Memos show Liberty attack was an error

[Shaktimaan]

Memos show Liberty attack was an error
By Nathan Guttman

WASHINGTON - New documents released this week by America's National Security Agency support Israel's version of a long-festering controversy between the two countries: Israel's shelling of an American spy ship, the USS Liberty, off the coast of Gaza during the 1967 Six-Day War.

Israel has always said it had no idea the ship was American, but conspiracy theorists and anti-Israel propagandists still claim Israel struck the ship in the full knowledge that it was American.

The documents, originally defined as top secret, were made public by Florida Judge Jay Cristol, who has been investigating the Liberty incident for years and published a book on the subject last year. On Monday, the NSA gave him a transcript of conversations held by two Israeli Air Force helicopter pilots who were hovering over the Liberty after it was hit, and these tapes confirm Israel's claim that the attack on the ship, which killed 34 American servicemen and wounded 171, was a tragic error.


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

[Shaktimaan]

1. For those who still think this attack was deliberate...

I posted this earlier on a thread that became locked. But I spent a while on it and was unable to respond to comments so I'm reposting it. In short, my concept here is that, as is the case with many conspiracy theories, this one requires believing in a logic train that makes far less sense than that of the official story. In this case...

• there has been 10 US inquiries and 3 Israeli ones all of which are in agreement that this was an accident.
• Friendly fire accidents like this happen constantly. There is no credible motive offered for Israel to have done this on purpose.
• There is no reason that Israel would have done the job so poorly, if it had been planned, especially considering the possible consequences of attacking their main ally!
• The NSA recently declassified documents supporting the "accident explanation" and rebutting the "planned attack theory."

OK, let's do a basic cost/benefit analysis, because I'm having a lot of trouble believing that Israel would do this without a very compelling motive.

By the day that the Liberty was attacked Israel had already destroyed the Egyptian airforce and beaten back their army into the Sinai. They very much had the upper hand in the war on all fronts but the Egyptian front had been a particular success at this stage.

So, what did they have to gain? Getting American assistance against Egypt is commonly forwarded as the motive. Did they really need this help to fight Egypt, though? Egypt who was already beaten by this point? Not really.

But what were they risking by attempting this kind of ruse? Well, America and France were their primary military donors at this point. If they were caught it would be likely that they would not only lose both of their support but that they may actually be attacked by America as well. In fact, if they attacked an American ship on purpose it is probable that they would, at the very least, face sanctions by the members of NATO and possibly face NATO troops in combat.

So, I am supposed to believe that in order to trick America into joining a war that Israel had all but already won, Israel was prepared to risk her relationship with her sole allies, risk economic estrangement and even possible military retribution? Remember also that without American aid Israel would be a sitting duck for the Arab armies who were being supplied by the USSR. So you actually consider it likely that Israel would risk her very existence on a hairbrained scheme like this?

OK, some clearly do. But in the event that Israel DID think that this was a dandy idea, don't you think they would have made absolutely sure that the Liberty sunk, and sunk FAST? I would imagine that it would have been the most meticulously planned act of the entire war considering the possible consequences if they failed. But the Liberty didn't sink. Why is that? Why did Israel attack it with less than decisive force in the first sortie? THAT'S the part that really makes no sense.

Another point to consider here is that there are countless of instances of armies attacking themselves and their allies accidentally throughout written history. For instance there's the Black Hawk Incident...

The Black Hawk Incident, sometimes referred to as the Black Hawk Shootdown Incident, was a "friendly fire" incident over northern Iraq that happened on April 14, 1994 during Operation Provide Comfort in which the pilots of two United States Air Force F-15s fighter aircraft fired on a pair of United States Army MH-60 Blackhawks helicopters, destroying both helicopters and killing 26 military service members and civilians from the U.S., United Kingdom, France, Turkey, and Kurdistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hawk_Incident_%28April_1994%29

In Gulf War One 23% of US casualties came from friendly fire. If the US armed forces can mistakenly attack its own soldiers in current wars with modern equipment then why is it impossible to believe that the Israelis could not have made a similar mistake 40 years ago, while engaged in a full scale war against multiple nations, and attacked the wrong foreigner's ship?

It's not of course, which is why there isn't really any serious debate about the Liberty incident. I understand why there may be anger over it, and a need to believe that it was planned exists, but that does not make it so. The evidence does not support it, there is no motive offered for it, and the official report is an infinitely more probable story that does not ask you to make any unlikely leaps of faith to hold it together.

A tragic but common occurrence? Or a vast conspiracy involving Lyndon Johnson and Yitzhak Rabin?

[pelsar]

7. actually its very obvious...

it was a mistake: It takes a "believer" to ignore such basic facts as the weapons the jets were carrying:

if it was a preplanned mission.....as the "believers" believe, then they are going to have a hard time explaining why neither of the 4 jets carried "ship sinking weapons"....20mm cannon and napalm just dont do the trick. nor do torpedos.

500lb bombs...would have sunk the liberty in mere minutes..but no jet carried them.
____

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

25. historical facts...and facts of amunitions....

torpedos are not a sure thing when it comes to sinking ships...and more so coming from PT boats (accuracy)....500lb bombs dropped from the air would have sunk the liberty in minutes....something that was proven over and over again in WWII

fact is those that struck.....didnt sink her

as far as making mistakes in attacking ships in broad daylight....its happened before by the US forces on NON moving ships during WWII...so as i understand it, they too attacked US ships on purpose?

obvious note, that shouldnt have to be even mentioned: the survivors would have no idea what the pilots were thinking

[Sequoia]

2. Florida governor wrote a book?

Friendly fire? Well Isreal intelligence must've been stupid and blind not to know the Liberty was a USA ship. Ask Tillman's family about "Friendly Fire". I ain't buying it.

[Malikshah]

3. How Convenient and ultimately unbelievable.

But hey. Nothing like denying this crime.

Did he interview survivors? Crewmembers?

How does he explain away the hours of recon done before the attack? Complete Paris-Hilton-esque incompetence on the part of the IAF?
How does he explain away the jamming of US but not Egyptian transmissions?

How does he explain away this?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070608/news_lz1e8boston.html

Forty years ago this week, I was asked to investigate the heaviest attack on an American ship since World War II. As senior legal counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry, it was my job to help uncover the truth regarding Israel's June 8, 1967, bombing of the Navy intelligence ship Liberty.

On that sunny, clear day 40 years ago, Israel's combined air and naval forces attacked the Liberty for two hours, inflicting 70 percent casualties. Thirty-four American sailors died, and 172 were injured. The Liberty remained afloat only by the crew's heroic efforts.

Israel claimed it was an accident. Yet I know from personal conversations with the late Adm. Isaac C. Kidd – president of the Court of Inquiry – that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of “mistaken identity.”

ANSWER TO ALL THREE: He doesn't.

[Tom Joad]

4. Who else but conspiracy theorists would think it was anything other than a mistake...

Just because it had several large US flages....sitting in bright daylight on a cloudless day. Sitting in international waters ...of course it was a mistake.

who could possible think otherwise?

Right.

[pelsar]

9. according to that logic...

US WWII planes, which go much slower than jets, attacked two US PT boats on purpose:

The story is particularity haunting, as the survivors describe how the American Navy planes repeatedly attacked the boats, and ignored the American flag that two members were holding in plain sight from the roof of the boat and at the stern.

In the end, two PT Boats, PT 347 and PT 346 were sunk, and 19 of their crew were killed. Also, two of the attacking US planes were shot down, when the PT Boats were forced to return fire to defend themselves.

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/walkabout/rabaul/ptboat.html

____

of course they are quite a few additonal incidents...

June 2, 1967, U.S. Air Force fighter-bombers accidentally attacked the Soviet merchant ship Turkestan in Cam Pha Harbor in North Vietnam-...I guess they must have thought i was some kind battleship
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=157488414X

[puerco-bellies]

19. Israeli torpedo boats strafed the Liberty's life rafts with 50cal picked up the clearly marked rafts

and continued the attacks. It was not just an aerial assault. The Liberty was assaulted by both air and sea units. I've been over half the globe on U.S. Navy vessels and any bum-boat skipper can recognize a U.S. Navy vessel. You and the rest of the "it was a mistake" crowd don't seem to want to think about the likelihood that pilots of several jets and the crews of several torpedo boats could continually mistake the identity of a close range target for over an hour.. yea right.

[Shaktimaan]

22. well, after the air strike,

the Liberty fired on the torpedo boats, which instigated the return fire. So at that point there was an exchange of fire, all in error.
In any case, it is not as clear cut as you say. The torpedo boats did not approach and fire first.

[pelsar]

23. so .....

everytime a US airplane/brit shot up "one of their own"...it was on purpose?....just trying to clarify.

[Swede]

5. Four Canadians killed in 'friendly fire'. It's called "the fog of war".

"How this can happen is a mystery to us. Without a doubt, there was a misidentification," said Canada's defence chief, Lieutenant-General Ray Henault. According to Canadian defence officials, their soldiers were on a night time training exercise about 10 miles (16 km) south of their Kandahar base when the bombing occurred at 1.55am local time (11.25pm BST).

Lt Gen Henault said the area is recognised as a training area and the aircraft were using very strictly controlled routes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,686313,00.html

[UndertheOcean]

6. 75 minute Error ! The first and only in history!

They took the transmission antennas first.

Shoot at escape rafts (which is a war crime by the way)

This was preplanned .. and hadn't the crew been able to improvise and miraculously been able to send an SOS , maybe it would have sunk.

[Swede]

8. Brig.-Gen. Yiftah Spector

In October 2003, the first Israeli pilot to reach the ship broke his 36-year silence on the attack. Brig.-Gen. Yiftah Spector, a triple ace, who shot down 15 enemy aircraft and took part in the 1981 raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor, said he had been told an Egyptian ship was off the Gaza coast. "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. This was not there, so it wasn't one of ours." The Jerusalem Post obtained a recording of Spector's radio transmission in which he said, "I can't identify it, but in any case it's a military ship."7

Spector's plane was not armed with bombs or, he said, he would have sunk the Liberty. Instead he fired 30mm armor piercing rounds that led the American survivors to believe they had been under rocket attack. His first pass ignited a fire, which caused the ship to billow black smoke that Spector thought was a ruse to conceal the ship. Spector acknowledged in the Post interview that he made a mistake, and said he admitted it when called to testify in an inquiry by a U.S. senator. "I'm sorry for the mistake," he said. "Years later my mates dropped flowers on the site where the ship was attacked."

[pelsar]

10. preplanned...?

so why didnt the jets take bombs?...straffing a ship with 20mm and light rockets is not going to sink it...or was that part of the plan as well?

just attack a ship, kill some american sailors just to "piss off america"

[UndertheOcean]

11. You tell me why...

n/t

[pelsar]

12. its called..

a target of opportunity....when a target that wasnt part of combat patrols mission suddenly comes up. The typical problem is that one is carrying the wrong weapons and has to "make due".

its classic....the mirages mission was air supperiority not ground attack, hence when the ship was spotted and they were the only ones in the area, they were diverted from their original mission to the ship.....which is why they had the wrong weapons.....its pretty simple.

___

if you claim it was preplanned you''ll have to explain why the IAF was so incompetent as to bring the wrong weapons....

[pelsar]

13. actually it was not the first....

just a few.....


LTJG (O2) David Charles Brostrom , (Patrol Boat Commanding Officer) killed in a Friendly Fire incident when his Coast Guard Cutter was straffed by US Air Force aircraft on 11 August, 1966 . Panel 09E Line 126.
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/WEBCUTTERS/Point_Welcome.html


----

WWII On the afternoon of May 3, 1945, British "Typhoon" fighter-bombers, striking in several attack waves, bombarded and fired on the Cap Arcona and then the Thielbek. The two ships, which had no military function or mission, were flying many large white flags
----

WWII The famous hunting of the German ship Bismarck during that war saw a curious incident. The British aircraft carrier Ark Royal, having detected Bismarck, launched fourteen Swordfish torpedo planes at it. Emerging from cloud cover, the planes found they had total surprise as the ship returned no anti-aircraft fire whatsoever. Only after the eleventh torpedo had been dropped was the reason realized: their target was actually a British ship: the Sheffield. On this occasion the captain was fortunately able to successfully dodge the six torpedoes which came close. Ever after, this occasion of friendly fire was known as "The Sheffield Incident".
------

WWII American Navy planes repeatedly attacked the boats, and ignored the American flag that two members were holding in plain sight from the roof of the boat and at the stern.

In the end, two PT Boats, PT 347 and PT 346 were sunk, and 19 of their crew were killed. Also, two of the attacking US planes were shot down, when the PT Boats were forced to return fire to defend themselves

The planes I saw were US Navy SBD's, TBF's, F4U's and F6F's. I believe there were about fifteen to twenty planes. After seeing the TBF's strafe personnel in the water for about fifteen minutes, I saw the TBF's depart. The fighters continued to strafe the personal in the water for approximately forty-five minutes."

________

[The Magistrate]

36. That Is So Far From True, Mr. Ocean, As To Qualify For Funniest Post Of The Week

Incidents of catastrophic bombardment of friendly positions lasting many hours are frequent in the history of war. The idea that the fact this attack lasted a good length of time demonstrates it was pre-planed and intentional is simply a very poor joke.

[UndertheOcean]

39. I cannot understand how can an "error" last more than an hour...

Aren't errors the spur of the moment ?


Do you really think that there is nothing very suspicious here ?

[The Magistrate]

40. French Artillery, Sir, Bombarded Samogneux For Hours

Destroying the tightest knot of resistance to the German advance at the opening stages of Verdun, the commanders believing the place had already fallen, though in fact it was being held stoutly. It would be possible to list literally thousands of such occurances from modern military history. The fact is that war is muddle and misapprehension, even more so than it is hell, and mistakes are more the norm than the exception. Mistakes in recognition of targets by air forces are even more common than mis-directed artillery. Even infantry units on the same side, in reasonably plain sight of one another, have on occassion engaged in prolonged and bloody fire-fights. Nothing has ever struck me as particularly suspicious about this incident, from the earliest reports of it at the time it occured. It is the sort of thing, put bluntly, one expects to happen.

[Zandor]

54. I question the relevance

It is a tragedy, accidental or not. To me, the issue is kept alive to cast a shadow on Israel, not out of concern for some type of justice for those that died.

[Swede]

14. Someone show me the why of it if it was deliberate?

What is to be gained?

[pelsar]

15. nothing....

but it simply adds to the demonazation of israel. There is no logic to the attack, the reasons given dont make sense, and most telling of all, the attacking jets didnt even have the proper armaments to sink a ship...

but that sure ruins a good conspiracy theory, or a way to show just how "evil" israel is, so the believers will continue to believe.

you can actually tell just how far those who believe it are so far from reality when you read this claim:
They took the transmission antennas first.....anybody who has tried to hit a moving target with a machine gun will explain how precision in hitting a specific part is almost impossible, let alone when the platform is moving as well.

[Swede]

16. The Israelis killed thousands of fleeing Egyptians soldiers,and left them

for the world to see,in the Sinai. They did not cover that up,so cover-up makes no sense.

[Recursion]

18. Liberty was an intel ship

It gathered signals intel on many things, including the killing of surrendering soldiers and civilians.

Not sure I buy that, but it's certainly something to be gained.

[Swede]

20. They were so busy killing everyone,why this little bit?

Israel felt backed into a corner,they killed thousands of fleeing soldiers,why would a few more change their tactics.

[Malikshah]

21. Ruse didn't work in previous incarnations of topic.

But by all means, continue.
The sites have been provided as has the information.

Problem is that some don't wish to play this particular little game.

Maybe a few simple words might help.

The logic used in the question is faulty. This should be clear to someone who wishes to deal with the issue squarely as opposed to come up with little indulgent tangents.

Do enjoy the oblivion, though.

[Shaktimaan]

24. Right...

the NSA is lying to us, counterfeiting false documents and we can only find the truth at some poorly organized websites that no one bothered to spellcheck.

As it is with all conspiracy theories.

I have noticed that no one has attempted to engage over the critical flaws raised with the "preplanned" conspiracy. Namely...

• Why would they do it?
• If they planned it, why would they execute it so poorly, knowing the risks?
• Why would Johnson want to lie about it?
• What makes it less believable than other similar instances of friendly fire, which all remain unchallenged?
• Why do so many "true believers" in this conspiracy seem to be unable to spell "Israel" correctly?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnLocke]

37. Very typical--never answer the questions, just insult the person...

[Malikshah]

38. What is typical is the "question" ruse. The questions have been answered for the most part

in previous posts on other threads.

And yet, the ruse is to continue to ask and draw away from the discussion in order to deflect from the issue.

Hang out and watch for a while before casting aspersions.

[Shaktimaan]

41. They have? I must have missed that.

The only "answer" I received was from Bryan Sacks, whose argument was basically... "Just because no one can explain why Israel would do this, does not prove that they are innocent. There may very well be credible answers to these questions that we are unaware of. Therefore we must assume Israel is guilty."

Oh, and you provided links to two very informative sites, as well. Thanks for those. One is just a standard, hateful, anti-Israel site, but the other is actually run by the very bigoted morons who instigated this conspiracy in the first place. (This is a big deal. These guys are like the Elvis of the bigoted moron community.)

I enjoyed reading many articles from the many contributors to that site, about how the Zionists are directly responsible for planning 9/11, are the root cause of both the entire neo-conservative movement, anti-environmentalism in America. They even caused of the war in Iraq. But that's not all! According to ussliberty.org, radical Zionists are also methodically taking over American media to silence their critics. And I also learned from that same author that the Jews lied about having lived in the Middle East 3000 years ago. Someone else educated me about how they also helped Hitler kill non-Zionist Jews in order to corner the market on world sympathy. And they are even responsible for killing Kennedy.

But, for some reason, they weren't able to answer my questions.

Maybe it has something to do with them having Brain Dumbness. (Don't laugh. It's a horrible affliction... to be dumb in the brain. They deserve our PITY, not our scorn.)

[Malikshah]

42. Alas-- calling sites bigoted and accusing them of starting a conspiracy

is simply obfuscation.

It is a ruse used often to avoid the issues at hand.

The questions raised are disingenous at best.

And I don't wish to dance to others tunes.

[msmcghee]

43. So glad to find out that . .

. . calling sites bigoted and accusing them of starting a conspiracy is simply obfuscation.

I'd heard rumors that such sites were around on the internet - but now I don't have to worry about coming across any.

[Malikshah]

48. Yup-- providing no credible evidence but merely smearing a site like the one

providing a memorial to the fallen of the USS Liberty.

Looks like the now-denied Prof Finklestein was spot on.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Malikshah]

47. Glad for criminal case

Didn't make the assertions myself--

But as you've accused me of being linked with a vile group...

Israel did not want the US with its most tech laden ship to know what was going on. (RE: Golan Heights, Egypt)
Israel might have been pulling off a ruse a la the Lavon affair (most unlikely)

The evidence actually proves otherwise (a point made in my previous post but clearly ignored)
Hours of recon of a clearly marked vessel
Crew members getting a tan--yup-- very shady, that.
Air attacks followed by sea attacks--over a long period of time.

The sites have been provided with the time lines, the events, and still some will try and say "Do you believe me or your lying eyes" Sorry, that does not wash.

Why were the medals for bravery given secretly?

Why is the testimony of the soldiers ignored?

Why is the June 8 oped provided by the officer who was given the task to investigate (link provided as well earlier) ignored?


Why are you accusing me of this sort of thing? Stormfront-- had to google it to find out what it was. How vile. Alert has been made.

Shameful.

[Shaktimaan]

52. The stormfront comment was made...

because you linked to a site that publishes hateful articles written by committed anti-semites. Very nearly every link they provide to back up their case leads to rabidly anti-zionist organizations or personal web pages. None lead to any real, objective media organizations. (And some lead to genuinely anti-semitic sites.)

And the site you linked to is merely a memorial site to you?...

There was another published report that also gave me pause about Zell. On April 4, 2007, the Sun's Phil Rosenthal related how the mogul unmercifully screamed at an official of the Tribune Co, Crane Kennedy, about the need to quickly close the deal. According to the account, a raging "Zell tore into the lawyer with a stream of blunt, earthy verbiage so seldom heard among Tribune executives that it quickly became the stuff of legend throughout the Tribune Tower." (10) Obviously, this is part of Zell, the landlord's m.o. I could just imagine how often he has pulled that same bullying stunt in the past with a hapless tenant who was behind in his rent. So, the notion that Zell, the Press Lord, won't be pushy, too, with editors who don't exactly toe the Zionist line, I think, is pure fancy. What you see with Zell is what you get!

Finally, if Zell, the “committed Zionist,” gains control over the important media outlets cited above, I predict the beginning of a “Dark Age” for America. The lights will first go out in Baltimore, Los Angeles and Chicago. It's true the media is a commodity to be bought and sold. The American Republic, however, is the property of the people, purchased with the blood and sacrifices of our ancestors going back to 1776. It's not for sale! Although the deal to purchase the news assets isn’t finalized--there are some more hoops for the mogul to jump through--the chances are that Zell, a zealot for Zionist Israel and its present Extreme Right Wing regime, will come out on top. If so, don't say you weren't warned!

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=24399

Anti-zionist, anti-semitic rhetoric aside, their version of the events leaves out a few key details. Such as Liberty being the one to fire on the torpedo boats first, (following the cessation of the air attack.)

How could Israel have made this mistake? The same way a USS Liberty gunner mistook, "hold your fire" for "open fire." It happens constantly. What, do you think Pat Tillman was executed by his own team on purpose?

There was only 20 minutes of air attack, none of it as part of an organized attack with the Navy. The Liberty actually (accidentally) fired on the torpedo boats first, (who were sent in to make an ID after a pilot figured out they may have fucked up.) The Israeli boats returned fire. Once they confirmed the ship was American they returned to offer help which was refused.

Here is wikipedia's entry in part...

On June 4, 1967, the day before the start of the Six-Day War, Israel asked if the United States had any ships in the region. The United States responded that it did not — which was in fact the case, since the Liberty was just entering the Mediterranean Sea at this time. In addition, five messages had been sent by the U.S. Navy to the Liberty, warning it to come no closer than 100 nautical miles (185 km) to the Sinai coast (Oren, p. 263). These messages were not received until the following day (ibid).

On June 5, at the start of the war, General Yitzhak Rabin (then IDF Chief of Staff) informed Commander Ernest Carl Castle, the American Naval Attache in Tel Aviv, that Israel would defend its coast with every means at its disposal, including sinking unidentified ships. Gen. Rabin went on to advise that the Americans should either reveal which ships it had in the area, or remove them. Despite this, the United States did not give Israel any information about the Liberty, which was by now in the eastern Mediterranean.<2> As war broke out Captain William L. McGonagle of the Liberty immediately asked Vice Admiral William I. Martin at the U.S. 6th Fleet headquarters to send a destroyer to accompany the Liberty and serve as its armed escort and as an auxiliary communications center.

The following day, June 6, Admiral Martin replied: “Liberty is a clearly marked United States ship in international waters, not a participant in the conflict and not a reasonable subject for attack by any nation. Request denied.” He promised, however, that in the unlikely event of an inadvertent attack, jet fighters from the Sixth Fleet could be overhead in ten minutes.

During the morning of the attack, early June 8, the ship was overflown by several Israeli Air Force (IAF) aircraft. Their exact number and type is disputed; at least one was a Nord Noratlas "flying boxcar" (claimed by the survivors and confirmed by Israel); a photograph shows a C-47 Dakota and other reports speak about Mirage III jet fighters. At least some of those flybys were from a close range. In fact, at 6:00 a.m. Sinai (GMT +2) time that morning, Israel confirmed that a Nord Noratlas identified the ship as the USS Liberty, and an additional craft made a separate identification at 9:00AM (Oren, 263-4). Many Liberty crewmen gave testimony that one of the aircraft flew so close to Liberty that its propellers rattled the deck plating of the ship, and the pilots waved to the crew of Liberty, and the crewmen waved back. One explanation why subsequent pilots did not identify the Liberty despite close proximity is that the pilot's attention was diverted to locating Egyptian submarines (Oren, 264).

At this time, the ship was readying to turn south towards the coast of the Sinai Peninsula from its previous eastern direction. It would then turn east and patrol at 5 knots (9 km/h) in international waters, 13 nautical miles (23 km) off the Sinai Peninsula near El-Arish, just outside Egypt's territorial waters. At about 2 p.m. the Liberty was attacked by several IAF aircraft, possibly two or three Mirage IIIs, carrying cannon and rockets, followed by Dassault Mysteres carrying napalm. After a series of passes an Israeli pilot, who wondered why the Liberty had not returned fire, made a close pass and noted that the ship had Western (not Arabic) lettering. Rabin immediately feared that the ship was Soviet, ordered the planes and a three torpedo boat squadron, which had been ordered into the area, to withhold fire pending positive identification of the ship, and sent in two helicopters to search for survivors. However, although the order was recorded in the ship's log, the commander of the torpedo boat squadron claimed never to have received it.<3>

Liberty turns to evade Israeli torpedo boats.

About twenty minutes after the aircraft attack, the ship was approached by three torpedo boats bearing Israeli flags and identification signs. Initially, McGonagle, who perceived that the torpedo boats "were approaching the ship in a torpedo launch attitude,"<3> ordered a machine gun to engage the boats. After recognizing the Israeli standard and seeing apparent Morse code signalling attempts by one of the boats (but being unable to see what was being sent, due to the smoke of the fire started by the earlier aircraft attack), McGonagle gave the order to cease fire. This order was apparently misunderstood in the confusion, and two heavy machine guns opened fire; one of these was accidentally fired due to exploding ammunition (Oren, 267). Subsequently, the Israeli boats responded with fire and launched at least two torpedoes at Liberty (five according to the 1982 IDF History Department report). One hit Liberty on the starboard side forward of the superstructure, creating a large hole in what had been a former cargo hold converted to the ships research spaces, causing the majority of the casualties in the incident. The torpedo boats approached Liberty and strafed crewmen (including damage control parties and sailors preparing life rafts for launch) on deck. (See disputed details below.)

When the ship was confirmed to have been American, the torpedo boats returned to offer help; it was refused by the American ship. About three hours after the attack, Israel informed the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv about the incident and provided a helicopter to fly a U.S. naval attaché to the ship.

Though Liberty was severely damaged, with a 50-foot (15 m) hole and a twisted keel, her crew kept her afloat, and she was able to leave the area under her own power. She was escorted to Malta by units of the U.S. 6th Fleet and was there given interim repairs. After these were completed in July 1967, Liberty returned to the United States. She was decommissioned in June 1968 and struck from the Naval Vessel Register. Liberty was transferred to United States Maritime Administration (MARAD) in December 1970 and sold for scrap in 1973.

McGonagle received the Medal of Honor, the highest U.S. medal, for his actions. It was awarded at the Washington Navy Yard by the Secretary of the Navy.<4><5>

-snip-

Israeli investigations

Three subsequent Israeli inquiries concluded the attack was conducted because Liberty was confused with an Egyptian vessel and because of failures of communications between Israel and the U.S. The three Israeli commissions were:

* Preliminary Inquiry by Colonel Ram Ron ("Ram Ron Report" - June 1967)
* Inquiry by Examining Judge Y. Yerushalmi ("Yerushalmi Report" -July 1967). online at this link
* "The Liberty Incident" - IDF History Department Report (1982)

Torpedo damage to Liberty's research compartment (Starboard side).
Torpedo damage to Liberty's research compartment (Starboard side).

The Israeli government said three crucial errors were made: the refreshing of the status board (nullifying the ship's classification as American), the erroneous identification of the ship as an Egyptian vessel, and the lack of notification from the returning aircraft informing Israeli headquarters of markings on the front of the hull (markings that would not be found on an Egyptian ship). As the general root of these problems, Israel blamed the combination of alarm and fatigue experienced by the Israeli forces at that point of the war.

[Robson]

53. But don't forget folks

Any internet site that is critical of Israel is immediately branded as a hate site or anti-Semite by the ADL or other related watchdog groups. That means any site or group that does in-depth investigation into Israeli practices or tactics is banned as illegitimate as a reference. It also means that any criticism of Israel is contained.

An analogy to this could be made if an individual is put on trial for a crime and the defense attorney claims that anyone who has done in-depth investigation of this individual should be excluded as a witness, because they are obviously biased.

[Robson]

84. Wrong!

OK.....So I'll reply to my own post since the pro-Israeli (at any cost) faction believes that anyone that opposes Israel and their agressive policies must be an anti-Semite by default. I'm here to say that they are wrong.

[Malikshah]

55. Wikipedia is not a viable source for information. As for the information provided

You've neglected to deal with the information provided by the US officers. Are there voices to be silenced? Are they to be accused of the same crimes?

You've neglected quite a bit here and appear to have refused to deal with the the information provided.

Here are more links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6690425.stm

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0603liberty0603.html

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/06/07/0608metliberty.html

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2007/06_09-03/TOP

It is clear that there is a debate.

It is also clear that there has been no objective investigation that seeks to answer the hard questions.

What is also clear is that those who say the case is closed have often tied said statement to accusations of anti-semitism and the like.

What is also clear is that those who wish for a full investigation free from political ties do not make the same sort of derogatory accusations.

They just want the truth. And unlike many, they can handle it.

[Robson]

45. Possibly "False Flag" operation to blame the Egyptians

Blame it on the Egyptians. Why were the Israeli planes unmarked? The rub comes down to what many Americans see as an unfair cover up due to our oft quoted "special relationship" with Israel, whatever that means.

As quoted on another website Israel attacked the USS Liberty using UNMARKED AIRCRAFT. This is the single fact which proves Israel knew exactly who they were attacking. Israel's story is that they thought USS Liberty was an Egyptian ship and therefore a legitimate target of war. Were that true, there would be no reason to attack a supposedly Egyptian ship with unmarked aircraft. The only possible reason to use unmarked aircraft to attack the ship is that Israel knew it was an American ship and intended to sink it, then to blame the attack on Egypt.


http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0603liberty0603.html?&wired

[pelsar]

46. and another variation.....this one is "dumber than the last"..

unmarked aircraft?......only one country flew mirages during that period in that area.....israel. Taking of the insignia would hardly make the aircraft anonymous...


try again........this one sounds really desperate though.

oh...just a "fun fact"...military aircraft during a war are usually identified by the type (F16, Mirage, Mig) as opposed to any markings on them, so you can shoot at them while they're approaching as opposed to waiting until they get close to you so that you can read whats on the tail.

[Robson]

49. Where did you come up with that fun-fact?

Based upon my military experience USAF and Navy aircraft whether tactical, strategic, assault or transports were identified clearly with fuselage and wing markings unless they were a special clandestine operation. There is a purpose for it...to visually recognize friendlies.

[pelsar]

50. guess mine is different....experience and lessons...

given the limited amount of types of aircraft used in the wars in the middle east (past)...migs vs western aircraft...identification is made early via type.

I guess its part of the idea of identifying the aircraft before it starts shooting at you....

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

28. William Hughes: What If Israel Had Never Been Created?

Here are some excerpts from an article he wrote in July of 2006:

One wonders: What would the world look like today, if the state of Israel had not been created in 1948? Its improvident formation seems to have set in motion a chain of events, mostly negative, in the affairs of Mankind.

If I possessed such a “universal remote” and could stop President Truman from aiding and abetting the establishment of an Israeli state, then, it is my speculation, (a theory), that the following 25 propositions would probably be our present day reality. They are:

* 1. The U.S. would not have any enemies in the Islamic World.
* 2. There would be no Al-Qaeda Terrorist Network.
* 3. Gasoline would be selling for less than $1 a gallon.
* 4. There would have been no 9/11.
* 5. There would be no USA Patriot Law.
* 6. There would be no Homeland Security Agency.

<End of excerpt>

Interesting source.

[Shaktimaan]

29. I love this guy.

Interesting source you found there. Have you seen any of his other writing?

What If Israel Had Never Been Created?
(The Zionists are apparently responsible for Neo-Conservatism, no 9/11 (which Israel planned), no US enemies in the mid east, no al qaeda, jerusalem would be a christian city, the iraq war would never have occurred, the #1 priority for the US would be protecting the environment, anti-semitism would not exist, and finally... JFK would never have been murdered by the Zionists.

Let's see, what else...

Mel Gibson Vs Abe Foxman: Victory for First Amendment
A gutsy Mel Gibson crafted a film masterpiece, “The Passion,” a classic, cosmic drama. And, he stood up for his art, his convictions and the First Amendment, too, against the self-appointed censor, “Big Brother” himself, that raving know-it-all, Abe Foxman, and his clique of naysayers.

-----

Is Vanunu being Persecuted because He’s a Christian?
Christians beware! On Nov. 11, 2004, Mordechai Vanunu, who served an 18-year prison sentence for being a nuclear whistle blower, was re-arrested in Jerusalem. He is a Morrocan-born Jew, who converted to Christianity, which in his case set him up for some “very special” treatment by the Zionist Cartel.

The Zionists will deny it, but I believe they envision an Israel (Eretz Israel) free of all Christians (www.ahavat-israel.com/ahavat/eretz/future.asp). They have done everything in their power to push the Christians off their ancient lands.

-----

The Presbyterians and Israel
How would one of America's heroes from the 19th Century, Major General Andrew Jackson, (later a two term president), have handled today's Israeli leaders, I wonder? I sometimes fantasize about Jackson, a great populist, and a Presbyterian, sitting in the White House's Oval Office again, when the Israeli thug Ariel Sharon (www.wrmea.com/html/newsitem_s.htm) comes back to shake down the taxpayers for billions of additional dollars in freebies (www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm). I envision "Old Hickory" taking his cane out and giving the fascist Sharon a whack or two on the top of his bald head, while chasing him out of the office and into the World Court where he rightfully belongs as a defendant ((www.indictsharon.net/).

(Does anyone else here know about Jackson's hideous treatment of the American Indians? Is there any irony in considering Jackson a "hero" while roundly criticising Israel's conduct with the Palestinians? -Shak)

-----

Rogue Israeli State Protested at White House Rally
Using the past as a guide, the only thing you can count on for sure with respect to Zionist Israel is this: It will stop at absolutely nothing to advance its own national interest. Israel also holds the world record when it comes to violating the Charter of the UN, along with the Resolutions of its General Assembly and the Security Council, as well. (7) As the fear of a possible terrorist attack on the U.S. increases, keep in mind, that this country didn’t have any enemies in the Islamic World, until the creation, in 1948, of a militant, land-hungry Israel.

-----

Will Debunking the Exodus “Myth” be Hollywood’s Next Hit?
Hollywood’s version of “The Da Vinci Code” is out. Many Christians consider it a sacrilege. The Vatican and the Opus Dei organization are the bad guys in the flick, which claims Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a child by him. Interestedly, there is also plenty of evidence that the Exodus story is a fantasy concocted by Jewish scribes. Question: Do you think Hollywood will ever do a movie debunking Israel’s claim to the lands of the Palestinians?

-----

Only the Zionists Kill Like That!
Finally, when I ponder how the innocent Iman al-Hams, only 13 years of age, died at the hands of the Israelis, on Oct. 5, 2004, while on her way to school, I feel compelled to say: "Only the Zionists kill like that!"

-----

Public Security Funds for Jewish Groups are Wrong!
Aren’t there any Constitutional limits? Maryland’s Republican Governor, Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., obviously doesn't think so, even though he took a solemn oath of office in which he swore to uphold the law of the land. He intends to authorize grants - public taxpayers’ money, sourced by the Federal Homeland Security Law - totaling $230,000, to Jewish groups, synagogues and schools throughout the state to protect their religious-related properties from possible terrorist attacks (Baltimore Sun, 09/22/04).

I think it is wrong for the taxpayers to be picking up the tab in the millions of dollars to provide permanent security improvements for Jewish owned and maintained synagogues, religious-related schools and facilities-or those of any religion, for that matter. According to the report in the Baltimore Sun, authored by Andrew A. Green and Frank Langfitt, the money will be used by the recipients for “security cameras, reinforcing exterior doors and installing key card locking systems.” These groups should pay for their own security needs, like everybody else does. They shouldn’t be treated as royalty at the expense of the taxpayers.

I would hope that someone in the General Assembly of Maryland would have the courage to ask the relevant questions, demand that Attorney General Curran give his legal opinion of this issue, and to also call for a full public inquiry by the General Assembly. But alas, if history is any judge, don’t hold your breath waiting for any elected politico to get involved in a controversial situation that challenges the powerful Jewish community.


http://baltimore.indymedia.org/mod/accounts/display/1326/index.php?showall=newswire

[Jim Sagle]

70. Another Shak attack!!! He shoots, he scores!!!

:toast:

(Of course it was like shooting fish in a barrel. But still, it had to be done.)

[oberliner]

30. Far Right-Wing Conservatives and the USS Liberty

I always thought it was the primarily the far-right who promoted the idea that Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty.

Web sites ranging from conservative message boards to right-wing "independent" news sources to blatant white-supremacist hate sites have taken up this cause as clear evidence that Israelis cannot be trusted.

It is my understanding that progressives are generally interested in improving the lives of the Palestinians and working towards bringing an end to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

What does the question of whether Israel deliberately or accidentally attacked the USS Liberty in 1967 have to do with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict or with progressive interests in general?

The difference, I always thought, between progressive critics of Israel and far-right critics of Israel was that the progressives criticized Israel on the basis of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and the conditions in the Occupied Territories whereas far-right critics didn't give a crap about Palestinians but believe that supporting Israel is bad for American interests.

The "deliberate attack" scenario certainly serves the goals of those who wish to present Israelis as being "untrustworthy" or "bad for America" or whatever other objectives those on the far right wish to promote.

What the incident has to do with progressive concerns about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a mystery to me.

[breakaleg]

31. Whether or not it serves someone's interests is less important than whether or not it's true.

[oberliner]

32. Let's say it's true

Let's say that Israel admits today that the attack 40 years ago was in fact a deliberate attempt to sink an American ship.

What then?

[breakaleg]

33. I think the answer to that would depend on who you ask.

If it's the survivors, the victim's families then I'd say they'd like and deserve an apology and and an acknowledgment of some sort. Perhaps the average American would question why Israel continues to receive so much support from the US.

Regardless if the answers, what reason could there possibly be for not pursuing the truth?

[msmcghee]

34. it's probably the same reason . .

. . that some, who are exposed to the overwhelming evidence, will ignore it completely and do anything to deny that it exists.

[oberliner]

35. There is no reason not to pursue the truth

I'd encourage anyone interested in learning more about this incident to read as much as they can and draw their own conclusions. Lots of primary source documents have recently been made available.

Israel has already apologized and paid millions of dollars in compensation to the families of those who died.

Accident or deliberate, as far as the US government is concerned, the matter is closed.

Why do you think Israel receives so much support from the US?

[Tom Joad]

73. "Why do you think Israel receives so much support from the US"?

Why did Guatemala receive so much support from the US, even as it was involved in genocide against those who dissented from the military regime?

Why did Indonesia receive billions in military aid, from several Presidents, Dem and Republican, while it was committing genocide in East Timor?

Why did the military govt. of El Salvador, that killed American nuns and thousands of El Salvador's poorest citizens, get so much support from the US?

Why did the corrupt dictatorship of South Vietnam receive so much support from the US, including the cost of over 50,000 american lives?

Why does the death-squad govt of Colombia, the kills labor leaders and is universally condemned by human rights organizations, get so much support from the US government?

Why did the US give support to Iraq's Saddam Hussein when it was engaged in a war with Iran (and during which it attacked the ship USS Stark)?

Could it be that US foreign policy is based on the mindset and values of the elites, and not the interests of working people, either here or abroad?

[Robson]

75. Our foreign policy is consistent in that it is.......

consistently inconsistent and on the wrong side. We support dictators and corrupt governments and wonder why their peoples hate us and later attack or subvert us when they are in power. Iran is an example as we installed our corporate friendly Shah over the wishes of Iranians in 1953.

I agree with your last statement. Our fickled foreign policy is manipulated by the elites and corporate interests. It never has consistently made sense and has more often than not come back to bite us in the ass.

[Tom Joad]

79. It is consistently opposed to democracy for other peoples,

it is consistently racist.

[Shaktimaan]

85. like who? np

[Tom Joad]

56. "Don't give a crap about Palestinians"...Sounds like aipac and the anti-Jewish crowd

have something in common after all.

[Tom Joad]

58. far right wackos also suggest ethnic cleansing as possible scenerios for

"the good of the white people of the US"

Far right wackos in Israel, like avigor lieberman, and their affiliates here in the u.s. (and some on this forum) also suggest ethnic cleansing as a possible solution. So I am at a loss to understand how that could be considered part of constructive progressive debate.

[oberliner]

83. You are right

Far right wackos in Israel and their supporters in the US promote ideas like ethnic cleansing.

Far right wackos in the US and Europe promote ideas like the USS Liberty was bombed deliberately by Israel.

Neither should be part of any kind of constructive progresive debate.

[Tom Joad]

61. far right wackos also support extreme military measures against their perceived

enemies. Anyone that dissents is obviously a traitor.

Far-right in the US sought a total military victory against the people of Vietnam, not caring at all about the genocidal death toll. Anyone who dissents is obviously a Stalinist in their view.

Pro-Israel far right says "anything Israel does against the Palestinians would be justified".
Anyone who dissents is obviously a supporter of terrorism in their view.

[Tom Joad]

68. far right wackos supported the apartheid system in South Africa

Far right Israel supporters said nothing (if not give outright support) when Israel did all it could to support the old Apartheid govt. Including working together in nuclear weapons development.

[Shaktimaan]

81. you keep referencing stuff like this...

regardless of whether it is related to the thread in any way. Why? I mean, what are you trying to say?

Specifically, it looks like you think that Israel supported South Africa because of Apartheid, that Israel and Apartheid South Africa formed a bond based on a ideology. Or at least, that's how it looks to me, because you chose phrases like "Israel did all it could to support the old Apartheid govt" instead of just saying "supported" and "south africa." It seemed you wanted to make sure we understand that Israel supported the Apartheid, not SA in general, and that they did it wholeheartedly.

This was all in response to a question of Oberliner's. He asked why the Liberty controversy is of interest to progressives, or even seen as connected to the I/P conflict? Valid questions, especially since the USS Liberty cause is an issue that's usually championed by the extreme right. What do people think the common thread is here; what common ground do both the radical right and the hard left share that lets them both agree so wholeheartedly on this issue? And what makes it relevant, for us, to I/P? Tom gave us an interesting answer.

At first it looks like he is just refuting the whole idea by saying that far right wackos share much more common ideological ground with Israel's far right population than they do with us progressives. (Why is it a big deal? Isn't that expected?)

I think Tom's intended meaning was that Israel's government and their policies generally have more similarities to right wing doctrine than other nations. Who cares if the Israeli right supported apartheid? Tom is saying that Israel, as government policy, did whatever they could to keep apartheid alive. Is this right, Tom?

Right or wrong, what you wrote here is just unsubstantiated propaganda or hyperbole. Israel participated in sanctions against S.A. around the time that America decided to. (Far cry from "doing everything they could" to support apartheid.) Their relationship with S.A. was not related to Apartheid anyway, but was one of self-interest. The same valid reason exists regarding the gross figures that America, England and France have often supported.

It doesn't really matter though. I saw something interesting in these three posts that I want to mention. You inadvertently answered Oberliner's question. These three posts all have something in common with each other and with the OP topic. The same thing that the radicals on both the right and left share concerning it. A desire to see Israel as the culprit in any related issue. (Or in this case, unrelated, too. Oberliner's comment wasn't really about Israel yet all 3 of your responses involved finding a way to relate the subject back to Israel in a negative manner. The common ground here, between the far right and the far left, is a belief that they know the answer even before the question has been asked.)

Anyone disagree? Try this experiment. If you're ever in Berkely, CA and you see a protest, (you will) ask one of the true believers if they support Nepal's Maoists in their struggle against the nation's undemocratic monarchy. Watch the facts become spectacularly irrelevant, aside from their use as either tools or obstacles to get to the only answer you'll ever get to this question in Berkeley. Those communists I met were just as incapable of considering the case against the (truly awful) Maoists as Tom is of considering the case against Israel's eternal culpability.

True to form, both answers were formulated before the question was even asked of either.

[number6]

51. I don't buy it ....

n/t

[Tom Joad]

57. Why did Israel attack the Liberty? Noam Chomsky suggests one possible reason

http://web.media.mit.edu/~nitin/mideast/chomsky_lecture.html

There was an Israeli attack on a U.S. spy ship, USS Liberty, which killed about 35 sailors and crewman and practically sank the ship. The Liberty didn’t know who was attacking it. The attackers were disguised. Before they were disabled, they got messages back to the 6th Fleet Headquarters in Naples, who also didn’t know who was attacking it. They sent out Phantoms, which were nuclear armed,
because they didn’t have any that weren’t nuclear-armed, to respond to whoever was attacking it, and they didn’t know who they were supposed to bomb – Russia, Egypt, you know, anybody. Apparently the planes were called back directly from the Pentagon sort of at the last moment. But that event alone could have lead to a nuclear war.

All of this was understood to be extremely hazardous. Most of this probably had to do with Israel’s plans to conquer the Golan Heights, which they did after the ceasefire. And they didn’t want the United States to know about it in advance because the U.S. would have stopped them, and probably that’s what lies behind most of this.

[pelsar]

59. well its a pretty pathetic reason at that.....

Most of this probably had to do with Israel’s plans to conquer the Golan Heights, which they did after the ceasefire. And they didn’t want the United States to know about it in advance ......

hard to keep tank columnes, gas trucks, APCs, etc moving up north, gathering at the base of the golan heights a secret........any spy satellite, spy plane would have spotted the long columes of equipment (and it wouldnt have taken much of an anaylsis to figure why there "parked there")

NEXT!

[ValiantBlue]

60. That is not a pathetic reason

That is why I am not so quick to dismiss it. And contrary to what the movies portray spy satelites and spy planes do not always provide the information you seek nor are perfect instruments as you make them out to be. Especially considering the technology of the time. Even today as we speak human inteligence on the ground trumps the spy satelites and spy planes (and technology has improved since then).

A ship near the area that can monitor activity for a long duration of time (unlike a spy plane that has to take quick snap shot photos)offers a lot more than a couple of pictures. A satelite can provide pictures as well. Problem is taking pictures from space it is difficult to distinguish between whether a truck is made of metal or a plastic baloon full of air!

[pelsar]

62. a tank column?

No ship is near the golan heights....no water, the liberty had nothing to do with gathering intel on the attack on syria.

and its not that difficult to identify tank columes and all the assorted equipment that goes along with an armored attack....and its a lot of equipment....and they tend to move a bit, hinting that they are real

(yes i've also looked at recon photos from satelites and planes)

[ValiantBlue]

64. I have to strongly disagree

Yes it is difficult to identify equipment and vehicles from space. Despite having superior technology at the time, the United States for example ended up bombing fake military and civilian targets that the Serbs set up. The satelitle photos mislead the U.S. forces to waste costly ($$$)bombs on these dummy targets. So yes Spy satelites are not perfect.

[Shaktimaan]

78. This whole line of reasoning is absurd.

The liberty was nowhere near the Golan Heights.

But even if it was, why does anyone think that a reasonable explanation for the idea of Israel attacking it purposefully (without even using decisive force), was because they wanted to keep an already highly expected attack on Syria completely secret?

Israel was fighting on 3 fronts when the Liberty was hit. You honestly think they would want to risk opening up another front with the one world superpower they were allied with? And they did so without any concern for the mission's success, using napalm instead of bombs? And then just "got lucky" in that Johnson was willing to construct a big conspiracy to lie on their behalf, saving their asses, despite the fact that Israel and America were not even extremely close allies then? How does this make any military sense?

Besides, they had been getting bombed by Syria for 4 days when they invaded... why would they think that America would step in and stop them? When they did attack, did America step in and stop them? No. If America suspected an Israeli attack on the Golan (whoch they did), and didn't wish it to happen, why didn't anyone from the US bother to mention it to Rabin?

I guess Rabin risked his entire country by instigating war with a superpower based on a hunch that they might ask Israel to pull back on attacking Syria, which was a diplomatic policy request that Rabin would risk EVERYTHING to avoid?

Have you ever seen this kind of thing actually occur? In real life, I mean.

[Robson]

74. There was a reason for it.......

and as with 9-11 you can be sure that we the people and the victims of this do not know the true reason from either our own government or the Israelis. Our government may have been bamboozled and not even know. These things don't happen as mistakes.

[Bryan Sacks]

65. bad argument, pelsar

Deniability can always be maintained in such a situation. Amassing troops happens far more often than conquering neiboring countries does. Analysis would have varied as to why.

[pelsar]

67. so let me get this straight...

israeli attacked the liberty because the liberty might have had the ability to pick up info about the attack on the golan...and israel amassed troops there because they might have been planning an attack on the golan...

or perhaps those were rubber tanks to confuse the americans about an attack on the golan when israel was really planning on attacking..... (this really is confusing)....how was israeli hiding this attack again?

[ValiantBlue]

76. Correct

To have a complete analysis of the intel you need to put together all of the information obtained from various sources. Analysis of the situation would have varied with the little information that was present. There is no way to determine the situation either way unless you gather additional information.

[pelsar]

77. thats really trying hard....to make a simple situation complex....

try to explain that a country that has amassed armor in a certain place on an enemy's borders, during a war is some kind of "trick" to fool a third party in to thinking that they may NOT attack (because that amassed armor may in fact be fake) and then, as a real surprise they use that armor to attack......well sounds like someone has seen to many movies.....

i guess the fact that the IAF had been attacking the golan for the past few days was probably another "diversionary tactic" to hide the fact that the IDF might use ground forces as well

and since 2 out of the 3 fronts were already won.....the options of where the real forces were (if the ones gathered on the golan were indeed fake)...would be a bit of problem....
___

this seems to come up often....some kind of accusation toward israel....but never the reasons why.....so perhaps someone here has somekind of theory why israel was trying to fool the US into thinking that they might attack syria....but really didnt plan on it, then did it anyway?

[Shaktimaan]

63. "may have started a nuclear war???"

Give me a fucking break. Right... because the Liberty was unsure who was attacking it the US may have gone ahead and nuked Russia.

That makes sense. :sarcasm:

There is no evidence to suggest that the planes were armed with nukes anyway, to my knowlege. Chomsky is just speculating here. Also, Israel did not attack Syria after the ceasefire. The attack was June 9. The ceasefire was June 10.

The idea that Israel would attack America to prevent America from finding out about about Golan, especially since American diplomats voiced that it was expected to happen, is retarded. It really just denies common sense. This whole clip is dumb beyond belief.

[pelsar]

66. on the contrary....

i find it quite interesting...just how many theories there are to explain a rather typical war accident....

should we list the variety of theories?

[Jim Sagle]

72. Better yet, should we list the variety of motives of the "theorists"?

It would be a damn short list. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Shaktimaan]

80. You know pelsar,

I've always thought that the Liberty thing was a great way to differentiate between critics of Israel that protest specific policies or actions of theirs, yet harbor no real prejudice, and those who actually hate Zionism, or/and the state of Israel itself, regardless of the issue or circumstances.

This issue is used by people who are already convinced of Israel's guilt no matter what the topic. To anyone who has the ability to be reasonably objective, nothing about this conspiracy theory makes any sense at all. You would have to be a true believer in order to buy any of it.

I mean, really... Israel attacked America, while already fighting 3 other countries, because they were trying to scapegoat Egypt and wanted America's support fighting them, even though Egypt was already beaten, but they unwisely only attacked with guns and napalm so they couldn't sink the ship, but luckily Johnson ordered everyone to lie about it and protect Israel no matter how many Americans they killed, because he didn't want to embarrass Israel, and only now are people able to speak out about it, also for some complex reason, but they are risking their lives doing so because the Mossad is still out there... waiting.

Actually, I take back everything I said. Now that I wrote it all down in one place, I realize that I love it! This story isn't stupid, it's genius. It's better than genius, it's totally awesome!

I wish I could come up with stuff like that. I wouldn't waste it trying to take out Israel, I'd call Jerry Bruckheimer and get paid some solid bread, for once. All its missing is a speed boat chase or two and we've got Bad Boys III, right here! Why haven't they called Jerry?

I guess they're stupid.

[pelsar]

87. I tend to agree....

the liberty incident tends to "clear the air" of those who really do have something "emotional" against israel and hide it under the guise of "human rights.

We have the standard garden variety anti semite who hides behind the "anti zionist" cover
and we have the standard anti semite

both of which are out front with their views, its the others that just cant seem to stay clear of it, that are the most interesting. Your right it does read like a good movie plot.... the imagination involved, keeps it alive.......i

I did notice one of the usual accusations was missing though:

the blood stained flag is in a case in the navel museum in haifa (I actually went to the museum to check it out.....surprise its not there)

i did learn this time that those delta winged french mirages were "unmarked"......now thats tricky!!! That probably really confused the americans, guess they might think it was the french who were attacking the liberty and nuclear bomb them!
______

your post about what the world would be without israel?...well for quite a few people, rather boring. I think israel fills a need for those who just need some kind of cause and religion but just cant join the classic religions. It gives them a way of being "rebellious" against the establishment (help the "brown people-god i love that phrase!!) and yet religious too.

[eyl]

82. According to

historian Michael Oren, the US was already aware that Israel would likely attack the Golan:

Thus, on June 8, the American consulate in Jerusalem reported that Israel was retaliating for Syria’s bombardment of Israeli villages “in an apparent prelude to large-scale attack in effort to seize Heights overlooking border kibbutzim.” That same day, U.S. Ambassador Walworth Barbour in Tel Aviv reported that “I would not, repeat not, be surprised if the reported Israeli attack does take place or has already done so,” and IDF Intelligence Chief Aharon Yariv told Harry McPherson, a senior White House aide who was visiting Israel at the time, that “there still remained the Syria problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow.”

(As an aside, I'll note that Israel took the Heights before the cease-fire, not after).

But let us ignore the above quote for a moment. Does it seem more plausible that Israel woul, rather than annoying Washington by ignoring an American insistence that it halt an attack on the Golan, would rather risk starting a war with the US by attacking a USN vessel? And furthermore, having made that decision, would then not bother to arm its warplanes with weapons which would have sunk the ship, and instead used napalm (relatively ineffective, under the circumstances)?

[Swede]

86. Here is the actual ship log and accompanying testimony.

Read it and make your own conclusions.

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