USS Liberty: Accident or Cover-up?

[bills217]

Other interesting tidbits from the wiki article:

[ QUOTE ]
The 1981 book Weapons by Russell Warren Howe asserts that Liberty was accompanied by the Polaris armed Lafayette class submarine USS Andrew Jackson, which filmed the entire episode through its periscope but was unable to provide assistance. According to Howe: "Two hundred feet below the ship, on a parallel course, was its 'shadow'- the Polaris strategic submarine Andrew Jackson, whose job was to take out all the Israeli long-range missile sites in the Negev if Tel Aviv decided to attack Cairo, Damascus or Baghdad. This was in order that Moscow would not have to perform this task itself and thus trigger World War Three."

In 2003, journalist Peter Hounam wrote Operation Cyanide: How the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III, which proposes a completely different theory regarding the incident. In an attempt to explain why there was no support by U.S. forces as backup, Hounam claims that Israel and U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson had secretly agreed on day four of the Six Day War that Liberty would be sunk with complete loss of life. The attack would be blamed on Egypt, allowing the U.S. in turn to attack Egypt, thus helping out Israel. However, according to Hounam's theory, because the Liberty did not sink after two hours, the plan was quickly reversed, Israel apologized for the case of mistaken identity, and a cover-up put into place. Likewise the BBC documentary (2002) claims that the Liberty incident provoked the launch of nuclear-armed planes targeted against Cairo from a US aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. It is claimed in the theory that they were recalled only just in time, when it was clear the Liberty had not sunk with all hands, and that Israel was responsible [25].

[/ QUOTE ]

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Expansion of war against Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, which the US was against. The USS Liberty was present to intercept all communications in the area. Still seems bizarre that they'd so blatantly blow it up though. Maybe they pre-planned the mistaken identity bit and also knew the US was unlikely to react in an overly hostile manner regardless, given the circumstances?

[/ QUOTE ]
If they didn't think we'd get mad at them bombing our ships, what were they worried about if they expanded the war? This just doesn't make much sense to me.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Expansion of war against Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, which the US was against. The USS Liberty was present to intercept all communications in the area. Still seems bizarre that they'd so blatantly blow it up though. Maybe they pre-planned the mistaken identity bit and also knew the US was unlikely to react in an overly hostile manner regardless, given the circumstances?

[/ QUOTE ]
If they didn't think we'd get mad at them bombing our ships, what were they worried about if they expanded the war? This just doesn't make much sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

They could claim that the bombing of the ship was a case of mistaken identity and then apologize for the "unfortunate accident" afterwards.

The same can't be said for Israel expanding the war.

[Jamougha]

bib,

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's probably somewhere in between.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how that even makes sense.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
bib,

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's probably somewhere in between.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how that even makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't really make sense that the attack was coordinated in advance, for a couple reasons. There's not really a persuasive motive, and, more importantly, how does an unarmed ship survive a coordinated attack? But mistaken identity doesn't really jibe with the evidence either. Right now I'm leaning towards an impromptu, unpremeditated attack or some kind of rogue element theory.

[PLOlover]

there are no conspiracies. the ship hit an iceberg and sunk. the rest is pure propaganda.

the guys at looseiceberg.org are crazy for claiming it was a conspiracy theory.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
there are no conspiracies. the ship hit a flying saucer and sunk. the rest is pure propaganda.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tame_deuces]

Sure the attack was premeditated, they certainly meant to do damage.

But did they they know the ship belonged to their most important international ally, and one of the strongest military nations in the world and decided to attack it while they were fighting an outnumbered war against 3 other countries?

Yes, that sounds plausible doesn't it! Wow there must be some knuckleheads in the world if that version sells.

[Phil153]

It sounds crazy but if you investigate the claims and the survivor comments they seem very credible.

I can think of a number of reasons why they'd do this.

[tame_deuces]

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.