USS Liberty

a_unique_person said:
His response was quite bitter about the fact that for years he was attacked as an anti-semite. That this happened indicates guilt, to me. Attacking the man and not the facts is a sure sign that the facts don't stand up.
Click to expand...


How does this indicate guilt? Were the guilty parties the ones calling him anti-semitic? Were the people calling him anti-semitic pivvy to any special or secret information that the rest of the world did not have?

How does it prove his argument if people who don't know the facts call him names?

How does the mere fact of calling him anti-semitic transform someone into a knowledgeable member of a conspiracy?

If John Ramsey calls me a jerk, does that mean that he killed JonBenet?

George W. Bush calls me an anti-semite, does that mean that he robbed QuickerLiquor last night at 11:00?

Your logic is ... absent.
 
Loss Leader said:
How does this indicate guilt? Were the guilty parties the ones calling him anti-semitic? Were the people calling him anti-semitic pivvy to any special or secret information that the rest of the world did not have?

How does it prove his argument if people who don't know the facts call him names?

How does the mere fact of calling him anti-semitic transform someone into a knowledgeable member of a conspiracy?

If John Ramsey calls me a jerk, does that mean that he killed JonBenet?

George W. Bush calls me an anti-semite, does that mean that he robbed QuickerLiquor last night at 11:00?

Your logic is ... absent.
Click to expand...

You are a sailor on a ship. It is attacked by the IAF. You say what happened, and explain how it cannot be an accident. People tell you to shut up, it was an accident. You explain again how it cannot be an accident. You are then abused, acused of being an anti-semite, and are told you deserve to die??? It's standard form in many debates, when you can't rebut an argument, attack the other person.
 
gumboot said:
Some gaping issues with this theory. Clearing some initial issues, Israel was not even remotely the USA's ally in 1967. This fantasy that Israel has long been an ally of the USA is a piece of propaganda created by Islamic Militants, and is not supported by history.
Click to expand...

Israel was not even remotely an ally?

Let me answer a question that was floated awhile back on this thread: Israel paid compensation and said it was a mistake...what else do you want?

In view of the plentiful evidence out there (research it yourself; I have done it to my satisfaction; you do it to yours), here is my answer to that question.

ANSWER: Full investigation and disclosure from both sides in order to attempt to arrive at the truth. If this is not done, then all funding to Israel should be cut off until it is.

Fair and just. Wouldn't take too long to get it done, either. Will this ever happen. I doubt it.

Now, you say Israel was not an ally even remotely.

Well, why don't we add up all the US dollars freely given to Israel since day one until now? Why don't we also look at the history of the Israeli lobby in this country regarding this funding from day one until now. I'd like to see this graphed.

Money talks, and sometimes you can even buy allies (quid pro quo).
Israel was definitely a type of ally at the time.

Further, there's absolutely no evidence these other intercepts even exist, and the only people who allegedly saw them (as a piece of evidence, not as a lesson in an instruction manual) are dead.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence these transcripts did exist UNTIL EVIDENCE OF THEM WAS COLLECTED EN MASS WORLD WIDE AND THEN DESTROYED. Many have referred to them or evidence that was in them.

There might still be a copy or two lying around somewhere. You never know.


Now on to the real issues:
Click to expand...

No thanks. I think you believe what you want to believe and ignore much on this. I have done enough research to recognize a national disgrace done by our government.

Coverup...yes.

One week to have the Court of Inquiry done and wrapped up...disgraceful.

Everyone involved, and I mean EVERYONE, had to take an oath never to speak of this matter under threat of prosecution...disgraceful.

I could go on but this will do.

There are many over the years who have seen evidence, large and small, that this attack was done deliberately with malice of forethought.


Further, again as Nowicki's account tells us, CRITICs are reserved for intelligence that is less than 15 minutes old. Because of the inability to broadcast the intelligence from the aircraft to the ground, any intelligence gathered by either the EC-121s or the C-130s would necessarily be over 15 minutes old, and therefore would not qualify for CRITIC.
Click to expand...

Forslund said he read many CRITICs. Is he a liar?
http://www.ussliberty.org/smoking.htm
http://www.ussliberty.org/forslund.htm

Is Gotcher lying?
http://www.ussliberty.org/gotcher.htm

That's rather flawed reasoning. It's unusual in the sort of way that suggests ignorance of how these things work. It's a good indication that the story's crap. Why would people make up such a story? People make up exactly those sorts of stories all the time. Why would half of all those claiming money due to illness caused by the 9/11 attacks be people that in no way whatsoever were affected by the attacks? Why would people claim they assassinated JFK when they didn't? Why would people claim they saw aliens when they didn't? Lots of people have a burning desire to be part of something. They invent themselves into historic events to make themselves into heroes. It happens all the time.

Lang's story lacks details, and has some serious flaws. His entire premise is utterly absurd. In contrast Nowicki's story is chock full of details that check out and match the facts, and his basic premise is sensible and again confirmed by other accounts of the event.
Click to expand...

I disagree. He seemed to have said as much as he had to say after all these years.

On the contrary, your dismissing him with nothing but your opinion, making him out to be a liar, seems to demonstrate lack of objectivity. Is this a good indication your reasoning is cr*p? You still did not give a reason why he would make it up that makes sense. The truth is most people in this controversial situation would not want to get involved when they know the truth; this is due to a foreboding of derision, contempt, frustration, etc.

You only THINK his story is flawed, but you do not KNOW it is.

Here's one last tidbit for your "objective" mind.
It's from John P. Stenbit, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I), 2003:

The Israelis called us up one day and said, “If you don’t get that ship, the Liberty, out of this place we’re going to sink it in twenty-four hours.” We couldn’t tell the ship to move when we got the data back because it was already under the water, because it took more than twenty-four hours for the data to wander in through the system and come out at the other end.

http://www.pirp.harvard.edu/pubs_pdf/stenbit\stenbit-i03-1.pdf

Thanks for the radar information on the seismic paper. Now we are even.
Adios
 
gumboot said:
Few issues there. Firstly, the UN Charter makes no mention of an "act of Aggression" and certainly does not define what one is. So that argument's out.

Secondly, the aircraft were not unmarked, and the Laws of War do not require aircraft to be marked anyway.

Thirdly, the destruction of life rafts is questionable, and again not a violation of the laws of war.

Fourthly, the ship's radio frequencies were not jammed (and they indeed managed to broadcast their distress signals fine).

Fifthly, the Liberty was neither disabled nor helpless - indeed it was firing on the MTBs and assuming some of its monitoring capabilities were still in action, it was still participating in military action.

And sixthly, according to both the MTB crew and the Captain of the Liberty the MTBs did offer assistance, and the Captain turned down their request.

And lastly, the Geneva Conventions are for the care of the sick and wounded and POWs during war time, and do not in any way dictate terms for the waging of war on water.

In conclusion I am left wondering what Lieutenant Commander Walter L. Jacobsen thought he was doing, since he seems oblivious to what the actual Laws of War are.

Interestingly enough, under the Hague Convention on the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Wartime, the Liberty was committing a war crime by monitoring Israeli military action from within the warzone.
Click to expand...

For all its apparent complexity, the attack on the Liberty can be reduced to a single question: Was the ship flying the American flag at the time of the attack, and was that flag visible from the air?

The survivors interviewed by the Tribune uniformly agree that the Liberty was flying the Stars and Stripes before, during and after the attack, except for a brief period in which one flag that had been shot down was replaced with another, larger flag -- the ship's "holiday colors" -- that measured 13 feet long.

Concludes one of the declassified NSA documents: "Every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmen gave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty was flying an American flag -- and, further, the weather conditions were ideal to ensure its easy observance and identification."

The Israeli court of inquiry that examined the attack, and absolved the Israeli military of criminal culpability, came to precisely the opposite conclusion.

"Throughout the contact," it declared, "no American or any other flag appeared on the ship."

The attack, the court said, had been prompted by a report, which later proved erroneous, that a ship was shelling Israeli-held positions in the Sinai Peninsula. The Liberty had no guns capable of shelling the shore, but the court concluded that the U.S. ship had been mistakenly identified as the source of the shelling.

Yiftah Spector, the first Israeli pilot to attack the ship, told the Jerusalem Post in 2003 that when he first spotted the Liberty, "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."

But the Liberty crewmen interviewed by the Tribune said the Israeli jets simply appeared and began shooting. They also said the Liberty did not open fire on the planes because it was armed only with four .50-caliber machine guns intended to repel boarders.
Click to expand...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/servi.../chi-liberty_tuesoct02,1,3803697.story?page=3
 
quicknthedead said:
Well, why don't we add up all the US dollars freely given to Israel since day one until now?
Click to expand...


Between 1948 and 1967 many private American citizens may have freely given money to the state of Israel. This does not mean that the two nations were allied. I have no doubt that during World War Two some American citizens freely gave money to Nazi Germany. Indeed, during World War Two some American citizens fought for Nazi Germany. Does this make them allies? Ridiculous.

The fact is, which very few people seem to have grasped, that the US government did not support Israel until the Yom Kippur War. Prior to that Israel's primary source of support was France and the United Kingdom. The only reason Israel even turned to the US was because the threat of an Arab oil embargo had forced European nations to cease supplying Israel. This relationship with the US was so fragile in 1973 that Israel decided not to carry out a pre-emptive strike six hours before the Yom Kippur War started because they knew if they were seen to have started the war they would not have the USA's support. Henry Kissinger confirms this was correct by stating that, had Israel struck first, the US would not have given them "so much as a nail".
 
One person not being able to rebut another person's argument is not evidence that a third party is guilty.
 
gumboot said:
Between 1948 and 1967 many private American citizens may have freely given money to the state of Israel. This does not mean that the two nations were allied. I have no doubt that during World War Two some American citizens freely gave money to Nazi Germany. Indeed, during World War Two some American citizens fought for Nazi Germany. Does this make them allies? Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
The US-Israeli relationship historically has always been almost like looking at multi-colored fabric. Here are two such views.


From the Embassy of Israel in Washington D.C. on US Israel Relations:
http://www.israelemb.org/US-Israel-Relations/US_presidents.html

U.S. Presidents: Historical Commitment to Israel
President Harry Truman
"I had faith in Israel before it was established, I have in it now. I believe it has a glorious future before it - not just another sovereign nation, but as an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization."

President Dwight Eisenhower
"Our forces saved the remnant of the Jewish people of Europe for a new life and a new hope in the reborn land of Israel. Along with all men of good will, I salute the young state and wish it well."

President John F. Kennedy
"Israel was not created in order to disappear-Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom."

President Lyndon Johnson
"Our society is illuminated by the spiritual insights of the Hebrew prophets. American and Israel have a common love of human freedom, and they have a common faith in a democratic way of life."
Click to expand...



For another view, Jay Cristol provides an interesting look near the time we are considering, beginning when Israel managed to get a hold of a MiG-21:
http://hnn.us/articles/751.html

Excerpt:
In 1966, the MiG-21 was the Soviet first line jet fighter and no Western country had been able to get near one.

While the official U.S.-Israeli relationship had been first indifferent from 1948 until 1956, and then cold from 1956 into the 1960s, one slender strand of cooperation had remained intact. During World War II, Palestinian Jews had cooperated with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in the fight against Nazi Germany. Following WWII, the OSS became the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The U.S. Chief of Counter Intelligence, James Jesus Angelton, developed, maintained, and nurtured a symbiotic relationship between the CIA and those Palestinian Jews who evolved into the Israeli Mossad.

The Israelis assigned Colonel Danny Shapira to study the MiG-21 and after a short time, they turned it over to the United States Central Intelligence Agency. (Danny Shapira trained a U.S. Air Force F-111 Test Pilot, Lt. Joe Jordan to fly it and the MiG-21 was sent to the United States where it spent a lot of time in an Aggressor Squadron at a U.S. Air Force Base in Nevada.)

Needless to say, the CIA and the U.S. Air Force were delighted with access to the Soviet's first line fighter and the chill of the Eisenhower/Dulles years began to thaw.

Following the turning over of the MiG-21, President Johnson invited Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to his ranch in Texas and Eshkol arrived with a long shopping list. He left with promises of future U.S. military supplies, including A-4 attack aircraft. Although the U.S. military hardware did not arrive in time for the 1967 war, it ultimately replaced the French source for military hardware and the U.S.-Israel special relationship became closer and warmer.

In 1967, Israel was threatened with destruction by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and other Arab countries and the June 1967 war occurred. An excellent account of this war, commonly called the "Six Day War," was recently published by Michael Oren - Six Days of War (Oxford Press, 2002). Prior to the Six Day War, the continued existence of Israel was in doubt. The U.S. relationship was becoming warmer but at best the U.S. was a friendly neutral. Dean Rusk said that being neutral was not an expression of indifference, but Israel was not an ally. At the outbreak of the Six Day War, State Department Spokesman Robert McClosky announced on behalf of the United States: "Our position [on the war] is neutral in thought, word, and deed."

Following Israel's stunning victory in the Six Day War, a euphoria set in around the world and strong support for the state of Israel developed in the United States. American public opinion swung dramatically in favor of Israel and for the first time in history, a majority of American Jews became Zionists, that is they supported the concept of a Jewish state.

From 1967 forward, the special relationship between the United States and Israel developed and grew. It has had its ups and downs on the political level as U.S. national interests, especially the need for oil, make it expedient for the U.S. Government to court favor with various Arab states, but the relationship remained relatively constant and strong at both the military and intelligence levels.
Click to expand...
 
gtc said:
One person not being able to rebut another person's argument is not evidence that a third party is guilty.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the people who accused him of being an anti semite were guilty. The IDF did it, but one eyed Israel supporters seem to be unable to accept that someone says Israel did something wrong, and choose to attack him, instead.
 
gumboot said:
Fifthly, the Liberty was neither disabled nor helpless - indeed it was firing on the MTBs and assuming some of its monitoring capabilities were still in action, it was still participating in military action.
Click to expand...

It had many injured, and was damaged. It was only armed with four machine guns.

And sixthly, according to both the MTB crew and the Captain of the Liberty the MTBs did offer assistance, and the Captain turned down their request.
Click to expand...

Which is no reason to torpedo it. An MTB is quite capable of standing off at a safe distance from machine guns.
 
Analyst: Israelis wanted it sunk

The transcript published by the Jerusalem Post bore scant resemblance to the one that in 1967 rolled off the teletype machine behind the sealed vault door at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, where Steve Forslund worked as an intelligence analyst for the 544th Air Reconnaissance Technical Wing, then the highest-level strategic planning office in the Air Force.

"The ground control station stated that the target was American and for the aircraft to confirm it," Forslund recalled. "The aircraft did confirm the identity of the target as American, by the American flag.

"The ground control station ordered the aircraft to attack and sink the target and ensure they left no survivors."

Forslund said he clearly recalled "the obvious frustration of the controller over the inability of the pilots to sink the target quickly and completely."

"He kept insisting the mission had to sink the target, and was frustrated with the pilots' responses that it didn't sink."

Nor, Forslund said, was he the only member of his unit to have read the transcripts. "Everybody saw these," said Forslund, now retired after 26 years in the military.

Forslund's recollections are supported by those of two other Air Force intelligence specialists, working in widely separate locations, who say they also saw the transcripts of the attacking Israeli pilots' communications.
Click to expand...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/servi.../chi-liberty_tuesoct02,1,3803697.story?page=4
 
a_unique_person said:
Here is his email address jim@ennes.com, it is public, taken from his website.

His response to me, pointing out the chicago tribune article.

"The badguys have mostly stopped saying, "You are liars. It didn't happen," and now are saying, "You are antiSemites. You deserve to die.""
Click to expand...

Please list the JREF forum members who have called Mr. Ennes an anti-semite and wished death on him. And provide links to where they said these things.

If you cannot do this then retract this statement. All you are doing is whipping up the emotions of the participants in this discussion.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Please list the JREF forum members who have called Mr. Ennes an anti-semite and wished death on him. And provide links to where they said these things.

If you cannot do this then retract this statement. All you are doing is whipping up the emotions of the participants in this discussion.
Click to expand...

:confused: How can I withdraw it if I never claimed it?
 
a_unique_person said:
You are a sailor on a ship. It is attacked by the IAF. You say what happened, and explain how it cannot be an accident. People tell you to shut up, it was an accident. You explain again how it cannot be an accident. You are then abused, acused of being an anti-semite, and are told you deserve to die??? It's standard form in many debates, when you can't rebut an argument, attack the other person.
Click to expand...


Okay, let's assume that all of that is true.

How does that indicate that Israel knowingly attacked the Liberty?

How do the statements of uninvolved third parties implicate Israel?

How do the statements of people who do not know and have no special access to the facts become evidence of guilt?

Did the US government or, for tht matter, the Israeli government ever call these people anti-semites?

If not, what does it matter? How does it add evidence to your case?
 
Loss Leader said:
Okay, let's assume that all of that is true.

How does that indicate that Israel knowingly attacked the Liberty?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it does, I'm saying it's a typical response from people who have no other response. The case, as far as I know, is made out in that article in the Chicago Tribune.
How do the statements of uninvolved third parties implicate Israel?

How do the statements of people who do not know and have no special access to the facts become evidence of guilt?

Did the US government or, for tht matter, the Israeli government ever call these people anti-semites?
Click to expand...

Not that I know of, I was only refering to the people who abused that person.
 
gumboot said:
The testimony of the survivors themselves confirms that the torpedo boats approached while signaling (although the crew couldn't tell what the message was because of the smoke from the fires) and that the crew of the Liberty fired on the torpedo boats first.

According to the Israelis the torpedo boats were dispatched to assist the Liberty once it became clear the boat was American, and signaled in accordance with this, upon which the Liberty fired at them so they defended themselves and returned fire.

These two accounts are, in fact, totally consistent with each other.
Click to expand...

Instead of returning fire why couldn’t the torpedo boats just leave the area?
 
The attack on the Liberty took 25 minutes, there where multiple aircraft... The Liberty took a severe beating and the scars show it.

The Israelis flew over the Liberty multiple times and where easily able to identify the ship which was very distinctive in shape and with her flag flying high on the mast.

You then tell me the Israelis didn't know it was an American ship and this is merely another blue on blue incident and I'm supposed to believe you?

Please show me other instances where similar things have happened. Not a single plane attacking a ship but a joint attack with multiple planes on a clear day lasting for 25 minutes...
 
Cpt.Fantastic said:
where easily able to identify the ship which was very distinctive in shape and with her flag flying high on the mast.
Click to expand...


This is nothing but your conjecture. It holds no more weight than my conjecture which is that you don't understand the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom