USS Liberty: Accident or Cover-up?

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I never defended one single piece of content on that site. I just pointed out how stupid it is to say "ZOMG SOURCE" because it has some possibly biased, unverifiable material and throw out the other unbiased, verifiable material with it. People do that on this forum all the time, regardless of the source or viewpoint in question, and it's lazy and dishonest. (I've seen The Free Republic dismissed as biased from both sides!) And I consider that pretty relevant in a thread where other posters are categorizing extrapolations based on a Chicago Tribune article as "believing everything you read." (What WOULD you believe?)

And one of the sites (not sure which) made an excellent point relative to what some posters are doing in this thread: If motive is all that matters and hard evidence is irrelevant, Charles Manson should have been acquitted for lack of a clear motive.

FWIW, the rogue officer theory doesn't require any sort of coherent motive on the part of Israel. Which is not to say that Felix would agree any motive was rational even if the Israeli gov't admitted to it tomorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]

the fact that some poster go so far as to defend the lavon affaiar thing shows their bias, imo.

otoh, if they live in israel or something then I can understand their defense of their country, but I can't really understand how an *american* could defend such a bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're a war-loving neo-con like Copernicus or Felix the Lavon Affair makes total sense I'm sure.