Author Topic: Friendly Israel (Read 981 times)

Staga · « **Reply #15 on:** July 15, 2002, 05:44:20 AM »

I guess Hortlund also thinks that when Russians shot down that Swedish PBY Catalina it was also a accident. Guess they thought it was a ...hmm... American B-29 otw Moscow.

Most likely Steve is just trolling or he's most naive fellow I've seen in ages

Hortlund · « **Reply #16 on:** July 15, 2002, 06:29:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
I guess Hortlund also thinks that when Russians shot down that Swedish PBY Catalina it was also a accident. Guess they thought it was a ...hmm... American B-29 otw Moscow.

Most likely Steve is just trolling or he's most naive fellow I've seen in ages

Please elaborate.

(And I think the DC-3 the Soviets shot down two days before the PBY is a more relevant example, after all, that DC3 was over international waters doing sigint gathering from the Soviet radar stations in Lithuania)

Hortlund · « **Reply #17 on:** July 15, 2002, 06:33:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by CH3
Always hilarious watching the Israel cheerleaders squirm when they try and explain this one. Hortlund, sounds like you've really spent some time looking at the evidence.

I was only trying to point out exactly how stupid the "they should have radioed the unknown vessel"-theory is.

I have no problem whatsoever to explain this one. It is no harder to explain than why something like 90% of the British casulaties in operation Desert Storm was caused by the USAF.

In war, sometimes people screw up and make mistakes.

CH3 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 15, 2002, 07:08:04 AM »

In war, sometimes people screw up and make mistakes.

Agreed, but the USS Liberty incident was no mistake.

Hortlund · « **Reply #19 on:** July 15, 2002, 07:11:04 AM »

and you know this...because you were there?

At least give me something more to go on than "it was no mistake".

Daff · « **Reply #20 on:** July 15, 2002, 07:21:33 AM »

It was recently discussed on AGW, with a fair amount of information.
http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8153

Daff

CH3 · « **Reply #21 on:** July 15, 2002, 08:07:23 AM »

and you know this...because you were there?

No, I looked at all the evidence and decided that the eyewitness testimony of the crew and other US personnel involved is a lot more convincing than the "explanation" that Israel has had 30 years to work on and still can't resolve all the contradictions contained therein.

Eagler · « **Reply #22 on:** July 15, 2002, 08:08:20 AM »

1967?

I think the two country's have moved past this

I suggest you do too as all the cackling like hens ain't gonna bring back the dead

Just the anti Israeli side trying to stir it up ...

Hortlund · « **Reply #23 on:** July 15, 2002, 08:14:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by CH3
and you know this...because you were there?

No, I looked at all the evidence and decided that the eyewitness testimony of the crew and other US personnel involved is a lot more convincing than the "explanation" that Israel has had 30 years to work on and still can't resolve all the contradictions contained therein.

So basically what you are saying is this:
"I believe that the attack was deliberate. This is my personal opinion based on my interpretation of stuff I have read on the internet" <-- presented as an opinion

I'd say that there is a world of difference between that and

"the USS Liberty incident was no mistake." <-- presented as a fact

This would be a good time to learn more about the difference between an opinion and a fact.

CH3 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 15, 2002, 08:18:56 AM »

Right Eagler, the fact is that the main group of people keeping the issue alive are the survivors of the Liberty's crew. So are they doing because they are anti Israel (BTW some of them are jewish) or beacuse they saw their friends and collegues machine-gunned, napalmed and torpedoed and have never had a convincing explanation?

CH3 · « **Reply #25 on:** July 15, 2002, 08:27:02 AM »

Yadda yadda yadda Hortlund

"the USS Liberty incident was no mistake" was an expression of my own opinion. Comprende?!?

Why not stop being such a pedant and go read the available material for yourself? I'm not going to debate the semantics of it with you, I've got some paint I need to go and watch dry.

Hortlund · « **Reply #26 on:** July 15, 2002, 08:37:27 AM »

Well, I have read as much material as can be found on the internet. And I find the Israeli version of events to be the most credible one.

Quote

...the pilots of the initial attack aircraft. They were responding to reports of shelling from off-shore (mistaken - was actually ammo dump explosions) and were looking for bear.

The Liberty was flying its normal ensign at the time, which was shredded in the first pass. The Israeli pilots only did a slow pass right at the end of their attack after they noticed no return fire, the ensign was shredded by that time and there was a lot of smoke. The holiday ensign was then raised after they had left.

The navy boars were out there cos they had been rapped on the knuckles for not protecting the coast (shelling) and were out in a foul mood looking for a destroyer. They saw the Liberty and thought it might be a supply ship for the destroyer. They tried the radio - the L's was out. Lots of smoke about - they saw the registration letters on the side - but Egyptians had been known to do this. They consulted their enemy (not american) sillouettes and thought it looked like the other one.

What apparently clinched the issue for them was when the Liberty tried to signal back by aldiss lamp. The level of technology, and an american gunner firing on them convinced the captain that they had to be arabs. He was tragically wrong.

The planes from the US carrier were carrying nukes as they USN originally thought this was a problem with the Russians - it was realised when they were on their way that this may be just a little too risky, and the planes were recalled.

Seems as though this is actually two friendly fire incidents rather than one. The first caused by impatient pilots who did not wait to correctly identify their target before firing (as with the Canadian incident in Afghanistan recently). The second caused by a Captain who was stinging from a rebuke (and the Israelis are a really, really proud people), was ultra suspicious and had no indication from his own side that this was not an enemy.

Hortlund · « **Reply #27 on:** July 15, 2002, 08:45:48 AM »

woops...forgot the source:
http://www.shalem.org.il/azure/9-Oren.htm

CH3 · « **Reply #28 on:** July 15, 2002, 09:09:00 AM »

Lol, and you don't think Michael Oren aka Bornstein and the Shalem Centre have an agenda to promote? Thanks for the laugh Hortlund.

Hortlund · « **Reply #29 on:** July 15, 2002, 09:20:17 AM »

Yeah, when faced with something you cant argue against, try to throw in a witty one liner and retreat in a cloud of smoke...
never seen that one before either.

Argue over the facts instead...if you can. If not, keep laughing and get the diddly out of here you moron.