Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: funkedup on July 14, 2002, 05:48:10 PM
-
Heh :( (http://www.theofficersclub.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=251)
-
source: pravda.ru
Not that i mind, i just think it's funny for funk to post it :D
Next thing you know, him and boroda will be best pals :D
As for the attack itself, let's see some of those "our best ally in the world" stuff.
-
Old news to me, and has been very debated .
-
Yeah Israel deliberately destroyed a US ship because...uh...eh...
yeah...
-
Actually Fd I would love to share a bottle with Boroda some time. :)
-
Dont spy on people that have their very existance threatend..they get nasty. especially when they are about to launch a preemptive strike.
Did pravda say anything about the lasers that their spy trawlers blinded canadian patrol plane pilots with in the 90s?
-
That seems pretty much like it. The Badguy here appears to be the US not Israel. Israel has a Foriegn Intelligence ship without authority in close proximity. Unarmed or not is irrelevant.
The US has a lot of explaining to do but not sure why its a suprise. The Common man soldier, Sailor or Airmen despite how important they think they are are assets and sacrificed at the will of any government. These boys got caught up in the hoo haa. What were they doing there in the first place? Obviously not supplying Israel with Intell.
-
which part of "international waters" don't you people understand ?
There is a good reason why Liberty was attacked, and it prabably has more to do with the fact that it could PROVE an aggression by Isreal, as opposed to the defensive story they were selling.
Also, seeing as Isreal army is more or less FUNDED by MY TAX DOLLARS, i find it somewhat silly to have blamed pointed at my service.
fd-ski
AK3
USN 4 years.
VS 31 Topcats
CVN 73 USS George Washington
Too bad that dumb toejams didn't try the same thing on my ship.
-
I thought we put this babe to bed allready, this was brought up in another thread. I'll cut and paste my replies here .
I wonder why the isrealis came to the ship's aid as soon as they stopped attacking it . What was their motive in attacking it in the first place ?
I've never bought that conspiracy theory.
Isreal is being beseiged on all sides in the full scale war in 1967 and in the midst of this they deliberately go to war with their greatest and most powerfull ally ?
That would be like the Phillipines knowingly and willfully attacking the US in WWII .
I'm sorry but it just doesn't add up .
Soviet union was well entrenched in that war, they had migs painted with egyptian markings, SAM batteries etc., we all know the history . So you can imagine the alarm of the isrealis when the fighter pilots ID'd the boat as soviet .
Here is a link that offers a better insight into that day .
http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/ussliberty.html
There is ample reason to believe it was a mistake:
1:NO MOTIVE
2: Reported as a soviet vessel possibly flying another countries flag.(not unheard of)
3:Most obvious, they stopped attacking the vessel .
4: When they stopped attacking they came to the ship's aid, even the sailor in that link you posted attests to this .
5: They were at the time being shelled by an egyptian ship, do you think that they thought they were being shelled by a horse transport ?
7: Would a horse transport be able to return fire like the US Liberty did ?
6: If they did ID it as a horse transport would they attack it ? No. So 5, 6 and 7 invalidate the story of Isreal allegedly claiming that it was a horse transport.
I could come up with many more reasons why Isreal wouldn't want to go to war with it's greatest and most powerfull ally while at war with it's neighbors, but I'm not the accusser so I don't bear the burden of proof .
So in this ample proof you speak of surely you have proof of motive aside from "horse toejam". Lets hear it .
-
I'm not a staunch Israel supporter, but I can understand how something like this could happen. I'm more concerned about drawing any conclusions from something that happened over 30 years ago.
-
[QUOTEToo bad that dumb toejams didn't try the same thing on my ship. [/QUOTE]
Yes. I agree :)
-
If the Israelis start buzzing a ship from 0530-1400 hrs, wouldn't it make sense that their pilots would've ID'ed the vessel as USN? That's a hell of a lot of time to even pull out the books and make a positive ID from recon photos. And, if the Israelis had suspected anything why not radio the ship on normal channels and request confirmation? It just doesn't add up.
Btw, Funkedup, Boroda is a great drinking buddy :) When we tossed vodka from 2000-0800hrs with a few of the boys from 25IAP and Flying Barans, he kept saying, "Now, leonid, you don't have to drink anymore if you don't want to. You're the man. It's up to you." Needless to say, I never declined - and I paid for it the next day. The good news was that Russians chase their vodka not with beer, but food. Every shot was immediately followed by either a slice of pickle or bread and raw meat or onions or pel'meni(won tons) or smoked herring. It works too, honest to god. Bad news is that drinking a 1/2 liter of vodka over 12 hours is not going to 'just go away'. Boroda warned me that night that "tomorrow, you'll not be quite dead, but you won't be quite alive too." No headaches, no nausea, but, yes, not quite alive ;) But, I swear, Funkedup, you visit Moscow, those guys will make you feel like family. No joke :)
-
Too bad that dumb toejams didn't try the same thing on my ship.
Amen Boss!!! :)
Leo that sounds like fun. Some crazy Poles have taught me about the food and vodka trick. :)
-
Originally posted by leonid
And, if the Israelis had suspected anything why not radio the ship on normal channels and request confirmation?
Israeli Pilot: "To unidentified ship: are you a Russian Spy vessel?"
Unknown vessel: "No This is not the ship you are looking for."
Israeli Pilot: "To base: This is not the ship I am looking for."
-
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. :rolleyes:
-
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 :)
-
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)
-
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. :rolleyes:
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.
-
In war, sometimes people screw up and make mistakes.
Agreed, but the USS Liberty incident was no mistake.
-
and you know this...because you were there?
At least give me something more to go on than "it was no mistake".
-
It was recently discussed on AGW, with a fair amount of information.
http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8153
Daff
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
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?
-
Yadda yadda yadda Hortlund :rolleyes:
"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.
-
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.
...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.
-
woops...forgot the source:
http://www.shalem.org.il/azure/9-Oren.htm
-
Lol, and you don't think Michael Oren aka Bornstein and the Shalem Centre have an agenda to promote? Thanks for the laugh Hortlund. :cool:
-
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.
-
Seems akin to using US Air Force Historical as a source for the Dresden bombings.... Hey wait, that was you who said that was wrong. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Seems akin to using US Air Force Historical as a source for the Dresden bombings.... Hey wait, that was you who said that was wrong. :rolleyes:
Well, Midnight, did I argue over those facts or did I say:
"LOL, USAF Historical section :rolleyes:" ?
Do you see a difference? I would have no problem if this moron would say "hey, the information about the second flight of Israeli aircraft carrying napalm is wrong because blah blah blah" or something like that. But he probably doesnt know what to say, probably because the facts are pretty damn good quoted in that article I presented. So instead he chose option b -run away.
The reason I pointed out the dubious nature of your source in the other thread was because you were trying to win the argument using weight, not substance. You were arguing along the lines of "Well, my source is the USAF history department (or whatever), and you are quoting people who I think are revisionists."
I am sick and tired of people who, when faced with an argument, instead of trying to retort, just retreat under cover of some lame bellybutton remark.
-
Try reading the ship crew's site for the various arguments. I know just about nobody will, of course, but I'll post the link anyway. Motive, fairly clear. Circumstantial evidence supporting the crew's contention? Makes the evidence in the OJ case look mild.
Both Funked and hortlunds sources are potentially biased, and one could assume the crew's is as well. However, their site does contain all of the positions for an objective (or biased for that matter) reader to take a look at the incident. Again, if anybody actually wants to take the time to go beyond opinion.
Is this site fair and balanced?
Does it present fairly the Israeli position?
Does it show only our own viewpoint?
Some visitors to this site have complained that it overemphasizes the survivors' position without sufficient attention to the Israeli
side of the story.
We attempt to show both sides. In an effort to do that, the site includes the official Israeli position as reported by an Israeli judge who investigated the attack for the Israeli Government -- even though that report is still considered top secret by the Israeli government. We also present the published viewpoints of a
number of Israeli and pro-Israel writers. We will add more as we come across them.
We have asked the Israeli Embassy and other Israeli officials for their viewpoints. They have responded only by repeating some
questionable assertions by one A. Jay Cristol who seems to serve frequently as an Embassy spokesman in these matters. We do not find Mr. Cristol to be a credible source.
The most comprehensive Israeli report on this attack was published in September 1984 in the Atlantic Monthly by two Israeli writers. We have asked the writers and the magazine to
authorize us to publish that article in the site. There has been no reply. If we get permission, we will publish the entire article.
While they will not allow us to publish it, the Israeli Embassy has in the past distributed copies of that article to citizens who have inquired. An Embassy spokesman tells us that they no longer do that, and that we should refer people not to the Embassy but
to their local public library.
If you do that, please let us know whether you find it persuasive.
We continue to link to other sites that are critical of our position, and to newsgroups that argue against us. We are confident of our position and have no fear of such things.
If any visitor to this web site has an argument he would like to see posted here, send it to us. If it is of reasonable length and not abusive, we will publish it here.
Unfortunately, most of the critics of our story seem to find it necessary to argue in a highly heated, abusive, and often profane
way. Some of those attacks can be found in the site. We think they say more about our critics than about us.
If any visitor to this web site would like to create his own web site with the Israeli viewpoint, we would welcome that and would
be pleased to exchange reciprocal links with such a site.
To find ongoing discussions of this issue, the Wide World Web's "Deja News" tool will reveal any newsgroup where USS Liberty or related terms have been mentioned. We invite
visitors to go there and jump into the debate.
Some of the detailed information can be found by scrolling down to the table grid at the very bottom of the page. The photos are also instructive, particularly where "identification" questions are raised. Judge for yourselves.
http://ussliberty.org/
Charon
-
The reason I pointed out the dubious nature of your source in the other thread was because you were trying to win the argument using weight, not substance. You were arguing along the lines of "Well, my source is the USAF history department (or whatever), and you are quoting people who I think are revisionists."
I am sick and tired of people who, when faced with an argument, instead of trying to retort, just retreat under cover of some lame bellybutton remark.
Wrong.
Go back and read it again.
-
(click on all images for larger size)
A typical (for the day of the attack) low altitude recon flight by a slow C-47...
http://ussliberty.org/00/0044.htm
[Pre-attack reconnaissance. Israel says there was no pre-attack reconnaissance. Any aircraft we saw, they say, were high in the sky carrying troops to the battlefield. Not so. Here is an Israeli reconnaissance airplane that circled the ship about an hour before the attack. The pilot was heard reporting to HQ that he saw an American flag and men sunning themselves on deck.]
What the crews saw on their recon flights and what the attackers in both planes and PT boats saw ...
http://ussliberty.org/00/sliberty.htm
But that was "misidentified" as this ancient horse carrier -- half the size, lacking large hull numbers, comm/sat/radar antennas and large american flag -- by the highly professional Israeli military ...
http://ussliberty.org/00/elquseir.htm
Charon
-
And a few more:
PRELUDE TO THE ATTACK: In all, there were 13 over-flights of the USS LIBERTY on 8 June 1967. 8 of those over-fights were low-level reconnaissance with Israeli jets and reconnaissance planes - passing as low as 200 feet above the USS Liberty's main-mast. Our personnel were not only able to distinguish the features of the pilots, they waved at them - which they returned. The USS LIBERTY was positively identified
by the Israeli pilots who reported that fact to their headquarters in Tel Aviv, where we was designated and marked on the Israeli war-room plot-board as a "Neutral American Vessel."
ISRAEL CLAIMED: They removed the USS Liberty's marker "because the data was old."
FACT: The last reconnaissance over-flight - was 1 hour prior to the attack!
and,
THE ATTACK: The attack lasted a total of slightly over 2 hours, not the
5 minutes as reported by our government. Additionally, our government
reported only 1 torpedo being launched and striking the USS LIBERTY.
FACT: In all, there were 5 torpedoes launched. 1 torpedo struck to
blast a 40 X 42 foot tear-drop shaped hole in the research and intercept
compartments below the water-line, killing 25 of our 34 total dead. 171
of the Liberty's 294 man complement were wounded (almost 70% of our
complement - dead or wounded). There were over 821 rocket, cannon and
machine-gun hits inflicted. Napalm was used. All above deck water-tight
hatches (doors), destroyed or damaged. All antennas, destroyed. The
Captain's-gig (wood boat), rendered totally inoperable. The crew's
motor-launch (wood boat), totally destroyed. All the Liberty's rubber
life-rafts, except 3 - destroyed. Those 3 remaining life-rafts were put
in the water in response to "prepare to abandon ship," were
intentionally machine-gunned at close range by an Israeli torpedo boat
crew. An action on their part which was, and still is, a violation of
the Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Conditions of
Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked members of the Armed Forces at Sea of 1949
(1991 edition, volume 64, INTERNATIONAL LAW STUDIES, THE LAW OF NAVAL
OPERATIONS. published by the Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island,
article titled "NAVAL TARGETING: LAWFUL OBJECTS FOR ATTACK" By Sally V.
and William T. Mallison). One of the torpedo boats then took aboard
their craft our now useless life-rafts depriving us of any means or
chance of survival had the USS Liberty sank to the bottom of the
international Mediterranean waters we were lawfully operating in. As to the attack on the USS Liberty itself, it has been shown that under international law - Israel had absolutely no right in attacking a non-beligerent vessel in international waters (Naval Law Review, Winter 1986, Vol. 36. "A JURIDICAL EXAMINATION OF THE ISRAELI ATTACK ON THE U.S.S. LIBERTY" LT.CMD. Walter L. Jacobsen, JAGC, USN).
COMMENT: Could the infliction of the amount of damage and destruction done to the USS LIBERTY have been just pure luck? Or, putting those reconnaissance over-flights to good use as to what and where to hit so as to insure the Israeli Air and Naval forces could inflict the most possible damage, and hopefully, sink the USS LIBERTY?
And,
FACT: The USS Liberty's OPERATIONAL RADIO FREQUENCIES along with the
INTERNATIONAL DISTRESS FREQUENCY were radio-jammed to prevent our Radiomen and Communications Technicians from sending a distress call for help.
COMMENT: How would the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) know what range of frequencies to initiate their radio-jamming on if they had not been using, prior to attacking, sophisticated RDF (Radio-Direction-Finding) equipment to scan for and locate our encrypted and unencrypted radio transmissions. A procedure, considering the equipment of that era, took quite some time.
and,
Before closing CLAIMS, FACT and COMMENTS I would like to add that Americans (those of the Jewish faith and Gentile alike) who support the State of Israel have denounced the USS LIBERTY VETERANS ASSOCIATION, the survivors, the families of our dead and our supporters of being transmogrified into an Anti-Israel, Anti-Semitic cult. They have also voiced that: "any memorial to the USS Liberty or her dead is a slap in the face and an insult to the State of Israel."
Though the supporters of Israel denounce us as Anti-Semitic, how could we be! For those that are ill- or misinformed, we had shipmates and friends killed in the attack who were of the Jewish faith. And many of us, the survivors, the families of our dead and our supporters are of the Jewish faith.
And why is offense taken by those that support Israel to the erecting of memorials to the USS LIBERTY and our dead? We have many memorials in the United States to those of the Jewish faith killed during WWII, and even to Israelis. So, why, then, is offense taken and condemnation voiced by those that support Israel because of the memorials to the men of the USS LIBERTY who were killed by the Israeli Defense Forces - who's religion happens to be Jewish?
Please keep in mind that an investigation is warranted because of the years of research along with the declassified TOP SECRET, SECRET and CONFIDENTIAL documents that have been obtained under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). Documents and research which not only call into question Israel's explanations of an "accidental" and "mistaken identity" attack altogether, they go to take them apart piece-by-piece. And an investigation is needed not only because of the many discrepancies and versions in Israel's own accounting of that attack but the comments and actions by the then-Johnson administration in knowing
who our attackers were - before our attackers admitted doing so. Along with then-Secretary of Defense McNamara's duplicity in informing members of Congress the attack was accidental even before an investigation was undertaken. There were a certain few within the 1967 Israeli government who planned, coordinated and carried out the attack on the USS LIBERTY.
They are the ones th at are responsible, not the entire State of Israel and her people.
As to any and all claims and charges of being Anti-Israel. I don't
think I have to point out that- Israel is not our country. As American's, we do not have to love, give allegiance or profess loyalty to a country and government not our own. Furthermore, as we can criticize, denounce, protest and take to task our government along with our leaders, as well as other governments and their leaders, we can criticize, protest and take to task the government of the State of Israel. I do hope that takes care of any perceived Anti-Israel rhetoric on my part (or our part) for wanting to take the government of the State of Israel to task for their attack on our ship and, for their killing of our friends and shipmates.
But the charges of being Anti-Israel and/or Anti-Semitic by those that support Israel have and are used quite effectivly to keep our
government, the media and the American people from looking closely at the attack on the USS LIBERTY (AGTR-5). As they are used to keep the American people from delving into and looking closely at the America-Israel relationship as a whole.
Remember, there is a differance between religion and nationality.
Charon
-
Temper temper Hortlund :p
"Argue over the facts instead...if you can. If not, keep laughing and get the diddly out of here you moron".
I submit that you are the moron for using that site and Michael Oren as the basis for your original contention. Do your homework next time, as it's clear that you've looked no further than sources that confirm your own prejudices.
-
In 1967 the NSA worked for Isreal too . It's pretty simple but I guess the most realistic explaination is never going to be as juicy as a conspiracy theory .
The boat was twice misidentified as soviet and egyptian, (remember the near by soviet vessel that offered to help the Liberty) when pilots later identified it as american their superiors did not believe them, and told them to press the attack. The situation was further exacerbated when the Liberty began returning fire . When commanders in Isreal finally realised that they were in a fight with an american they stopped . Even americans have mistakenly tried to sink their american ships .
The two glaring flaws with the conspiracy.
1 No motive for going to war with america .
2 They stopped attacking the ship and came to it's aid .
It was probably the same old tragic scenario .
(command)Is that an enemy ship ?
(Pilots) Well it's not ours.
(command) Burn it.
(Pilots) Uh oh, looks like they put up an american flag.
(command)There are no american ships in the area, sink it.
(Pilots) You're right, it's shooting at our boats .
(Pilots)This sure looks like an american job, I think we made a mistake.
(command)We don't make mistakes, do your job .
Was it deliberate ? Of course they were trying to sink it .
Was it a mistake ? Obviously the Isrealis thought so or they wouldn't have stopped .
I realise it's not as appealing and fun as the conspiracy theory .
-
Funked..
why did the Isrealies do this?
-
Originally posted by CH3
Temper temper Hortlund :p
"Argue over the facts instead...if you can. If not, keep laughing and get the diddly out of here you moron".
I submit that you are the moron for using that site and Michael Oren as the basis for your original contention. Do your homework next time, as it's clear that you've looked no further than sources that confirm your own prejudices.
And I note that I have yet to hear a single argument from you on this issue.
Yet another pathetic clown. Do us all a favour and just shut up.
-
The two glaring flaws with the conspiracy.
1 No motive for going to war with america .
2 They stopped attacking the ship and came to it's aid .
Point 1. If the ship had just "disappeared" what would cause a war? Hell, even as it transpired the Johnson administration found the issue a bit too hot given Democratic support dynamics and the primary concern of the War in Vietnam and russian cold war issues. If it just disappeared with all hands, the incident could be blamed on anyone, including the Egyptians. The likely decision makers (final approval and command level) were tough old birds from the terrorist and 1948 days. These people also had far more experience with a land war against arabs as opposed to a naval engagment with the USN and let their egos make a miscalculation about how easy the operation would be, IMO. They may have wanted to send a message too.
Liberty was a means to an end, and that end was:
http://ussliberty.org/ijic.txt
What was Israel's motive for this act? The scheduling of
the Israeli assault on the Golan Heights for 8 June was a move to
defeat an intense effort in the United Nations to halt the war, a
cease-fire having been scheduled for 9 June. Such pressure was
also being applied by the U.S. Government. The IDF leaders were
under pressure to acquire the Golan before the cease-fire was
imposed, preferably without being labeled the aggressor (as in
1956 when Israel had colluded with Britain and France to attack
Egypt). But with all the pressure to attack Syria, and after all
the hurried preparations to do so, the Golan attack was suddenly
called off within hours of its scheduled commencement. Why?
Obviously, someone in the IDF leadership feared the Liberty might
intercept some of the many signals then filling the air that
would expose Israel's preparations for invasion. They might then
be forced into a cease-fire before they conquered the coveted
territory.
Some say Chirchill made a similar calculation with the Lusitania sinking. Not sure on that one, not as much evidence.
Point 2 is covered here:
http://ussliberty.org/defense.txt
The boats approached at high speed and fired torpedos from 2,000 yards but, owing to a near collision between two boats at the moment of firing, the first shots went wild. One torpedo passed safely astern, where it missed by a bare 25 yards. Another passed so close ahead of the ship that it vanished under the point on the bow. "sounding like a motorboat" to Petty Officer Rick Aimetti, who stood, astonished, on the forecastle. And one torpedo made a direct hit on the ship's cryptologic spaces, where it killed 25 men and momentarily trapped at least 50 more
in the flooded compartment.
1515 Hours
When Liberty miraculously remained afloat with a 40-foot hole in her belly, the torpedomen methodically machine-gunned exposed fire fighters and medical personnel for much of the next 40 minutes while watching the ship sink lower in the water. Finally, at 1515, after word came from the bridge to prepare to abandon ship, Liberty crewmen launched three rubber rafts and tied them astern. The torpedomen machine-gunned the empty rafts, plucked one out of the water, and set a course for their base at
Ashdod.
1545 Hours
At 1545, the Sixth Fleet, having received Liberty's call for help 96
minutes earlier, finally launched White House-authorized aircraft in
Liberty's defense, advised pilots of their authority to use lethal
force, and filled the airwaves with plain language traffic supporting and describing the mission. Almost instantly, the Israeli government summoned the U.S. Naval Attache to the foreign liaison office to report that Israeli forces had "erroneously attacked a U.S. ship" and to offer "abject apologies."
1632 Hours
At 1632, the torpedo boats returned to Liberty to ask: "Do you need help?" The reply from the bridge was obscene. The attack, after more than two-and-one-half hours, was over.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
But with all the pressure to attack Syria, and after all
the hurried preparations to do so, the Golan attack was suddenly
called off within hours of its scheduled commencement. Why?
Obviously, someone in the IDF leadership feared the Liberty might intercept some of the many signals then filling the air that
would expose Israel's preparations for invasion. They might then
be forced into a cease-fire before they conquered the coveted
territory.
Let me just say that I disagree with the "obviously"-part here. Not only is it pure speculation. It is pure speculation based in the assumption that Israel would rather sink an american ship with tremendous loss of life (remember that the ship would have to be lost with all hands if any cover-up should succeed), than risk recieving an American "ultimatum" to stay away from the Golan heights. It doesnt make sence. There is no Israeli motive here.
-
Thanks for the link Daff ! Who is that Magnet fellow ? He's smart AND rational, hope he comes to AH .
-
So you think that the US did not allready know about Isreal's plans for the golan heights ? And you think that the USA did not want the assault on the golan heights to happen ? Who was their intelligence in 1967 ?
The US decries every military action that Isreal undertakes. This is how we retain plausible deniability. Isreal does things that the US would like to have done but would never dare. And when they do these things we admonish them publicly, but breath easier when they do . i.e golan heights, Iraqi nuclear plants, liquidating PA terrorists, destroying soviet/egyptian military, destroying the syrian airforce. Bad Isreal ! shame on you naughty Isreal .
-
I'll simply put it this way to the Israel apologists.
A simple YES/NO will suffice. Ok? Ready, remember YES or NO.
Do you belive Isreal really thought they were attacking an Egyptian horse freighter and not a US Navy ship?
Remember just YES or NO.
Here again for your benefit one last time.
YES
NO
-
Liberty crewmen launched three rubber rafts and tied them astern. The torpedomen machine-gunned the empty rafts, plucked one out of the water, and set a course for their base at
Ashdod.
So the boat crews were in on the plot to make the ship and crew dissapear ?
I don't think the Isrealis were so stupid that they thought they could get away with sinking a big ship and making it's crew dissappear and then pin it on someone else. Even if they were trying to keep their designs on the golan heights a secret from the US (umm didn't we support their assault on golan heights) . I do not think they would take such drastic Dr. Evil measures .
What happened was a tragic mistake, and if there was a coverup it was to protect the carreers of a lot of people in the IDF and US DOD .
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'll simply put it this way to the Israel apologists.
A simple YES/NO will suffice. Ok? Ready, remember YES or NO.
Do you belive Isreal really thought they were attacking an Egyptian horse freighter and not a US Navy ship?
Remember just YES or NO.
Here again for your benefit one last time.
YES
NO
Well I haven't been sworn in but as you can see from what I've allready posted . Even though this question is posed to Isreal apologists and not me, I will venture my opinion .
No.
-
Originally posted by Samm
5: They were at the time being shelled by an egyptian ship, do you think that they thought they were being shelled by a horse transport ?
7: Would a horse transport be able to return fire like the US Liberty did ?
6: If they did ID it as a horse transport would they attack it ? No. So 5, 6 and 7 invalidate the story of Isreal allegedly claiming that it was a horse transport.
-
Some of those in a leadership position in 1967 already had shown a willingness to act "outside the box" to achieve political and military desires:
Six-Day-War Defense Minister Moshe Dayan (former Haganah)
In the mid-1950s, Moshe Dayan was anxious to initiate a "preventive" war against Egypt to neutralize the modernization of its army, according to Moshe Sharett's diary:
"Moshe Dayan unfolded one plan after another for direct action. The first---what should be done to force open blockade of the Golf of Eilat. A ship flying the Israeli flag should be sent, and if the Egyptians bomb it, we should bomb the Egyptian base from the air, or conquer Ras al-Naqb, or open our way south of Gaza Strip to the coast. There was a general uproar. I asked Moshe: Do you realize that this would mean war with Egypt?, he said: Of course." (Iron Wall p. 105)
Admittedly, if the attack was deliberate it was a horrible miscalcualtion. But what's unusual about that? Pearl Harbor and Operation Barbarossa spring to mind. I think as much as anything, the old hawks in command were pissed that the US was in a position to interfere with their plans. It could easily have been a way to send a message while at the same time accomplish military/political goals with no real "proof" as to exactly what happened. Perhaps even a calculated effort to claim the ship was sunk accidently in one 5-minue attack, which is a lot easier to believe than a 2.5 hour "accidental" attack.
What gets me is that the US version and Israeli versions are completely at odds, and that there is photographic, first person and logged material supporting the US version. Even if you go by the Israeli version, the application of force -- including specific jamming patterns and the behavior of the PT boats -- in no way equates to the requirements of an attack on the "intended" target. I believe the crew's version.
Something as basic as the duration of the attack and PT boats getting close enough to pull in a life raft [the repeated recon overflights that didn't happen but that are caught on film] make it hard to buy that the Israeli forces didn't know who they were attacking. Perhaps the Generals who made the naval decision didn't quite know what would be involved with sinking a USN auxillary and learned the hard way.
Charon
-
(umm didn't we support their assault on golan heights)
nope, didn't much support the "pre-emptive" six-day-war either. [edit: and we didn't much like the Suez campaign either, and reversed the action. We have supported Israel strongly over the years, but not necessiarily their territorial ambitions. And no, they do not consult us on these actions any more than they consult us about selling AWACS or LAVI technology (developed with our help) to the PRC.]
Charon
-
Where can I see the photographs and film of the attack ?
-
You've read the rest of the thread right? And actually went to the liberty.org Web site, right? The photography shows pre-attack (the low, slow recon plane) and post attack (how the ship would have appeared to a pilot or pt boat captain) evidence, as well as some duing the attack shots, like this one of a PT boat close in. Read the official Israeli verson the the counter arguments. Click on some of the links in my earlier posts also.
If you spend some time at the site, you can read survivor accounts, various other analysis, a variety of speculation, and official Israeli accounts, and see what makes sense to you.
Photo link (http://www.ussliberty.org/gifs.htm)
The motive isn't overwhelmingly strong, but it is not weak to the point of being unbelieveable either -- for me a definate possibility. If it weren't for the differences in the two accounts of the incident(and the Crew's version making more sense to me), I would find friendly fire to be entirely acceptable. Especially since I'm not particularly a big conspiracy fan.
Charon
Here is a PT boat close-in during the attack. At this range, if you look at the photos of the Liberty before the attack and the "intended" target, it becomes hard to believe the misidentification could have went on a long as it did (of course, that is not the case if the attack was as short as the Israeli's claim, again, given the huge disparity I believe the crews version. They have nothing to gain really, by turning this into an intentional attack vs an accidental attack.)
(http://www.ussliberty.org/g/lg/lg0077.jpg)
-
Yes I went to the site, this time and the last time this topic came up on this forum . Lots of photos of a very damaged ship, damaged gun tubes, damaged antenna masts, big bellybutton torpedo hole, and a lot of wounded guys in hospital beds a photo taken from a ship of a very low c47 flying past . I also read many of the articles . It is an intriguing subject and there have been many US investigations into it. We're up to ten now I believe ? The stories differ greatly, for instance according to that site the Liberty was in international waters . I did learn that the USS Liberty was actually just a wwII freighter stuffed full of sigint equipment . If it is true that the gunboat crews did take one of the lifeboats with them, that is odd indeed .
-
I don't think it was an issue of visual recognition. I think the problem occured when the commanders didn't trust the pilots and boat personnel reports that it was american . There weren't supposed to be any american vessels that close and ordered to press the attack regardless of any flag it was flying .
-
Originally posted by Samm
I don't think it was an issue of visual recognition. I think the problem occured when the commanders didn't trust the pilots and boat personnel reports that it was american . There weren't supposed to be any american vessels that close and ordered to press the attack regardless of any flag it was flying .
Even so, what was the egiptian horse carrer do ? Fire a salvo of 21 horses onto TelAviv ?
-
Suicide horse bombs!
-
I don't beleive they ever said they thought it was a horse carrier . Would a horse transport shoot at their torpedo boats ? If they thought it was a horse transport would they attack it ? See my earlier replies .
-
Yes I went to the site, this time and the last time this topic came up on this forum . Lots of photos of a very damaged ship, damaged gun tubes, damaged antenna masts, big bellybutton torpedo hole, and a lot of wounded guys in hospital beds a photo taken from a ship of a very low c47 flying past . I also read many of the articles . It is an intriguing subject and there have been many US investigations into it. We're up to ten now I believe ? The stories differ greatly, for instance according to that site the Liberty was in international waters . I did learn that the USS Liberty was actually just a wwII freighter stuffed full of sigint equipment . If it is true that the gunboat crews did take one of the lifeboats with them, that is odd indeed .
Samm
Hey, I obviously don't know personally what happened. But there are a lot of "odd" things at work that just don't jibe with a conventional friendly fire incident, IMO. The Israeli version works to paint it as such, but the attack seems too coordinated, excessive, and sophisticated (jamming ops, etc.) and most of all too long to be a conventional friendly fire incident.
Usually, friendly fire incidents seem to be generated by poor individual judgment combined with poor intel or somehow managing to overlook or misuse good intel. The mistake is typically recognized quickly and corrected.
Now, I can buy fighter pilots not knowing one ship from another, though eventually they might recognize it as an American vessle with the sat antenna (rare for the time) hull numbers, and clean gray "USN" appearence. It was a WW2 vessle but it was a larger, much more distinctive vessle in its Intel role. With one quick attack this is viable, IMO.
There are claims that two pilots recognized the ship as American, refused to attack and served prison time under threat for theri actions, but to my mind these are "rumor" level quality until evidence comes forward.
The jamming is harder to explain. You could assume that jamming is a standard practice against any naval target, sophisticated or not, to prevent the ship from calling for help, or even to practice jamming techniques for future engagments against higher threat targets. However, the crew notes it was targeted jamming, and that such targeting requires a sophisticated knowledge of the comm system being attacked.
Various versions of who knew the ship was there when, also come into play. The crew noted numerous close overflights up until an hour before the attack. Israelis claim to havel lost track of the ship shortly before the attack, allowing it to fall through the cracks. It's also been claimed that there was Israeli hostility towards the ship's presence and the the US had been warned to get it out of there in some way. I guess my problem with this "lost track" version is that with a a multi-force mission of this nature, involving air and naval forces with jamming, against a single point target, much more attention is focused on the mission at hand, making mistakes less likely though still possible. There is an Israeli version where the PT boats sighted the ship and called in the air attack, but critics say that the attack was far too coordinated, and led by the air element (and throw in the jamming), for that version to be true.
As a final note, the actions of the PT boats, the time spent on station and their actions on station are disturbing to me as well. This and the type of targeted frequency jamming.
While I don't buy the "official line" I could see some of the following scenarios. Of course, there may be others, with other motivations, that no one has considered to date:
1. Samm, as you point out, it could be a mistake that is detected by the pilots/sailors but that someone higher up refuses to believe. It would explain the crew's established duration of the attack while still allowing it to be an accidental incident. My only problem with this, really, is the jamming and the amount of force focused on the "initial" target of the raid. The PT boat actions, as you note, are also odd.
2. A rogue commander, who decides it's in Israel's best interests to make sure the Golan operation is successful. Israel didn't need much time to achieve this goal, and could have done it regardless of American interference, but if we detect the move in its inital stages US pressure could have been significant, particularly since we were trying to keep the USSR out of the war. Higher-ups become aware too late.
3. A decision made higher up for the same reasons noted above, and perhaps to send a message that "it pays to take our advice about where you put your ships." A bad call? Hard to say really, if this was what happend and the worst case scenario transpired Israel didn't really pay for it in any significant way. The US political situation in 1967 was chaotic and this was one thing the Johnson Admin really didn't need. Perhaps, through back channels, the Israeli's even made some more pointed suggestions/warnings before the attack (move it or...). Remember, the Six-Day-War was an amazing Blitzkrieg. It was a heady time for Isralei battlefield and political leaders, who had shown plenty of agressiveness in the past, and who, like Dian, were willing to take unconventional actions to achieve their goals. It is a potential environment for overconfidence, ego and poor decisionmaking (made with sevear time constraints) where the ends justified the means to a handful of people making the decisions.
[edit: 4. Another possibility, an accidental attack where a "coverup" was attempted (by field commanders or higher ups)by making the ship disappear after the initial mistake. Have to look at the timing of the jamming. IMO, this may be the most likely even.
The PT boats did identify the ship as an Egyptian horse carrier, traveling at 28-30 kts (15 kts max speed for the liberty) and somehow missed the very large sat dish. From the official Israeli findings:
The The Division Commander was ordered to approach the ship
in order to establish visual contact and to identify it. The order
was carried out, and the Commander reported that the ship appeared to be a merchant or supply vessel. The Division Commander also signalled the ship and requested its identification, but the latter replied with a signal meaning "identify yourself first". Meanwhile the Division Commander was consulting and perusing a book on the identification of Arab Navies and making comparison with the target seen by him, he came to the conclusion that he was confronting an Egyptian Supply ship by the name of "El-Kasir". At the same time the commander of another torpedo boat of the division informed him that he also had identified the ship as the Egyptian "El-Kasir", and then at 14.36 hours the Division Commander authorized the division to attack with torpedoes. And in fact a torpedo was fired at the ship and hit
it. Only at a later stage, when one of the torpedo boats approached the ship from the other side were the markings "CTR-5" noticed on the hull, and then the final order was given to break off the attack. (The crew contends the attack went on for another 40 minutes after this point, with the machine gunning, etc.)]
Unfortunately, we may never know for sure. There have been a number of Investigations over the years, but there was never a exhaustive one (comprable to the Stark, etc.) from the us govt. There was almost an anti investigation, with odd behavior by the US admin during and after the attack, and no small amount of Congressional fear about dealing with the incident, both then and now.
Charon
-
Speaking of odd, dbl post.