agricola
Member
cmichael,
what is it about you and Keith that means you cannot admit fault?
what is it about you and Keith that means you cannot admit fault?
Cover-Up Alleged in Probe of USS Liberty
- Thread starter Malone LaVeigh
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
agricola
Member
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:
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?
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:
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?
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.
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.
agricola
Member
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.
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
Member
Mavbe the thing comes from the high-level "statesmanlike" point of view,
that is, "They all look like ants from up here."
that is, "They all look like ants from up here."
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.
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.
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!!
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
Member
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.
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.
Invitation to debate
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?
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
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 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
Member
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):
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):
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:
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/45996cc3259e1c9c052567270057ac6f/17bdf357679b218f85256c41006ad66d!OpenDocument ]
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):
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):
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:
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/45996cc3259e1c9c052567270057ac6f/17bdf357679b218f85256c41006ad66d!OpenDocument ]
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?
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
Member
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!.
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!.
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
Member
cmichael,
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.
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) .
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.
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.
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) .
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.
- Status