USS Liberty: Accident or Cover-up?

[PLOlover]

not sure what to make of what is a bunch of crap mixed with lies. don't know what to believe , but ultimately I don't think it matters for reasons already stated.
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair1126.html
[ QUOTE ]
On June 6, the Joint Chiefs sent Admiral McCain, father of the senator from Arizona, an urgent message instructing him to move the Liberty out of the war zone to a position at least 100 miles off the Gaza Coast. McCain never forwarded the message to the ship.

[/ QUOTE ]

also another view on naval court you cited.
[ QUOTE ]
McCain approved the report over the objections of Captain Merlin Staring, the Navy legal officer assigned to the inquiry, who found the report to be flawed, incomplete and contrary to the evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
not sure this is true

[/ QUOTE ]
<Sigh>....it is not like I'm citing a kook source.
The USS Liberty's Captain disobey an order 7.5 hours before the attack not to get closer than 100 miles. Then to compound the error, he failed to notify the Israelis in advance that a US ship was going to enter a warzone. A warzone where Israel forewarned the USA that all unidentified ships in the area would have been sunk.


[ QUOTE ]
it only matters if you take your position that israel has the authority to attack anyone anytime it wants to, even in international waters.

[/ QUOTE ]
In war, enemy ships may be attacked in international waters. This has been true for 3000 years. But the Israelis can't do the same???!!!??? A good thing the US Navy was not under your command in WW2. After Pearl Harbor gets attacked you would have ordered your ships not to attack any Japanese ships in international waters.... Japan would have won the war easily. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
<Sigh>....it is not like I'm citing a kook source.
The USS Liberty's Captain disobey an order 7.5 hours before the attack not to get closer than 100 miles. Then to compound the error, he failed to notify the Israelis in advance that a US ship was going to enter a warzone. A warzone where Israel forewarned the USA that all unidentified ships in the area would have been sunk.


Quote:
it only matters if you take your position that israel has the authority to attack anyone anytime it wants to, even in international waters.


In war, enemy ships may be attacked in international waters. This has been true for 3000 years. But the Israelis can't do the same???!!!??? A good thing the US Navy was not under your command in WW2. After Pearl Harbor gets attacked you would have ordered your ships not to attack any Japanese ships in international waters.... Japan would have won the war easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) the link I posted disputes the disobey order thing. also it is another source that the naval hearing was rigged, admitted by the naval judges/prosecutors.

b) I didn't realize you israelis considered the US an enemy. this explains a lot.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
a) the link I posted disputes the disobey order thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your link does no such thing....cite the specific passage which does this. Don't bother because you can NOT. The order for the Liberty to approach no closer than 100 miles is part of American Naval records. Sign and dated by the commanding US naval officers. You can close your eyes to the facts as much as you want to but this won't go away. The Liberty was given the order, the captain did not obey this order. End-of-Story.

You then further ignore the evidence, that Israel said they WOULD ATTACK all unidentified shipping in that area and that other nations needed to communicate to Israel if they had any ships in this area. The USA told Israel they had no ships in that area... Which was the key factor which resulted in this attack.

[ QUOTE ]
b) I didn't realize you israelis considered the US an enemy. this explains a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]
As usual, you are wrong. I was raised methodist, was anti-Israeli in my college days, and now I'm a pro-Israel atheist. This assertion by you speaks volumes about your fear of the truth. People that love the truth will seek it out no matter how painful the facts are. You plainly ignore facts presented to you that were cited from an article with scholarly citations.

Notice how I'm unafraid to communicate my positions and background?
When you were asked if you support the PLO you dodge, weave, bob, and then finally refuse to answer such a question. Grow a pair of balls, act like a man, and show some courage....

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
a) the link I posted disputes the disobey order thing.


Your link does no such thing....cite the specific passage which does this. Don't bother because you can NOT. The order for the Liberty to approach no closer than 100 miles is part of American Naval records. Sign and dated by the commanding US naval officers. You can close your eyes to the facts as much as you want to but this won't go away. The Liberty was given the order, the captain did not obey this order. End-of-Story.

[/ QUOTE ]

in any case you have stated
a) the liberty deserved to be attacked
b) israel was right to attack her
c) US was correct not to defend her (air support) because israel was an "ally"
d) israel was right to machine gun lifeboats which in international law is universally recognized as a war crime.

I doubt many people would agree with you.

personally I don't know whether liberty was given/received the order, or if it was a made up thing of the naval inquiry which was a sham, or what, but I do know that ulitmately it really doesn't matter.

[ QUOTE ]
Your link does no such thing....cite the specific passage which does this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
#12889164 - 11/10/07 12:25 AM
Edit post Edit Reply to this post Reply Reply to this post Quote Quick Reply Quick Reply

not sure what to make of what is a bunch of crap mixed with lies. don't know what to believe , but ultimately I don't think it matters for reasons already stated.


http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair1126.html

Quote:
On June 6, the Joint Chiefs sent Admiral McCain, father of the senator from Arizona, an urgent message instructing him to move the Liberty out of the war zone to a position at least 100 miles off the Gaza Coast. McCain never forwarded the message to the ship.



also another view on naval court you cited.

Quote:
McCain approved the report over the objections of Captain Merlin Staring, the Navy legal officer assigned to the inquiry, who found the report to be flawed, incomplete and contrary to the evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

in any case, do you agree there was a US coverup? that much seems certain.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
When you were asked if you support the PLO you dodge, weave, bob, and then finally refuse to answer such a question.

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess you can't read then. anyway if you have to attack me then you're the one with a weak argument. what does the PLO have to do with the topic anyway?

[mrick]

Felix,

You have admitted that Israel will stop at nothing to get what it wants, given the right motive. E.g. The Lavon Affair. But, Felix, if Israel did attack the American ship because it had motives which we cannot know (for whatever reason), does this necessarily mean that the ship was attacked by mistake?

No, it means that an accidental attack has a greater probability than if we had an established motive. However, we subsequently had both suggestions for motives which are quite valid, e.g. Israeli paranoia about the Amertican ship's true intentions, and serious "technical" holes in the Israeli version of events as well as in the excuses offered by their defenders in the States.

As an American, and a military veteran to boot, you should be asking one question and one question only, even if you are a staunch supporter of Israel (hopefully, your support for Israel comes second after your loyalty to the United States of America) : "Fair enough, the USS Liberty shoot-up must have been a total accident IMO. It appears though that there are conflicting versions as to what happened. Why have there not be official enquiries, with the fullest possible participation of both sides, Israel's and America's, and full disclosure?"

That's all those poor former comrades-in-arms of yours, the USS Liberty survivors have been asking for forty years...

The hush up didn't make you wonder?..

BTW, Eisenhower was, of course, absolutely correct in how he handled the 1950s SUEZ CRISIS from the American point of view, a point of view which has been largely lost on you, on account of your many obsessions, eg disdain for most Arabs and Muslims, a general and extreme anti-Palestinian bias, blind belief in raw & uninhibited use of power, etc. Through his stance, i.e. ordering Britain and France to back off, Ike asserted America's status as the superpower in charge of the Middle East, as far as western interests were concerned. This, dear Felix, should be more important to you, an American, than whether or not Sinai and the Suez would find themselves in "Israeli hands"...

Semper whatever.