of the ship and fire broke out on her portside. According to the commander of the Liberty, the American flag, which was flying on the mast during the attack, was also knocked down."



Again, the Ram Ron Report reports a significantly different version of the attack by the Mirages:


"Having received the confirmation, the Mirages attacked the target with bombs and strafing runs. "



[IDF History Report]

"While the 'Mirage' attack was proceeding, the Commander of Regional Control 501 experienced momentary doubts as to the identity of the vessel. It appeared that with the start of the attack, when the commander of Regional Control 501 informed the Navy representative at Regional Control of the ongoing operations the latter was not yet aware of the assault and immediately called Fleet Operations Control Center. Any doubt was immediately removed when the Navy representative at Regional Control announced that it was 'okay'. The entire clarification lasted a short time and in effect the attack was not interrupted at all. Meanwhile, Lt. Col. Kisslev directed an additional aircraft formation to the ship. This was a pair of Super-Mystere aircraft ('Royal' formation) on its way to the Mitla pass. Control informed Lt. Kisslev that this formation was armed with napalm, not effective for attacking ships. Bus in spite of this fact he instructed the formation to join the attack with 'whatever they have'."



Yet again, the Ram Ron Report has a significantly different version of these facts:


"Having run out of ammunition, the Air Controller directed to the target 4 SMBD aeroplanes, which attacked it with Napalm."

[Keith]

Ag,

Thank you for proving my point! As stated, the planes were not armed with anti-ship weapons and that pretty much deflates all the conspiracy theories that suggest the Israeli's planned to sink an American ship for various sinister reasons.


Keith

[Spark]

Crap, forgot my tinfoil.

[agricola]

keith,

so you have no honesty at all, at least in this debate.

[Keith]

Ag,

Do you even read your own posts? The excerpts you posted make my case.

Keith

[agricola]

keith,

you said the aircraft were only armed with 30mm cannon - then backed that by saying the only damage was consistent with 30mm cannon fire. The IDF inquiries and survivors testimony wholly disprove that, as should be obvious to all.

[Keith]

As stated IN YOUR OWN POST, the initial attack was conducted with 30mm cannons, NOT anti-ship missiles.
This was NOT a planned, coordinated attack to sink a ship as tinfoil hat crowd declares. Liberty was a target of opportunity that came up in the heat of battle.
And I thank you again for making that case.

Keith

[agricola]

keith,

i congratulate you on exceeding the record for wilfully ignoring the facts.

you, and everyone else here, knows what you wrote. everyone else here knows that you were, and continue to defiantly be, wrong. that you dont come up and say "yep, i am sorry the attack was conducted with other weapons than just 30mm", speaks volumes about you.

are we going to get such a qualification?

are you going to read the evidence or not?

[Malone LaVeigh]

Keith (1):The US ship was ID'd (wrongly, of course) as Egyptian by some intelligence dweebs. It got bombed and strafed in consequence.
Keith (2): The thing that should deflate the conspiracy nuts is that the air attacks were from some planes that had no armaments capable of taking out a ship. The only weapons they had were 30mm cannons!
agricola (1):During the first stage of the attack the aircraft strafed the ship with cannon and machine guns, and during the second stage dropped bombs on it, which caused fires, and smoke was seen to rise from the ship.
agricola (2):"Having received the confirmation, the Mirages attacked the target with bombs and strafing runs. "
Keith (3):Thank you for proving my point!
I guess Keith is right. Ag did make his point (1). I'm just not sure which point Keith was trying to make.

[Keith]

The initial attack was conducted with 30mm cannon strafing runs. The second air attack did use bombs - napalm designed for use against ground forces. At no point were anti-ship missiles used (the claim by some of the survivors). The only holes found in the hull were from 30mm cannons, not anti-ship missiles! Napalm doesn't make a hole, it just burns the exterior.

The conspiracy relies on the notion that the Israeli's PLANNED to sink an American ship to further various evil stratagems that differ depending on which conspiracy nut web site you are perusing.

However, if you are PLANNING to sink a ship, you attack it with weapons capable of sinking a ship! Can we accept that notion, or is it too complex? If a cabal of evil Israeli generals were planning to sink the Liberty, they'd have sent a couple of planes equipped with anti-ship weapons.

What they (the Israeli's) claim, is that when the ship was sighted they simply diverted some planes that were beating up Egyptian infantry and tank columns to go hit the ship. The evidence supports that since 30mm cannons and napalm are not anti-ship weapons.

Yet, there is a conspiracy and cover-up here! The US assured both the Israelis and the Egyptians that no US vessel would come within 100 miles of the Sinai coast. The Liberty was hit 14 miles off the coast. Somebody high up in the navy (or the political administration) gave orders to penetrate that free fire zone. That person is the one who should be blamed for the tragedy.

Keith

[agricola]

malone,

no - he said some planes "were only armed with 30mm cannons".

The IDF evidence shows that the Mirage flight that made the first attack was armed with bombs and cannon, and then a second flight of Super Mystere aircraft attacked Liberty with napalm. Survivors testimony stated that they were also attacked with rockets. His statement is in error and I for one cannot understand why he doesnt at least acknowledge that.

He also ignores the point that the strike was in support of torpedo-boats who were already on scene and who would fire several torpedoes at the Liberty (one of which hit), and also the fact that the boats had made arrangements for air cover some time prior to the attack. It could be argued from the IDF evidence that the aircraft were employed to soften up the target so as to make the torpedo-boats job easier.

"At 1205 hours an order was given to three torpedo boats of the division at Ashdod to proceed in the direction of El-Arish. . . . torpedo boats had been sent to the spot to locate the target, and it had also been agreed with the Naval representative at Air Force H.Q., that as soon as the torpedo boats located the target, aircraft would be dispatched. In the meantime, the commander of the torpedo boat division, who had already been proceeding in the direction ordered, was informed about the shelling of the El-Arish coast and he was ordered to establish radio contact with the aircraft as soon as they appeared over the target."

In that sense they did send a weapons system capable of sinking Liberty.

[Keith]

You are lost in the trivia and missing the important points. Another example of that Cogitive Dissonance that I pointed out in another thread. You refuse to grasp the essential facts of the matter, preferring to wade around in the trivia to seize upon shreds of "evidence" that lend credence to your anti-Israel bigotry.

Do you acknowledge that the US had assured the Israelis (and Egyptians) that no US vessels would enter the war zone?

Do you acknowledge that the Liberty was in fact, well within that zone?

Do you acknowledge that it is a reasonable assumption on the Israeli part that since the vessel wasn't theirs, it was an Egyptian - based on the fact that all neutral nations had informed them that no naval vessels would enter that defined zone?

Do you acknowledge that the Israeli military is (and was then) sophisticated enough to sink a poorly armed intelligence vessel had they planned in advance to do so?


Keith

[agricola]

keith,

Firstly, not once but several times did the IDF identify that vessel, before and during the attack by their own admission - which smacks of negligence at least, and one wonders why the information that an allied vessel was within the war zone would not be "handed-over" at a shift change.

Do you acknowledge that the US had assured the Israelis (and Egyptians) that no US vessels would enter the war zone?

no - the link below states -

Yitzhak Rabin, informed the U.S. Naval Attaché in Tel Aviv, Cmdr. Ernest Carl Castle, that Israel would defend its coast with every means at its disposal. Unidentified vessels would be sunk, Rabin advised; the United States should either acknowledge its ships in the area or remove them.15 Nonetheless, the Americans provided Israel with no information on the Liberty. The United States had also rejected Israel's request for a formal naval liaison. On May 31, Avraham Harman, Israel's ambassador to Washington, had warned Under Secretary of State Eugene V. Rostow that "if war breaks out, we would have no telephone number to call, no code for plane recognition, and no way to get in touch with the U.S. Sixth Fleet."

They did not assure the Israelis that there would be no USN ships in the area - they didnt tell them anything, which is not that strange when one remembers that the Liberty was a SIGINT ship and thus concerned with intelligence. Also, there was no internationally declared "exclusion zone" like that of the Falklands conflict designated by the IDF, aside from Rabins' threat (which is moot because the Liberty had been identified).

Do you acknowledge that the Liberty was in fact, well within that zone?

It was within international waters, and the only reference to "100 miles"
comes from a US signal for the Liberty to withdraw:

Unbeknownst to both Martin and McGonagle, however, the JCS had repeatedly cabled the Liberty the previous night with instructions to withdraw to a distance of one hundred miles from the Egyptian and Israeli coasts. The transmission was delayed, however, by the navy's overloaded, overly complex communication system, which routed messages as far east as the Philippines before relaying them to their destinations. The JCS' orders would not be received by the Liberty until the following day, June 9, by which time they would no longer be relevant.

http://www.shalem.org.il/azure/9-Oren.htm

Do you acknowledge that it is a reasonable assumption on the Israeli part that since the vessel wasn't theirs, it was an Egyptian - based on the fact that all neutral nations had informed them that no naval vessels would enter that defined zone?

that point is incorrect for the reasons above.

Do you acknowledge that the Israeli military is (and was then) sophisticated enough to sink a poorly armed intelligence vessel had they planned in advance to do so?

Yes, which is why they sent MTB's after it. They intended to sink that ship - either as an unidentified contact / a horse carrier or a Z-class destroyer, or the Liberty. The reasons remain unclear, but the evidence points to either a monumental system error on the part of the Israelis, or to a deliberate act.

The public are unlikely to ever find out which is true, but those who were there under fire seem to side with the latter. One could also point out that the IDF seems to have a problem with mistakes of this kind (albeit they tend to blow up UN structures and personnel, rather than US ones).

You going to correct your previous statements or not? If not, I see little point in debating with you.

[Keith]

Unidentified vessels would be sunk, Rabin advised; the United States should either acknowledge its ships in the area or remove them.15 Nonetheless, the Americans provided Israel with no information on the Liberty.

Hello? This is what I mean about your steadfast refusal to acknowledge any fact in the case that disproves your "cabal of evil Jews" theory.

One could also point out that the IDF seems to have a problem with mistakes of this kind (albeit they tend to blow up UN structures and personnel, rather than US ones).

Everyone makes mistakes of this kind in war. When you send out a half million men armed with various deadly weapons, some of them are going to shoot or blow up the wrong targets. Sometimes they even shoot the targets they are ordered to shoot and find out later that a mistake was made higher in the food chain.

It's called "war". People get killed. Mostly those people are the enemy, but sometimes they are journalists, innocent civilians, UN personnel, or even your own troops or allies. Read Clausewitz for the definitive text on the "Fog Of War".

Keith

[agricola]

keith,

There - thats it.

All I have done is pointed out the numerous flaws, if not actual inventions, in your posts and thats the result, the last resort of someone who clearly cannot accept that the lies (which is what they are - an honest person would have admitted their mistake ages ago) they have posted have been found out.

Perhaps you could show me where on this thread I have been antisemitic?

Not that I'll hold my breath, because people who make those slanders dont have the ability or the character to answer that honestly.

[MicroBalrog]

a monumental system error on the part of the Israelis

In my limited IDF experience, that is indeed possible. I continously wonder how the IDF continues doing so much blatantly dumb s:cuss: and still winning conflicts.

[Byron Quick]

Keith,

I agree about the fog of war. And I've read "On War."

I just don't think it's very applicable when you're shooting at an "enemy" that is not returning fire, is in visual range, you're doing it at close range over a period of hours, the target is broadcasting in a different language than the enemy, and you have pilots and others who understand both languages.

By the way, I supported Israel both then and now. I don't have an explanation for this event. But the Israelis' explanation doesn't hold water.
It would explain firing a ship killing missile. It doesn't explain an attack over this time frame.

I can understand screwing up by the numbers. I can't understand it under the circumstances that existed.

[Keith]

I just don't think it's very applicable when you're shooting at an "enemy" that is not returning fire, is in visual range, you're doing it at close range over a period of hours,

I have no idea where you got the idea that the Liberty didn't return fire. They certainly did.
And there is no way to tell an American vessel from an Egyptian vessel other than by the flag. Of course, any vessel can raise any flag they wish - the signal locker is full of them even if you could identify it in the heat of battle. And of course, at some point (accounts vary) the flag was shot down anyway.

You're buying the tinfoil hat conspiracy instead looking into what actually happened.

Keith

[Keith]

All I have done is pointed out the numerous flaws, if not actual inventions, in your posts

No, all you've done is post almost exactly what I said (in slightly different language), from other sources and then picked nits about the details between how I stated it and how they stated it.

You seem unable (or unwilling) to grasp the important facts here.

Perhaps you could show me where on this thread I have been antisemitic?

Is this another attempt to change the subject? It won't work.

I'm still waiting for you to show evidence for several statements you've made. You need to show evidence that anti-ship missiles were fired from the aircraft and that the Israeli government plotted to attack the American navy other than to cover up their "Nazi-like atrocities" elsewhere.

Keith

[Spark]

I know! I know! The evil Israelis did it to cover up their Jenin massacre, 30+ years in the future!

[Cosmoline]

It makes perfect sense. Israel attacked a ship belonging to one of its closest allies in order to ... well I'll think of something. It's gotta be a really, really cunning Jewish plot.

[agricola]

keith,

so when you said:

This is what I mean about your steadfast refusal to acknowledge any fact in the case that disproves your "cabal of evil Jews" theory.

you werent making any accusations of antisemitism :rolleyes:

All I have done is shown your statements are factually wrong, which they have been and continue to be, and remind you that you have corrected none of them.

Why would I have to demonstrate the presence of ASM? In any case, the Israelis already had weapons systems capable of sinking the Liberty - the torpedo-boats - within range (indeed they were the primary response to the Liberty), and they indeed would have sank her but for better marksmanship (they fired five torpedoes at her).

As I said before, the evidence in the public domain points to one of two conclusions - either a deliberate attack, or an immense failure at many levels of the Israeli military system. The survivors seem to believe that it was a deliberate attack, and there appears to have been no court-martial of those responsible for the system failure. Either way justice does not appear to have been done.

But I digress. Keith remains unwilling to debate at a rational level.

[Byron Quick]

OK, the Liberty returned fire.

Tell me...what were the number of casualties on the Israeli side? How many aircraft and torpedo boats were damaged? How many destroyed?

Must have been a very large number to account for the way the fog of war kept the attack going for how many hours?

[Orthonym]

that Agricola and I are on the same side of any question, but he does seem to support, and agree with, the unanimous opinions and accounts from Liberty's survivors, which I believe.

A personal sentiment: "Fog of War", "Realpolitik", and "Reasons of State" might be said by some to excuse most of the business, but shooting up the life-rafts, IMHO, definitely crossed the line separating all of us nice people ;) from murder and piracy!

[Keith]

All I have done is shown your statements are factually wrong, which they have been and continue to be, and remind you that you have corrected none of them. ..Why would I have to demonstrate the presence of ASM?..

Because that is the heart of what you claim is "factually wrong". If the initial attacks were not with Anti-Ship Missiles, then it was hardly a planned and deliberate attack.

As I said before, the evidence in the public domain points to one of two conclusions - either a deliberate attack, or an immense failure at many levels of the Israeli military system.

I fail to see how any rational person could reach either conclusion. If it was a delibarate attack, they would have been armed with anti-ship missiles. If it was an "immense failure" then that would have revolved around someone knowing that the US would violate the 100 mile fire zone.
Did anyone inform the Israeli's we would violate the zone? No, there are no such claims... so, where is the failure?

Keith

[Keith]

Must have been a very large number to account for the way the fog of war kept the attack going for how many hours?

Think about it. If it had been a planned and deliberate attack, don't you think they could have sunk that lightly armed vessel pretty quickly? The aircraft were not properly armed for such a mission - they kept diverting them from ground attacks to hit this vessel offshore...
Do you understand? A planned attack would have simply launched a couple of properly armed planes right off, and sunk the ship with one strike.

Keith

[agricola]

keith,

There was no internationally declared maritime exclusion zone as the evidence shows (and, as you have changed your previous statement, even you recognize this), the Liberty was known to be in the area by at least part of the Israeli Navy and was repeatedly identified before and during the engagement, and noone acted on this information.

Secondly an ASM is not required to "prove" a deliberate act (indeed, the random firing of one might well suggest an accident rather than a deliberate act). One might also point out that the Israeli Air Force may not have had a dedicated ASM at the time (the Gabriel missile was not used until 1973 and was just ship-to-ship at that time) that could be carried by the Mirage III and Super-Mystere aircraft used.

As Byron notes, there are mulitple points at which someone should have called this correctly, and yet they didnt. The only conclusions that are a large number of people / systems messed up big time, or that this was done deliberately. As I have said twice, the survivors seem to hold to the latter view. They were there, I wasnt and you werent.

[Keith]

There was no internationally declared maritime exclusion zone as the evidence shows

Who cares? There was no "Internationally Declared Air Exclusion Zone" over Bosnia, but if a neutral nation would have flown a war plane into the war zone it would have been vaporized in short order. It's only Euro blissninnies that think wars need be approved by the UN.
The combatants declared it a war zone and that's all that matters.

Secondly an ASM is not required to "prove" a deliberate act

Right, the cabal of evil generals plotted to sink an American ship and then sent planes armed with weapons incapable of sinking a ship... Try again.

As Byron notes, there are mulitple points at which someone should have called this correctly, and yet they didnt.

Really? At what points? Did any US sources inform the Israel government that a US ship was violating the 100 mile free fire zone? That's the only thing that would have stopped the battle and since it didn't happen, there was no way for anyone to "call this correctly".

Keith

[agricola]

keith,

you keep citing this "100 mile free fire zone" and yet there doesnt seem to be any evidence for that. do you have any evidence?

also, the aircraft were assigned to slow the ship down so the torpedo boats could close and torpedo it - as is clear from th evidence shown.

stop the continual strawmanning please.

[Keith]

you keep citing this "100 mile free fire zone" and yet there doesnt seem to be any evidence for that. do you have any evidence?

You've already posted that - go back and read your own notes.

also, the aircraft were assigned to slow the ship down so the torpedo boats could close and torpedo it - as is clear from th evidence shown.

Right! The plan was for the aircraft to leave their bombs back at base, and simply strafe the ship, so some little boats could close in under fire and launch torpedoes...
And whose plan was that? The Three Stooges?

Keith

[agricola]

keith,

No - the Liberty was ordered to withdraw 100 miles by the JCS, not because of an exclusion-zone, as I and the evidence said.

Also, as you know and the evidence shows, the Mirage fighters did bomb the Liberty and did slow it down so the torpedo-boats could sink it. It wasnt that much of a three-stooges plan because it would worked if the torpedos had hit home.

this is becoming tiresome, especially now your trying to tell me what I have written. You have no evidence for your fibs at all, do you? :rolleyes:

[Keith]

No - the Liberty was ordered to withdraw 100 miles by the JCS, not because of an exclusion-zone, as I and the evidence said.

You posted the following:

"Yitzhak Rabin, informed the U.S. Naval Attaché in Tel Aviv, Cmdr. Ernest Carl Castle, that Israel would defend its coast with every means at its disposal. Unidentified vessels would be sunk, Rabin advised; the United States should either acknowledge its ships in the area or remove them.15 Nonetheless, the Americans provided Israel with no information on the Liberty."

You seem to be easily confused and lost in trivia. Whether the Israeli government used the term "exclusion zone" or not is hardly pertinent. YOU posted that Israel warned the US about the zone and the US failed to inform them they were sending a vessel in. It doesn't make any sense for you to deny posting this information when we can just go back and see what you posted - I can only conclude that this is mental confusion on your part rather than an attempt to deceive...

Keith

[agricola]

i dont see mention of 100 miles there keith......... try again.

[agricola]

also keith, the reason I posted that - which I agree with btw - was because you had made yet another factual error when you claimed:

Do you acknowledge that the US had assured the Israelis (and Egyptians) that no US vessels would enter the war zone?

which is clearly, and demonstrably (since you now cite it as fact) wrong. The US told noone its business (as indeed as is its right, as it also is its right to sail wherever it pleases in international waters), and in any case the Israeli Navy had identified the Liberty correctly shortly afterwards. Rabin said "Unidentified vessels would be sunk", and since Libertywas identified the point is moot.

work beckons now, so my reply to your next post will be late. However for those who cannot wait Keith will almost certainly make another factual error, refuse to correct his statements and then make up something he thinks I am saying and then counter it. There is a 10% chance of implied antisemitism.


:D

[Keith]

It gets tiresome re-posting your own stuff...

Perhaps you should have some coffee (or tea?) and go back and read your own notes and then start again fresh!

Keith

[publius]

<returning from the nuker with a new bag of popcorn>

OK, guys, resume firing! :D

NO! Not at the liferafts!

[Byron Quick]

Keith,

I don't think you are quite getting my point of view. I'm not necessarily saying it was a deliberate attack...they could have well screwed up by the numbers.


I am saying that the Israelis' explanation of how that accident did happen is pure, 100%, unadulterated bull.

[agricola]

byron,

Keith does realise that the official opinion is bull, which is why he has behaved as he has on this thread.

[Cosmoline]

Consider the source for this piece, please:

http://www.commondreams.org/

[Bahadur]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no internationally declared maritime exclusion zone as the evidence shows
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who cares? There was no "Internationally Declared Air Exclusion Zone" over Bosnia, but if a neutral nation would have flown a war plane into the war zone it would have been vaporized in short order. In accordance with international law (and laws governing warfare), international waters that is not declared exclusion zone by combatant nations are treated very different and distrinctly from territorial airspace (whether or not the nation-state to which that airspace belongs is engaged in hostilities) - meaning without a declared exclusion zone, the international water is fair game for all neutral shipping.

The analogy would hold if USS Liberty intruded into Israeli maritime territory. But it did not, at least according to the existing documentation.

As a side note, I should point out that the various motives given by those who believe the attack was deliberate cannot be proven without release of information from the Israeli government. As such a release is unlikely to occur, there really is no likely motive for deliberate attack that holds any water. The rest are simply conjectures based on zero evidence of any kind.

At the same time, since the crew has established eye witness accounts of a lengthy probing by the IDF (including exchanging handwaving), it is very likely that the identity of the ship was clear to at least some operational IDF elements in the area.

By the way, people seem to think that it must have been either 1) an accident or 2) a deliberate attack based on Israeli government decision. Let's not forget there is also a possibility that an isolated element of the IDF conducted the attack on its own. In the history of the IDF, such incidents (commanders and troops disobeying specific orders and carrying out independent action) have been rather common. Mind you, I am not saying that that is what happened, merely that the dichotomy of accident/deliberate Israeli government action is inadequate in describing the entire spectrum of possibilities.

In any case, the Israeli government apologized to the US government - but it is also true that its explanation makes absolutely no sense. Unless the Israeli government opens its classified archives, I'm afraid this belong to the mystery books.

[Keith]

In accordance with international law (and laws governing warfare), international waters that is not declared exclusion zone by combatant nations are treated very different and distrinctly from territorial airspace (whether or not the nation-state to which that airspace belongs is engaged in hostilities) - meaning without a declared exclusion zone, the international water is fair game for all neutral shipping.

You're talking about shipping going from point A to point B.
But there is a Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around national coast lines which can only be crossed by foreign warships with prior approval. On open sea coasts that is generally 200 miles. Foreign vessels can not fish within that zone, and foreign warships must seek permission from the nation claiming the zone before entering.

This was off the Sinai Coast, land claimed by Egypt but rapidly falling under Israeli control. The US had not requested permission from either party.

Keith

[Cosmoline]

I really, really, really wonder why this friendly fire incident gets so much more press, even after nearly half a century, than the countless other incidents from the world wars and more recent conflicts. How many of them had full, public investigations? Not many, I expect.

So why all the attention to THIS incident? Please explain.

[Keith]

Because the survivors are still around and raising hell!

And rightfully so, because they were treated pretty shabbily. Maybe it's only natural, but their anger is focused on the Israeli's who attacked them rather than their own government who sent them into a war zone without telling the combatants.

Keith

[Wildalaska]

So why all the attention to THIS incident? Please explain.

Becasue its Israel.

WildandwiththatIleavethisoneAlaska

[Glock Glockler]

Bahadur,

Good to see you again, welcome back.

[Bahadur]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with international law (and laws governing warfare), international waters that is not declared exclusion zone by combatant nations are treated very different and distrinctly from territorial airspace (whether or not the nation-state to which that airspace belongs is engaged in hostilities) - meaning without a declared exclusion zone, the international water is fair game for all neutral shipping.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're talking about shipping going from point A to point B.
But there is a Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around national coast lines which can only be crossed by foreign warships with prior approval. On open sea coasts that is generally 200 miles. Foreign vessels can not fish within that zone, and foreign warships must seek permission from the nation claiming the zone before entering.

This was off the Sinai Coast, land claimed by Egypt but rapidly falling under Israeli control. The US had not requested permission from either party.Small problem with your argument - Israel did not declare a 200 mile exclusive economic zone. It only claimed a 12-mile territorial sea (and explorations rights to continental shelf).

Furthermore, contrary to your assertion, there is no specific international law requiring "permission from the nation claiming the zone before entering" by military vessels. In fact, international treaties make no reference to trespassing of the exclusive economic zone by foreign vessel of any kind. Exclusive economic zones only regulate the use ("exploitation") of natural resources for economic purposes. In fact, the United States government specifically maintains that transit and surveillance are allowed within any country's economic exclusion zone.
And rightfully so, because they were treated pretty shabbily. Maybe it's only natural, but their anger is focused on the Israeli's who attacked them rather than their own government who sent them into a war zone without telling the combatants.I don't think highly of the "blame Israel first" claims. But I think even less of "blame United States first" claims.
So why all the attention to THIS incident? Please explain.Because of a number of reasons:

1. As another poster pointed out, the survivors are still angry and demand an explanation that makes sense.
2. Because the attack was launched by a nation that is friendly (and perhaps owes its survival in part) to the United States (imagine if the UK sank a US ship and provided shaky explanations).
3. Because, quite frankly, Israel is subject to different standards than others, say, Syria or Iraq.

About the last item, I think there are further reasons. One is that Israel should be subject to a different standard because it is supposed to be better than others in the region (i.e. "a civilized country"). Another is somewhat diametrically opposed in nature. There are those, particularly in the media, who take a perverse pleasure in subjecting Israel to radically different standards, in fact, excoriating Israel, for transgressions that they would overlook in, say, Syria or Cuba. I suspect anti-Jewish motives from such people, but I cannot offer any concrete proof.
Good to see you again, welcome back.Thank you.

[jimpeel]

In thirty-six years there will be some guy in a wheelchair repudiating the findings of the investigation into the accidental bombing by American pilots that killed eight Canadians.

Johnson -- dead.

Macnamara -- dead.

We won't be hearing much from them on the subject; and it is suspicious that people always seem to come out of the woodwork after someone is dead and can't defend themselves against the accusations.

Macnamara cleansed his soul prior to his death and told all about the Bay of Tonkin and the way the war was hyped. Why would he leave out this incident when he was having his epiphany?

[Bahadur]

Macnamara cleansed his soul prior to his death and told all about the Bay of Tonkin and the way the war was hyped. Why would he leave out this incident when he was having his epiphany?I had a chance to speak to Robert McNamara in person some time ago (within the past 2 years), and was most disappointed by continued denial of certain historical facts on his part.

And he continued to hold on to the fantastical belief that the US should have de-nuclearized itself unilaterally.

The man was in denial in so many ways. Of course, he received a rapturous welcome and applause from the university set that hosted him, particularly when he knocked on the current administration.

[jimpeel]

OOPS!:what:

Went to Who's Alive/Who's Dead (http://www.wa-wd.com/) and it seems that Mr McNamara can still fog a mirror.

My error.

Apologies all around.

J

[agricola]

keith,

please note jimpeels reply as an example of what civilized people do when they are wrong.

[Bigjake]

Agricola, i'm not sure about your side of the pond, but round' these parts its a big deal when you call arogantly call someone a liar, :fire: It'd be nice if you could back off the attitude trip a little bit and stick to the subject at hand. :D thanks.

[Cosmoline]

"1. As another poster pointed out, the survivors are still angry and demand an explanation that makes sense.
2. Because the attack was launched by a nation that is friendly (and perhaps owes its survival in part) to the United States (imagine if the UK sank a US ship and provided shaky explanations).
3. Because, quite frankly, Israel is subject to different standards than others, say, Syria or Iraq.

About the last item, I think there are further reasons. One is that Israel should be subject to a different standard because it is supposed to be better than others in the region (i.e. "a civilized country"). Another is somewhat diametrically opposed in nature. There are those, particularly in the media, who take a perverse pleasure in subjecting Israel to radically different standards, in fact, excoriating Israel, for transgressions that they would overlook in, say, Syria or Cuba. I suspect anti-Jewish motives from such people, but I cannot offer any concrete proof"

Of course the first two reasons would apply to thousands of friendly fire incidents, and I have no doubt that you could find vets who were VERY unhappy with the way various incidents were covered up.

I agree that this is all about Israel. It really isn't about the fact that one ally accidentally attacked a friend, then tried to quiet the whole thing up. This sort of thing happens all the time--usually it's us doing the friendly shooting in fact. The reason this story gets cited by extremists on the right and left is because they don't like the fact that Israel gets special treatment from the US. That's the real issue here.

We all have our own views as to that larger issue, but to me it seems absurd in the extreme to expect the US to place Israel on the same level as Cuba or Syria. Israel IS special. Israel isn't just an ally, it's our most loyal ally apart from Great Britain and Canada, and it should be given breaks we would never give nations such as Syria and Cuba.

If, for example, Cuba attacked a US ship, we would be justified in NOT accepting a friendly fire excuse. Why? Because Cuba and its leader hates us with a deep and abiding passion. We are not allies, we are old enemies. Syria, likewise, harbors a great deal of hatred for the US and is not an ally. A nation such as Jordan, with whom we are on better terms, might get more slack. But not as much as Israel gets, and that's exactly how it should be.

[agricola]

bigjake,

Look, if I am wrong then I'll 'fess up. Keith has been demonstrably wrong, and his refusal to either correct his mistakes, or admit them, or provide evidence to back his claims up, is (obviously) not at the standard accustomed here. How can you debate with someone who behaves in this way? He has accused me of focusing on minutae, but that is where his statements are disproved, and its nice to see the return of Bahadur who is continuing the dismantling.

Its the same thing with zedicus, albeit (thankfully) Keith has not taken to making up stories at the moment.

[Cosmoline]

agricola--I must have missed something. What were the anti-ship weapons the Israelis used? Napalm, cannon, machine guns, etc. are the wrong tools for sinking a big ship. So the question remains. Why, if Israel wanted to sink the Liberty and claim it was an accident, didn't they load up with some big bombs or torpedoes and sink her with one strike, then say "oops!" instead of throwing inadequate weapons at her for a long period?

[agricola]

cosmoline,

The IDF reports provide your answer.

The initial and primary response to the contact that they had was a division of torpedo boats. Prior to engaging Liberty the Israeli Navy had agreed with the IAF that there would be air-support available if required to support the torpedo boats:

"The Head of Operations Section concluded that when the torpedo boats made contact with the vessel responsible for shelling the coast, they should request close air support from the IAF."

Due to a miscalculation of the boats speed, the boats erroneously identified Liberty as a warship and the aircraft (two Mirage fighter-bombers) then "identified" Liberty as a warship, and recieved permission to attack.

"The two 'Mirage' aircraft reached the ship at approximately 1400 hours. The formation leader, Captain Spector, ascended to a height of 3,000 feet and circled the vessel twice; his number two executed one identification run. These runs revealed to the pilots that the ship was not an Israeli vessel . . . The ship was colored battleship grey, had a foremast, one smokestack and two guns on her bow. No flag or other identifying sign was discerned. The formation leader reported this to the torpedo boats and Control and then the aircraft received permission to attack."

The Mirage aircraft then attacked with bombs and cannon-fire.

"Having received the confirmation, the Mirages attacked the target with bombs and strafing runs. "

The Liberty survivors contend that in the initial attack, rockets were used against the ship:

My first impression-my primitive, protective search for something safe and familiar that put me emotionally behind the gun-was wrong. We were not firing at all. We were being pounded with a deadly barrage of aircraft cannon and rocket fire.

After the Mirage aircraft were down to cannon fire, a further flight of Super-Mystere aircraft were assigned, armed with napalm.

"Having run out of ammunition, the Air Controller directed to the target 4 SMBD aeroplanes, which attacked it with Napalm."

The order was then given to attack using torpedoes:

"As the IAF planes broke off the attack the Israel Navy torpedo boats approached the ship. The first aircraft formation contacted the Division; T206 maintained radio communication and forwarded reports to the Division Commander (T204 did not maintain contact with the planes). Thus, he was informed that the target was a destroyer of the 'Z' or 'HUNT' class. The smoke rising from the target, following the air attack, marked the spot and the torpedo boats closed in rapidly. At 1411 hours, the Division Commander was told that the aircraft were finishing their final run and departing – and that now he was to attack. And indeed, after the planes departed, the Division Commander ordered the torpedo boats (at 1418 hours) to launch a torpedo attack.


"However, this attack was delayed. Air Command informed Fleet Operations Control Center, of the discovery of the letters on the ship's side, and Naval Operations/3 instructed the Division (at 1420 hours) not to attack since there was possibly a mistake in the identification of the vessel. The Chief of Naval Operations also ordered the attack delayed but for another reason. He wanted the Division to delay its attack until it was within effective firing range, and not to open fire from too far away. The letters on the ship's side [GTR-5] appeared to him as an Egyptian deception tactic, an enemy effort to operate in daytime in spite of Israel's air superiority in the region. He did not believe that another ship could possibly be in the area.


"The Commander of Division 914, who was on the bridge, later testified that he did not receive the order from Naval Operations/3. However, the Division approached the target to within visual range and immediate realized that the ship was not a destroyer but rather a merchant or supply ship. An attempt was made to identify the vessel, although this was difficult due to the billowing clouds of smoke which enveloped the vessel; only her bow, part of her bridge and the tip of her mast could be discerned. As a result, the Division Commander cancelled the attack order. Even thought the torpedo attack was delayed for a variety of different reasons, the end result was the same – the torpedo Division held its fire and approached the target in order more clearly identify the vessel."

torpedoes were then fired, after Liberty attempted to defend herself:

This combination of factors – an evasive answer to the identification request the identification of the ship by two torpedo boats as the Egyptian El-Quseir, and the apparent gunshot fire emanating from the ship, indicated clearly at that time that this was an enemy craft. The Division commander reported his identification of the vessel to Naval Operations/3 then ordered (at 1437 hours) a torpedo attack.


"The torpedo boats moved in on the target, with guns firing and after a few minutes (at 1443 hours) opened with torpedo fire; according to the following sequence.


"A) T206 attacked first and fired one torpedo from a range of 1,000 yards and a second torpedo from a range of 550 yards; both were seen moving on course to the target but no hits were discerned.


"B) T203 attacked a minute later and fired two torpedoes from a range of 2,000 yards. The right torpedo went off course, but the second torpedo hit the target and exploded on the ship's starboard underneath the waterline.


"C) Finally, T204 attacked and fired only one torpedo which was not seen as traveling on target course at all.

The Israelis then state that they finally identified Liberty and ceased fire.

Thats the official response, culled from three reports and survivors testimony - and even that raises doubts - as I said to Keith, this is either a monumental catalogue of errors, or it was a deliberate attack. The evidence doesnt definately point to one or the other, but Keith's argument can be dismissed:

i) this was a strike against what the Israeli Navy took to be a warship - and they responded with appropriate force - the torpedo-boats and aircraft armed with either bombs, or rockets and bombs. It would be interesting to discover if the IAF actually had air-launched anti ship missiles during the 1967 conflict, and as a counter-question, if this wasnt a deliberate attack - ie if they thought they were up against an Egyptian destroyer - why would they send inadequately armed aircraft to engage it?

As someone else pointed out, one could have more easily understood an incident like that of the USS Stark, which has not been mentioned yet - a random blind ASM shot is more likely to be an accident than a 75-minute attack preceeded by days of intelligence.

ii) Keiths points about the 100 mile exclusion zone, 200 mile EEZ and so forth have been shown to be erroneous by Bahadur and myself, supported by available evidence. His point about "some aircraft only being armed with 30mm" is laughably wrong.

http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/evidence/alternatingfacts.html

http://www.ussliberty.org/chapter6.htm

[Cosmoline]

Some interesting points, Agricola, to be sure. I didn't know about the PT boats before. But where does this lead us? Since the possibility of a deliberate attack on a US vessle by Israeli forces is absurd, I think it's safe to say we're looking at a SNAFU where blood was in the water and there was a frenzy. The Israelis are not known for being calm, moderate fighters. They ride in fast with guns blazing. And of course we've done the same thing to allied troops. Probably tens of thousands, if not more. Indeed IIRC more Brits were killed by our people during the last war than by the Iraqis.

Which leads to the next question. Why haven't there been posts claiming that our attacks on Brits in Iraq and Canadians in Afghanistan might be a plot among people at the DOD to smack down some limey and kanook soldiers? Because it's absurd, that's why.

So why is there even a thread on this?

ISRAEL, that's why. She is like an itch you can't scratch to some folks.

[Bigjake]

After reading the whole of your last post, i really fail to see any huge israeli plot to attack the USA. the report you just cited actualy makes it pretty clear what happened was a big screw up, that article alone is enough for me to dismiss it as an OOOPS.

[agricola]

cosmoline,

Not really - if this was a British board then there would be threads about "trigger-happy yanks" every time something like this happens, or when we go to war on your side (as indeed there has been).

These things dont happen to the US much, and all the comment here has been fair - but I agree that antisemites use incidents like this to push their own agenda, which detracts from the real tragedy and allows those who are guilty (albeit of gross negligence here) to use that as their defence. The same thing has happened with Sabra and Shatila.

That we dont know what happened - thanks to a disinterested US government and Israeli silence (and hush money) - allows these conspiracy theorists to push forward their aims with whatever agenda they have.

[Orthonym]

Seems very like HMS Leopard vs. USS Chesapeake, still resented in the USN.

Edit: Changed nautical language to be more correctly salty.

[agricola]

bigjake,

i) thats the Israeli evidence,

ii) some of the survivors feel very differently.

[Cosmoline]

Well from the various links offered to cites calling for new inquiries, it looks as though 99% of those calling for such inquiries are either far left or far right--and all are anti-Israel.

Check out their "news" section, for example. Most of it is anti-Israel, and only some of it has any bearing on the Liberty issue. It's the same old same old.

http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/news.html

For me, I know who my friends are and who my foes are. Israel is a friend. Case closed.

[Cosmoline]

BTW, what stake do you have in this, Agricola? What do you think really happened?

[Bahadur]

I am not anti-Israel (but then again, I see it "merely" as a close ally, not some sort of a Judeo-Christian blood-brother that some see, as I subscribe to the unemotional axiom that nations have permanent interests, not permanent friends).

Be that as it may, I would like to see a proper inquiry and investigation (done discretely if possible) IF ONLY to put this episode behind the sometimes delicate relationship we have with this allied nation-state. The problem is that this kind of an inquiry cannot be done discretely.

I know the survivors deserve a real explanation (not the flawed one offered by the Israeli government), but frankly there are more important geopolitical issues that govern our relationship with Israel that demand our attention.

If that sounds too realpolitik, so be it.

Still, any quest for the truth is a noble endeavor. I just don't like to see this episode hijacked by ideologues of various stripes.

[Bahadur]

If, for example, Cuba attacked a US ship, we would be justified in NOT accepting a friendly fire excuse. Why? Because Cuba and its leader hates us with a deep and abiding passion. We are not allies, we are old enemies. Syria, likewise, harbors a great deal of hatred for the US and is not an ally. A nation such as Jordan, with whom we are on better terms, might get more slack. But not as much as Israel gets, and that's exactly how it should be.True enough. But that goes the other way too. When a close ally like Israel (or the UK) ends up attacking and damaging/killing us, we tend to expect a more forthcoming explanation than the one given by the Israeli government regarding the USS Liberty episode.

The recent US-Canada row, for example, about the friendly fire incident involving our a/c and their ground troops was not over the nature of the explanations given by our government to Canada. It was over how the punishment of the involved party should be handled.

The key to understanding any situation like this is motive. In the case of the USS Liberty episode, the motive, if any, is unclear, which makes this all episode an exercise in futility (unless, as I stated before, we get release of information from the Israeli archives). The Israeli government did not make the situation better (and ended up fostering a lot of conspiracy theories) by offering an explanation that constrasted sharply with the testimony of the survivors.

[Byron Quick]

Once again, I supported Israel then and now.

I simply don't believe their story.

Folks, "friendly" fire happens. Misidentification happens. US forces have certainly been guilty of such. The incident with the Iranian airliner. The Canadian soldiers who were bombed. The US explained what happened and the explanation made sense however tragic.

Anyone know of an incident with modern communications where the US attacked a friendly nation's forces for two hours?

See the difference?

Yes, folks, it is possible to question Israel and to require Israel to be responsible for its own actions and still be a supporter of Israel.

[Orthonym]

Somewhere on the Liberty survivors' Web site there's a mention of two IAF pilots refusing to obey orders to attack the ship. What I read there said that these guys were seriously punished when they got home, as in punched, kicked and imprisoned for a long time. Maybe they should have said, " I vas chust following orders!" and done what they were told to do?

Better don my armor now, because I've made snide remarks about Israel! I reckon most of Europe's Jews having been murdered by the Germans 60 years ago has built up such a mountain of grumpyness among the survivors (and you betcha I'd feel the same way myself in a similar situation) that it's kind of hard to keep a cool head about it even now, especially considering that there are still folks around who want to do exactly the same thing.

What I think lots of people have been pussyfooting around and pretending not to notice is that the State of Israel is the only self-consciously-Jewish-and-proud-of-it Nation-State in the whole world, and that at the time of the Liberty event there were more Jews in the USA, many of them inflluential and well-respected, than in Israel. Oh,, there was that Vietnam thing distracting us too!

So, why did our clients, our friends, the co-religionists and cousins of some of our most solid and influential citizens do such a nasty thing? We all went to Sunday School, where we learned that Moses and Solomon and David were just like us, except maybe for dressing and talking funny.

Well, Guess What! They really are just like us! At least when it comes to Sovereign-Nation dirty tricks. Jews can be mean, nasty and calculating, just like the rest of us. (most especially when put in charge of Nation-States, ALSO just like the rest of us)

Unlike some people, I tend to cut Israel slack here, not because it's a Jewish state, but because it's a SOVEREIGN state, entitled to do any nasty thing it likes unless and until called on it by another sovereign state.

That said, MY sovereign state is the USA, whose president at the time, Mr. Johnson (what an appropriate name!) failed to look out for our seamen as well as I think he should have done.

[Bahadur]

Unlike some people, I tend to cut Israel slack here, not because it's a Jewish state, but because it's a SOVEREIGN state, entitled to do any nasty thing it likes unless and until called on it by another sovereign state.Quite true. That is how I tend to view the relationship between my country, the United States, and Israel. Both are sovereign nation-states that pursue policies to further their respective interests. When the interests converge, they are allies. When not... something else.

I tend to think that in many instances the interests of my country and those of Israel do converge. For that reason, I tend to support Israel in those instances. But I am under no illusion as to where the motive of the Israeli government and the IDF ultimately rests - to further the interests of not my country, but those of the people and the State of Israel.

But my position is a hard place to be - it is between those who see the State of Israel as the white knight in shining armor who can do no wrong and those who project the worst kind of prejudices against Jews and see Israel in that context.

I do understand, however, that some Americans of Jewish background hold a special place in their heart for Israel - as the last refugee for a persecuted people reeling from a great horror of the Holocaust. I don't know that I'd be any different if I were Jewish.

I am a citizen of the US by naturalization. I immigrated here. I married an American gal from the heartland. I created my own family, an American family. While my parents, cousins and the whole lot still reside in the old country and while I bear some cultural affinity for the land of my birth, for me, my allegiance - the total sum of it all - belongs to the United States. Should there be a conflict of interest between my birthland and my adopted country, I would not hesitate to side with the latter, for when I, my wife or my children are out in the world, we are not people from that old country. We are "those Americans."

I guess in a crude sense, it's a choice between my parents' (cousins' or whatever) family and my own family. I choose the latter.

[Cosmoline]

I'm still at a loss here. Why would Israel deliberately attack a US ship again? I'm missing something here. We were their ally, and I can't quite see how sending Mirage fighters and Israeli boats, all clearly marked as Israeli, to attack a US ship would help make the US a better ally.

So what's the grand conspiracy here? As I see it, there is no possibility of a deliberate, pre-meditated attack on a US ship. The only question is whether the proper people were punished. THey apparently were not, so there's room to complain there. But from what I see these "survivor" groups are intimating that the attack was a deliberate act of war, by re-opening the US inquiry into the sinking.

See, this is how it works. If you want Israel to punish its people, ISRAEL has to do this. A US board of inquiry cannot do any such thing. It has no jurisdiction. A US board of inquiry COULD decide that Israel attacked the US as a deliberate act of war. This is patently insane, and you don't need a board of inquiry to know this. It's like claiming the US was trying to kill Canadians or Brits in an effort to attack those nations because of Canadian quarters or Britcoms or something.

[Cosmoline]

"But I am under no illusion as to where the motive of the Israeli government and the IDF ultimately rests - to further the interests of not my country, but those of the people and the State of Israel."

And how exactly were those interests furthered by attacking the Liberty for two hours?

[agricola]

cosmoline,

yep, but an official board of inquiry at the time would have had the twofold effect of restating to the men and women who serve that the US does not idly accept their deaths as an accident, and of reminding the Israelis, and everyone else, that you better be 110% sure that you arent hitting a US ship. I dont know what the use of a board / inquiry would be now except to generate more cash for the lawyers.

its the magnitude of the mistake (if it was) is what leads to the "deliberate act" theorists - some people, myself included, find it hard to believe that that many people can all mess up at once, and this has been compounded by the way in which both countries have treated the incident since. thats not to say that i think it was a deliberate act - i dont know what it was - but i can see where they are coming from.

[Cosmoline]

Of course we accept it's an accident! Why wouldn't we? The only valid question is properly directed at Israel--why weren't officers punished? Who screwed up? Unless you can offer some halfway coherent theory as to why Israel would have planned and carried out a deliberate attack on our ship, I think we can safely dismiss the possibility.

[agricola]

cosmoline,

No, you can only go on the facts as known - which paint one of two possible scenarios - we arent ever likely to get documents revealing the Israeli "intent".

Noone came up with gravity until Newton worked it out - it didnt mean that for all the billion years preceding that people, animals, plants and the rest were flying off the earth..

[Cosmoline]

Newton? Gravity? :confused: You lost me.

And you still haven't explained why Israel would launch a premeditated knowing attack on a US ship. Unless you can offer some rational explanation for such madness, I think we can discount it. What is this theory you have?

[agricola]

cosmoline,

i dont have a theory why they would do it - if they did do it, then the only people who are going to know are the Israelis and unless someone comes forward we will never know what their mindsets were during the 1967 war. however the sheer magnitude of the error and subsequent events can lead people to think that there was more to this than a simple blue-on-blue.

the Newton point was, until someone works the theory of something out all you have to go on is the observed facts.

[Bahadur]

"But I am under no illusion as to where the motive of the Israeli government and the IDF ultimately rests - to further the interests of not my country, but those of the people and the State of Israel."

And how exactly were those interests furthered by attacking the Liberty for two hours?My statement about Israeli motive was a general one, not specifically regarding the USS Liberty episode.

I don't know that the attack on USS Liberty was a deliberate act based on orders from the Israeli government or military hierarchy. I alredy stated that fishing for motives in that particular case is futile unless we have more information from the Israeli government, which is unlikely to be forthcoming.

My earlier point was a general one that we should always be aware that even close allies have interests of their own. As such, they do not deserve our unconditional support. Do you think the Israeli government leaders, when given the choice between pursuing the interests of the State of Israel and those of the US, think "Gee, the US is our great ally and friend, let's just suck it up and do what helps them as opposed to what helps us"?

I am merely suggesting that we do the same - pursue our own interests. And often our own interests and those of Israel DO converge. But let's not confuse ourselves into thinking that because they OFTEN do, somehow that our interests and those of Israel are the SAME. They are not. That's just the reality of international politics. Israel is no exception.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Israel is no exception.You anti-Semite! Are you GL Rockwell or that guy in Malaysia?

[Orthonym]

Don't you know the modern definition of an anti-semite? (Someone who is disliked by at least one Jew!)

Seriously, guys, could we get away from the ethnic-religious stuff for a moment and have both the US and Israeli govts stipulate the same facts, pay off the survivors and not brag about killing our sailors, etcetc. (i.e., a joint memorial somewhere to both the dead Americans and the Israelis who killed them: All victims of politicians.)


Edit: Closed parentheses.

[Bahadur]

Don't you know the modern definition of an anti-semite? (Someone who is disliked by at least one Jew!)According to that logic there are a lot of Israeli and Jewish anti-Semites running around in the world. :)

In fact, Israel would be basically the land of "anti-Semites" as the secularist Israelis don't like the fundamentalist-religious Israelis, Ashkenajim don't like the Sephardim, the Sabra don't like the Russian immigrants and the Israeli Arabs, well I would think at least one Jew dislikes them, I'm sure. :)

Seriously, guys, could we get away from the ethnic-religious stuff for a moment and have both the US and Israeli govts stipulate the same facts, pay off the survivors and not brag about killing our sailors, etcetc. (i.e., a joint memorial somewhere to both the dead Americans and the Israelis who killed them: All victims of politicians.)Because we have larger politico-military issues at stake, we do need to move on. Achieving that while satisfying the legitimate questions about the survivors is a tough act to do, particularly in the charged American domestic political context that concerns anything to do with Israel.

[Orthonym]

I just signed up for their mailing list. I'm such a loose cannon. Snork!

[Bahadur]

No sex and no light during Sabbath makes Bahadur a grumpy boy!

I could never join the Karaites. :)

[Byron Quick]

I really don't think it was a deliberate attack. I just don't believe the explanation the Israelis' have given to date.

What motive could there be for not telling who really screwed up and how?

Well, for one, the orders could have come from high enough in the political/military hierarchy that Israel believes it must be covered up.

[CMichael]

I posted this before:

Pilot who bombed 'Liberty' talks to 'Post
From the Jerusalem Post.

Oct. 10, 2003
Pilot who bombed 'Liberty' talks to 'Post
By ARIEH O'SULLIVAN



Yiftah Spector
(Jonathan Bloom)

An Israeli pilot who mistakenly attacked the American intelligence ship USS Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War said they were lucky he had no bombs – otherwise he would have sunk her.

"There was a mistake. Mistakes happen. As far as I know, the mistake was of the USS Liberty being there in the first place," said Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yiftah Spector.

After 36 years Spector, who this week was dismissed by the IAF for signing the pilots' refusal letter protesting the policy of targeted killings, agreed to speak to a reporter for the first time on his role in the attack on the Liberty, an American spy ship strafed on the fourth day of the war.

Flying a Mirage III fighter jet code named "Kursa" or couch, Spector was the first pilot to reach the ship, which was about 20 nautical miles west of Gaza. He had been on an air-to-air mission and was not loaded with bombs.

Spector, now 63, went on to become a triple ace, shooting down 15 enemy aircraft, and take part in the 1981 raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor, earning himself a place in the pantheon of Israeli fly boys. This week he ended a 20-year stint teaching new generations of pilots.

Spector had always refused to discuss the attack on the USS Liberty, which killed 34 US sailors and wounded 172, or even be revealed as the pilot who led the attack on her. Until now.

"I did not fire on the Liberty as a human target. I was sent to attack a sailing vessel. This ship was on an escape route from the El Arish area, which at that same moment had heavy smoke rising from it," Spector said.

"It was thought to be an Egyptian vessel. This ship positively did not have any symbol or flag that I could see. What I was concerned with was that it was not one of ours. I looked for the symbol of our navy, which was a large white cross on its deck," he told The Jerusalem Post. "This was not there, so it wasn't one of ours."

The concern of the IAF was that Spector and his wingman, who had been diverted from the Suez Canal, would strike one of the Israel Navy ships in pursuit of the vessel, which was assumed to be Egyptian. IAF archival recordings of the pilots' radio transmission of the actual attack obtained by the Post show that Spector was specifically requested to verify that the ship was a military vessel and not Israeli.

According to the June 8, 1967, radio transmission, Spector said: "I can't identify it but in any case it's a military ship."

Speaking of the event 36 years later may have caused Spector to mix what he remembered with what he may have read and his testimony does not always match archival facts.

"I circled it twice and it did not fire on me. My assumption was that it was likely to open fire at me and nevertheless I slowed down and I looked and there was positively no flag. Just to make sure I photographed it," said Spector, who retired from active duty as a brigadier-general in 1984.

Experts intimately acquainted with the incident said that the only photos Spector took were from his gun-sight camera during his strafing run. Regardless of whether the 455-foot ship bristling with eavesdropping antennas flew a US flag, which it evidently did from its starboard halyard, that banner was shot off in Spector's first strafing pass.

"I was told on the radio that it was an Egyptian ship off the Gaza coast. Hit it. The luck of the ship was that I was armed only with light ammunition [30mm] against aircraft. If I had had a bomb it would be sitting on the bottom today like the Titanic. I promise you," Spector said.

The 30mm rounds were armor piercing, which to this day led Liberty survivors to believe they had been under rocket attack. Spector's first pass ignited a fire which caused the ship to billow black smoke. Ironically, Spector transmitted he suspected the Liberty was putting out smoke to deliberately mask itself.

"Every order is given by commanders and the last one to receive it has to decide whether he will pull the trigger or not. In this instance I was the fighter. I checked what I had to check [i.e. that it was a military ship and not one of ours] and pulled the trigger," Spector said.

"The crew should be thankful for their luck [that I was on an air-to-air mission and did not have any bombs]. It is a pity we attacked. I'm sorry for poor Capt. (William Loren) McGonagle, who was wounded in the leg and the other guys who were killed and wounded."

"I'm sorry for the mistake. Years later my mates dropped flowers on the site where the ship was attacked," Spector said. "I'm the last guy who has a problem with admitting mistakes and asking for forgiveness. There was a mistake, but it wasn't my mistake."

He added he remains baffled that the conspiracy theories live on that Israel deliberately attacked the US intelligence ship. He suggested it might be due to anti-Semitism, or anti-Israeli sentiments.

"I know that after the war one of the first things that was done was the establishment of a [US] senator's inquiry. I know this personally, because I was called upon to testify before it. They came to the country and I was questioned. I told them what I told you just now – that there was a mistake. I am sorry for the mistake. In war mistakes happen," Spector said.

He said that he had never in the past 36 years ever met with any of the Liberty survivors, but has no qualms about doing so now.

"They must understand that a mistake was made here," Spector said. "The fool is one who wanders about in the dark in dangerous places, so they should not come with any complaints."

[agricola]

so Spector is either lying now, or he lied to two Israeli investigations into the incident which are fairly clear that bombs were dropped on the Liberty by the Mirage flight.

[CMichael]

This was already posted before as well.

JERUSALEM - Newly declassified transcripts back up Israel's claim that its sinking of a U.S. spy ship during the 1967 Middle East war was an accident, a Florida judge who has been investigating the case for 16 years said Wednesday.

Israel has always maintained it thought the USS Liberty was an Egyptian military supply ship when it ordered its forces to attack on June 8, 1967, killing 34 American sailors and wounding 171. But critics charge Israel knew the ship was American. Questions about the case have long dogged U.S.-Israel relations.

Miami Judge A. Jay Cristol received transcripts of transmissions from two Israeli helicopter pilots, sent to check for survivors after the attack. The pilots referred to the ship as Egyptian and were surprised to discover it was flying an American flag. The recordings, in Hebrew, were made by a U.S. spy plane hovering over the site.

Cristol told The Associated Press he received the transcripts after submitting a Freedom of Information request to the U.S. National Security Agency, which had kept the recordings secret for 37 years. After his request was denied, Cristol filed suit in federal court and forced their release. Agency spokesman Patrick Weadon confirmed Cristol had been sent the transcripts. "We provided the tapes as part of the historical record," Weadon said. "The agency takes no official position on what happened to the Liberty."

Cristol, who has written a book about the case, said, the tapes "show both the helicopter pilots and their controller ... believed the Israeli air force had targeted an Egyptian ship."

A National Security Agency summary of the incident says the Israelis were confused over the stricken ship's identity more than an hour after the attack. Cristol provided the summary and full transcripts of the pilot and tower recordings to The Associated Press.

Israel has long maintained the attack was the result of a tragic mistake during the heat of battle. Israel was at war with Egypt, Syria and Jordan at the time. An Israeli commission of inquiry concluded the Israeli air force believed the targeted ship was an Egyptian cargo vessel ferrying supplies to Egyptian troops fighting Israeli forces. However, some of the Liberty's survivors and some officials in the U.S. defense establishment have rejected this view, contending Israel deliberately targeted the ship to keep the United States from learning that Israel was planning to attack Syria as part of its strategy during the war.

The Israeli daily Haaretz, which first reported the disclosures in its Wednesday edition, quoted Cristol as saying the tape transcripts were the last classified intelligence about the Liberty.

[CMichael]

I guess everyone is lying that doesn't support your conclusion huh?

Investigations of the Liberty Tragedy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The tragic Israeli attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, has provoked a great deal of controversy and longstanding anger among surviving members of the crew. Though residual anger and suspicions remain, the incident was the subject of ten U.S. investigations and three more by Israel. In the American case, the full weight of the U.S. government was behind the investigations, which had access to all the relevant information. Though some accusations have been made suggesting the reports sough to hide facts or protect Israel, no credible evidence for these charges has been produced. Moreover, if the investigatory bodies had a bias, it was far more likely to be against Israel. Here is a summary of the investigations and their conclusions:

Investigation Date Conclusion
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry June 10-18, 1967 The attack was a case of mistaken identity. Calm conditions and slow ship speed may have made American flag difficult to identify. No indication the attack was intended against U.S. ship.

CIA Report June 13, 1967 The attack was not made in malice and was a mistake.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Fact Finding Team (Russ Report) June 9-20, 1967 Outlined "findings of fact," bud did not make any findings about the actual attack.

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1967 Secretary of Defense McNamara testified he supported conclusion that the attack was not intentional.

Senate Armed Services Committee Feb. 1, 1968 No conclusion. Secretary McNamara makes comparison of attack on Liberty to that on Pueblo with regard to uncertainty about what was happening at the time of the incident.

House Appropriations Committee April-May 1968 Navy communications "foulup" and no conclusion regarding Israeli actions. Much of report remains classified.

House Armed Services Committee May 10, 1971 Critical of Navy communications, no conclusion regarding Israeli actions.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 1979 Responding to critical book by Liberty crewman James Ennes, Senate investigation found no merit to his claim attack was intentional.

National Security Agency 1981 Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculations and egregious errors.

House Armed Services Committee June 1991 Responding to request from Liberty Veterans Association, Subcommitte on Investigations launched probe that concluded there was no evidence to support allegations made by the Association and no reason for further investigation.


Israeli Investigations
Investigation Date Conclusion
Ram Ron Commission June 12, 1967 The attack was made "neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as the result of a bona fide mistake. Also notes that the Liberty made a mistake as well by carelessly approaching a war area.

Preliminary Inquiry July 1967 There was no malicious intent and no deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct that would justify a court-martial.

IDF History 1982 The attack was a result of an "innocent error."




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: A.J. Cristol, "The Liberty Incident," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Miami, 1997, pp. 86-113.

[CMichael]

USS Liberty: Israel Did Not Intend to Bomb the Ship
By A. Jay Cristol
Mr. Cristol is the author of the forthcoming The Liberty Incident.

Editor's Note: This summer HNN devoted a special edition to Israel's attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 during the Six Day War, which resulted in the deaths of 34 Americans. Israel insists the attack was an accident. Many others contend it was deliberate, among them, James Bamford, author of Body of Secrets., which has attracted a great deal of attention. A. Jay Cristol, a federal bankruptcy judge in Florida, has spent 14 years researching the incident and has been allowed exlusive access to Israeli archives and officials. His long-awaited book, The Liberty Incident, will be published in March by Brassey. In the piece below, Judge Cristol critiques the claims advanced by Mr. Bamford. The judge's conclusion? Mr. Bamford is guilty of telling "tall tales."

Bamford: Describes the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty as "unprovoked."

Fact: He completely ignores that the United States had publicly announced to the world at the United Nations Security Council only two days before June 8, 1967 that it had no warships within hundreds of miles of the combat zone. The chain of reactions were started by an Israeli army report of explosions at El Arish. Since Israel controlled the air and the ground, they made the assumption that they were being shelled from the sea and a warship was in eye view. In view of the U.S. public announcement, it seems more logical for the Israelis to have assumed that a haze grey warship sailing within eye view of the ongoing combat was an enemy vessel rather than a U.S. ship.

Bamford: "Israel fighters and torpedo boats assaulted the ship for more than an hour."

Fact: The air attack lasted about 12 minutes and was terminated as soon as the Israel Air Force determined the ship was not an Arab ship. While the Air Force was initiating rescue operations, the torpedo boats approached, stopped, and began signaling to the Liberty. The response of the Liberty was to begin shooting at the torpedo boats which thereupon began the torpedo attack. It lasted less than 15 minutes during which time the navy torpedo boats believed they were facing an enemy who initiated the shooting at them.

Bamford: The Israeli attackers used "cannon fire, rockets, heavy bombs, burning napalm and five torpedoes"

Fact: No rockets were fired at Liberty. No bombs, "heavy" or otherwise, were used. The attacking aircraft were not armed to attack a ship. Had they dropped the standard 500 pound iron bombs normally used against ship targets, the Liberty would very likely have been sunk in minutes. (During the battle of Midway in World War II, U.S. Navy dive bombers using standard 500 pound iron bombs sank three Japanese aircraft carriers in ten minutes.) Four napalm canisters [bombs] were dropped by the attacking aircraft. At least three and possibly all missed. The Liberty's doctor reported no treatment of any crew member for napalm burns.

Bamford: "Israeli reconnaissance planes had positively identified the ship"

Fact: A routine Israel Navy reconnaissance flight at dawn on June 8 sighted Liberty at about 6:00 A.M. steaming southeasterly and south more than 70 miles further west of El Arish. Positive identification was made and the information passed to Naval Intelligence Headquarters and the Liberty was marked on the battle control board at Naval Headquarters. Five hours later, the Liberty mark was considered old information and removed from the battle control board. At 11:00 A.M., shifts changed and the information about the Liberty was not known to the officer who assumed command. At about 1:00 P.M., when the presence of a ship steaming west, 14 miles off the coast of the Sinai and reported to be shelling Israel Army positions from the sea became a tactical issue, the Navy Officer in command did not know about the dawn sighting of Liberty many miles to the west.

Bamford: "Throughout the attack, according to survivors, the Liberty was flying a large American flag,"

Fact: Immediately prior to the air attack, the Liberty had a 5 by 8-foot American flag hoisted but because of the light wind conditions it probably was not extended. This is the Finding of Fact number 2. of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry of June 18, 1967. As a matter of fact, a reference to the formula for visual acuity reveals that a flag that size, if fully extended in good light would not be identifiable beyond 1323 feet and the attacking aircraft never came that close. It is also the undisputed testimony of the Commanding Officer of the Liberty that the 5 by 8-foot flag was shot away on the first strafing run. A second, larger, 7 by 13 foot flag was hoisted after the air attack and prior to the torpedo attack but it was engulfed in smoke and thus was not an identification factor during the attacks. The first actual sighting of an American flag on the Liberty was made by an Israeli helicopter pilot more than 30 minutes after both air and sea attacks were over.

Bamford: "Nowicki heard both the pilots and the torpedo boat crew members referring to the American flag during the attack,"

"Nowicki also heard the pilots talk about the American flag."

Fact: No reference to an American flag was made on any radio intercept until 1512, approximately 30 minutes after the attack was over. I have obtained transcripts of the Israel Air Force tapes which confirm this. I have an appeal pending before the National Security Agency for release of their tapes, which are the tapes described by Bamford. Release of these tapes by NSA will corroborate both what Nowicki originally told Bamford as well as the transcripts of the Israel Air Force tapes. That is the attack was a mistake.

Bamford: [The Liberty] "had its name painted in English in ten-foot letters across the stern."

Fact: The name Liberty on the curved stern of the ship was not larger than 18 inches and because of the curvature of the stern, was extremely difficult to read under any circumstances. The ships identifier, "GTR-5" was painted on both sides of the ship near the bow and near the stern but only the number "5" was ten feet tall. The "GTR" was substantially smaller. It was the sighting of these markings by the second wave of aircraft that identified the ship as not an Arab ship and resulted in immediate termination of the air attack.

Bamford: "Among those who never believed Israel's explanation are the survivors and the captain of the ship."

Fact: The captain of the ship, William L. McGonagle, testified under oath before the U.S. navy Court of Inquiry on June 13, 1967 "I realized that there was a possibility of the aircraft having been Israeli and the attack having been conducted in error." [emphasis added] [Court of Inquiry Record, p. 39] Bamford attributes rejection of the Israel explanation of mistaken identity to "The Survivors." This infers all the survivors. Again, this is not a true statement.

Bamford: "Among those who never believed Israel's explanation are ... Secretary of State, Dean Rusk and Chief of Naval Operations (and later Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) Admiral Thomas Moorer;"

Fact: Dean Rusk never accepted the Israeli explanation but when I asked him in an interview at Athens, Georgia on April 5, 1989 on what evidence he based his opinion, he conceded that he never read the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry findings, the CIA Report, or the Clark Clifford Report. When pressed further, he said, "I did not make a career of studying the evidence."

Admiral Moorer was Commander in Chief Atlantic on the day of the attack on the Liberty and became Chief of Naval Operations on August 1, 1967. In two interviews in Washington, D.C. on February 10, 1989 and May 3, 1990, he explained that the Liberty's identity could not be mistaken because she was the "Ugliest ship in the Navy" and was larger in size than the Egyptian ship for which she was mistaken. The CIA Report concludes the opposite, that the two ships could be mistaken. Ironically, the findings of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry were approved by Moorer's office while he was the Chief of Naval Operations.

Bamford: [The Liberty] never fired a shot."

Fact: This statement is a lie. The evidence has been undisputed for more than three decades that when the torpedo boats approached, stopped, and began signaling, the Liberty began shooting at them. Captain McGonagle, the commanding officer, testified to this under oath at the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry and reconfirmed it in a videotaped press conference on board Liberty when the ship returned to the United States. He may be observed on videotape telling of the Liberty firing at the torpedo boats in the Thames TV documentary, Attack on the Liberty, aired on British television on January 27, 1987.

Bamford: "The evidence that Israel's attack was deliberate is overwhelming." [He refers to] "the mountain of evidence in my book indicating that Israel knew the ship was American."

Fact: All attacks are inherently deliberate. The question is: did the Israelis attack knowing that it was an American ship. Ten official U.S. investigations and three official Israeli investigations have all concluded that the attack was a tragic mistake or that there is no evidence to establish that it was not a tragic mistake. Seven U. S. Presidents, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush, and Clinton have all accepted the conclusion that the attack was a tragic mistake. Still, more than two dozen conspiracy theories, most of which like Mr. Bamford's conspiracy theory, are based on false or erroneous premises, and have been circulating for years. They all start from the assumption that all the above investigations were wrong or a deliberate cover up; that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship; and the only question is: "Why". Bamford's book presents a mountain of allegations but no credible evidence to prove the allegations.

Bamford: Refers to Marvin Nowicki plus "another Hebrew linguist" who, he says, "is" confident that the Israeli attack was a deliberate attack.

Fact: Here again Mr. Bamford lies. Dr. Marvin Nowicki, the U.S. Navy Hebrew linguist on the NSA EC-121 aircraft who heard the Israeli Air Force pilots' radio transmissions and supervised their recording, told Mr. Bamford exactly the opposite, that is Nowicki is certain the attack was a mistake. In an e-mail letter dated March 3, 2000, a copy of which was provided to me by Nowicki and which will be published in full in my forthcoming book, Nowicki wrote to Bamford, "...we recorded most, if not all, of the attack. Further, our intercepts, never before made public, showed the attack to be an accident on the part of the Israelis." Dr. Nowicki's letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal published on May 16, 2001 unequivocally contradicts what Bamford attributes to him. Nowicki said in the Wall Street Journal letter: "My position, which is opposite of Mr. Bamford's, is the attack, ..., was a gross error." There are not one, but two other NSA connected Hebrew linguists that, according to Dr. Nowicki, have heard the tapes and share his - not Bamford's - alleged conclusions.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABOUT JUDGE CRISTOL: He is a former U.S. Navy carrier pilot, and a lecturer for the Department of Defense on the Law of Naval Warfare. He retired from my Naval service with the rank of Captain. He is professionally knowledgeable about air combat and naval matters. He has spent fourteen years researching one question about the Liberty incident: did the Israelis attack her knowing she was a U.S. ship ("No") or was it a case of mistaken identity ("Yes")? This study was his doctoral dissertation accepted in 1997 by the Graduate School of International Studies of the University of Miami and is on file in the Library of Congress.

The quotations attributed to Mr. Bamford were taken from a statement he published in the New Republic.

[CMichael]

so Spector is either lying now, or he lied to two Israeli investigations into the incident which are fairly clear that bombs were dropped on the Liberty by the Mirage flight.

If there were bombs it would have sunk. There were no bombs.

[CMichael]

Excellent job Keith. Sorry I am late to the party.

[agricola]

cmichael,

sorry, but that does not wash:

From the Yerushalmi Report:

"On the assumption that they were facing an enemy target an order was given to the aircraft to attack. During the first stage of the attack the aircraft strafed the ship with cannon and machine guns, and during the second stage dropped bombs on it, which caused fires, and smoke was seen to rise from the ship.

From the Ram Ron report:

"Having received the confirmation, the Mirages attacked the target with bombs and strafing runs. "

Interestingly the later (1982) IDF History report removes all reference to bombs, which is a curious thing as the other two reports clearly state that bombs were dropped, and this is probably the source of this new "no bombs" statement.

It should also be noted that the survivors testimony below mentions rockets and cannon fire, and not bombs being involved in the attack. Given that a distinction is clearly made between the two I dont think its likely that the seamen confused one for the other.

http://www.ussliberty.org/chapter6.htm

cmichael,

in the light of the above its clear that Spector must have at least been less than honest to either the first two inquiries or the reporter just then - and I find it frankly unbelievable that the Inquiries would not have access to the loadouts of the aircraft involved, so I would tend to side with the first two statements.

if Spectors' current contention is correct, what does that say about the veracity of the Israeli "investigation" into the attack?

[morganm01]

Speaking of Iranian Airliners,

Does anyone know anyone who was on the Vincennes, and can verify the reports I have heard, that the bodies of the "passengers" when fished out of the water a couple hours later, were bloated and naked, appearing to have been dead for some time already?????

[CMichael]

Could you please provide the links. Thank you.

[agricola]

http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/evidence/alternatingfacts.html

[CMichael]

Well...I went to the link. Since you indicated that you consider it a credible source, do you accept its conclusion?

This what it says about the Ram Ron report.

The "Ram Ron Report"
Immediately following the Israeli attack on USS Liberty, Colonel Ram Ron, undertook an initial inquiry of the facts on behalf of the IDF. As a result of this investigation, and the evidence developed, the Chief Military Prosecutor indicted a number of Israeli officers, largely on grounds of criminal negligence. The indictment was then referred to an examining judge for further condiseration.

That judge considered the evidence and found that there was no negligence on the part of any Israeli personnel and held that there was no basis for proceeding to court martial.

We have obtained a copy of the Ram Ron Report and will post it here shortly.

[agricola]

cmichael,

look - thats one of the two Israeli inquries. The question is do you accept it as a credible source? If you do, your "no-bombs" theory looks very flawed indeed.

FWIW I consider the stated views of the Israelis in this matter in these reports at a given time after the event relevant when viewed in the light of these later claims. As for its conclusions, I have stated that the available evidence points to either a massive failure at various levels in the Israeli Navy and IAF, or a deliberate act.

The Ram Ron report did find that some officers were thought worthy of further investigation, which I would broadly agree with.

[CMichael]

What evidence?

This really isn't that hard to understand. Israel was at war. It announced that 100 miles would be considered a war zone. The US told them that they wouldn't have ships within that area.

The pilot was told to identify if it was one of their ships or not. Neutral ships weren't supposed to be there. So, the assumption was that if it wasn't an Israeli ship it was a ship that was at war with Israel. It accidently took it for an Egyptian ship during an active war.

Read the events and how they happened.

You are exceedingly stretching by stating that Israel is at fault here or even planned to intentionally attack a US ship.

The fault lies with whomever was responsible for that ship being so close to Egypt and within that zone.

I am not a bit unclear regarding your response to my question. Do you consider the Ram Ron report credible? If not, why did you use it? And if you do then do you accept the conclusion? You can't have it both ways.

[CMichael]

And once again here are the conclusions of other investigations. And you refuste all these conclusions how?


Investigation Date Conclusion
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry June 10-18, 1967 The attack was a case of mistaken identity. Calm conditions and slow ship speed may have made American flag difficult to identify. No indication the attack was intended against U.S. ship.

CIA Report June 13, 1967 The attack was not made in malice and was a mistake.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Fact Finding Team (Russ Report) June 9-20, 1967 Outlined "findings of fact," bud did not make any findings about the actual attack.

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1967 Secretary of Defense McNamara testified he supported conclusion that the attack was not intentional.

Senate Armed Services Committee Feb. 1, 1968 No conclusion. Secretary McNamara makes comparison of attack on Liberty to that on Pueblo with regard to uncertainty about what was happening at the time of the incident.

House Appropriations Committee April-May 1968 Navy communications "foulup" and no conclusion regarding Israeli actions. Much of report remains classified.

House Armed Services Committee May 10, 1971 Critical of Navy communications, no conclusion regarding Israeli actions.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 1979 Responding to critical book by Liberty crewman James Ennes, Senate investigation found no merit to his claim attack was intentional.

National Security Agency 1981 Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculations and egregious errors.

House Armed Services Committee June 1991 Responding to request from Liberty Veterans Association, Subcommitte on Investigations launched probe that concluded there was no evidence to support allegations made by the Association and no reason for further investigation.


Israeli Investigations
Investigation Date Conclusion
Ram Ron Commission June 12, 1967 The attack was made "neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as the result of a bona fide mistake. Also notes that the Liberty made a mistake as well by carelessly approaching a war area.

Preliminary Inquiry July 1967 There was no malicious intent and no deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct that would justify a court-martial.

IDF History 1982 The attack was a result of an "innocent error."

[CMichael]

The Ram Ron report did find that some officers were thought worthy of further investigation, which I would broadly agree with.

And the examining judge cleared them.

"The "Ram Ron Report"
Immediately following the Israeli attack on USS Liberty, Colonel Ram Ron, undertook an initial inquiry of the facts on behalf of the IDF. As a result of this investigation, and the evidence developed, the Chief Military Prosecutor indicted a number of Israeli officers, largely on grounds of criminal negligence. The indictment was then referred to an examining judge for further condiseration.

That judge considered the evidence and found that there was no negligence on the part of any Israeli personnel and held that there was no basis for proceeding to court martial."

[Orthonym]

Then, why are the Liberty survivors still so angry? After all, they were there, and saw it. (and felt it, some of them; for some, it was the last thing they felt)

As I wrote above, nation-states often do ugly, horrible things for "reasons of state". I just wish they'd admit to it sometimes.


Edit: Two revolting examples from my own country's history:

1. F. D. Roosevelt trying to provoke Hitler into fighting us. (USS Reuben James, etc.) - without telling us what he was trying to do.
2.R. M. Nixon bombing Cambodia and not telling anybody about it

[agricola]

cmichael,

The Ram Ron, like the other reports, is relevant because its the facts as stated by the Israelis when they looked at them - and the two reports convieniently disprove the "no bombs" theory since they directly refer to bombs being dropped by the Mirage flight. Accordingly Spector is either lying in that article or he lied to two investigations. What I think of the credibility of the reports has nothing to do with that.

Also there was no "100 mile limit" decreed by the Israelis - a claim which has already been made by Keith and disproved. All the Israelis did was inform the US that unidentified shipping near the coast would be attacked, and ask that the US inform the Israelis of any shipping in the area:

Johnson's idea of a convoy aimed at breaking the blockade came to nothing, and Nasser's troops remained mobilized in the Sinai. Syrian and Jordanian forces were also poised to attack. On the morning of June 5, with diplomatic options exhausted, the Israeli government went to war.13 The IDF launched lightning air and ground strikes against Egypt, quickly gaining the initiative, and repulsed attacks from Syria and Jordan. Yet the Israelis remained highly concerned about threats to their coastline, along which most of the country's major industrial and population centers were situated. The Egyptian navy outnumbered Israel's by more than five to one in warships and, in a crisis, could call on the support of some seventy Soviet vessels in the vicinity.14 The failure of the Israeli navy's attacks on Egyptian and Syrian ports early in the war did little to assuage Israel's fears. Consequently, the IDF Chief of Staff, Gen. Yitzhak Rabin, informed the U.S. Naval Attaché in Tel Aviv, Cmdr. Ernest Carl Castle, that Israel would defend its coast with every means at its disposal. Unidentified vessels would be sunk, Rabin advised; the United States should either acknowledge its ships in the area or remove them.15 Nonetheless, the Americans provided Israel with no information on the Liberty. The United States had also rejected Israel's request for a formal naval liaison. On May 31, Avraham Harman, Israel's ambassador to Washington, had warned Under Secretary of State Eugene V. Rostow that "if war breaks out, we would have no telephone number to call, no code for plane recognition, and no way to get in touch with the U.S. Sixth Fleet."

The "100 mile" issue in fact comes from an order transmitted to the Liberty by the JCS requiring the ship to move that distance from the shore - a signal which was not recieved by the Liberty until it was too late. The Israelis also knew the identity of the ship and its rough location
at the earliest 0500 and at the latest 1055 on the day of the attack.

[CMichael]

Then, why are the Liberty survivors still so angry? After all, they were there, and saw it. (and felt it, some of them; for some, it was the last thing they felt)

As I wrote above, nation-states often do ugly, horrible things for "reasons of state". I just wish they'd admit to it sometimes.<<

Because they were attacked. At the time they had no way to know what the true reason was that they were attacked. That's why there were investigations.

In Iraq the US accidently attacked Australians. That doesn't meant that they did it intentionally. The US even killed 26 men in two helicopters by mistake.

Mistakes happen during war.

[CMichael]

Also there was no "100 mile limit" decreed by the Israelis - a claim which has already been made by Keith and disproved. All the Israelis did was inform the US that unidentified shipping near the coast would be attacked, and ask that the US inform the Israelis of any shipping in the area:

I already posted this before. So look a few posts back to get the source.

"Fact: He completely ignores that the United States had publicly announced to the world at the United Nations Security Council only two days before June 8, 1967 that it had no warships within hundreds of miles of the combat zone. The chain of reactions were started by an Israeli army report of explosions at El Arish. Since Israel controlled the air and the ground, they made the assumption that they were being shelled from the sea and a warship was in eye view. In view of the U.S. public announcement, it seems more logical for the Israelis to have assumed that a haze grey warship sailing within eye view of the ongoing combat was an enemy vessel rather than a U.S. ship.<<

Yanno Keith is right. You should read what you yourself post. This is from what you just posted.



Consequently, the IDF Chief of Staff, Gen. Yitzhak Rabin, informed the U.S. Naval Attaché in Tel Aviv, Cmdr. Ernest Carl Castle, that Israel would defend its coast with every means at its disposal. Unidentified vessels would be sunk, Rabin advised; the United States should either acknowledge its ships in the area or remove them.15 Nonetheless, the Americans provided Israel with no information on the Liberty. The United States had also rejected Israel's request for a formal naval liaison. On May 31, Avraham Harman, Israel's ambassador to Washington, had warned Under Secretary of State Eugene V. Rostow that "if war breaks out, we would have no telephone number to call, no code for plane recognition, and no way to get in touch with the U.S. Sixth Fleet."

So not only did the Israel not know about the ship but the US rejected a formal naval lisian and Israel's ambassador had warned that if war breaks out they have no way to verify this stuff with the US.

I guess that all the major numerous investigations concluding that it wasn't intentional has not weight to you, huh?

[agricola]

cmichael,

* at least some Israeli Navy and IAF officers knew the Liberty was there and reported and recorded as such. What they may or may not have said to the UN is irrelevant because for at least part of the day of the attack the Israeli's knew of the Libertys presence in the combat area - which is yet another fact you and Keith havent acknowledged.

* the Rabin comment is revealing- they didnt speak to him (as the link says) as they were under no obligation to do so, nor would they have necessarily informed another nation of the presence of a signals monitoring ship in international waters. In any case, as above, the Israelis knew of Liberty's presence.

* those incidents are a different kind of "friendly-fire" to this. Those were instant decisions, made in the heat of the moment - this was an attack which required a large number of people to foul up over a relatively long period of time. All of these incidents should be investigated throughly and charges brought if justified.

* are you ever going to admit the no-bombs theory is nonsense or what?

[CMichael]

I have shown the conclusion of about 10 independent investigations all concluding that the attack was an accident.

Do you have the results of any investigation by a credible source that says that it was intentional??? How about just one?

In the case of Specter he was the first plane to reach there and attack. He said he didn't have bombs. The source that you posted said in the second attack there were bombs. So this is consistent with Specter's story.

I will concede that I am not certain if there were bombs or not at some point. However, if a bomb landed on the ship I don't see how it wasn't sunk?

However, I am challenging you to put up or shut up. I posted the conclusions of investigations of the US Court of Inquiry, the NSC, the House, the Senate, etc all concluding the same thing. How about showing something showing the opposite from a credible source?

[CMichael]

* those incidents are a different kind of "friendly-fire" to this. Those were instant decisions, made in the heat of the moment - this was an attack which required a large number of people to foul up over a relatively long period of time. All of these incidents should be investigated throughly and charges brought if justified.

You are still ignoring that it has already been investigation by about 10 different government agencies all concluding it was an accident. Could you please read the stuff that I posted that doesn't coincide with your theory. It will save me the trouble of continously having to repost the same thing.

Oh well here it is again:



Investigation Date Conclusion
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry June 10-18, 1967 The attack was a case of mistaken identity. Calm conditions and slow ship speed may have made American flag difficult to identify. No indication the attack was intended against U.S. ship.

CIA Report June 13, 1967 The attack was not made in malice and was a mistake.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Fact Finding Team (Russ Report) June 9-20, 1967 Outlined "findings of fact," bud did not make any findings about the actual attack.

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1967 Secretary of Defense McNamara testified he supported conclusion that the attack was not intentional.

Senate Armed Services Committee Feb. 1, 1968 No conclusion. Secretary McNamara makes comparison of attack on Liberty to that on Pueblo with regard to uncertainty about what was happening at the time of the incident.

House Appropriations Committee April-May 1968 Navy communications "foulup" and no conclusion regarding Israeli actions. Much of report remains classified.

House Armed Services Committee May 10, 1971 Critical of Navy communications, no conclusion regarding Israeli actions.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 1979 Responding to critical book by Liberty crewman James Ennes, Senate investigation found no merit to his claim attack was intentional.

National Security Agency 1981 Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculations and egregious errors.

House Armed Services Committee June 1991 Responding to request from Liberty Veterans Association, Subcommitte on Investigations launched probe that concluded there was no evidence to support allegations made by the Association and no reason for further investigation.


Israeli Investigations
Investigation Date Conclusion
Ram Ron Commission June 12, 1967 The attack was made "neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as the result of a bona fide mistake. Also notes that the Liberty made a mistake as well by carelessly approaching a war area.

Preliminary Inquiry July 1967 There was no malicious intent and no deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct that would justify a court-martial.

IDF History 1982 The attack was a result of an "innocent error."

[agricola]

cmichael,

In the case of Specter he was the first plane to reach there and attack. He said he didn't have bombs. The source that you posted said in the second attack there were bombs. So this is consistent with Specter's story.

sorry, but thats enough. You cant debate against logic like that! :rolleyes:

[CMichael]

You can't effectively debate becasue the facts don't coincide with your theories.

1) You keep saying how you said it should be investigated, but completely ignore that it has been investigated by about 10 different entities all concluding that it was an accident

2) Your own source said it was an accident.

3) As far as the friendly fire incidents mentioned. Those could have much more eaily have been avoided because they were part of the same force and had communication procedures.

In the case of the Liberty the US government told Israel that there were no American ships within 100 miles yet the Liberty was about 14 miles from Egypt. Also, Israel requested from the US a liasion (according to your source) to better coordinate, but the US refused. So is at fault here?

4) Basically the person(s) who are at fault are whomever was responsible for the Liberty being within the zone.

[agricola]

cmichael,

no, I can't debate with you because you can take a statement that confirms that the Mirages dropped bombs and use it to "prove" that the Mirages didnt drop bombs.

[CMichael]

The statement says that the particular pilot didn't drop bombs. Even what you posted said it was in the second attack and not the first.

BTW I did make a mistake I intentionally said I posted 10 separate organziations concluded that it was an accident. That isn't true I posted 13 separate investigations that concluded it was an accident.

[agricola]

cmichael,

no, it (the Yerushalmi Report) says:

"On the assumption that they were facing an enemy target an order was given to the aircraft to attack. During the first stage of the attack the aircraft strafed the ship with cannon and machine guns, and during the second stage dropped bombs on it, which caused fires, and smoke was seen to rise from the ship."

the second phase of the first attack, not the second attack. The Ram Ron report is even more concise and unequivocal:

"Having received the confirmation, the Mirages attacked the target with bombs and strafing runs. "

Also, the "fact" that 13 separate investigations have revealed it an accident means nothing - if 13 different criminals involved in a trial deemed themselves innocent, noone would accept that either.

[sw442642]

What is the purpose of the argument? Let's say the current Israeli government comes clean and says that it was a deliberate attack because of some policy or issue back then.

Does that make the constant posters of this stuff happy? The USA messed up Allende in Chile and did other charming stuff around the world. So I guess some Chile dudes have tantrums on their forums.

What do you guys want? The Arabs to win and kill all the Israelis? Or do you just want an apology and some cash for the survivors? What is your point?

The reason antisemitism is raised is because that clearly seems the agenda of this continually raving about the issue. Is Israel not worth supporting because of this?

Say something about what you want and your motives - or you are full of chopped liver (guess what that looks like).
:cuss:

[agricola]

sw442642,

I have always believed that if the West portrays itself as the bastion of freedom and justice, then it should act accordingly and be seen to be doing so. Anything else is, and is seen as by the rest of the world, hypocrisy.

The chain of events here to me (and to Keith and cmichael, since even they blame someone) shows that justice for those men - and their loved ones - has not been achieved. It should be in the interests of us all to see that it is achieved.

[Malone LaVeigh]

I have always believed that if the West portrays itself as the bastion of freedom and justice, then it should act accordingly and be seen to be doing so. Anything else is, and is seen as by the rest of the world, hypocrisy.That's a very important point, and not one I have been able to articulate very well. It fits well for recent threads here on government deceptions over the Iraq war and the unending debate over the McCarthy era.

ag, do you mind if I ad it to my sig line?

[agricola]

by all means :D

[CMichael]

Also, the "fact" that 13 separate investigations have revealed it an accident means nothing - if 13 different criminals involved in a trial deemed themselves innocent, noone would accept that either.

Your analogy doesn't work. 10 of the investigations are from US government entities, such as the US Court of Inquiry, the CIA, the NSC, the House, the Senate, etc, etc.

Are you implying they were all involved in the vast Jewish conspiracy to cover it up?

These are 13 separate organizations.

You know it wasn't an accident because you heard it on Al Jazeera television?

It's amazing how you don't let the facts get in the way of your beliefs no matter how preposterous they are.

Once again for those who actually care about the truth:


Investigation Date Conclusion
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry June 10-18, 1967 The attack was a case of mistaken identity. Calm conditions and slow ship speed may have made American flag difficult to identify. No indication the attack was intended against U.S. ship.

CIA Report June 13, 1967 The attack was not made in malice and was a mistake.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Fact Finding Team (Russ Report) June 9-20, 1967 Outlined "findings of fact," bud did not make any findings about the actual attack.

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1967 Secretary of Defense McNamara testified he supported conclusion that the attack was not intentional.

Senate Armed Services Committee Feb. 1, 1968 No conclusion. Secretary McNamara makes comparison of attack on Liberty to that on Pueblo with regard to uncertainty about what was happening at the time of the incident.

House Appropriations Committee April-May 1968 Navy communications "foulup" and no conclusion regarding Israeli actions. Much of report remains classified.

House Armed Services Committee May 10, 1971 Critical of Navy communications, no conclusion regarding Israeli actions.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 1979 Responding to critical book by Liberty crewman James Ennes, Senate investigation found no merit to his claim attack was intentional.

National Security Agency 1981 Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculations and egregious errors.

House Armed Services Committee June 1991 Responding to request from Liberty Veterans Association, Subcommitte on Investigations launched probe that concluded there was no evidence to support allegations made by the Association and no reason for further investigation.


Israeli Investigations
Investigation Date Conclusion
Ram Ron Commission June 12, 1967 The attack was made "neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as the result of a bona fide mistake. Also notes that the Liberty made a mistake as well by carelessly approaching a war area.

Preliminary Inquiry July 1967 There was no malicious intent and no deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct that would justify a court-martial.

IDF History 1982 The attack was a result of an "innocent error."

[agricola]

cmichael,

what is it about you and Keith that means you cannot admit fault?

[CMichael]

LOL Nice attempt to try and turn the tables.

You said that the evidence is that it wasn't accident.

You said that it wasn't investigated.

I documented 13 separate investigations all concluding it wasn't an accident. Yet you still don't accept it.

What exactly do you base your conclusion that it wasn't an accident on?

I did conceed that there may have been bombs. The pilot was the first pilot and described what he personally did. Your source said that in the second attack there were bombs.

What I find the most amusing is even the sources that you cite conclude that it was an accident. Yet you don't accept that either.

[CMichael]

I documented 13 separate investigations all concluding it wasn't an accident. Yet you still don't accept it

Whoops. I meant concluding it was an accident.

[agricola]

sigh

it wasnt an attempt to "turn the tables" as that would imply you had any kind of a point to debate. as is clear from the IDF's own evidence, your and Keiths stance is deeply flawed, and both you and he have been demonstrably proved wrong on numerous points of fact; this last "no bombs" issue should just serve to illustrate once and for all the impossibility of any kind of serious conversation here as long as people like you cannot admit those basic and obvious errors.

i refer, for the last time, to your article:

Flying a Mirage III fighter jet code named "Kursa" or couch, Spector was the first pilot to reach the ship, which was about 20 nautical miles west of Gaza. He had been on an air-to-air mission and was not loaded with bombs.

So Spector's plane was fitted out for air to air and his wingman, instead of protecting his man, was fitted out for air to ground? And you still believe this?

[CMichael]

What is the difference? The main issue is whether the attack was an accident or not an accident.

The overwhelming evidence based on 13 separate investigations is that it was an accident. You can not cite one investigation that concluded that it wasn't an accident.

[CMichael]

Do you now accept that it was an accident?

[agricola]

cmichael,

issues of fact are important because they expose fabrications and falsehoods - in my experience the truth does not change over time.

Also, the point is whether the attack was an accident, an accident due to negligence or a deliberate attack. I plump for the latter two, but the available evidence doesnt strongly point to either one.

A "pure" accident would be one man or one crew messing up, not lots of guys over half a day.

[Orthonym]

that is, "They all look like ants from up here."

[sw442642]

I repeat my original request. What do you guys want? What is justice? Monetary reparations and an admission of cupability? Trial for the highest official that authorized the attack?

Be specific. Vague claims of rage are worthless. How does this influence current policies? Do we celebrate the 9/11 attackers because you didn't like what happened to the Liberty?

Certainly, across the world, folks could have claims against the USA for our actions that have been suspect at times.

So what do you want. JUSTICE is bs - be specific. Or as I suspect this continuing thread is just another anti-Israel rant for the big obvious reason.

[Gewehr98]

You know, this part:

As the crew labored to tend to the wounded, extinguish the fire, and burn classified papers, contact was finally made with the Sixth Fleet. "Help is on the way," replied the carrier America, which quickly unleashed eight of its most readily available warplanes - F-104s armed with nuclear weapons.

Carrier-based F-104 Lockheed F-104 Starfighters? :what:

[sw442642]

What nuclear weapons anyway? IIRC, carrier based planes had either strategic weapons or tactical bombs. There weren't nuclear antiship or AA. What good would nuclear weapons be against the attackers of the Liberty?

Such would have to have presidential release to be used.

Just another example of what the Liberty thread is really about.

Starfighters on ships - when we didn't even use them for any significant combat role in the AF. Haha - tin foil hats with a Prussian point!!

[agricola]

sw,

The issue must be that those men, and the families of those men who did not survive, must have an open and full inquiry into the incident and, if appropriate, those responsible face trial. That is "justice" in this case.

Its also the case that some antisemites have seized on this issue as further ammunition for their hateful cause; however that does not mean that those who point out the numerous questions about this issue are antisemitic, however much elements of the pro-Israeli side might wish it to be so.

[TheDude]

There are a great many people who substitute emotion for reason. In this particular instance, the evidence is there for anyone who wants to examine it. Unfortunately, the typical response to anyone who questions the Israeli position is to be characterized as an anti-Semite, a conspiracy theorist, or both. Oddly enough, I’ve found very few Israeli partisans who want to stick around and deal with the facts.

I am quite willing to discuss this issue with anyone who wants to debate it. All that I ask is that the discussion remain civil, there be no ad hominem attacks in place of reasoned argument, and we stick to the documented facts.

Personally, I think that there is irrefutable proof that Israel committed at least one war crime (and possibly several) in the course of their attack on USS Liberty. As I said, I am willing to discuss this with anyone, provided we keep it civil.

Any takers?

[Cosmoline]

An inquiry? By whom? To find what? With what powers? As I said before, demanding that the US re-open an inquiry to determine whether this was an act of war is nuts. It seems to me that a legitimate request might best be directed at Israel, to investigate its own people and determine who was at fault for this fiasco. Is that what you're asking for?

[Cosmoline]

Um, if Israel committed a "war crime" here, then the US has committed thousands. We kill our allies all the time.

Call me oversensitive, but whenever I hear "war crime" used with "Israel," my radar gets all kinds of pips on it.

[TheDude]

Um, if Israel committed a "war crime" here, then the US has committed thousands. We kill our allies all the time.

Call me oversensitive, but whenever I hear "war crime" used with "Israel," my radar gets all kinds of pips on it.

There is a huge difference between an accident and a war crime. The term “war crime” is defined in international law and involves a grievous breach of the laws of war.

Accidents can give rise to civil liability, and if egregious enough, even criminal prosecution. Recently, you may recall, there was a situation where a U.S. pilot in Afghanistan bombed Canadian ground troops, killing some and wounding others. The case was investigated, resulting in the pilot being charged with criminal negligence and sent to a court martial. In the end, I believe he was acquitted of the criminal negligence charge, but convicted of a lesser charge. Irrespective of the outcome (and it is not over yet), this was not a war crime because there was no breach of the laws of war, grievous or otherwise.

It is undisputed that USS Liberty was a neutral ship, sailing at all times in international waters. The Hague Convention on Naval Warfare, to which the United States and Israel were both signatories on June 8, 1967, applies in such cases. It prohibits belligerents from attacking neutral ships on the high seas. This is an absolute prohibition, not a suggestion or guideline.

In turn, this prohibition requires belligerents to identify positively the nationality of any ships before they attack them on the high seas. Even if the ship is sailing under the flag of an enemy belligerent, the attacking party may not attack if the target ship is a non-combatant.

Belligerents have a right to order suspected enemy ships to heave to and allow themselves to be boarded and inspected. If the suspect ship refuses to heave to, then the belligerent is permitted to use force to compel an inspection.

It is also undisputed that when the Israeli forces came upon USS Liberty in international waters, Liberty was barely making way at a speed of approximately five knots. Very clearly, USS Liberty was not running away or otherwise behaving like an enemy ship attempting to evade anyone.

In this instance, the Israeli forces had an absolute, affirmative duty to identify the nationality of the ship they came upon before attacking. They cannot even use the excuse of exigent circumstances – Liberty was moving in a straight line at approximately five knots. There was absolutely no justification in law or logic for attacking without first identifying the nationality of the ship.

It is undisputed that Israeli forces attacked USS Liberty without warning or making any demand for identification. In doing this, they violated Article Two of the Hague Convention on Naval Warfare. This is a strict liability situation. Think of it like this. Suppose you decide that anyone who sets foot on your property is a criminal who intends to murder you. The postman then comes up the walkway to deliver a package and you shoot him. Unless you can prove that he really was a criminal coming to kill you, you are guilty of committing a criminal homicide.

When the Israeli forces launched an unprovoked and unjustified attack on USS Liberty, they committed a war crime. The result of their attack was thirty four dead Americans and another 172 wounded.

An accident is something else entirely. In this case, they do not dispute that it was their intent to attack and sink the ship they saw. They elected to attack without regard for the nationality of their target. There was absolutely no reason why they had to attack without first verifying the identity of USS Liberty. This was not an accident, it was an attack made with willful disregard for human life or international law.

Under those circumstances, I think that arguing that the attack was not a war crime is going to be an uphill fight for anyone who tries it. I might add that this analysis resolves all facts in favor of the Israelis.

As for possible other war crimes, the survivors have maintained from the very start that the Israeli torpedo boats deliberately attacked the rescue and firefighting crews, and also shot up the inflatable life rafts the crew put over the side. The contentions are confirmed in part by photographs of the fire hoses that were used, showing them riddled with holes. Also, in the recently released (and otherwise inconclusive) NSA intercept tapes, one of the Israeli helicopter pilots is heard to observe that there were “uninflated boats” trailing in the wake of USS Liberty. How do you get uninflated boats? You throw inflated life rafts over the side and watch them get shot up by Israeli torpedo boats.

If you disagree, if you feel that there is some legal justification for what they did and that this is not a war crime, I’d like to see your reasoning.

[agricola]

thedude,

good luck to you, but you have about as much chance of getting the likes of Keith and cmichael to engage in a debate on those terms as a mushy snowball does in a sauna in Hell.

[CMichael]

Dude you are kind of late to the game here.

Agricola you once again say that it needs to be investigated, but yet still completely ignore that there were thirteen separate invesigations all concluding it was an accident.

If there is fault it's within the US. The US assured Israel that there weren't any of it's ships within 100 miles. The ship was about 14 miles from Egypt. The fauly lies with whomever made the decision to put the ship where it shouldn't have been.

And Dude you can look back and see the chain of events and why they happened.

Although, I haven't called anyone names, I must question those who completely ignore the conclusion of the numerous investigations, and still blast Israel for an incident that occurred about 30 years ago, which they weren't at fault at.

[agricola]

cmichael,

i) the "100 mile" theory is irrelevant because the Israelis, by their own admission, knew that the Liberty was in the area on the day of the attack - either 6 hours before, or at worst at 1055. The reports of shelling came in at 1124, which was twenty-four minutes after Liberty had been removed from the plotting-table (according to the Israeli Navy):

"At 10.55 hours the Naval Liaison Officer at Air Force H.Q. reported to the Navy H.Q. that the ship about which he had reported earlier in the morning was an electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy, named Liberty, whose marking was G.T.R.-5. At the same time, the Acting Chief of Naval Operations was present at Navy H.Q.


"Upon receiving the information from the reconnaissance aircraft about the location of the ship, as mentioned above, it was marked on the Combat Information Centre Table at Navy H.Q. At first the object was marked in red, meaning an unidentified target; afterwards, when the ship was identified as a supply vessel of the American Navy, it was marked in green, i.e. a neutral ship. At about 11.00 hours, after the Acting Chief of Naval Operations had received the report, as above stated, from the Liaison Officer at Air Force H.Q., and had understood, as he testified, that it referred to the target, the location of which was correct at 06.00 in the morning, he ordered its erasure from the table, since he had no information as to its location at the time of the report."

ii) after a short trawl through the Net I cannot find any reference to the issues around 6/6/1967, when you allege that the US denied having ships in the area. However from a pro-Israeli site I found this (the introduction to the text of Resolution 233, emboldened by me):

On 5 June, Israel and Egypt informed the President of the Security Council that fighting had broken out. The Council met at once, but a proposal to order an immediate cease-fire was blocked by Egypt, India and the Soviet Union. The extent of the Egyptian débacle had not yet reached New York. The next day, when it was realized that Egypt had suffered a devastating defeat, the Council adopted a cease-fire Resolution, unanimously and without debate.

the general absence of this claim from the net reports and all the Israeli investigation evidence (where it would be a major mitigating factor in the "mistaken identity" claims)- is starting to make me think this could be spurious. If you have any textual links obviously I'll recant this, but I cant find any atm.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unres233.html

iii) thirteen separate investigations (some of which arent anything of the kind btw) tend to show that justice has not been achieved by any of them -why have thirteen when one will do?

[edit: have just found the following link:

On the evening of 6 June, the Council adopted unanimously, without debate, as resolution 233 (1967), a draft text introduced by the President by which it: (1) called upon the Governments concerned to take forthwith, as a first step, all measures for an immediate cease-fire and cessation of all military activities in the area; and (2) requested the Secretary-General to keep the Council promptly and currently informed on the situation. (For full text, see DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES below.)

The United States representative stressed that adoption of the resolution calling for a cease-fire, which his Government had been urging for 36 hours, was the first step towards peace in the Middle East, and expressed his fervent hope that the Council's appeal would be immediately and fully complied with.

The representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States, denying categorically charges that their aircraft had been involved in the hostilities in the Near East, stated that they would welcome an investigation by the United Nations.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/45996cc3259e1c9c052567270057ac6f/17bdf357679b218f85256c41006ad66d!OpenDocument ]

[CMichael]

thedude,

good luck to you, but you have about as much chance of getting the likes of Keith and cmichael to engage in a debate on those terms as a mushy snowball does in a sauna in Hell.<<

That you have not one shred of evidence to backup your position while I posted 13 different investigations all concluding the same thing has something to do with it as well.

So you are saying the American Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary branches are all criminals using your analogy, and where in a conspiracy to all conclude the same thing, is that correct?

[agricola]

cmichael,

sorry, but wasnt it you and Keith who have been proven wrong on numerous points of fact? points which you refuse to accept?

is all you have for evidence "see, we are innocent! thirteen times innocent!.

[CMichael]

iii) thirteen separate investigations (some of which arent anything of the kind btw) tend to show that justice has not been achieved by any of them -why have thirteen when one will do?

Justice wasn't achieved because they didn't reach conclusions that you wanted them to.

So their conclusions are suspect according to you because there were too many investigations. That is interesting logic.

My guess is that there were numerous investigations because there was no doubt a vocal minority who try to blame everthing on Israel and I am sure it was very much a political issuse.

Since all these extensive investigations have already been done why don't you try to attack the credility of them. Perhaps that will make your case.

However, good luck. These are thirteen investigations at many different levels. Even sources that you used concluded that it was an accident.

[agricola]

cmichael,

Justice wasn't achieved because they didn't reach conclusions that you wanted them to.

no, my view is irrelevant - its the view of what seems to be most of the survivors, and viewing the publicly available evidence it does seem that they have a strong case.

However, good luck. These are thirteen investigations at many different levels. Even sources that you used concluded that it was an accident.

no, there arent "thirteen investigations", as I said below. The Russ Report outlined facts, not the actual attack (so it cannot be an "investigation into the incident" as it didnt cover the incident); the House Appropriation Committe did not reach any conclusion regarding Israeli actions (given that they attacked Liberty this cannot be counted as an "investigation" - like a murder inquiry that ignores the suspect); the Senate Armed Services Commission didnt reach any conclusion at all regarding Liberty (another one that cannot be counted as an investigation). You could also point out that much of the conclusions of these inquries directly contradict one another - like the low speed of the Liberty making her flag droop (according to one of the US "investigations"), when viewed against the Israeli Ensign's belief that she was doing 30 knots (the IDF History report) .

So their conclusions are suspect according to you because there were too many investigations. That is interesting logic.

The three Israeli investigations reach much the same conclusion but the facts differ, markedly in some cases, and the trend seems to be that the investigations get more vague as time goes on (certainly the IDF History Report misses much of the previous two reports facts out). The way in which "fact" changes within these reports- shown by the "no bombs" / "30mm only" theory demonstrated by you and Keith - should set alarm bells ringing in most peoples heads. Big lies are usually uncovered by the little lies that make them up.

As I said before, I am of the opinion that this was either a monumental SNAFU or a deliberate attack, and the evidence doesnt strongly favour either one. I am not saying that the Israelis deliberately attacked Liberty but the facts - her being attacked "by mistake" an hour or two after the Israeli Navy knew roughly where and precisely what she was - cannot be explained with a simple "we thought she was a horse carrier".

Add to that the reporting - like the Spector article - and most people who enter into this with some kind of open mind are going to start asking questions about the attack and the actions of both governments since.

[Coronach]

The thread grows long, the arguments are repeated, and, lo! it is neither gun related, nor dealing with a civil liberties issue...

;)

Mike