View Full Version : Operation Cyanide and the USS Liberty (was: Navy crew remembers 1967 Israeli attack)
Issac Goldberg
July 6th 04, 11:50 PM
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
>>>>In both the Lavon Affair and the Liberty Attack, one of Israel's
>>>>goals was the removal of Nasser from power in Egypt.
>>>LOL; say what. Attacking a US ship was going to remove Nasser, is that right??
>>Operation Cyanide: after the Liberty was sunk, and after
>>Egypt had been framed, the US would drop a nuclear bomb
>>on Egypt. Nasser would be gone.
>LOL: you idiot; greater Cairo would be gone given your warped understanding of
>something which has no documentation ...
I said nothing about the target of the nuclear attack. Why do you
assume that it would have been Cairo? Killing Nasser would have
made him a martyr. Israel definitely did not want to do that. The
bomb could have been dropped in the desert as a warning, and it
would have had the desired effect.
>>In fact, one of the
>>planes that LBJ had recalled was armed with a nuclear bomb.
>
>First, LBJ ordered nothing of the kind.
You cannot prove that, since it is impossible to prove a negative.
LBJ would have been very careful to avoid leaving any evidence,
and he would probably destroy any evidence which arose.
LBJ was not stupid.
>Second, it takes/took a presidential order
>to even launch such armed aircraft if not an exercise or other non-war setting.
I agree that Johnson must have known and approved of Operation
Cyanide. To minimize suspicion, the pilot was probably told it
was an exercise. If everything had gone according to plan,
he would have gotten attack orders while he was airborne,
instead of getting recall orders.
>Oh, here's some real documentation:
>
><start>
>Z 081316Z JUN 67
>FM CTF SIX ZERO
>TO USS AMERICA
> USS SARATOGA
>...
>S E C R E T
>DEFENSE USS LIBERTY
>...
>4. DEFENSE OF USS LIBERTY MEANS EXACTLY THAT. DESTROY OR DRIVE OFF ANY
>ATTACKERS WHO ARE CLEARLY MAKING ATTACKS ON LIBERTY. REMAIN OVER INTERNATIONAL
>WATERS. DEFEND YOURSELF IF ATTACKED.
><end>
What's your point, other than to highlight that the Navy jets
did not reach the Liberty despite their orders? And when are
you going to tell us about the arrogant jet jocks that you had
to deal with?
False flag operations require enormous amount of effort
to produce 'evidence' which would:
1) 'prove' that the attack was done by somebody else.
In the case of Lavon Affair, false evidence was left to implicate
the Muslim Brotherhood, such as leaving copies of the Koran with
Muslim Brotherhood literature inside which would then be found
serendipitously at the attack sites (sound familiar?)
In Operation Cyanide, evidence would have been fabricated to
'prove' that Egypt sunk the Liberty, Hence, the submarine which
just 'happened' to be there, may have had the mission to take
photographs which would later be modified to show that it was
Egyptian planes rather than Israeli planes which attacked the
Liberty. Even in the days before digital photography, it was
possible to alter photographs to show whatever you wanted.
2) provide alibis to the guilty parties, and destroy evidence
which would implicate Israel and the United States.
The moral standing of the United States has certainly fallen
world wide because of the torture photographs from Iraq. Imagine
the world response if it were learned that the U.S. was involved
in a nuclear attack based on a fabricated pretext. To keep this
knowledge secret, it may be necessary to conduct a long term
operation to silence critics, perhaps using name calling, ridicule,
changing the subject, non sequiturs, in fact, all the things that
you do, Weeks.
>Oh, BTW, you skipped over: What happened to the claim it was to prevent the US
>from learning of the open-secret that the Golan Heights were most likely to be
>attacked next? Huh?
I'm sure Washington had prior knowledge of Israel's intention
to attack Syria, and that Washington gave Israel a green light
to proceed. The whole point of the SDW was not just to defeat
the Arabs, but to improve the relationship between Israel and
the United States. Looking at U.S. foreign military aid to Israel
since that time, relations obviously did improve. Israel now
gets billions of dollars in military aid from the United States
every year, and the trend has been upwards.
tim gueguen
July 7th 04, 04:02 AM
"Issac Goldberg" > wrote in message
om...
Some weird conspiracy theory I doubt even he believes.
tim gueguen 101867
> >>Operation Cyanide: after the Liberty was sunk, and after
> >>Egypt had been framed, the US would drop a nuclear bomb
> >>on Egypt. Nasser would be gone.
If that was the goal, then Israel made (at least...) six mistakes:
1) Attack with a Mirage, a plane with a unique shape that only Israel had.
2) Attack with the wrong weapon. For sinking ships you need half iron
bombs, like the US used in Midway, not NAPLAM.
3) Attack with a single plane.
4) Leave the Liberty enough time to report the first attack, that could
not be blamed on the Egyptian air force in that point.
5) Attacking with boats that displayed the Israeli flag.
6) Not finishing the attack by a couple more torpedeos.
A submarine surprise attack, using 4 torpedeos at once, would
be a much better method for framing Egypt.
> >>In fact, one of the
> >>planes that LBJ had recalled was armed with a nuclear bomb.
> >First, LBJ ordered nothing of the kind.
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> You cannot prove that, since it is impossible to prove a negative.
Which is the base for your never ending bull****.
Issac Goldberg
July 8th 04, 11:15 AM
wrote:
> > >>Operation Cyanide: after the Liberty was sunk, and after
> > >>Egypt had been framed, the US would drop a nuclear bomb
> > >>on Egypt. Nasser would be gone.
> If that was the goal, then Israel made (at least...) six mistakes:
> 1) Attack with a Mirage, a plane with a unique shape that only Israel had.
Only Israel had the Mirage? Didn't France have any, or was the entire
production run of Mirages sold to Israel? And wasn't France in on the
1956 attack on Egypt? It could have been a repeat performance by
France. Your assertion that only Israel had Mirages is obviously
wrong.
The Mirage which attacked the Liberty did not have any identification,
since the Israelis painted over identifying markings.
That is why the first goal of the Israeli attack was to take out
Liberty's communications. Israel was successful in destroying the
antennas on
Liberty's deck, but Liberty radiomen were able to jury-rig an antenna
and
send a message out, which was the only thing that saved the Liberty.
Israeli attempts to jam all of Liberty's known radio frequencies
failed.
> 2) Attack with the wrong weapon. For sinking ships you need half iron
> bombs, like the US used in Midway, not NAPLAM.
It was decided that the Israeli navy, still in its infancy,
would have the 'honor' of sinking the Liberty. The fact that
the first four torpedoes missed shows that the Israeli navy
needed more practice.
> 3) Attack with a single plane.
The Israeli air force successfully took all of Liberty's above
board antennas out of action. And since one of the antenna was
a rather large and unique satellite dish, there could be no
mistaking the Liberty for an Egyptian horse transport. If Egypt had
equipped a horse transport with a satellite dish, the Israeli
air force would have sunk such a ship on the first day of
the war.
> 4) Leave the Liberty enough time to report the first attack, that could
> not be blamed on the Egyptian air force in that point.
Only the success by the Liberty radiomen in jury rigging an antenna
allowed the radio message to be sent. According to the Liberty
radiomen, Israel did attempt to jam all of Liberty's known radio
frequencies, but the jamming failed because Liberty radoimen were able
to find a usable frequency that was not jammed.
> 5) Attacking with boats that displayed the Israeli flag.
Operation Cyanide depended on taking out all of Liberty's
communications ability during the initial surprise air attack. If
Liberty could not get a message out, then it did not matter if the
boats displayed the Israeli flag.
> 6) Not finishing the attack by a couple more torpedeos.
Israel intercepted a message that American aircraft had been
launched from aircraft carriers and were headed towards the Liberty.
Instead of risking exposure, the entire operation was called off.
> A submarine surprise attack, using 4 torpedeos at once, would
> be a much better method for framing Egypt.
So you agree that it was possible that Operation Cyanide
intended to frame Egypt. Did the Israeli navy even have
submarines in 1967?
> > >>In fact, one of the
> > >>planes that LBJ had recalled was armed with a nuclear bomb.
> > >First, LBJ ordered nothing of the kind.
> > You cannot prove that, since it is impossible to prove a negative.
> Which is the base for your never ending bull****.
The fact that you need to resort to obscenities shows that you are
not very secure with your arguments. If you had a strong case, it
would stand on its own, without the need for insults, name calling
and/or obscenities.
We hear lawyer-talk like 'Congress investigated the attack five
times and found no evidence that the attack was intentional.' But
since Congress never conducted an in-depth investigation devoted
to the attack on the Liberty, it found no evidence one way or
another since CONGRESS NEVER INVESTIGATED WHETHER THE ATTACK ON
THE LIBERTY WAS INTENTIONAL. It could just as accurately have been
said that Congress found no evidence to show that the attack on the
Liberty was an accident. See how easy it is to use weasel words?
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> wrote:
> > If that was the goal, then Israel made (at least...) six mistakes:
> > 1) Attack with a Mirage, a plane with a unique shape that only Israel had.
> Only Israel had the Mirage? Didn't France have any, or was the entire
> production run of Mirages sold to Israel?
A Mirage could not fly from France to Al-Arish, you idiot.
You claimed quite a few time that a single pilot "should" have recognized
Liberty's unique shape. But you have never made the argument that the
crew of the Liberty "should" have recognize the Mirage's unique shape,
connect the dots, and send an emergency message to the US embassy in
Tel-Aviv to tell the Israelis to "stop it."
> And wasn't France in on the 1956 attack on Egypt?
> It could have been a repeat performance by France.
*Before* the Six-Days-War France took a clear pro-Arab stand and
put arms embargo on Israel. Besides, how could France, physically,
send a Mirage to attack a ship near El-Arish?
>Your assertion that only Israel had Mirages is obviously wrong.
OK.
Israel was the only country in the Middle East with Mirages.
> The Mirage which attacked the Liberty did not have any identification,
> since the Israelis painted over identifying markings.
Or the crew that could not see the Mirage unique, "no horizontal"
tail, missed the much smaller identifications.
> That is why the first goal of the Israeli attack was to take out
> Liberty's communications. Israel was successful in destroying the
> antennas on
> Liberty's deck, but Liberty radiomen were able to jury-rig an antenna
> and send a message out, which was the only thing that saved the Liberty.
Everybody who has ever played with ham radios (a dying breed...)
could tell you that rigging an antenna is easy; if you want to stop
communication then you should take out the transmitors.
> Israeli attempts to jam all of Liberty's known radio frequencies
> failed.
How could Israel jam the radio frequency?
What hardware that could do the job Israel had in 1967?
How could such jamming be done without the embassy in Tel-Aviv, or
the Sixth Fleet, detecting that?
> > 2) Attack with the wrong weapon. For sinking ships you need half iron
> > bombs, like the US used in Midway, not NAPLAM.
> It was decided that the Israeli navy, still in its infancy,
> would have the 'honor' of sinking the Liberty.
For a cover-up you need to minimize the number of people who know
a secret. Putting the navy, and the airforce, on the task just doubles
the people who know the secret. Pretty stupid.
> The fact that
> the first four torpedoes missed shows that the Israeli navy
> needed more practice.
As any other navy that has ever shot WWII quality torpedoes
from such a distance.
> > 3) Attack with a single plane.
> The Israeli air force successfully took all of Liberty's above
> board antennas out of action.
For a cover up you need near 100% succeess. Redundency is a good idea.
> If Egypt had
> equipped a horse transport with a satellite dish, the Israeli
> air force would have sunk such a ship on the first day of
> the war.
In the first day of the war the Arab's airforces were the top priority.
> > 4) Leave the Liberty enough time to report the first attack, that could
> > not be blamed on the Egyptian air force in that point.
> Only the success by the Liberty radiomen in jury rigging an antenna
> allowed the radio message to be sent.
Have you ever built a ham radio antenna? Just wondering...
> According to the Liberty
> radiomen, Israel did attempt to jam all of Liberty's known radio
> frequencies, but the jamming failed because Liberty radoimen were able
> to find a usable frequency that was not jammed.
Oh dear.
Do you have any clue how many ham frequency can reach the other side
of the world? Do you realize how many other frequencies could reach the
Sixth Fleet or the US embassy in Tel-Aviv? Even the US did not have
the ability to block so many frequencies in 1967.
> > 5) Attacking with boats that displayed the Israeli flag.
> Operation Cyanide depended on taking out all of Liberty's
> communications ability during the initial surprise air attack. If
> Liberty could not get a message out, then it did not matter if the
> boats displayed the Israeli flag.
But why take the extra risk?
> > 6) Not finishing the attack by a couple more torpedeos.
> Israel intercepted a message that American aircraft had been
> launched from aircraft carriers and were headed towards the Liberty.
> Instead of risking exposure, the entire operation was called off.
And all of that was done in about a minute, without any radio
communication that the US embassy in Tel-Aviv could detect.
(Have you ever seen the forest of antennas on the roof of the
US embassy in Tel-Aviv? Just wondering...)
Somehow, the torpedeos boats claim that they saw the flag after the
first attack and therefore stopped makes more sense.
> > A submarine surprise attack, using 4 torpedeos at once, would
> > be a much better method for framing Egypt.
> So you agree that it was possible that Operation Cyanide
> intended to frame Egypt.
No.
If I had to run such an operation then I'd probably use the small
"suicide boats" that sunk the Egyptian flagship in 1948.
They leave very few traces, much more accurate than a torpedeo,
and had proved themselves in battle. (You probably don't even know
that Egypt had a flagship in 1948, or how it was taken out.)
> Did the Israeli navy even have submarines in 1967?
Yes.
Had you ever learned some naval history then you would know that
since WWI submarines were the "weapon of choice" for the weaker navy.
Had you known how to use google you could find the link to
http://www.dolphin.org.il/sclasse/
> > > You cannot prove that, since it is impossible to prove a negative.
> > Which is the base for your never ending bull****.
> The fact that you need to resort to obscenities shows that you are
> not very secure with your arguments.
I call your posting bull**** because that's what they are.
Issac Goldberg
July 9th 04, 10:50 AM
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
>
> >We hear lawyer-talk like 'Congress investigated the attack five
> >times and found no evidence that the attack was intentional.' But
> >since Congress never conducted an in-depth investigation devoted
> >to the attack on the Liberty, it found no evidence one way or
> >another since CONGRESS NEVER INVESTIGATED WHETHER THE ATTACK ON
> >THE LIBERTY WAS INTENTIONAL. It could just as accurately have been
> >said that Congress found no evidence to show that the attack on the
> >Liberty was an accident. See how easy it is to use weasel words?
>
> Notice how the weasel ...
Notice how Weeks cannot avoid a personal attack. I guess he realizes
how weak his arguments are. If he had strong arguments, he would not
need to make personal attacks, or use name calling and insults, or
repeatedly use dishonest tactics, like implying that Congress
investigated the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was
intentional.
> ... turns everything on its head, in his black-is-white
> world.
>
> Here in the USA one has to bring credible evidence to the table if you're going
> to go out and make charges and have any crediblity ...
>
> All the material going to Congress never indicated that the IDF attacked this
> ship, knowing her to be US, let alone one named the USS Liberty.
What material are you talking about? Are you saying Congress did
investigate whether the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional?
Which Congressional committee conducted that investigation? Why
doesn't Cristol list that investigation on his web site instead
of the two Congressional investigations which obviously did NOT
look into the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was
intentional?
You could have just as easily said that all the material going
to Congress never indicated that the IDF attack was an accident.
It looks like you are the one who sees the world as black-is-white.
If you are going to say Congress did investigate whether the
attack on the Liberty was intentional you need to bring credible
evidence to the table if you're going to have any credibility ...
> Lack of evidence is exactly that -- lack of evidence.
So where is your evidence that Congress held hearings on
the question of whether the attack was intentional? We
are still waiting for your answer. Where is the Committee's
report? No hearings + no report = no investigation.
Lack of evidence is exactly that - lack of evidence.
> But what the heck, let's even claim this attack was a joint US-Israeli
> operation as this poster does and really muddy the waters ...
From a story which appeared in the Washington Post:
'Asked on camera by the BBC about Operation Cyanide, Rafi Eitan,
who was with the Israeli secret service in 1967, smiled
cryptically and said: "I know what I am able to tell you and
where I have to stop. And here I stop."
'When the same interviewers questioned former CIA chief Helms
on camera, he confirmed the covert function of the 303
Committee but said, "You'll have to ask McNamara" about
Operation Cyanide. When Robert McNamara, secretary of defense
in 1967, was asked on camera about Operation Cyanide,
he replied, "I won't say a word about the Liberty." Why?'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8861-2003Jan31¬Found=true
Leanne
July 9th 04, 02:12 PM
I donn't know about how some of the others on this group feel, but I am
getting tired of it and from now on those parties involved are going to bew
blocked. What happened is done and cannot bring back those that were lost.
Both sides lied and that is all I am going to say.
Leanne
Issac Goldberg
July 10th 04, 12:22 AM
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> >Asked on camera by the BBC about Operation Cyanide, Rafi Eitan,
> >who was with the Israeli secret service in 1967, smiled
> >cryptically and said: "I know what I am able to tell you and
> >where I have to stop. And here I stop."
>
> This doesn't even remotely prove what you've been claiming …
In the quote above, Eitan did NOT say:
"I never heard of Operation Cyanide," or
"I was not involved in Operation Cyanide and I don't
know any of its details."
What he did say implies that he both heard of Operation
Cyanide and knew what the details were. And that he would
continue to keep the details secret. Hmmmm.
I never even remotely claimed that I could PROVE anything. I was
not a member of the Liberty crew, nor was I involved in any official
investigation of the Liberty, nor did I ever work for a government
intelligence agency, nor was I ever a member of the Armed Services.
I have made speculations based on what is available publicly, and
that does not include any of the classified material. And the
information which is available publicly does not support your
conclusion that everything is OK.
All I ask for is an impartial investigation of the attack on the
USS Liberty which would hear all sides and consider all evidence.
You, however, oppose a new investigation with every ounce of
energy in your body. Why? If you are correct in your assertions,
then you have nothing to worry about.
But you do worry, don't you? Why do you spend so much of your
time opposing a new investigation? And when are you going to
tell us about the arrogant jet jockeys you had to deal with?
Issac Goldberg
July 10th 04, 05:36 PM
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
>
> >> All the material going to Congress never indicated that the IDF attacked
> this
> >> ship, knowing her to be US, let alone one named the USS Liberty.
> >
> >What material are you talking about? Are you saying Congress did
> >investigate whether the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional?
> >Which Congressional committee conducted that investigation?
>
> Read Cristol's book, chapter 12: "America Investigates."
A nice evasion. I ask which Committee, and Weeks again says,
"read Cristol." [The reason Weeks needed to evade my question
is because Congress NEVER held an investigation which looked
into the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was
intentional or not. And I'm sure in response to this post,
Weeks will again evade the question and respond with even
more insults, name calling and character assassination. It's
what he does best.]
Here are some comments by Senators at one of the alleged
investigations cited by Cristol, the hearings on the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1967, held by the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in 1967 (after the Kidd inquiry had issued its
report):
<start>
Senator Hickenlooper: I think it was a deliberate assault on this
ship. I think they had ample opportunity to identify it as an
American ship. I may be utterly wrong, but I do recall that some
time ago we had some difficulties in the Bay of Tonkin where at
night without full identification or really full proof it was
assumed that certain torpedo boats made rather menacing approaches
to one of our destroyers and we rushed over here with the Tonkin
Bay resolution right away. A war was unleashed.
What have we done about the Liberty? Have we become so placid,
so far as Israel is concerned or so far as that area is concerned,
that we will take the killing of 37 American boys and the
wounding of a lot more and the attack of an American ship in the
open sea in good weather? We have seemed to say: "Oh, well, boys
will be boys." What are you going to do about it! It is most
offensive to me.
Senator Hickenlooper: It is inconceivable to me that the ship
could not have been identified. According to everything I saw
the American flag was flying on this ship. It had a particular
configuration. Even a landlubber could look at it and see that
it has no characteristic configuration comparable to the so-called
Egyptian ship they now try to say they mistook it for. If these
people were as well trained as they allege they are, and did what
they did, I don’t know. It just doesn’t add up to me. It is not
at all satisfactory.
Senator Aiken: I think, not only the committee, but the public
wants better information than they have had so far.
Senator Hickenlooper: The public is thoroughly dissatisfied
with the situation. I don’t know. It is the seemingly cavalier
attitude expressed by Israel in some ways apparently accepted
by us on a very tragic situation. I think there is utterly no
excuse for it.
<end>
If this is your best evidence that Congress thoroughly
investigated whether the attack on the Liberty was
intentional or not, both you and Cristol have thoroughly
discredited yourselves. But prove me wrong, tell me
which Congressional Committee held hearings and
investigated whether the attack on the Liberty was
an accident.
Issac Goldberg
July 10th 04, 06:00 PM
wrote in message >...
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
> > wrote:
> > > If that was the goal, then Israel made (at least...) six mistakes:
> > > 1) Attack with a Mirage, a plane with a unique shape that only Israel had.
>
> > Only Israel had the Mirage? Didn't France have any, or was the entire
> > production run of Mirages sold to Israel?
>
> A Mirage could not fly from France to Al-Arish, you idiot.
Ever hear of a thing called an aircraft carrier?
The fact that you need to resort to name calling indicates
that you feel your arguments are too weak to stand on their
own. If you were confident in your assertions, there would
be no need to engage in name calling.
HE MEANS in that theater of war ASS CLOWN!!
--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman
http://www.usidfvets.com
and
http://www.stopfcc.com
"Issac Goldberg" > wrote in message
m...
> wrote:
> > > >>Operation Cyanide: after the Liberty was sunk, and after
> > > >>Egypt had been framed, the US would drop a nuclear bomb
> > > >>on Egypt. Nasser would be gone.
> > If that was the goal, then Israel made (at least...) six mistakes:
> > 1) Attack with a Mirage, a plane with a unique shape that only Israel
had.
>
> Only Israel had the Mirage? Didn't France have any, or was the entire
> production run of Mirages sold to Israel? And wasn't France in on the
> 1956 attack on Egypt? It could have been a repeat performance by
> France. Your assertion that only Israel had Mirages is obviously
> wrong.
>
> The Mirage which attacked the Liberty did not have any identification,
> since the Israelis painted over identifying markings.
>
> That is why the first goal of the Israeli attack was to take out
> Liberty's communications. Israel was successful in destroying the
> antennas on
> Liberty's deck, but Liberty radiomen were able to jury-rig an antenna
> and
> send a message out, which was the only thing that saved the Liberty.
> Israeli attempts to jam all of Liberty's known radio frequencies
> failed.
>
> > 2) Attack with the wrong weapon. For sinking ships you need half iron
> > bombs, like the US used in Midway, not NAPLAM.
>
> It was decided that the Israeli navy, still in its infancy,
> would have the 'honor' of sinking the Liberty. The fact that
> the first four torpedoes missed shows that the Israeli navy
> needed more practice.
>
> > 3) Attack with a single plane.
>
> The Israeli air force successfully took all of Liberty's above
> board antennas out of action. And since one of the antenna was
> a rather large and unique satellite dish, there could be no
> mistaking the Liberty for an Egyptian horse transport. If Egypt had
> equipped a horse transport with a satellite dish, the Israeli
> air force would have sunk such a ship on the first day of
> the war.
>
> > 4) Leave the Liberty enough time to report the first attack, that could
> > not be blamed on the Egyptian air force in that point.
>
> Only the success by the Liberty radiomen in jury rigging an antenna
> allowed the radio message to be sent. According to the Liberty
> radiomen, Israel did attempt to jam all of Liberty's known radio
> frequencies, but the jamming failed because Liberty radoimen were able
> to find a usable frequency that was not jammed.
>
> > 5) Attacking with boats that displayed the Israeli flag.
>
> Operation Cyanide depended on taking out all of Liberty's
> communications ability during the initial surprise air attack. If
> Liberty could not get a message out, then it did not matter if the
> boats displayed the Israeli flag.
>
> > 6) Not finishing the attack by a couple more torpedeos.
>
> Israel intercepted a message that American aircraft had been
> launched from aircraft carriers and were headed towards the Liberty.
> Instead of risking exposure, the entire operation was called off.
>
> > A submarine surprise attack, using 4 torpedeos at once, would
> > be a much better method for framing Egypt.
>
> So you agree that it was possible that Operation Cyanide
> intended to frame Egypt. Did the Israeli navy even have
> submarines in 1967?
>
> > > >>In fact, one of the
> > > >>planes that LBJ had recalled was armed with a nuclear bomb.
> > > >First, LBJ ordered nothing of the kind.
> > > You cannot prove that, since it is impossible to prove a negative.
> > Which is the base for your never ending bull****.
>
> The fact that you need to resort to obscenities shows that you are
> not very secure with your arguments. If you had a strong case, it
> would stand on its own, without the need for insults, name calling
> and/or obscenities.
>
> We hear lawyer-talk like 'Congress investigated the attack five
> times and found no evidence that the attack was intentional.' But
> since Congress never conducted an in-depth investigation devoted
> to the attack on the Liberty, it found no evidence one way or
> another since CONGRESS NEVER INVESTIGATED WHETHER THE ATTACK ON
> THE LIBERTY WAS INTENTIONAL. It could just as accurately have been
> said that Congress found no evidence to show that the attack on the
> Liberty was an accident. See how easy it is to use weasel words?
notice how you continue to lie and post lies in your never ending effort to
put Jews in a bad light! notice you continue to post lies in the effort to
make your Arab paycheck bigger!!
--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman
http://www.usidfvets.com
and
http://www.stopfcc.com
"Issac Goldberg" > wrote in message
om...
> (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> >
> > >We hear lawyer-talk like 'Congress investigated the attack five
> > >times and found no evidence that the attack was intentional.' But
> > >since Congress never conducted an in-depth investigation devoted
> > >to the attack on the Liberty, it found no evidence one way or
> > >another since CONGRESS NEVER INVESTIGATED WHETHER THE ATTACK ON
> > >THE LIBERTY WAS INTENTIONAL. It could just as accurately have been
> > >said that Congress found no evidence to show that the attack on the
> > >Liberty was an accident. See how easy it is to use weasel words?
> >
> > Notice how the weasel ...
>
> Notice how Weeks cannot avoid a personal attack. I guess he realizes
> how weak his arguments are. If he had strong arguments, he would not
> need to make personal attacks, or use name calling and insults, or
> repeatedly use dishonest tactics, like implying that Congress
> investigated the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was
> intentional.
>
> > ... turns everything on its head, in his black-is-white
> > world.
> >
> > Here in the USA one has to bring credible evidence to the table if
you're going
> > to go out and make charges and have any crediblity ...
> >
> > All the material going to Congress never indicated that the IDF attacked
this
> > ship, knowing her to be US, let alone one named the USS Liberty.
>
> What material are you talking about? Are you saying Congress did
> investigate whether the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional?
> Which Congressional committee conducted that investigation? Why
> doesn't Cristol list that investigation on his web site instead
> of the two Congressional investigations which obviously did NOT
> look into the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was
> intentional?
>
> You could have just as easily said that all the material going
> to Congress never indicated that the IDF attack was an accident.
>
> It looks like you are the one who sees the world as black-is-white.
>
> If you are going to say Congress did investigate whether the
> attack on the Liberty was intentional you need to bring credible
> evidence to the table if you're going to have any credibility ...
>
> > Lack of evidence is exactly that -- lack of evidence.
>
> So where is your evidence that Congress held hearings on
> the question of whether the attack was intentional? We
> are still waiting for your answer. Where is the Committee's
> report? No hearings + no report = no investigation.
>
> Lack of evidence is exactly that - lack of evidence.
>
> > But what the heck, let's even claim this attack was a joint US-Israeli
> > operation as this poster does and really muddy the waters ...
>
> From a story which appeared in the Washington Post:
>
> 'Asked on camera by the BBC about Operation Cyanide, Rafi Eitan,
> who was with the Israeli secret service in 1967, smiled
> cryptically and said: "I know what I am able to tell you and
> where I have to stop. And here I stop."
>
> 'When the same interviewers questioned former CIA chief Helms
> on camera, he confirmed the covert function of the 303
> Committee but said, "You'll have to ask McNamara" about
> Operation Cyanide. When Robert McNamara, secretary of defense
> in 1967, was asked on camera about Operation Cyanide,
> he replied, "I won't say a word about the Liberty." Why?'
>
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8861-2003Jan31¬Found=true
Read the book. or do you need to be spoon fed!
--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman
http://www.usidfvets.com
and
http://www.stopfcc.com
"Issac Goldberg" > wrote in message
om...
> (Mike Weeks) wrote:
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> >
> > >> All the material going to Congress never indicated that the IDF
attacked
> > this
> > >> ship, knowing her to be US, let alone one named the USS Liberty.
> > >
> > >What material are you talking about? Are you saying Congress did
> > >investigate whether the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional?
> > >Which Congressional committee conducted that investigation?
> >
> > Read Cristol's book, chapter 12: "America Investigates."
>
> A nice evasion. I ask which Committee, and Weeks again says,
> "read Cristol." [The reason Weeks needed to evade my question
> is because Congress NEVER held an investigation which looked
> into the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was
> intentional or not. And I'm sure in response to this post,
> Weeks will again evade the question and respond with even
> more insults, name calling and character assassination. It's
> what he does best.]
>
> Here are some comments by Senators at one of the alleged
> investigations cited by Cristol, the hearings on the Foreign
> Assistance Act of 1967, held by the Senate Foreign Relations
> Committee in 1967 (after the Kidd inquiry had issued its
> report):
>
> <start>
>
> Senator Hickenlooper: I think it was a deliberate assault on this
> ship. I think they had ample opportunity to identify it as an
> American ship. I may be utterly wrong, but I do recall that some
> time ago we had some difficulties in the Bay of Tonkin where at
> night without full identification or really full proof it was
> assumed that certain torpedo boats made rather menacing approaches
> to one of our destroyers and we rushed over here with the Tonkin
> Bay resolution right away. A war was unleashed.
> What have we done about the Liberty? Have we become so placid,
> so far as Israel is concerned or so far as that area is concerned,
> that we will take the killing of 37 American boys and the
> wounding of a lot more and the attack of an American ship in the
> open sea in good weather? We have seemed to say: "Oh, well, boys
> will be boys." What are you going to do about it! It is most
> offensive to me.
>
> Senator Hickenlooper: It is inconceivable to me that the ship
> could not have been identified. According to everything I saw
> the American flag was flying on this ship. It had a particular
> configuration. Even a landlubber could look at it and see that
> it has no characteristic configuration comparable to the so-called
> Egyptian ship they now try to say they mistook it for. If these
> people were as well trained as they allege they are, and did what
> they did, I donâ?Tt know. It just doesnâ?Tt add up to me. It is not
> at all satisfactory.
>
> Senator Aiken: I think, not only the committee, but the public
> wants better information than they have had so far.
>
> Senator Hickenlooper: The public is thoroughly dissatisfied
> with the situation. I donâ?Tt know. It is the seemingly cavalier
> attitude expressed by Israel in some ways apparently accepted
> by us on a very tragic situation. I think there is utterly no
> excuse for it.
>
> <end>
>
> If this is your best evidence that Congress thoroughly
> investigated whether the attack on the Liberty was
> intentional or not, both you and Cristol have thoroughly
> discredited yourselves. But prove me wrong, tell me
> which Congressional Committee held hearings and
> investigated whether the attack on the Liberty was
> an accident.
ROFLOL if you really think that these were carrier based ask .
they will tell you if the Mirage III was able to
be carrier based or not.
I never saw a tail hook on any in the IAF stocks
--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman
http://www.usidfvets.com
and
http://www.stopfcc.com
"Issac Goldberg" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote in message
>...
> > (Issac Goldberg) wrote in message
>...
> > > wrote:
> > > > If that was the goal, then Israel made (at least...) six mistakes:
> > > > 1) Attack with a Mirage, a plane with a unique shape that only
Israel had.
> >
> > > Only Israel had the Mirage? Didn't France have any, or was the entire
> > > production run of Mirages sold to Israel?
> >
> > A Mirage could not fly from France to Al-Arish, you idiot.
>
> Ever hear of a thing called an aircraft carrier?
>
> The fact that you need to resort to name calling indicates
> that you feel your arguments are too weak to stand on their
> own. If you were confident in your assertions, there would
> be no need to engage in name calling.
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message >...
# If that was the goal, then Israel made (at least...) six mistakes:
# 1) Attack with a Mirage, a plane with a unique shape that only Israel had.
% Only Israel had the Mirage? Didn't France have any, or was the entire
% production run of Mirages sold to Israel?
> > A Mirage could not fly from France to Al-Arish, you idiot.
> Ever hear of a thing called an aircraft carrier?
Sending an aircraft carrier through the Med., without the Sixth
Fleet realizing that, would be a neat trick.
Landing Mirage 3, that did not have a hook, on the 265 metter
deck of the Clemenceau would be an even more interesting tricks.
(Yes, I saw a Mirage 3 close by. Unlike other planes I saw close
by (A4, F4, F15), it did not have a hook.)
Anyway, the point that you make a real effort to miss, is that the
Liberty crew missed the unique, "tail with no horizontal" shape of
the Mirage. Somehow the LVA expected a Mirage to recognize the
Liberty, even though none of them recognized the Mirage...
> The fact that you need to resort to name calling indicates
> that you feel your arguments are too weak to stand on their
> own. If you were confident in your assertions, there would
> be no need to engage in name calling.
You deserve no respect because you make no effort to back your claims.
E.g. when you made the claim of Mirage 3 landing on aircraft carrier,
I took the time to search what aircraft carrier France had in 1967.
I found in www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/clemenceau.htm
some data like:
@Length 265.00 m
.................................................. ...........
@Aircraft F-8E (40 aircrafts)
(From the picture it is obvious that the runway is shorter.)
I looked for data about Mirage landing distance, and could not
find the exact number, but some interesting claims. E.g.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Dassault+Mirage+III
@The delta wing has a number of limitations. Delta-winged aircraft have
@a long take-off run, since flaps are not practical as they would
@simply force the nose down; high landing speed;
(To me, "high landing speed" sounds like "a problem with short runways.")
I continued to search and found some data about landing distances of
other airplanes, e.g. http://antislashe.free.fr/mirages.htm
@ Minimum Take-off Distance Minimum Landing Distance
@Mirage 2000 1,650 ft. (503m) 2,000 ft. (610m)
@F16 C 1,500 ft. (457m) 3,000 ft. (914m)
@F18 C 1,700 ft. (518m) 2,500 ft. (762m)
You did not waste anytime to check if your claims make any sense.
It is not "a honest mistake," it is "laziness."
Issac Goldberg
July 11th 04, 06:20 AM
>wrote:
>Read the book.
The same response as Weeks. I ask which Committee, Goldman
says 'read the book.' It was a nice evasion when Weeks used
that response, but Goldman adds nothing new, he just repeats
Weeks. In effect, he said 'me, too.'
Congress NEVER held an investigation which looked into the
question of whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional
or not. If Goldman is aware of a Congressional Committee that
did hold hearings on whether the attack on the Liberty was
an accident or not, I invite him to share that knowledge.
If that Committee issued a report, let us know about it.
But if all you have are insults, name calling and evasions,
then you are just a carbon copy of Weeks.
>"Issac Goldberg" >wrote
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>All the material going to Congress never indicated that the IDF attacked this
>>>>>ship, knowing her to be US, let alone one named the USS Liberty.
>>>>What material are you talking about? Are you saying Congress did
>>>>investigate whether the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional?
>>>>Which Congressional committee conducted that investigation?
>>>Read Cristol's book, chapter 12: "America Investigates."
>>
>>A nice evasion. I ask which Committee, and Weeks again says,
>>"read Cristol."
>>
>>Here are some comments by Senators at one of the alleged
>>investigations cited by Cristol, the hearings on the Foreign
>>Assistance Act of 1967, held by the Senate Foreign Relations
>>Committee in 1967 (after the Kidd inquiry had issued its
>>report):
>>
>><start>
>>
>>Senator Hickenlooper: I think it was a deliberate assault on this
>>ship. I think they had ample opportunity to identify it as an
>>American ship. I may be utterly wrong, but I do recall that some
>>time ago we had some difficulties in the Bay of Tonkin where at
>>night without full identification or really full proof it was
>>assumed that certain torpedo boats made rather menacing approaches
>>to one of our destroyers and we rushed over here with the Tonkin
>>Bay resolution right away. A war was unleashed.
>> What have we done about the Liberty? Have we become so placid,
>>so far as Israel is concerned or so far as that area is concerned,
>>that we will take the killing of 37 American boys and the
>>wounding of a lot more and the attack of an American ship in the
>>open sea in good weather? We have seemed to say: "Oh, well, boys
>>will be boys." What are you going to do about it! It is most
>>offensive to me.
>>
>>Senator Hickenlooper: It is inconceivable to me that the ship
>>could not have been identified. According to everything I saw
>>the American flag was flying on this ship. It had a particular
>>configuration. Even a landlubber could look at it and see that
>>it has no characteristic configuration comparable to the so-called
>>Egyptian ship they now try to say they mistook it for. If these
>>people were as well trained as they allege they are, and did what
>>they did, I don't know. It just doesn't add up to me. It is not
>>at all satisfactory.
>>
>>Senator Aiken: I think, not only the committee, but the public
>>wants better information than they have had so far.
>>
>>Senator Hickenlooper: The public is thoroughly dissatisfied
>>with the situation. I don't know. It is the seemingly cavalier
>>attitude expressed by Israel in some ways apparently accepted
>>by us on a very tragic situation. I think there is utterly no
>>excuse for it.
>>
>><end>
>>
>>If this is your best evidence that Congress thoroughly
>>investigated whether the attack on the Liberty was
>>intentional or not, both you and Cristol have thoroughly
>>discredited yourselves. But prove me wrong, tell me
>>which Congressional Committee held hearings and
>>investigated whether the attack on the Liberty was
>>an accident.
Roberta Hatch
July 11th 04, 02:04 PM
> wrote:
>(Yes, I saw a Mirage 3 close by. Unlike other planes I saw close
>by (A4, F4, F15), it did not have a hook.)
You've seen an F-15 with a tailhook? Where?
Bobbi
---
Roberta Hatch '65 Panhead
Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, CA (This space for rent)
Issac Goldberg
July 11th 04, 09:52 PM
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
wrote:
>
> >Read the book. or do you need to be spoon fed!
> It appears in his black-is-white world if something ain't on the net, it
> doesn't exist. Appears to have a serious problem regarding doing anything
> which isn't spoon fed to him.
>
> MW
Weeks continues to evade telling us which Congressional
Committee investigated whether the attack on the Liberty
was intentional or not. No surprise there, since there
was no such investigation. To make up for this inadequacy,
Weeks turns to his typical dishonest tactics: insults,
name calling and character assassination. How pathetic. Well,
since he uses these same tactics on the crew members from the
Liberty, I feel honored to be treated similarly. Go ahead Weeks,
I have survived worse than you can dish out. It continues to
demonstrate that you have no case. You are on the losing side
of this argument, and it shows more and more each time you post.
All Weeks can do is muddy the waters. He is not interested
in finding the truth, his job is to hide, to distort, to
obfuscate the truth. It appears, Weeks, that the 'black-is-
white world' label is more appropriately applied to you. In
Weeks' world, the decision NOT to hold a Congressional
investigation is actually a Congressional investigation! You
can't get more 'black-is-white' than that.
Issac Goldberg
July 11th 04, 10:18 PM
sci.military.naval, talk.politics.mideast, rec.aviation.military.naval
wrote:
> (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
>
> # If that was the goal, then Israel made (at least...) six mistakes:
> # 1) Attack with a Mirage, a plane with a unique shape that only Israel had.
>
> % Only Israel had the Mirage? Didn't France have any, or was the entire
> % production run of Mirages sold to Israel?
>
> > > A Mirage could not fly from France to Al-Arish, you idiot.
>
> > Ever hear of a thing called an aircraft carrier?
>
> Sending an aircraft carrier through the Med., without the Sixth
> Fleet realizing that, would be a neat trick.
Hillel's errors are revealed, and Hillel tries changing the
subject. Again.
I refuted your assertions that:
1) Only Israel had the Mirage, and
2) A Mirage could not fly from France to Al-Arish.
The Sixth fleet has nothing to do with your two mistakes.
Just like all the other 'it-was-an-accident' proponents,
you are unable to admit a mistake, even when it is a whopper.
Instead you use name calling and try to change the subject.
It's an indication that you feel you have a very weak case,
since there would be no need for you to call people names if
you had a strong case.
#(Yes, I saw a Mirage 3 close by. Unlike other planes I saw close
#by (A4, F4, F15), it did not have a hook.)
Roberta Hatch > wrote in message >...
> You've seen an F-15 with a tailhook? Where?
Israeli Airforce, 1978.
It was a small one, like the A4's tailhook.
It seems like other people saw the same thing, e.g.:
################################################## ######
From: )
Subject: Re: Does the F117 have a tailhook?
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Date: 1997/02/04
I don't diasagree about the F-117 not having a tailhook. However, according to
Clancy's Fighter Wing, the F-15 has a tailhook. However I have no idea what it
is used for, as the gear are not string enough for cats and traps.
################################################## ########################
Must be good drugs on the planet you live on
in that area the IAF was the only airforce with that plane. and any coming
from France would have been picked up on RADAR
--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman
http://www.usidfvets.com
and
http://www.stopfcc.com
"Issac Goldberg" > wrote in message
om...
> sci.military.naval, talk.politics.mideast, rec.aviation.military.naval
>
> wrote:
> > (Issac Goldberg) wrote:
> >
> > # If that was the goal, then Israel made (at least...) six mistakes:
> > # 1) Attack with a Mirage, a plane with a unique shape that only Israel
had.
> >
> > % Only Israel had the Mirage? Didn't France have any, or was the entire
> > % production run of Mirages sold to Israel?
> >
> > > > A Mirage could not fly from France to Al-Arish, you idiot.
> >
> > > Ever hear of a thing called an aircraft carrier?
> >
> > Sending an aircraft carrier through the Med., without the Sixth
> > Fleet realizing that, would be a neat trick.
>
> Hillel's errors are revealed, and Hillel tries changing the
> subject. Again.
>
> I refuted your assertions that:
>
> 1) Only Israel had the Mirage, and
>
> 2) A Mirage could not fly from France to Al-Arish.
>
> The Sixth fleet has nothing to do with your two mistakes.
>
> Just like all the other 'it-was-an-accident' proponents,
> you are unable to admit a mistake, even when it is a whopper.
> Instead you use name calling and try to change the subject.
> It's an indication that you feel you have a very weak case,
> since there would be no need for you to call people names if
> you had a strong case.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.