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.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep...it does. Too bad it didn't work. The Suez Canal would be in the hands of their rightful owners. But unfortunately we had that nitwit Eisenhower as prez.... The Jews had good intentions. I'll give them that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[mrick]

Well, Felix, you're contradicting yourself in this thread. One instance you are scratching your head in wonder, asking

[ QUOTE ]
Why would Israel attack their best ally in the world?
What would they gain from doing such an attack?

[/ QUOTE ]

...which presumes the best intentions in the world and an absolute gentleman's behavior on the part of Israel. Why, if Israel hit a U.S. navy ship and killed a few Americans it can only be due to a dreadful mistake.


However, not many posts later, you come all in support of Israel's purposefully attacking American (and British) "targets", i.e. humans and stuff, to provoke retaliation against the Arabs.
[ QUOTE ]
Too bad [the trickery] didn't work. The Suez Canal would be in the hands of their rightful owners. ... The Jews had good intentions.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, if Israel believes it gains something by attacking the U.S., it does not hesitate. All we have to look for is motive in the dreadful, murderous U.S.S. Liberty affair. But motives, in war, are a dime a dozen in tactical situations : It could've been Israeli paranoia about the ship's true intentions --those days the Pentagon was not completely open to the IDF...-- seeing as Israel had planned all along to grab land in 1967. Or it could've been another act of provocation, as in Lavon's case. In any case, they shot them up in cold blood and that was that.

The shameful part in this affair is not so much Israel's attack as the shameful silence of successive American administrations over it.

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]
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....

[/ QUOTE ]The evidence pointing towards the opposite direction, i.e. that of course Israel knew, is just too strong. Your defense of that day's Israeli actions is lame.

[ QUOTE ]
Game-Set-Match......

[/ QUOTE ]
Must be the Easy level you're at.

[CORed]

I think it's far enough in the past that it's about as important as what happened to the Maine.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's far enough in the past that it's about as important as what happened to the Maine.

[/ QUOTE ]

r u kidding? for example, kissenger, while not in power during it, was in power just after it, and today kissenger is still way powerful although not in official office(he was gonna head 911 commission, he admints he meets with president *weekly*, etc.)

my point is that there is a unbroken chain of power from that time to today.

[romdom]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I think the Israelis were to busy those 6 days to cook up some crazy scheme. The 6-day war as setting is as 'good' as it gets to make for mistakes like this. Chaos, nervousness, itchy triggerfingers, ample room for misinterpretation of information/cues and a strong willingness to open fire.

Is my 'version' an absolute? Nah, but I'll flow with the simple scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously, don't say that the Liberty attack was an accident until you read the article I posted above. Afterwards, if you still believe it, I don't know what to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say the most likely scenario is that a spy from one of Israeli's opponents was in a position of power in Israel's government and ordered the attack to try and screw up our relations. This would mean that Israel didn't do it intentionally (which makes no sense) and it gives them a good reason to want a cover up as well.

[/ QUOTE ] I would say the most likely scenario is that a spy from one of Israeli's opponents was in a position of power in Israel's government and ordered the attack to try and screw up our relations.

just lol.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
The evidence pointing towards the opposite direction, i.e. that of course Israel knew, is just too strong. Your defense of that day's Israeli actions is lame.


[/ QUOTE ]
You ignore the facts that:
1. The USA communicated to the UN/Israeli that they had no ships in the area.
2. By the laws of naval warfare, enemy ships can fly false flags....such as an American flag.
3. Then 'knowing' there were no US ships in this warzone and seeing an unknown ship flying an American flag, Israeli pilots could assume this was an enemy ship using the false flag tactic to penetrate Israeli waters.

You just want to believe this silly conspiracy theory.
Perhaps you can provide the motive why the Israeli govt would intentional attack one of her closest allies? Yes? No one else on this forum has been able to do so. Perhaps you can. Yes? Or are you going to run away from these questions because you can't answer them?

Personally I think the false flag tactic is bull**** but it is an ancient holdover from the days of the British Navy during the age of wooden ships and iron men. Modern Naval officers are trained to identify enemy ships via their profiles and not rely on their on their flags alone for this reason. Being from a military family, I know air force pilots do not recieve this training. There have been several examples of friendly fire incidents in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, yet......Israeli does not make these mistakes. Yes?

This whole incident could have been prevented if the USA:
1. Communicated to Israeli they had a ship in the area.
2. Escorted this ship with a DD. The Eqyptian Navy had no modern DD so this alone woud have kept this ship safe.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
You just want to believe this silly conspiracy theory.
Perhaps you can provide the motive why the Israeli govt would intentional attack one of her closest allies?

[/ QUOTE ]

they did the same thing in the lavon affair and they admitted it. so that blows your whole argument out of the water right there, so to speak.

however, I agree with you the US bears a lot of the blame, since johnson covered it up after, and even during the attack he ordered the US jet fighters back after they were launched from some carrier to defend the liberty.

I mean, who knows, after seeing how gulf of tonkin worked so well (and it was a total sham), maybe white house and <whatever israeli white house is called> worked out a deal where US could invade egypt or syria or someting.

I mean, these guys at the top are really nothing more than thugs, I wouldn't put anything past them. I mean, in his texas days, johnson got his main muscleman who was convicted of 1st degree murder to be sentenced to, get this, probabtion.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
3. Then 'knowing' there were no US ships in this warzone and seeing an unknown ship flying an American flag, Israeli pilots could assume this was an enemy ship using the false flag tactic to penetrate Israeli waters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except this directly contradicts EVERYONE'S testimony about what happened, American AND Israeli.

REPEAT: ALL ISRAELI PILOTS HAVE CLAIMED THERE WAS NO FLAG AT ALL. NONE HAS SAID ANYTHING ABOUT FALSE COLORS.

*knock knock* Is anyone home? *waves hands* Hello?

Why do you keep defending this theory, which would be plausible except for the fact that it is contradicted by the testimony of the Americans who saw transcripts of the tapes during the attack, and, more importantly, NO ONE FROM ISRAEL IS CLAIMING IT AS AN EXCUSE????

Have you read any of this thread? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]