|
|
#41
10-31-2007, 12:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pure Nitwittery.....
[ QUOTE ]
1. Keep secret that Israel was about to widen the war by attacking Syria -- thus preventing the US from interfering. [/ QUOTE ] Nonsense.... a. This ship was near Egypt not Syria. If it was to gather intelligence on a possible attack on Syria should it not have been near Syria rather than Egypt. b. How is single spy ship going to detect to determine gather intelligence on the activities of military units on land? A ship can not see armies unless they are on the beach. As for radio transmissions, a disciplined army like the Israelis would have tight control over the radio traffic as not to telegraph an upcoming attack. c. Why would Israel give a [censored] if the USA knew they where going to launch an offensive against Syria at all? Before the 6 day war, Syria was shelling Israeli town along their border. Israel was going to take action against the Syrians.....this was no secret. The only secret was WHEN they would take action. [ QUOTE ] 2. Keeping secret the concurrent massacre of Egyptian POWs a few miles away. (I doubt this one.) [/ QUOTE ] A spy ship can not SEE inland. It certainly can not determine whether prisoners are being executed. This explanation is a complete joke.... [ QUOTE ] 3. Some compelling secret reasons that no one has fathomed. [/ QUOTE ] Ahhhhhh......complete conspiracy masculine bovine excrement. The advantage of this explanation is it can't be refuted because no explantion is given...... From the wiki article: "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 U.S. said it did not, and United States Ambassador Goldberg announced in the United Nations that the U.S. had no ships within 350 miles (560 km) to 400 miles (640 km)" *****So the Israelis had the expectation that all ships in this war zone could be considered hostile. Rational neutral countries don't sail ships into a war zone.****** 
|
|
#42
10-31-2007, 12:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Nitwittery.....
[ QUOTE ]
Israeli pilots *IDENTIFYING AND CONFIRMING THE SHIP AS AMERICAN* before firing. [/ QUOTE ] Read anything about 'friendly fire' incidents. Pilot: Are they friendlies? Controller: No friendlies in the area. Pilot: But they look like friendlies. Controller: They have assured us that they have no forces there. Go. Pilot: But... Controller: Go. Pilot: Roger Controller: Er......
|
|
#43
10-31-2007, 12:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Nitwittery.....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Israeli pilots *IDENTIFYING AND CONFIRMING THE SHIP AS AMERICAN* before firing. [/ QUOTE ] Read anything about 'friendly fire' incidents. Pilot: Are they friendlies? Controller: No friendlies in the area. Pilot: But they look like friendlies. Controller: They have assured us that they have no forces there. Go. Pilot: But... Controller: Go. Pilot: Roger Controller: Er...... [/ QUOTE ] This is nothing like what the controllers are alleged to have said. They are alleged to have asked and received confirmation that the ship was American and ordered the pilots to attack it, despite (in a few cases) hesitation of the pilots. READ THE TRIBUNE ARTICLE?
|
|
#44
10-31-2007, 12:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Nitwittery.....
[ QUOTE ]
READ THE TRIBUNE ARTICLE? [/ QUOTE ] BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ?
|
|
#45
10-31-2007, 12:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nope....Motive is EVERYTHING
[ QUOTE ]
The Tribune cites multiple eyewitness sources who gave consistent, credible testimony that they either saw transcripts or heard intercepted radio transmissions of Israeli pilots *IDENTIFYING AND CONFIRMING THE SHIP AS AMERICAN* before firing. Again, DID YOU READ THE TRIBUNE ARTICLE? [/ QUOTE ] They did NOT confirm that the ship was American. In fact, the USA told Israeli and the UN there were no US ships in that area. From the wiki: "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 U.S. said it did not, and United States Ambassador Goldberg announced in the United Nations that the U.S. had no ships within 350 miles (560 km) to 400 miles" Also is naval warfare it is LEGAL for ships to fly false colors. This has been true for HUNDREDS of YEARS in naval warfare. In WW2 German raiders and Milch Cow supply ships flew false colors to get past the British blockade. It was only just before the German raiders were going to attack British ships that they raised the German flag. For German warships like the DD, CL, CA, and BB they always flew the German flag. Besides flying false flag on a a ship like this would be like an elephant trying to hit behind a blade of grass..... So......since the USA indicated they had no ships in the area and even ****IF**** the Israelis saw an American flag then attacking this ship was legitiment. The people at fault was primarily the USA for: 1. Not notifying their ally that they were sending ships into a war zone and 2. Not having a military escort for this ship. [ QUOTE ] IF that part of it is true, then any questions about motive DO NOT MATTER. [/ QUOTE ] Nope....given the legality of enemy ships can fly false colors, MOTIVE is EVERYTHING. Again NO ONE can provide a rational motive for a deliberate attack on Israeli's closest ally....
|
|
#46
10-31-2007, 12:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
False Flags and the Laws of Naval Warefare
Money quote:
"In naval warfare, this practice was considered acceptable provided one lowered the false flag and raised the national flag before engaging in battle. Auxiliary cruisers operated in such a fashion in both World Wars. British Q-boats were notorious for this behavior, which Germany used as a reason for its own use of unrestricted submarine warfare. In the most notable example, the German commerce raider Kormoran surprised and sank the Australian light cruiser HMAS Sydney in 1941, causing the greatest recorded loss of life in an Australian warship" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag This has been going on in Naval war for hundreds of years. Given the fact the USA told Israel they had no ships in the area and that the Eqyptians could be flying a false flag....it was completely LOGICAL to assume that the ship was an enemy ship flying false colors.... Game-Set-Match......
|
|
#47
10-31-2007, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Nitwittery.....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] the main problem with your type of thinking here, imo, is that you are arguing totally from generalities. while thinking in generalities is imo ok for certain things like trying to form a hypothesis or other "front loading" mental tasks, when you apply this thinking to an end result you totally toss out 99% of the available information, while also refusing to change your mind and/or consider any other argument. [/ QUOTE ] In the absence of overwhelming facts, I believe applying Occam's Razor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor The simple explanation is the Israeli's screwed up... [ QUOTE ] In essence, you are saying you don't believe it no matter what the evidence. which is ok if you are the mother of an accused criminal or whatever, but don't expect your belief to persuade anyone else who is not also the mother, lol. [/ QUOTE ] Evidence? If you have compelling hard evidence then please provide it. All I have seen is a lot of speculation. As for the criminal analogy it is not persuasive. The Israel's have more rationality in a fingernail than you could find in the entire prison population on the planet.... [/ QUOTE ] I believe the Liberty incident was accidental. However I don't think applying Occam's Razor to human actions is relevant. Human motivations/actions/plans are very often far from the simplest approach to any given situation and to "reverse engineer" a situation by applying OR to the alternative is fraught with error.
|
|
#48
10-31-2007, 02:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Nitwittery.....
[ QUOTE ]
So......since the USA indicated they had no ships in the area and even ****IF**** the Israelis saw an American flag then attacking this ship was legitiment. The people at fault was primarily the USA for: 1. Not notifying their ally that they were sending ships into a war zone and 2. Not having a military escort for this ship. [/ QUOTE ] Now this is an interesting argument I had not considered.
|
|
#49
10-31-2007, 03:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pure Nitwittery.....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] READ THE TRIBUNE ARTICLE? [/ QUOTE ] BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ? [/ QUOTE ] When it is credible, well-corroborated eyewitness testimony coming from people with no motivation to lie that supports the circumstantial evidence surrounding the case and is reported in respected mainstream media publications, yes. That and the fact that any conspiracy theory that Iron of all people is willing to latch onto is good enough for me. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Does the fact that iron diverted from his usual role as Official USA Apologist not sending up any red flags for you?
|
|
#50
10-31-2007, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: USS Liberty: Accident or Cover-up?
[ QUOTE ]
They did initially claim that they were first attacked by Egypt, which was later found to be untrue - the Six Days' War began with Israel taking out the oppositions' air fleets with Pearl Harbor-style surprise attacks. [/ QUOTE ] Can you give me some links re this (Israeli claims that it was attacked first)? I havnt been able to find anything re this claim and hadnt heard it before. (not that i think its relevant to anything - just interested).
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
