View Full Version : USS LIBERTY VETERAN ASSOC FILES WAR CRIMES AGAINST ISRAEL
USS LIBERTY VETERAN ASSOC FILES WAR CRIMES AGAINST ISRAEL
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=35820
Mike
June 5th 05, 07:44 PM
ROTFLOL ---
Wonder why this part of CJCS Instruction 5810..01B (effective date 28
March 2002 BTW) wasn't
clear to the LVA. It states:
"The responsible combatant commander will submit a message report, ..."
In case it escapes the LVA leadership, none of them are a "responsible
combatant commander" and
the event in question took place back in 1967 ...
Nothing like spinning their wheels getting no traction -- still
MW
Another post on behalf of his beloved Israel by Mike Weeks as he has
been traitorously pushing Israel's 'story' for years over the actual
American sailors and marines who were on the USS Liberty when it was
treacherously attacked by Israel (our 'ally'):
http://members.aol.com/w4lmk/sdari/
Mike Weeks is also the 'amateur historian' mentioned in the Navy Times
article (which Captain Ward Boston first came out in about Israel
having deliberately attacked the USS Liberty as one can read by
scrolling down to the article at the following URL):
Attack on the USS Liberty (be sure to read about fellow Israeli
apologist A. Jay Cristol at the following URL):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=2916
More about Israel's treacherous attack on the USS Liberty can be found
at the following URL:
http://www.ussliberty.com
Forwarded:
On Monday, June 6, 2005, the attorney for the USS
Liberty Veterans
Association will file a report with the Department of
Defense detailing
the war crimes the Israelis committed during their
June 8, 1967 attack
on the USS Liberty.
According to the directive that governs the submission
of the report the
Department of Defense is required to conduct an
investigation. If they
do not, we have recourse.
A copy of the press release is at
http://www.ussliberty.org/report/pressrelease.pdf
A copy of the report in PDF format is at
http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.pdf
A copy of the report in HTML format is at
http://ussliberty.org/report/report.htm
We would appreciate it if you could help us publicize
this report as
widely as possibly by submitting our press release to
local newspapers
and news outlets.
Thanks in advance.
Warmest regards,
Joe Meadors
USS Liberty Survivor
http://www.ussliberty.com
Ian MacLure
June 6th 05, 01:27 AM
wrote in
ps.com:
> USS LIBERTY VETERAN ASSOC FILES WAR CRIMES AGAINST ISRAEL
isn't amazing what a crayon, .37 and the USPS will do for you.
Of course that and $4.50(?) will get you a coffee at Starbuck's
IBM
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Mike
June 6th 05, 07:34 AM
Truthseeker wrote:
> Forwarded:
>
>
> On Monday, June 6, 2005, the attorney for the USS
> Liberty Veterans
> Association will file a report with the Department of
> Defense detailing
> the war crimes the Israelis committed during their
> June 8, 1967 attack
> on the USS Liberty.
Is this the same LVA attorney who the LVA claim in its "press release"
was "an Air Force intelligence officer in Vietnam in 1967" yet has
stated he was in fact, an E-4? That's the same Gotcher?
Is this the same "press release" dated _June 3_ which states:
<start>
The "Report" _was filed_ (emphasis added) with by James R. Gotcher,
General Legal Counsel, USS - LVA, with the Secretary of Defense at the
Pentagon on June 8, the 38th anniversary of the attack
on the USS Liberty.
<end>
> According to the directive that governs the submission
> of the report the
> Department of Defense is required to conduct an
> investigation. If they
> do not, we have recourse.
Which might well be to threaten to have the LVA leadership collectively
hold its breath until the whole world accepts its version of an
incident, now close to 38 years ago, and long ago settled.
That might just do the trick ... <g>
Mike
June 6th 05, 07:46 AM
Truthseeker wrote:
> Another post ...
of nonsense.
BTW, what happens if the DOD responds with advise to the LVA that it
should read:
_The Liberty Incident_ by CAPT A. Jay Cristol, USNR(Ret.) and/or visit
http://libertyincident.com
in order to gain a more accurate understanding of what not only truly
happened on 8 June 1967, but what nonsense has been brought forth since
Ennes wrote his "I was there" book?
Think about it ... <g>
Figures Mike Weeks would post A. J. Cristol's 'The Liberty Incident'
URL as A. J. Cristol is a full blow Zionist Jew who puts the interests
of Israel before America based on how he continues to support Israeli
lies over the eyewitness testimony of the American sailors actually
onboard the USS Liberty when they ship was treacherously attacked by
Israel. Go to www.ussliberty.com for the truth. See the following
article by the prestigious Naval Institute as well:
Friendless Fire:
http://www.usni.org/Proceeding=ADs/Articles03/PROwalsh06.htm
Friendless Fire:
http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles03/PROwalsh06.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------------------------------
USS LIBERTY VETERAN ASSOC FILES WAR CRIMES CHARGES AGAINST ISRAEL;
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk=AD/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=3D35820
"So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another
produces a
variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the
illusion
of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest
exists,
and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former
into a
participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate
inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the
favorite
nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure
the
nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought
to have
been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to
retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld . . .
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to
believe
me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be
constantly
awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one
of the
most baneful foes of republican government . . . Excessive partiality
for one
foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they
actuate
to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the
arts of
influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of
the
favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and
dupes
usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their
interests.
" . . . nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate
antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for
others
should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable
feelings
toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward
another an
habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It
is a
slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is
sufficient to
lead it astray from its duty and its interest."
-- President George Washington
Farewell Address
September 26, 1796
Todays Holy Wars News:=20
http://www.antiwar.com
Mike
June 6th 05, 09:48 AM
For actual eyewitness testimony one go to either:
http://www.ussliberty.org/nci.txt
or for the complete record:
http://libertyincident.com/USNcourt.htm
and if one is interested in a response to the multiple errors of the
Walsh article, then visit:
http://libertyincident.com/walsh-response.htm
Merlin Dorfman
June 7th 05, 07:05 PM
In rec.aviation.military Mike > wrote:
> Truthseeker wrote:
>> Forwarded:
>>
>>
>> On Monday, June 6, 2005, the attorney for the USS
>> Liberty Veterans
>> Association will file a report with the Department of
>> Defense detailing
>> the war crimes the Israelis committed during their
>> June 8, 1967 attack
>> on the USS Liberty.
> Is this the same LVA attorney who the LVA claim in its "press release"
> was "an Air Force intelligence officer in Vietnam in 1967" yet has
> stated he was in fact, an E-4? That's the same Gotcher?
> Is this the same "press release" dated _June 3_ which states:
> <start>
> The "Report" _was filed_ (emphasis added) with by James R. Gotcher,
> General Legal Counsel, USS - LVA, with the Secretary of Defense at the
> Pentagon on June 8, the 38th anniversary of the attack
> on the USS Liberty.
> <end>
>> According to the directive that governs the submission
>> of the report the
>> Department of Defense is required to conduct an
>> investigation. If they
>> do not, we have recourse.
> Which might well be to threaten to have the LVA leadership collectively
> hold its breath until the whole world accepts its version of an
> incident, now close to 38 years ago, and long ago settled.
> That might just do the trick ... <g>
Has anybody ever presented a credible reason WHY Israel would
deliberately attack an American ship? Or, if the intent was to
sink it and leave no survivors, why they did neither?
Roger Conroy
June 7th 05, 07:21 PM
"Merlin Dorfman" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.military Mike > wrote:
>> Truthseeker wrote:
>>> Forwarded:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, June 6, 2005, the attorney for the USS
>>> Liberty Veterans
>>> Association will file a report with the Department of
>>> Defense detailing
>>> the war crimes the Israelis committed during their
>>> June 8, 1967 attack
>>> on the USS Liberty.
>
>> Is this the same LVA attorney who the LVA claim in its "press release"
>> was "an Air Force intelligence officer in Vietnam in 1967" yet has
>> stated he was in fact, an E-4? That's the same Gotcher?
>
>> Is this the same "press release" dated _June 3_ which states:
>
>> <start>
>> The "Report" _was filed_ (emphasis added) with by James R. Gotcher,
>> General Legal Counsel, USS - LVA, with the Secretary of Defense at the
>> Pentagon on June 8, the 38th anniversary of the attack
>> on the USS Liberty.
>> <end>
>
>>> According to the directive that governs the submission
>>> of the report the
>>> Department of Defense is required to conduct an
>>> investigation. If they
>>> do not, we have recourse.
>
>> Which might well be to threaten to have the LVA leadership collectively
>> hold its breath until the whole world accepts its version of an
>> incident, now close to 38 years ago, and long ago settled.
>
>> That might just do the trick ... <g>
>
> Has anybody ever presented a credible reason WHY Israel would
> deliberately attack an American ship? Or, if the intent was to
> sink it and leave no survivors, why they did neither?
>
Aas anyone supplied a credible reason why a "neutral" US warship was hanging
around right in the middle of a hot warzone?
Mike
June 7th 05, 10:15 PM
Merlin Dorfman wrote:
>
> Has anybody ever presented a credible reason WHY Israel would
> deliberately attack an American ship? Or, if the intent was to
> sink it and leave no survivors, why they did neither?
The key part being c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e ...
The idea that a nation would make a deliberate attack upon a warship of
the only western power giving it *support* in a regional war against
multiple enemies ..., well, let's just say it doesn't make any sense
whatsoever and for those claiming otherwise, they best come to the
"table" w/ solid and very credible evidence of that supposed "reason."
MW
Mike
June 7th 05, 10:16 PM
Merlin Dorfman wrote:
>
> Has anybody ever presented a credible reason WHY Israel would
> deliberately attack an American ship? Or, if the intent was to
> sink it and leave no survivors, why they did neither?
The key part being c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e ...
The idea that a nation would make a deliberate attack upon a warship of
the only western power giving it *support* in a regional war against
multiple enemies ..., well, let's just say it doesn't make any sense
whatsoever and for those claiming otherwise, they best come to the
"table" w/ solid and very credible evidence of that supposed "reason."
MW
On 7 Jun 2005 14:15:59 -0700, "Mike" > wrote:
>Merlin Dorfman wrote:
>>
>> Has anybody ever presented a credible reason WHY Israel would
>> deliberately attack an American ship? Or, if the intent was to
>> sink it and leave no survivors, why they did neither?
>
>The key part being c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e ...
>
>The idea that a nation would make a deliberate attack upon a warship of
>the only western power giving it *support* in a regional war against
>multiple enemies ..., well, let's just say it doesn't make any sense
>whatsoever and for those claiming otherwise, they best come to the
>"table" w/ solid and very credible evidence of that supposed "reason."
Isn't this the same nation that employed Johathon Pollard? Does that
give us a clue? Or not?
LIBERTY was intell ship gathering intel. Somebody on the Israeli side
didn't like that. So they did something about it. You don't have to
sink it and kill the crew to stop it.
As an ASW type in S2s and P3s I have spent a LOT of time at 100-200
feet rigging ships. It's not hard to do and there was a specific
proceedure taught in the S2 RAG. It's easier to rig a ship in a helo,
harder in "fast mover."
The idea that the Israeli pilots made a mistake in ID is not credible.
The ship was marked in the standard fashion, including the name on the
stern. The ship was surveyeled by a helo minutes before the attack
began.
Even if you can "write off" an intitial "error" to Israeli Army pilots
as being blind, illiterate, and stupid the Israeli Navy took a hand in
the operation. They are professional naval officers. They have
binoculars. They have proper recognition manuals. What's their
excuse?
I don't claim any deep insights, here, only an operators view of SSSC.
If the attack was accidental then the Israeli government really
"screwed the pooch" and only the cowardice of the Johnson
Administration saved them. If it was intentional, either as an act of
state or of some rogue faction the cowardice of the Johnson
Adminstration saved them.
Bill Kambic
Veteran: VS-27, VS-30, VS-73, VP-93
Mike
June 7th 05, 10:53 PM
Roger Conroy wrote:
> "Merlin Dorfman" > wrote in message
> >
> > Has anybody ever presented a credible reason WHY Israel would
> > deliberately attack an American ship? Or, if the intent was to
> > sink it and leave no survivors, why they did neither?
> >
>
> Aas anyone supplied a credible reason why a "neutral" US warship was hang=
ing
> around right in the middle of a hot warzone?
Two suggestions on that score:
First: In the 2004 FRUS Vol. XIX is a doc., #224.
Available here:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xix/28059.htm
which states:
<start>
=EF=BB=BF224. Memorandum From Peter Jessup of the National Security Council
Staff to the President's Special Assistant (Rostow)/1/
Washington, June 8, 1967.
/1/Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, NSC Special
Committee Files, Liberty. Top Secret. Also sent to Bundy and Bromley
Smith.
SUBJECT
Why the USS Liberty Was Where It Was
Attachment 1 shows the JRC forecast for June with the approved mission
of the USS Liberty./2/
/2/Not attached.
This was changed by a routine submission on 2 June. These are normally
noted by Jessup for the White House, McAfee for State, and Chapin for
CIA. Being proposed by DOD, it is assumed this had full Pentagon
approval, in this case Vance.
Routine changes without specific indications as to number of nautical
miles off shore are merely noted and entered in the book.
It is assumed that such a ship will operate under the discretion of
COMSIXTH FLEET and USCINCEUR.
It would seem to have been unnecessary at the time to submit this
particular track change to the principals at the date submitted.
Let me make myself clear. There is no doubt in my mind that JRC is in
the clear, having submitted this change in plans in good faith and on a
timely basis.
Whether the actual nautical distance of the USS Liberty from the UAR
coast on 8 June was unwise in view of the hostilities or whether this
should be gauged as an accident of war is for others to judge.
[Omitted here is a paragraph unrelated to the Liberty.]
PJ
<end>
And second, which goes into the details (such as they are) which
supports the above statement is available here:
http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/index.cfm
Pull down the PDF file of the 1981 NSA report on the incident and read
thru it; especially chapters 2 & 3.
Now, as to why the ship continued on to its assigned operating area
after 5 June -- when the ship was still in the central Med -- as the
southeastern corner of the Med became a "hot war zone" is an
interesting study in what's known as command-control-communications
[failure thereof in this case, w/ tragic results.]
MW
Mike
June 8th 05, 12:06 AM
wrote:
> On 7 Jun 2005 14:15:59 -0700, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> >Merlin Dorfman wrote:
> >>
> >> Has anybody ever presented a credible reason WHY Israel would
> >> deliberately attack an American ship? Or, if the intent was to
> >> sink it and leave no survivors, why they did neither?
> >
> >The key part being c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e ...
> >
> >The idea that a nation would make a deliberate attack upon a warship of
> >the only western power giving it *support* in a regional war against
> >multiple enemies ..., well, let's just say it doesn't make any sense
> >whatsoever and for those claiming otherwise, they best come to the
> >"table" w/ solid and very credible evidence of that supposed "reason."
>
> Isn't this the same nation that employed Johathon Pollard? Does that
> give us a clue? Or not?
Or not. As it's apples (a nation fighting a war and the actions of its
military in that war) and oranges (a nation dealing w/ the collection
of intelligence which it believes can be useful). Besides, from what
little I've read on Pollard's actions, I understand he first went to
the Israelis, and that was how many years after the SDW? ...
> LIBERTY was intell ship gathering intel. Somebody on the Israeli side
> didn't like that.
"Somebody"? The issue, again, is "credible" It needs to be credible.
And as one retired Israeli gov't official has stated:
<start>
This vessel had entered the fighting area to keep Washington in touch
with the course of the war. In view of the global responsibilities of
the United States, this was a legitimate purpose, but it seemed
inevitable that those who took risks would sometimes incur tragic
sacrifice.
<end>
FWIW, that's from the former then-Foreign Minister, Abba Eban.
So once again, "somebody"? Who the heck is this "somebody"?
> So they did something about it. You don't have to
> sink it and kill the crew to stop it.
Oh, so you leave survivors which can later tell tales of what happened
to them? You send out MTBs which are marked and flying the Israeli
flag, and you put IAF helos overhead w/ the Star of David clearly seen?
How is this credible?
I'll ignore here the bogus claim of the jets being "unmarked."
>
> As an ASW type in S2s and P3s I have spent a LOT of time at 100-200
> feet rigging ships. It's not hard to do and there was a specific
> proceedure taught in the S2 RAG. It's easier to rig a ship in a helo,
> harder in "fast mover."
Does this mean "identifying" ships from the air? If so, then it
addresses what was your training, not what IAF jet jocks were trained
for, and had experience with -- or more importantly, not trained for,
and no experience with.
But as one retired USN type who spent time going "slow and low" has
stated:
<start>
In reconstruction of the attack, the Liberty crew makes much of flying
the American flag, as if it would somehow protect them in harm's way
(see Ennes, p. 152). Little does the crew appreciate the difficulty of
identifying a ship from an aircraft merely on the basis of a flag or
even a hull number (GTR 5 displayed by the Liberty). Based on my
experience of flying many "low and slow" reconnaissance flights over
ships in the Med and Atlantic with VQ2, unless the flights are almost
overhead, target identification is virtually impossible. High-powered
binoculars are not much good in a bouncing low-level aircraft.
<end>
This from Nowicki in his material he had sent to author Bamford. The
complete material from Nowicki is available here however:
http://libertyincident.com/nowicki.htm
>
> The idea that the Israeli pilots made a mistake in ID is not credible.
The jet jocks, w/o specific maritime recognition training? Or if this
is in reference to helo pilots, then never mind, as the following part
addresses that.
> The ship was marked in the standard fashion, including the name on the
> stern. The ship was surveyeled by a helo minutes before the attack
> began.
Okay, let's stop right here. That last is simply incorrect. It's not
factual. No helo surveyed the Liberty "minutes before the attack
began."
IAF helos were overhead AFTER the torpedo attack -- which took place at
approx. 1435 Bravo. The helos were overhead around 1500-1505 Bravo.
This fact is well established and documented.
I will assume you've confused Zulu w/ Bravo time zones for when the
helos were overhead as recorded by the VQ-2 EC-121. The EC-121
recordings are Zulu. Add two hours to get Bravo and they match
Liberty's logs, for example, as to when the helos were overhead.
>
> Even if you can "write off" an intitial "error" to Israeli Army pilots
> as being blind, illiterate, and stupid the Israeli Navy took a hand in
> the operation.
That they did.
> They are professional naval officers. They have
> binoculars. They have proper recognition manuals. What's their
> excuse?
That one, the ship was abaze and smoking heavy and as they started to
signal this ship -- the ship not only signaled back the same signal,
but two, she opened fire on them. The term "professional naval
officers" has to be understood in the context of what exactly was their
training and what did they not only encounter, but what was their
perception (rightly or wrongly) on this, the fourth day of a war -- a
ship that was already assumed to be enemy. As to "proper recognition
manuals" -- the Israeli Navy was concerned about the Arab Navies, not
the US Navy. The Israeli Navy did not sail the seven seas for example.
Their sea-going manuals (at least for those operating MTBS) dealt w/
the Arabs.
Cristol covers this aspect in some details. Believe the Israelis or
not, it's what his research uncovered -- as it dealt with how the
Israeli Navy of 1967 operated.
And here's what Liberty herself reported as to her condition when the
MTBs came up on her:
<start>
O 192026Z JUN 67
FM CINCUSNAVEUR
TO SECNAV
..=2E.
LIBERTY INCIDENT (U)
1=2E FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS POSED BY SECNAV:
A. WAS SMOKE FROM FIRES ABOARD LIBERTY FOLLOWING
AIR ATTACK HEAVY ENOUGH TO PRECLUDE IDENTIFICATION?
YES, PARTICULARLY BY TORPEDO BOATS APPROACHING
FROM STARBOARD QUARTER. SURFACE WINDS WERE
NEGLIGIBLE SO RELATIVE WIND DUE PRIMARILY TO
LIBERTY'S SOA. SMOKE FROM BURNING MOTOR WHALE-
BOAT (STARBOARD WAIST) AND STACK (ABAFT ISLAND
STRUCTURE) MUST HAVE PROVIDED EFFECTIVE SCREENING
OF HOLIDAY COLORS FLYING FROM PORT HALYARD.
..=2E.
C=2E DID LIBERTY ATTEMPT TO ANSWER SIGNALS FROM
PATROL BOATS PRIOR TO ATTACK? YES. PATROL BOAT
SIGNALS WERE PARTIALLY OBLITERATED BY FLAMES AND
SMOKE FROM BURNING MOTOR WHALEBOAT ABAFT STARBOARD
WIND OF BRIDGE. PATROL BOAT SIGNALS COULD NOT BE
UNDERSTOOD BY LIBERTY WHO ATTEMPTED ESTABLISH
COMMUNICATIONS BY ALDIS LAMP. OTHER SIGNAL LIGHTS
HAD BEEN SHOT AWAY.
..=2E.
<end>
> I don't claim any deep insights, here, only an operators view of SSSC.
Which is fine, for the USN.
> If the attack was accidental then the Israeli government really
> "screwed the pooch" and only the cowardice of the Johnson
> Administration saved them.
>From what?
> If it was intentional, either as an act of
> state or of some rogue faction the cowardice of the Johnson
> Adminstration saved them.
Well, as the Johnson adimistration determined:
<start>
=EF=BB=BFJohnson ordered a thorough investigation of the facts surrounding
the attack. After extensive investigations, the Central Intelligence
Agency and the National Security Agency concluded that there was
=E2=80=9Clittle doubt=E2=80=9D that the attacking Israeli units =E2=80=9Cfa=
iled to
identify the Liberty as a US ship before or during the attack=E2=80=9D and
that they had mistakenly identified the ship as Egyptian. Subsequently,
the Central Intelligence Agency repeated the conclusion that the
Israeli attack was a mistake although it was =E2=80=9Cboth incongruous and
indicative of gross negligence.=E2=80=9D Clark Clifford also examined the
evidence at Walt Rostow=E2=80=99s request and concluded that there was no
evidence that the attack was intentional.
<end>
This from the DOS FRUS Vol. XIX Summary document.
As we all know, it's not an accepted view by some; thanks mostly to the
USG keeping so much of the material classified for too many years, and
the availability of the LVA to generate stories which some accept at
face value and never double-check against actual documentation.=20
MW
Merlin Dorfman
June 8th 05, 12:10 AM
In rec.aviation.military wrote:
> On 7 Jun 2005 14:15:59 -0700, "Mike" > wrote:
>>Merlin Dorfman wrote:
>>>
>>> Has anybody ever presented a credible reason WHY Israel would
>>> deliberately attack an American ship? Or, if the intent was to
>>> sink it and leave no survivors, why they did neither?
>>
>>The key part being c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e ...
>>
>>The idea that a nation would make a deliberate attack upon a warship of
>>the only western power giving it *support* in a regional war against
>>multiple enemies ..., well, let's just say it doesn't make any sense
>>whatsoever and for those claiming otherwise, they best come to the
>>"table" w/ solid and very credible evidence of that supposed "reason."
> Isn't this the same nation that employed Johathon Pollard? Does that
> give us a clue? Or not?
...which says they would have known everything the US was
learning from the Liberty, so the "damage" it could do was minimal.
> LIBERTY was intell ship gathering intel. Somebody on the Israeli side
> didn't like that. So they did something about it. You don't have to
> sink it and kill the crew to stop it.
If you assume Israel deliberately set out to do a "mission
kill" on the Liberty, i.e., to stop it from collecting intelligence
(which I still find not particularly credible), there was, as you
say, no need to try to sink it and kill the crew. Much less severe
action would have sufficed.
> As an ASW type in S2s and P3s I have spent a LOT of time at 100-200
> feet rigging ships. It's not hard to do and there was a specific
> proceedure taught in the S2 RAG. It's easier to rig a ship in a helo,
> harder in "fast mover."
I assume "rigging" a ship has something to do with identifying
it? (Pardon my unfamiliarity with the terminology.)
> The idea that the Israeli pilots made a mistake in ID is not credible.
> The ship was marked in the standard fashion, including the name on the
> stern. The ship was surveyeled by a helo minutes before the attack
> began.
It's a whole different ballgame during a hot war. Are you
aware that, during the pursuit of the Bismarck, pilots from the
Ark Royal mistakenly made a torpedo attack on HMS Sheffield--not
even a battleship, but a cruiser--a British cruiser, from THEIR
OWN TASK FORCE which they had seen every day for months. And they
were flying Stringbags which could maybe do 100 mph flat out.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Sheffield was
less than 1/4 the displacement of the Bismarck.
Should there have been recriminations and investigations
almost 40 years later about whether this attack was deliberate?
> Even if you can "write off" an intitial "error" to Israeli Army pilots
> as being blind, illiterate, and stupid the Israeli Navy took a hand in
> the operation. They are professional naval officers. They have
> binoculars. They have proper recognition manuals. What's their
> excuse?
Hot war.
> I don't claim any deep insights, here, only an operators view of SSSC.
Again, pardon my ignorance--what's SSSC?
> If the attack was accidental then the Israeli government really
> "screwed the pooch" and only the cowardice of the Johnson
> Administration saved them. If it was intentional, either as an act of
> state or of some rogue faction the cowardice of the Johnson
> Adminstration saved them.
Saved them from what?
On 7 Jun 2005 16:06:46 -0700, "Mike" > wrote:
>> Isn't this the same nation that employed Johathon Pollard? Does that
>> give us a clue? Or not?
>
>Or not. As it's apples (a nation fighting a war and the actions of its
>military in that war) and oranges (a nation dealing w/ the collection
>of intelligence which it believes can be useful). Besides, from what
>little I've read on Pollard's actions, I understand he first went to
>the Israelis, and that was how many years after the SDW? ...
You're correct. But it pokes a rather large hole in the "they would
never do such a thing to their only friend" theory.
>> LIBERTY was intell ship gathering intel. Somebody on the Israeli side
>> didn't like that.
>
>"Somebody"? The issue, again, is "credible" It needs to be credible.
>And as one retired Israeli gov't official has stated:
Well, we know who did the attacking. We know the "somebody." We just
don't know the motivation. Or its lack.
><start>
>This vessel had entered the fighting area to keep Washington in touch
>with the course of the war. In view of the global responsibilities of
>the United States, this was a legitimate purpose, but it seemed
>inevitable that those who took risks would sometimes incur tragic
>sacrifice.
><end>
>
>FWIW, that's from the former then-Foreign Minister, Abba Eban.
>
>So once again, "somebody"? Who the heck is this "somebody"?
The guys who did the shooting. We don't know the "why" of the orders,
or its lack.
>
>> So they did something about it. You don't have to
>> sink it and kill the crew to stop it.
>
>Oh, so you leave survivors which can later tell tales of what happened
>to them? You send out MTBs which are marked and flying the Israeli
>flag, and you put IAF helos overhead w/ the Star of David clearly seen?
>How is this credible?
I dunno. The evidence is there and it's ambiguous.
>I'll ignore here the bogus claim of the jets being "unmarked."
Either you are as blind, and maybe as dumb, as those IA pukes or you
like to blow sunshine up people's kilts. I made NO comment about any
markings on aircraft, or their lack.
>>
>> As an ASW type in S2s and P3s I have spent a LOT of time at 100-200
>> feet rigging ships. It's not hard to do and there was a specific
>> proceedure taught in the S2 RAG. It's easier to rig a ship in a helo,
>> harder in "fast mover."
>
>Does this mean "identifying" ships from the air?
Well, let's see. This a (at least in part) a group for the discussion
of naval aircraft and their uses. So I would guess it's fair to make
that presumption.
If so, then it
>addresses what was your training, not what IAF jet jocks were trained
>for, and had experience with -- or more importantly, not trained for,
>and no experience with.
How about the helo guys who could (and did) pass close aboard a
properly maked ship at low altitude in daylight?
>But as one retired USN type who spent time going "slow and low" has
>stated:
>
><start>
>In reconstruction of the attack, the Liberty crew makes much of flying
>the American flag, as if it would somehow protect them in harm's way
>(see Ennes, p. 152). Little does the crew appreciate the difficulty of
>identifying a ship from an aircraft merely on the basis of a flag or
>even a hull number (GTR 5 displayed by the Liberty). Based on my
>experience of flying many "low and slow" reconnaissance flights over
>ships in the Med and Atlantic with VQ2, unless the flights are almost
>overhead, target identification is virtually impossible. High-powered
>binoculars are not much good in a bouncing low-level aircraft.
><end>
The son of bitch who wrote this is an idiot. Or incompetant. Or he's
following orders. A JG out fo the RAG can do it. I did it. I taught
it. I'm not the "ace of the base."
As far as the "jet" thing is concerned, I was stationed at Cecil for a
while and made some friends in the A-7 RAG. They told me that there
was a portion of the syllabus devoted to ID of ships and SSSC. I
don't know how much there was. I don't know much about their
proceedures. Maybe we've go an A-7 type who could "fill in some
blanks."
>This from Nowicki in his material he had sent to author Bamford. The
>complete material from Nowicki is available here however:
>
>http://libertyincident.com/nowicki.htm
>
>>
>> The idea that the Israeli pilots made a mistake in ID is not credible.
>
>The jet jocks, w/o specific maritime recognition training?
You again ignore the helos.
Or if this
>is in reference to helo pilots, then never mind, as the following part
>addresses that.
Ta-DA!!!!!!!!!!
>> The ship was marked in the standard fashion, including the name on the
>> stern. The ship was surveyeled by a helo minutes before the attack
>> began.
>
>Okay, let's stop right here. That last is simply incorrect. It's not
>factual. No helo surveyed the Liberty "minutes before the attack
>began."
The crew reported otherwise.
>IAF helos were overhead AFTER the torpedo attack -- which took place at
>approx. 1435 Bravo. The helos were overhead around 1500-1505 Bravo.
>This fact is well established and documented.
>
>I will assume you've confused Zulu w/ Bravo time zones for when the
>helos were overhead as recorded by the VQ-2 EC-121. The EC-121
>recordings are Zulu. Add two hours to get Bravo and they match
>Liberty's logs, for example, as to when the helos were overhead.
>
>>
>> Even if you can "write off" an intitial "error" to Israeli Army pilots
>> as being blind, illiterate, and stupid the Israeli Navy took a hand in
>> the operation.
>
>That they did.
>
>> They are professional naval officers. They have
>> binoculars. They have proper recognition manuals. What's their
>> excuse?
>
>That one, the ship was abaze and smoking heavy and as they started to
>signal this ship -- the ship not only signaled back the same signal,
>but two, she opened fire on them. The term "professional naval
>officers" has to be understood in the context of what exactly was their
>training and what did they not only encounter, but what was their
>perception (rightly or wrongly) on this, the fourth day of a war -- a
>ship that was already assumed to be enemy. As to "proper recognition
>manuals" -- the Israeli Navy was concerned about the Arab Navies, not
>the US Navy. The Israeli Navy did not sail the seven seas for example.
> Their sea-going manuals (at least for those operating MTBS) dealt w/
>the Arabs.
In other words at best they ****ed up, at worst they were a conscious
part of the attack.
>Cristol covers this aspect in some details. Believe the Israelis or
>not, it's what his research uncovered -- as it dealt with how the
>Israeli Navy of 1967 operated.
>
>And here's what Liberty herself reported as to her condition when the
>MTBs came up on her:
>
><start>
>O 192026Z JUN 67
>FM CINCUSNAVEUR
>TO SECNAV
>...
>LIBERTY INCIDENT (U)
>1. FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS POSED BY SECNAV:
> A. WAS SMOKE FROM FIRES ABOARD LIBERTY FOLLOWING
>AIR ATTACK HEAVY ENOUGH TO PRECLUDE IDENTIFICATION?
>
>YES, PARTICULARLY BY TORPEDO BOATS APPROACHING
>FROM STARBOARD QUARTER. SURFACE WINDS WERE
>NEGLIGIBLE SO RELATIVE WIND DUE PRIMARILY TO
>LIBERTY'S SOA. SMOKE FROM BURNING MOTOR WHALE-
>BOAT (STARBOARD WAIST) AND STACK (ABAFT ISLAND
>STRUCTURE) MUST HAVE PROVIDED EFFECTIVE SCREENING
>OF HOLIDAY COLORS FLYING FROM PORT HALYARD.
>...
>C. DID LIBERTY ATTEMPT TO ANSWER SIGNALS FROM
>PATROL BOATS PRIOR TO ATTACK? YES. PATROL BOAT
>SIGNALS WERE PARTIALLY OBLITERATED BY FLAMES AND
>SMOKE FROM BURNING MOTOR WHALEBOAT ABAFT STARBOARD
>WIND OF BRIDGE. PATROL BOAT SIGNALS COULD NOT BE
>UNDERSTOOD BY LIBERTY WHO ATTEMPTED ESTABLISH
>COMMUNICATIONS BY ALDIS LAMP. OTHER SIGNAL LIGHTS
>HAD BEEN SHOT AWAY.
>...
><end>
>
>> I don't claim any deep insights, here, only an operators view of SSSC.
>
>Which is fine, for the USN.
I didn't know that fact was as a national commodity.
Besides you want me to accept that the kind of aviator who could pull
off an Entebbe or an attack deep into Iraq was unable to provide even
a poor quality ID of properly marked ship.
Sorry, boss, but it just don't wash.
>> If the attack was accidental then the Israeli government really
>> "screwed the pooch" and only the cowardice of the Johnson
>> Administration saved them.
>
>>From what?
>
>> If it was intentional, either as an act of
>> state or of some rogue faction the cowardice of the Johnson
>> Adminstration saved them.
>
>Well, as the Johnson adimistration determined:
>
><start>
>?Johnson ordered a thorough investigation of the facts surrounding
>the attack. After extensive investigations, the Central Intelligence
>Agency and the National Security Agency concluded that there was
>“little doubt” that the attacking Israeli units “failed to
>identify the Liberty as a US ship before or during the attack” and
>that they had mistakenly identified the ship as Egyptian. Subsequently,
>the Central Intelligence Agency repeated the conclusion that the
>Israeli attack was a mistake although it was “both incongruous and
>indicative of gross negligence.” Clark Clifford also examined the
>evidence at Walt Rostow’s request and concluded that there was no
>evidence that the attack was intentional.
><end>
>
>This from the DOS FRUS Vol. XIX Summary document.
>
>As we all know, it's not an accepted view by some; thanks mostly to the
>USG keeping so much of the material classified for too many years, and
>the availability of the LVA to generate stories which some accept at
>face value and never double-check against actual documentation.
Again, best case scenario is for the Israeli Govt. is that their
forces make a truly stupid blunder. The worst case is that they
engaged in a hostile act against a ship on the high seas. In either
event the Israeli Govt. has the duty to come clean, and they never
have. IMO politics has driven each and every investigation (including
those trying to hang an albatross around the Israeli neck). But they
could put the issue to bed, if they chose to do so. They have not.
Let them reap what they have sown.
Bill Kambic
Mike
June 8th 05, 08:54 AM
wrote:
> On 7 Jun 2005 16:06:46 -0700, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> >> Isn't this the same nation that employed Johathon Pollard? Does that
> >> give us a clue? Or not?
> >
> >Or not. As it's apples (a nation fighting a war and the actions of its
> >military in that war) and oranges (a nation dealing w/ the collection
> >of intelligence which it believes can be useful). Besides, from what
> >little I've read on Pollard's actions, I understand he first went to
> >the Israelis, and that was how many years after the SDW? ...
>
> You're correct. But it pokes a rather large hole in the "they would
> never do such a thing to their only friend" theory.
Which is a term that indeed wears thin. However, as mentioned by
another, what would have possibility have been the reason(s) for such
an attack, especially on 8 June 1967, if it=E2=80=99s going to be claimed
that it was done w/ the foreknowledge that the ship was US, especially
known to be the
Liberty -- and then fail to carry out the deed. All theses years, and
nothing credible and certainly nothing directly from Israel, challenges
what the Israelis have been saying since the late afternoon of 8 June
1967.
> >> LIBERTY was intell ship gathering intel. Somebody on the Israeli side
> >> didn't like that.
> >
> >"Somebody"? The issue, again, is "credible" It needs to be credible.
> >And as one retired Israeli gov't official has stated:
>
> Well, we know who did the attacking. We know the "somebody." We just
> don't know the motivation. Or its lack.
Depends on what one uses as sources on that score. Many a claim, but
never a =E2=80=9Csmoking gun=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 even after all these years.
> ><start>
> >This vessel had entered the fighting area to keep Washington in touch
> >with the course of the war. In view of the global responsibilities of
> >the United States, this was a legitimate purpose, but it seemed
> >inevitable that those who took risks would sometimes incur tragic
> >sacrifice.
> ><end>
> >
> >FWIW, that's from the former then-Foreign Minister, Abba Eban.
> >
> >So once again, "somebody"? Who the heck is this "somebody"?
>
> The guys who did the shooting. We don't know the "why" of the orders,
> or its lack.
Sure we do; but it=E2=80=99s only the Israelis which can provide them. No
former Liberty crrewmember is in a position to directly supply such
info for example.
> >> So they did something about it. You don't have to
> >> sink it and kill the crew to stop it.
> >
> >Oh, so you leave survivors which can later tell tales of what happened
> >to them? You send out MTBs which are marked and flying the Israeli
> >flag, and you put IAF helos overhead w/ the Star of David clearly seen?
> >How is this credible?
>
> I dunno. The evidence is there and it's ambiguous.
How can marked helos and MTBs be =E2=80=9Cambiguous=E2=80=9D given the orig=
inal
thought above?
> >I'll ignore here the bogus claim of the jets being "unmarked."
>
> Either you are as blind, and maybe as dumb, as those IA pukes or you
> like to blow sunshine up people's kilts. I made NO comment about any
> markings on aircraft, or their lack.
Oh lighten up; the comment was made simply because the LVA position is
that what was originally reported by the Liberty as =E2=80=9Cunidentified
jets=E2=80=9D has been changed to =E2=80=9Cwe were attacked by unmarked jet=
s=E2=80=9D
while ignoring the reported markings of the helos and MTBs Didn=E2=80=99t
want to go down that path, since you hadn=E2=80=99t brought it up. Sorry y=
ou
took it that way.
> >>
> >> As an ASW type in S2s and P3s I have spent a LOT of time at 100-200
> >> feet rigging ships. It's not hard to do and there was a specific
> >> proceedure taught in the S2 RAG. It's easier to rig a ship in a helo,
> >> harder in "fast mover."
> >
> >Does this mean "identifying" ships from the air?
>
> Well, let's see. This a (at least in part) a group for the discussion
> of naval aircraft and their uses. So I would guess it's fair to make
> that presumption.
Well since not all posters how all the various terms which get used, it
was reasonable to ask.
> If so, then it
> >addresses what was your training, not what IAF jet jocks were trained
> >for, and had experience with -- or more importantly, not trained for,
> >and no experience with.
>
> How about the helo guys who could (and did) pass close aboard a
> properly maked ship at low altitude in daylight?
What about them? <g> They showed up afterwards as previously stated.
> >But as one retired USN type who spent time going "slow and low" has
> >stated:
> >
> ><start>
> >In reconstruction of the attack, the Liberty crew makes much of flying
> >the American flag, as if it would somehow protect them in harm's way
> >(see Ennes, p. 152). Little does the crew appreciate the difficulty of
> >identifying a ship from an aircraft merely on the basis of a flag or
> >even a hull number (GTR 5 displayed by the Liberty). Based on my
> >experience of flying many "low and slow" reconnaissance flights over
> >ships in the Med and Atlantic with VQ2, unless the flights are almost
> >overhead, target identification is virtually impossible. High-powered
> >binoculars are not much good in a bouncing low-level aircraft.
> ><end>
>
> The son of bitch who wrote this is an idiot. Or incompetant. Or he's
> following orders. A JG out fo the RAG can do it. I did it. I taught
> it. I'm not the "ace of the base."
You=E2=80=99re claiming such for someone trained to do it. It apparently
doesn=E2=80=99t take into account the lack of such training.
> As far as the "jet" thing is concerned, I was stationed at Cecil for a
> while and made some friends in the A-7 RAG. They told me that there
> was a portion of the syllabus devoted to ID of ships and SSSC. I
> don't know how much there was. I don't know much about their
> proceedures. Maybe we've go an A-7 type who could "fill in some
> blanks."
Anyone is welcome to =E2=80=9Cfill in the blanks=E2=80=9D where is concerns=
the
amount of time that IAF jet pilots spent devoted to IDing ships and
SSSC. Applying one=E2=80=99s own experience as a naval aviator doesn=E2=80=
=99t
necessarily hold for all other air forces.
> >This from Nowicki in his material he had sent to author Bamford. The
> >complete material from Nowicki is available here however:
> >
> >http://libertyincident.com/nowicki.htm
> >
> >>
> >> The idea that the Israeli pilots made a mistake in ID is not credible.
> >
> >The jet jocks, w/o specific maritime recognition training?
>
> You again ignore the helos.
>
> Or if this
> >is in reference to helo pilots, then never mind, as the following part
> >addresses that.
>
> Ta-DA!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >> The ship was marked in the standard fashion, including the name on the
> >> stern. The ship was surveyeled by a helo minutes before the attack
> >> began.
> >
> >Okay, let's stop right here. That last is simply incorrect. It's not
> >factual. No helo surveyed the Liberty "minutes before the attack
> >began."
>
> The crew reported otherwise.
No, they did not report such. No reports/messages of helos observing
the ship prior to the attack, and certainly no sworn testimony of such.
It=E2=80=99s possible you=E2=80=99re thinking of the crew observing aircraf=
t in the
AM, but certainly nothing has been reported that supports your comment
of =E2=80=9Cthe ship was surveyed by a helo minutes before the attack
began.=E2=80=9D
If you believe it was a helo =E2=80=9Cminutes before the attack=E2=80=9D, c=
an you
recall the specific source?
> >IAF helos were overhead AFTER the torpedo attack -- which took place at
> >approx. 1435 Bravo. The helos were overhead around 1500-1505 Bravo.
> >This fact is well established and documented.
> >
> >I will assume you've confused Zulu w/ Bravo time zones for when the
> >helos were overhead as recorded by the VQ-2 EC-121. The EC-121
> >recordings are Zulu. Add two hours to get Bravo and they match
> >Liberty's logs, for example, as to when the helos were overhead.
> >
> >>
> >> Even if you can "write off" an intitial "error" to Israeli Army pilots
> >> as being blind, illiterate, and stupid the Israeli Navy took a hand in
> >> the operation.
> >
> >That they did.
> >
> >> They are professional naval officers. They have
> >> binoculars. They have proper recognition manuals. What's their
> >> excuse?
> >
> >That one, the ship was abaze and smoking heavy and as they started to
> >signal this ship -- the ship not only signaled back the same signal,
> >but two, she opened fire on them. The term "professional naval
> >officers" has to be understood in the context of what exactly was their
> >training and what did they not only encounter, but what was their
> >perception (rightly or wrongly) on this, the fourth day of a war -- a
> >ship that was already assumed to be enemy. As to "proper recognition
> >manuals" -- the Israeli Navy was concerned about the Arab Navies, not
> >the US Navy. The Israeli Navy did not sail the seven seas for example.
> > Their sea-going manuals (at least for those operating MTBS) dealt w/
> >the Arabs.
>
> In other words at best they ****ed up, at worst they were a conscious
> part of the attack.
Well yeah; but if the latter, then once again if it was a =E2=80=9Cconscious
part of the attack=E2=80=9D there=E2=80=99s the failure to complete the tas=
k, and
since it=E2=80=99s crewmember testimony that the ship fired on the
approaching MTBs (understandably so) ...
=E2=80=9CAs far as the torpedo boats are concerned, I am sure that they felt
that they were under fire from USS LIBERTY. At this time, they opened
fire with their gun mounts and in a matter of seconds, one torpedo was
noted crossing astern of the ship at about 25 yards.=E2=80=9D from
McGonagle=E2=80=99s sworn testimony.
> >Cristol covers this aspect in some details. Believe the Israelis or
> >not, it's what his research uncovered -- as it dealt with how the
> >Israeli Navy of 1967 operated.
> >
> >And here's what Liberty herself reported as to her condition when the
> >MTBs came up on her:
> >
> ><start>
> >O 192026Z JUN 67
> >FM CINCUSNAVEUR
> >TO SECNAV
> >...
> >LIBERTY INCIDENT (U)
> >1. FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS POSED BY SECNAV:
> > A. WAS SMOKE FROM FIRES ABOARD LIBERTY FOLLOWING
> >AIR ATTACK HEAVY ENOUGH TO PRECLUDE IDENTIFICATION?
> >
> >YES, PARTICULARLY BY TORPEDO BOATS APPROACHING
> >FROM STARBOARD QUARTER. SURFACE WINDS WERE
> >NEGLIGIBLE SO RELATIVE WIND DUE PRIMARILY TO
> >LIBERTY'S SOA. SMOKE FROM BURNING MOTOR WHALE-
> >BOAT (STARBOARD WAIST) AND STACK (ABAFT ISLAND
> >STRUCTURE) MUST HAVE PROVIDED EFFECTIVE SCREENING
> >OF HOLIDAY COLORS FLYING FROM PORT HALYARD.
> >...
> >C. DID LIBERTY ATTEMPT TO ANSWER SIGNALS FROM
> >PATROL BOATS PRIOR TO ATTACK? YES. PATROL BOAT
> >SIGNALS WERE PARTIALLY OBLITERATED BY FLAMES AND
> >SMOKE FROM BURNING MOTOR WHALEBOAT ABAFT STARBOARD
> >WIND OF BRIDGE. PATROL BOAT SIGNALS COULD NOT BE
> >UNDERSTOOD BY LIBERTY WHO ATTEMPTED ESTABLISH
> >COMMUNICATIONS BY ALDIS LAMP. OTHER SIGNAL LIGHTS
> >HAD BEEN SHOT AWAY.
> >...
> ><end>
> >
> >> I don't claim any deep insights, here, only an operators view of SSSC.
> >
> >Which is fine, for the USN.
>
> I didn't know that fact was as a national commodity.
Well, OK then: =E2=80=9CWhich is fine, for an air force trained in maritime
operations =E2=80=93 such as the USN or Royal Navy.=E2=80=9D
> Besides you want me to accept that the kind of aviator who could pull
> off an Entebbe
The IAF at Entebbe in 1976 were basically =E2=80=9Cbus drivers=E2=80=9D =E2=
=80=93 driving
C-130s which actually went into the Entebbe airport and the 707 which
operated as an airborne command-relay, over Kenya (IIRC.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe
One interesting quote: =E2=80=9CAfter days of collecting intelligence and
careful planning ...=E2=80=9D
> or an attack deep into Iraq was unable to provide even
> a poor quality ID of properly marked ship.
Once again; a surgical-type operation w/ long lead-time for planning.
It wasn=E2=80=99t the fourth day of a major regional conflict w/ fighting on
three fronts.
BTW, Entebbe was 1976, and the Iraqi strike 1981.
Turn back the clock instead to 2 NOV 1956; the IAF mistakenly bombs the
HMS Crane, a frigate of an actual full-blown ally at the time of the
Suez War. She=E2=80=99s attacked w/o warning.
Perhaps the IAF just has a problem when it comes to maritime operations
..=2E.
> Sorry, boss, but it just don't wash.
Perhaps w/ your experience you=E2=80=99re giving the IAF far too much credit
when it comes to operations which weren=E2=80=99t its responsibility and for
which it didn=E2=80=99t train. Back in 1967 at least, the IDF Navy had
responsibility for all naval matters, even w/o all the proper tools to
conduct such =E2=80=93 like airplanes flown and operated by their own guys.
> >> If the attack was accidental then the Israeli government really
> >> "screwed the pooch" and only the cowardice of the Johnson
> >> Administration saved them.
> >
> >>From what?
> >
> >> If it was intentional, either as an act of
> >> state or of some rogue faction the cowardice of the Johnson
> >> Adminstration saved them.
> >
> >Well, as the Johnson adimistration determined:
> >
> ><start>
> >?Johnson ordered a thorough investigation of the facts surrounding
> >the attack. After extensive investigations, the Central Intelligence
> >Agency and the National Security Agency concluded that there was
> >=E2=80=9Clittle doubt=E2=80=9D that the attacking Israeli units =E2=80=
=9Cfailed to
> >identify the Liberty as a US ship before or during the attack=E2=80=9D a=
nd
> >that they had mistakenly identified the ship as Egyptian. Subsequently,
> >the Central Intelligence Agency repeated the conclusion that the
> >Israeli attack was a mistake although it was =E2=80=9Cboth incongruous a=
nd
> >indicative of gross negligence.=E2=80=9D Clark Clifford also examined the
> >evidence at Walt Rostow=E2=80=99s request and concluded that there was no
> >evidence that the attack was intentional.
> ><end>
> >
> >This from the DOS FRUS Vol. XIX Summary document.
> >
> >As we all know, it's not an accepted view by some; thanks mostly to the
> >USG keeping so much of the material classified for too many years, and
> >the availability of the LVA to generate stories which some accept at
> >face value and never double-check against actual documentation.
>
> Again, best case scenario is for the Israeli Govt. is that their
> forces make a truly stupid blunder. The worst case is that they
> engaged in a hostile act against a ship on the high seas.
It was a hostile act =E2=80=93 they targeted a ship they believed to be
enemy, based not on the of best evidence.
> In either
> event the Israeli Govt. has the duty to come clean, and they never
> have.
Come clean? What=E2=80=99s this suppose to mean? The GOI has provide to t=
he
USG what took place from its side, and the issue was long ago closed.
Come clean?
> IMO politics has driven each and every investigation (including
> those trying to hang an albatross around the Israeli neck). But they
> could put the issue to bed, if they chose to do so. They have not.
> Let them reap what they have sown.
It doesn=E2=80=99t take much research to show that from the Israeli POV
they=E2=80=99ve moved on; learned the operational lessons from the errors,
and finally closed out the last remaining gov=E2=80=99t-to-gov=E2=80=99t is=
sue back
in Dec. 1980 -- agreement for the ship=E2=80=99s damage.
Just how on earth do you feel the Israelis =E2=80=9Ccould put the issue to
bed=E2=80=9D given the political climate that drives a fair number of folks
on the very basic issue of the US-Israeli relationship and US ME
policies. I=E2=80=99ll wage money that there=E2=80=99s not one damn thing =
the
Israelis could do which would change the minds of those individuals who
believe it was a deliberate attack on a known US ship and accept w/o
question anything the LVA (for example) states on the issue they wish
to keep alive.
MW
Jukka O. Kauppinen
June 8th 05, 05:12 PM
> USS LIBERTY VETERAN ASSOC FILES WAR CRIMES AGAINST ISRAEL
These USS Liberty freaks are amusing. Hey, we know what happened. End of
story. Get something sensible to do.
:
June 7th
An Israeli Nord aircraft took off from an airfield early on the morning
of the 8th with an Israeli navy spotter on board to patrol the shore and
insure that enemy vessels did not penetrate Israeli waters during the
night before. Israel had to have a human spotter for early warning
because Israel in 1967 had very limited radar capability.
Almost two hours after the aircraft started its patrol, it notified the
duty officer in the navy's war room that a ship had been spotted West of
Gaza. It appeared to be a destroyer from the air. The officer orderd a
red marker placed on the battle control table. Red was the color used to
indicate an "unidentified" ship.
Almost 20 minutes later the Nord sent another report in which the
spotter identified the ship as an "American naval-supply vessel. The
ship was identified by the spotter and would have then been considered
neutral, but the marker was not changed from red to green, to designate
a neutral vessel. The Israelis admitted this. They DID NOT DENY it. The
reason given by the duty officer at a board of inquiry was the
"identification had been vague and uncertain."
And, then from 6 to 9 a.m. the navy's attention in the war room was
diverted to an emergency, with the penetration of an enemy submarine
west of the town of Atlit, where a huge oil slick had been sighted. At
8:50 the navy dispatched the destroyer MV Haifa to the area. The Haifa
detonated five depth charges at 9:02 without success. While the hunt for
the enemy sub was ongoing, Admiral Erell entered the underground war
room to take personal command and he questioned the duty officer about
the red marker west of the Sinai coast. Told that the marker designated
what was thought to be an American supply ship, he ordered the marker
changed to green and he concentrated on the submarine.
More depth charges were detonated and air bubbles and oil was rising to
the surface. At the same time, the war room received a cable from an
Israel pilot reporting that he was being shot at by an "unidentified"
ship off the Sinai coast. After he landed and in debriefing he said that
he was not fired at, but he had seen a ship and it appeared to be "gray"
and "wider than usual, and with a bridge in the middle." The information
was filed and forgotten.
Then, after 10 a.m. the Nord aircraft returned and in debriefing the
navy spotter reported that he had clearly seen a GTR-5 on the side of
the vessel. Major Pinchasi at the naval operations room at Naval
Headquarters consulted Jane's Fighting Ships and identified the ship as
an American intelligence vessel named the "Liberty."
At 11 a.m. the duty cammanders in the navy war room changed shifts and a
Lt. Col took over temporary command. He ordered the green marker removed
from the battle control table so it would not be cluttered. Standard
naval operating procedure dictated that battle control table should be
kept as simple as possible, BUT in retrospect, it was a fatal decision
for the Liberty because from 11:05 on the Liberty was no longer a known
quantity for those who were operationally responsible for conducting a
FAST-MOVING THREE-FRONT WAR.., who were feeling the heat of battle
decision making. At 11:24 the air force reported to the naval chief of
operation, Col Issy Rehav, that the Sinai coast city of El Arish,
captured by Israeli forces the day before was being shelled from the
sea. And, at 11:27 a.m., a second, independent report ame in, and this
time from Southern Command Hqts, that El Arish was indeed being
bombarded from the sea.
In his book, Ennis also reported explosions in El Arish. The smoke and
explosions were clearly visible to the crew of the Liberty 'WHICH IS HOW
CLOSE THEY WERE' to what was presumed to be an enemy attack on the
coastal city. Later it was determined that an Egyptian ammo depot had
exploded in El Arish. The Israeli general command assumed that the city
was under attack from the sea and the Liberty 'JUST HAPPENED TO BE
THERE', which made it look an awful lot like the Liberty had been doing
the shelling.
Col Rehav at 12:05 p.m. ordered three torpedo boats from the 914
Squadron to leave Ashdod and proceed towards El Arish and at 12:15
captain of the flagship torpedo boat, Lt. Col Moshe Oren was ordered to
sail to 20 miles north of El Arish and patrol that area. At 1:07 p.m. he
was instructed to call for an air strike upon spotting the target.
At 1:41, 2nd Lt Aharon Yfrach, the radar operator about the flagship,
T-204, picked up a target on his scope. The ship was spotted at 20
nautical miles northwest of El Arish, 14 miles off the Bardawil shore,
and moving west at a speed of about thirty knots. Standard operating
procedure for the Israeli navy in 1967 was that any ship moving faster
than 20 knots in a battle arena was to be presumed hostile. A second
radar check indicated the target's speed at 28 knots. The Israelis later
said the reading was inaccurate, which can be attributed to what is
known as "radar jump" or simply an erroneous reading by the radar
operator? The radar on torpedo boats were often inaccurate. The
conclusions at the time however was, it was moving at faster than 20
knots and the TARGET IN QUESTION WAS PROBABLY A WARSHIP. It also
'APPEARED TO BE SAILING AN EVASIVE COURSE' in the direction of Port
Said, at the mouth of the Suez Canal, which would also indicate it was
hostile.
At 1:45 p.m. it was decided by Rehav to order an attack on the ship. It
would take awhile for the torpedo boats to get there so an air strike
was called. Senior air force battle controller, Lt Col Shmuel Kislev,
ordered two Mirage III C fighters on their way back to Israel from an
air patrol over the Suez Canal to divert to the target. The Mirages
reached the target at about 2 p.m. The lead plane dropped to an altitude
of 3,000 feet and circled the target twice. The second aircraft circled
the target only once. It was reported that the ship was NOT Israeli, it
was painted battle-gray and had two cannons in the forecastle, a mast in
the front and one funnel.
Major General Mordechai Hod, the commander of the Israeli air force,
asked the pilot by radio if any flag was visible. The pilot reported
back "I SEE NO FLAG OR OTHER SIGNS OF IDENTIFICATION." Members of the
crew find this a point of contention, but regardless of that fact, there
must still be ACCOUNTABILITY FOR BEING IN A BATTLE ARENA, and
assessments are made by the air force command, based on the pilot's
observation, the course of the ship, the reported speed and the evasive
running of the ship, location, etc., and the IMPRESSION WAS IT WAS A
HOSTILE SHIP.
At 2:06, the pilots began their straffing runs and straffed the Liberty
four times. Fire had broken out on the left side of the ship. Two more
aircraft were diverted, this time Super Mystere jets en route to a
bombing mission over the Mitla Pass in the Central Sinai. The were
carrying napalm bombs, which are not suitable for attacking targets at
sea but it was decided to use the aircraft anyway. The Mysteres made two
bombing runs, but only one bomb hit the ship.
As there was no return fire from the Liberty, the lack of a response was
puzzling and the lead pilot flew low enough to notice a P-30 painted on
the hull. He then dropped to only ninety feet above the water line and
this time noticed CTR-5 on the hull. 'HE SAID HE SAW NO FLAG'. He was
told to report on damages and leave the target area. At 2:15 the air
force controller in central operation dispatched two helicopters to the
area to pick up survivors. Meanwhile the torpedo boats had arrived at
the scene. The flagship flahed the message, "WHAT SHIP?" But, the
Liberty replied "AA" meaning "Identify yourselves first." That was
really dumb. Here they are listing, enveloped in smoke, heavily damaged
and their captain is telling the torpedo boats to identify themselves first?
Eleven years before, during the Sinai campaign, exactly the same
exchange had taken place between an Israeli destroyer, the MV Yaffo, and
an Egyptian ship, the Ibrahim-el-Awwal. Oren, who was a young offer on
the Yaffo's bridge at the time, 'REMEMBERED THE INCIDENT WELL'. If he
had any doubts that the burning vessel ahead of him was Egyptian, they
were now dispelled.
While he was deciding whether to attack, a burst of machine gun fire
erupted from the ship's forecastle. It seems that a seaman apprentice on
board did not hear the Captain's "hold-your- fire order" and fired
several volleys at the torpedo boats.
Oren still hestitated until he consulted the Israeli navy's book
identifying the ships of the Arab navies and concluded that the ship in
question was the Egyptian suppply vessel EL QUSEIR. One of the other
captains of another torpedo boat came up with the same identification.
And, at 2:37 Lt Col Oren gave the order to attack the ship. THIS WAS
'AFTER BEING FIRED UPON FROM THE LIBERTY'. At 2:43 advancing with rapid
cannon fire, the topedo boats fired torpedos. At least one torpedo hit
the ship. When the T-204 crossed the ship's bow, one of the officers
aboard noticed the letters GTR on the hull of the ship and Oren
immediately issued the hold-fire order. It was 2:47.
At 2:51, Oren radioed back to command headquarters that the ship could
be Russian. Rabin called an emergency meeting of his adviser to discuss
the possiblity of large sacale Soviet intervention but at 3:20 Oren
notified headquarters that the ship was NOT Russian, IT WAS AMERICAN. At
3:30 the news was conveyed to Commander Castle, naval atache in Tel
Aviv. ISRAEL OFFERED TO HELP WITH THE WOUNDED. The offer was rejected.
The attack on the LIBERTY was not with malice, but a genuine
understandable mistake, like many which are often made in battle, and
which could have been avoided if the Liberty had stayed out of harm's
way [as we learned later was the intention of the State Department and
the Chiefs of Staff]
Merlin Dorfman
June 8th 05, 11:09 PM
In rec.aviation.military Jukka O. Kauppinen > wrote:
>> USS LIBERTY VETERAN ASSOC FILES WAR CRIMES AGAINST ISRAEL
> These USS Liberty freaks are amusing. Hey, we know what happened. End of
> story. Get something sensible to do.
This history is completely plausible--just the sort of chain of
errors, coincidences, and small mistakes that seem to lead up to
almost every disaster such as airliner crashes. I had not seen this
narrative before; can you tell me what the source was?
---------------------------------
> June 7th
> An Israeli Nord aircraft took off from an airfield early on the morning
> of the 8th with an Israeli navy spotter on board to patrol the shore and
> insure that enemy vessels did not penetrate Israeli waters during the
> night before. Israel had to have a human spotter for early warning
> because Israel in 1967 had very limited radar capability.
> Almost two hours after the aircraft started its patrol, it notified the
> duty officer in the navy's war room that a ship had been spotted West of
> Gaza. It appeared to be a destroyer from the air. The officer orderd a
> red marker placed on the battle control table. Red was the color used to
> indicate an "unidentified" ship.
> Almost 20 minutes later the Nord sent another report in which the
> spotter identified the ship as an "American naval-supply vessel. The
> ship was identified by the spotter and would have then been considered
> neutral, but the marker was not changed from red to green, to designate
> a neutral vessel. The Israelis admitted this. They DID NOT DENY it. The
> reason given by the duty officer at a board of inquiry was the
> "identification had been vague and uncertain."
> And, then from 6 to 9 a.m. the navy's attention in the war room was
> diverted to an emergency, with the penetration of an enemy submarine
> west of the town of Atlit, where a huge oil slick had been sighted. At
> 8:50 the navy dispatched the destroyer MV Haifa to the area. The Haifa
> detonated five depth charges at 9:02 without success. While the hunt for
> the enemy sub was ongoing, Admiral Erell entered the underground war
> room to take personal command and he questioned the duty officer about
> the red marker west of the Sinai coast. Told that the marker designated
> what was thought to be an American supply ship, he ordered the marker
> changed to green and he concentrated on the submarine.
> More depth charges were detonated and air bubbles and oil was rising to
> the surface. At the same time, the war room received a cable from an
> Israel pilot reporting that he was being shot at by an "unidentified"
> ship off the Sinai coast. After he landed and in debriefing he said that
> he was not fired at, but he had seen a ship and it appeared to be "gray"
> and "wider than usual, and with a bridge in the middle." The information
> was filed and forgotten.
> Then, after 10 a.m. the Nord aircraft returned and in debriefing the
> navy spotter reported that he had clearly seen a GTR-5 on the side of
> the vessel. Major Pinchasi at the naval operations room at Naval
> Headquarters consulted Jane's Fighting Ships and identified the ship as
> an American intelligence vessel named the "Liberty."
> At 11 a.m. the duty cammanders in the navy war room changed shifts and a
> Lt. Col took over temporary command. He ordered the green marker removed
> from the battle control table so it would not be cluttered. Standard
> naval operating procedure dictated that battle control table should be
> kept as simple as possible, BUT in retrospect, it was a fatal decision
> for the Liberty because from 11:05 on the Liberty was no longer a known
> quantity for those who were operationally responsible for conducting a
> FAST-MOVING THREE-FRONT WAR.., who were feeling the heat of battle
> decision making. At 11:24 the air force reported to the naval chief of
> operation, Col Issy Rehav, that the Sinai coast city of El Arish,
> captured by Israeli forces the day before was being shelled from the
> sea. And, at 11:27 a.m., a second, independent report ame in, and this
> time from Southern Command Hqts, that El Arish was indeed being
> bombarded from the sea.
> In his book, Ennis also reported explosions in El Arish. The smoke and
> explosions were clearly visible to the crew of the Liberty 'WHICH IS HOW
> CLOSE THEY WERE' to what was presumed to be an enemy attack on the
> coastal city. Later it was determined that an Egyptian ammo depot had
> exploded in El Arish. The Israeli general command assumed that the city
> was under attack from the sea and the Liberty 'JUST HAPPENED TO BE
> THERE', which made it look an awful lot like the Liberty had been doing
> the shelling.
> Col Rehav at 12:05 p.m. ordered three torpedo boats from the 914
> Squadron to leave Ashdod and proceed towards El Arish and at 12:15
> captain of the flagship torpedo boat, Lt. Col Moshe Oren was ordered to
> sail to 20 miles north of El Arish and patrol that area. At 1:07 p.m. he
> was instructed to call for an air strike upon spotting the target.
> At 1:41, 2nd Lt Aharon Yfrach, the radar operator about the flagship,
> T-204, picked up a target on his scope. The ship was spotted at 20
> nautical miles northwest of El Arish, 14 miles off the Bardawil shore,
> and moving west at a speed of about thirty knots. Standard operating
> procedure for the Israeli navy in 1967 was that any ship moving faster
> than 20 knots in a battle arena was to be presumed hostile. A second
> radar check indicated the target's speed at 28 knots. The Israelis later
> said the reading was inaccurate, which can be attributed to what is
> known as "radar jump" or simply an erroneous reading by the radar
> operator? The radar on torpedo boats were often inaccurate. The
> conclusions at the time however was, it was moving at faster than 20
> knots and the TARGET IN QUESTION WAS PROBABLY A WARSHIP. It also
> 'APPEARED TO BE SAILING AN EVASIVE COURSE' in the direction of Port
> Said, at the mouth of the Suez Canal, which would also indicate it was
> hostile.
> At 1:45 p.m. it was decided by Rehav to order an attack on the ship. It
> would take awhile for the torpedo boats to get there so an air strike
> was called. Senior air force battle controller, Lt Col Shmuel Kislev,
> ordered two Mirage III C fighters on their way back to Israel from an
> air patrol over the Suez Canal to divert to the target. The Mirages
> reached the target at about 2 p.m. The lead plane dropped to an altitude
> of 3,000 feet and circled the target twice. The second aircraft circled
> the target only once. It was reported that the ship was NOT Israeli, it
> was painted battle-gray and had two cannons in the forecastle, a mast in
> the front and one funnel.
> Major General Mordechai Hod, the commander of the Israeli air force,
> asked the pilot by radio if any flag was visible. The pilot reported
> back "I SEE NO FLAG OR OTHER SIGNS OF IDENTIFICATION." Members of the
> crew find this a point of contention, but regardless of that fact, there
> must still be ACCOUNTABILITY FOR BEING IN A BATTLE ARENA, and
> assessments are made by the air force command, based on the pilot's
> observation, the course of the ship, the reported speed and the evasive
> running of the ship, location, etc., and the IMPRESSION WAS IT WAS A
> HOSTILE SHIP.
> At 2:06, the pilots began their straffing runs and straffed the Liberty
> four times. Fire had broken out on the left side of the ship. Two more
> aircraft were diverted, this time Super Mystere jets en route to a
> bombing mission over the Mitla Pass in the Central Sinai. The were
> carrying napalm bombs, which are not suitable for attacking targets at
> sea but it was decided to use the aircraft anyway. The Mysteres made two
> bombing runs, but only one bomb hit the ship.
> As there was no return fire from the Liberty, the lack of a response was
> puzzling and the lead pilot flew low enough to notice a P-30 painted on
> the hull. He then dropped to only ninety feet above the water line and
> this time noticed CTR-5 on the hull. 'HE SAID HE SAW NO FLAG'. He was
> told to report on damages and leave the target area. At 2:15 the air
> force controller in central operation dispatched two helicopters to the
> area to pick up survivors. Meanwhile the torpedo boats had arrived at
> the scene. The flagship flahed the message, "WHAT SHIP?" But, the
> Liberty replied "AA" meaning "Identify yourselves first." That was
> really dumb. Here they are listing, enveloped in smoke, heavily damaged
> and their captain is telling the torpedo boats to identify themselves first?
> Eleven years before, during the Sinai campaign, exactly the same
> exchange had taken place between an Israeli destroyer, the MV Yaffo, and
> an Egyptian ship, the Ibrahim-el-Awwal. Oren, who was a young offer on
> the Yaffo's bridge at the time, 'REMEMBERED THE INCIDENT WELL'. If he
> had any doubts that the burning vessel ahead of him was Egyptian, they
> were now dispelled.
> While he was deciding whether to attack, a burst of machine gun fire
> erupted from the ship's forecastle. It seems that a seaman apprentice on
> board did not hear the Captain's "hold-your- fire order" and fired
> several volleys at the torpedo boats.
> Oren still hestitated until he consulted the Israeli navy's book
> identifying the ships of the Arab navies and concluded that the ship in
> question was the Egyptian suppply vessel EL QUSEIR. One of the other
> captains of another torpedo boat came up with the same identification.
> And, at 2:37 Lt Col Oren gave the order to attack the ship. THIS WAS
> 'AFTER BEING FIRED UPON FROM THE LIBERTY'. At 2:43 advancing with rapid
> cannon fire, the topedo boats fired torpedos. At least one torpedo hit
> the ship. When the T-204 crossed the ship's bow, one of the officers
> aboard noticed the letters GTR on the hull of the ship and Oren
> immediately issued the hold-fire order. It was 2:47.
> At 2:51, Oren radioed back to command headquarters that the ship could
> be Russian. Rabin called an emergency meeting of his adviser to discuss
> the possiblity of large sacale Soviet intervention but at 3:20 Oren
> notified headquarters that the ship was NOT Russian, IT WAS AMERICAN. At
> 3:30 the news was conveyed to Commander Castle, naval atache in Tel
> Aviv. ISRAEL OFFERED TO HELP WITH THE WOUNDED. The offer was rejected.
> The attack on the LIBERTY was not with malice, but a genuine
> understandable mistake, like many which are often made in battle, and
> which could have been avoided if the Liberty had stayed out of harm's
> way [as we learned later was the intention of the State Department and
> the Chiefs of Staff]
Mike
June 8th 05, 11:50 PM
The narration appears to be a slice taken from:
http://pnews.org/art/ussliberty.shtml
MW
Excellent letter by James Bamford on the Israel firsters (like Mike
Weeks and A. Jay Cristol) who continue to cover up Israeli treachery
(USS Liberty attack) against America:
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=157839#157839
Bamford has also written his newest book ('A Pretext for War' which
just came out in paperback) about the JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocon traitors
who took US to war in Iraq for Israel:
'A Clean Break/war for Israel (pages 261-269 from James Bamford's 'A
Pretext for War' book):
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769
Mike
June 9th 05, 10:22 PM
wrote:
> Excellent letter by James Bamford on the Israel firsters (like Mike
> Weeks and A. Jay Cristol) who continue to cover up Israeli treachery
> (USS Liberty attack) against America:
ROTFLOL. Bamford's 2001 "letter" pretty much bit the dust "as it were"
with the release of the NSA tapes in 2003 and the DOS FRUS Vol. XIX
book in 2004.
As to what Bamford was claiming back in 2001 -- here's a link to a very
fine rebutal:
http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=369
This poor sap of a poster truly is clueless when it comes to making
claims, like one one above for example. Gawd, what a clown. If it
were accurate, how come he's still able to post, or even breathe ???
Think about it ... <g>
MW
Merlin Dorfman
June 9th 05, 11:20 PM
In rec.aviation.military Mike > wrote:
> wrote:
>> Excellent letter by James Bamford on the Israel firsters (like Mike
>> Weeks and A. Jay Cristol) who continue to cover up Israeli treachery
>> (USS Liberty attack) against America:
> ROTFLOL. Bamford's 2001 "letter" pretty much bit the dust "as it were"
> with the release of the NSA tapes in 2003 and the DOS FRUS Vol. XIX
> book in 2004.
> As to what Bamford was claiming back in 2001 -- here's a link to a very
> fine rebutal:
> http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=369
I do have to take some exception to one of the paragraphs in
this citation; however the exceptions relate only to historical
references:
"No rockets were fired at Liberty. No bombs, "heavy" or otherwise, were
used. The attacking aircraft were not armed to attack a ship. Had they
dropped the standard 500 pound iron bombs normally used against ship
targets, the Liberty would very likely have been sunk in minutes. (During
the battle of Midway in World War II, U.S. Navy dive bombers using
standard 500 pound iron bombs sank three Japanese aircraft carriers in
ten minutes.)"
The three Japanese carriers (Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu) were hit
within ten minutes of each other (1020-1030 on June 4, 1942) but
none sank immediately. I believe the recorded sinking times
ranged from late afternoon until the next morning, and that one of
the ships was ultimately sunk by torpedoes from a Japanese
destroyer to prevent its capture when the Japanese fleet withdrew.
Also the bombs had such devastating effect only because the
carrier decks were crowded with fully armed and fueled planes ready
for takeoff, and the hangar decks with recently unloaded ordnance.
Later in WW II, American carriers survived much more serious hits
and survived.
But one point that the above paragraph makes (but does not
emphasize) is that if the Israelis intended to sink the Liberty,
they would have armed the attacking aircraft with weapons better
suited to naval targets. If the attack was against a known American
target, why use weapons of less effectiveness than other weapons
easily available?
The fact is that the aircraft were diverted from other targets
when a ship was discovered and was (mistakenly) believed to be a
threat. Clearly the entire episode was spur-of-the-moment and not
a premeditated attack.
Mike
June 10th 05, 02:34 AM
=EF=BB=BFMerlin Dorfman wrote:
<snip>
> I do have to take some exception to one of the paragraphs in
> this citation; however the exceptions relate only to historical
> references: ...
You have brought up what is always a challenge when attempting to cite
various examples in order to emphasize the major point being addressed
-- how to present it and how much detail to provide -- especially if
the "generally known" story is already out there at a very summary
level to the general public ... <g>
MW
Mike Weeks (in his continued traitorous support of Israeli treachery
against America in the deliberate attack of the USS Liberty) couldn't
get past the Captain Ward Boston question in San Diego (
http://members.aol.com/w4lmk/sdari/ ) as he still can't (without
continuing to look foolish):
Forwarded:
Adam Ereli (the deputy spokesperson for the US State Department who
makes regular appearances during the press conferences on C-SPAN) still
has not answered the following email which was sent to him this past
March (2005):
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: For Adam Ereli/US State Department
To:
Mr. Ereli,
I had written to the US State Department last year and never received a
reply as I had inquired as to when Mark Susser (with the Department of
the Historian) will enter Captain Ward Boston's declaration (about the
USS Liberty attack/cover-up) into the historical record. Captain
Boston's declaration can be read at the following URL:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-boston.html
One can watch esteemed US intelligence writer James Bamford reading
Captain Boston's declaration via the 'History in the Making: State
Rules on the 1967 Arab-Israeli War' link near the bottom of
www.irmep.org as the following article is from the San Diego Union
Tribune:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20040217-9999-1n17liberty.html
Scroll down to the article on Captain Ward Boston by Delinda Hanley at
the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=2916&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20
U.S. Vets Seek Probe of Alleged War Crimes By WILLIAM C. MANN,
Associated Press Writer
Fri Jun 10, 5:48 AM ET
Survivors of a U.S. spy ship attacked by Israeli fighters and torpedo
boats 40 years ago are pressing the Pentagon for a full investigation
into alleged Israeli war crimes for a strike that caused 205
casualties, including 34 killed.
The attack on the USS Liberty occurred in international waters during
the Six-Day War in 1967 between Israel, Egypt and other Arab nations.
The survivors claim the attack itself was a violation of the Geneva
Conventions regulating conduct of war and that further crimes
occurred when Israeli sailors fired at rescuers and firefighters on
the ship's bullet-riddled deck and into rubber life rafts thrown into
the water to pick up survivors.
Gary Brummett, president of the USS Liberty Veterans Association,
said the appeal to the Defense Department is nothing more than an
appeal for justice for his shipmates. Brummett was a boiler tender
aboard the Liberty.
"Politicians will not touch this issue," Brummett said. "All the
presidents we have will not touch this issue. It's politically
incorrect. All we are trying to do now is to follow the rule of law."
Their new action, a 35-page, heavily footnoted report demanding a
full-scale, new investigation, quotes the laws of war in alleging
that Israel didn't honor them.
On the afternoon of June 8, 1967, two days into the Six-Day War,
Israeli warplanes began circling the Liberty as its nest of antennas
collected intelligence in international waters between al-Arish,
Egypt, in the Sinai near the Israeli border, and the Gaza Strip west
of Israel. The 7,725-ton Liberty, a former civilian cargo ship
refitted into one of the era's top intelligence-gathering vessels,
was flying the U.S. flag and bore U.S. Navy markings.
When the attack began, jets made six strafing runs, killing at least
10 and wounding others with gunfire, rockets and bombs. Three torpedo
boats joined the fray, firing machine guns and cannon. One fired a
torpedo, which missed the maneuvering ship. Another boat loosed its
torpedo, which struck on the starboard side, forward of the command
areas, caused more casualties, and Liberty began to list to the
right. Those left among the crew of 294 officers and men kept her
afloat.
Israel said its personnel mistook the ship for an Egyptian Navy
vessel. U.S. officials said that ship was far smaller than Liberty
and had none of the antennas the intelligence-gatherer had.
Previous official U.S. and Israeli investigations have found Israel
guilty of nothing more than making a mistake, possibly by
misidentifying the U.S. ship. A contentious State Department-
sponsored conference of historians and other experts last year failed
to reach consensus.
Israel apologized and paid damages of close to $13 million, some to
families of the victims.
David Siegel, spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington,
repeated the Israeli position that the attack was in no way
premeditated.
"I can state categorically that the Liberty incident was a tragic
mistake, a case of mistaken identity," Siegel told The Associated
Press. "These are old allegations, discredited years ago by
successive U.S. administrations following numerous official
investigations, including by the official historians of the State
Department, the National Security Agency and other federal agencies."
The latest move by the Liberty survivors, who have pressed for
decades to have the official record changed, was submitted to Army
Secretary Francis J. Harvey, who acts as executive agent for Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for such cases.
Col. Thomas Collins, Harvey's spokesman, said he could not discuss
the matter because the secretary had not received it as of Thursday.
The document, shipped Tuesday by courier service, was dated
Wednesday, the 38th anniversary of the attack.
Brummett, of Grand Cane, La., said the association has no idea what
Harvey will do.
"He will look at this and will say, `Hey, OK, we've got to
investigate it.' Or he will turn it down. Whatever they want to do.
"If future is like the past, if politicians get involved, they will
certainly turn it down."
___
On the Net:
USS Liberty Veterans Association report:
http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/Report/Report.pdf
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050610/ap_on_re_us/us_spy_ship_israel
Merlin Dorfman
June 13th 05, 12:25 AM
In rec.aviation.military Mike > wrote:
> The narration appears to be a slice taken from:
> http://pnews.org/art/ussliberty.shtml
Yes, that's the source, spelling mistakes, grammatical errors,
and all :-)
The full story is on the record, and the only two "reasons"
that the Israelis would attack an American ship have been debunked:
- There was no massacre at El Arish, so there was no need to take
out an American ship to keep the massacre from being discovered
- The US knew about the planned attack on the Golan Heights before-
hand, and did not object, so there was no need to stop intelligence
collection to keep the attack from being discovered.
Mike
June 13th 05, 01:30 AM
Merlin Dorfman wrote:
> In rec.aviation.military Mike > wrote:
> > The narration appears to be a slice taken from:
>
> > http://pnews.org/art/ussliberty.shtml
>
> Yes, that's the source, spelling mistakes, grammatical errors,
> and all :-)
> The full story is on the record, and the only two "reasons"
> that the Israelis would attack an American ship have been debunked:
> - There was no massacre at El Arish, so there was no need to take
> out an American ship to keep the massacre from being discovered
> - The US knew about the planned attack on the Golan Heights before-
> hand, and did not object, so there was no need to stop intelligence
> collection to keep the attack from being discovered.
Not sure I'd be as strong as to say the US didn't object to the Golan
strike -- given what was coming from the State Dept. But right there
that destroys that claim the US didn't know of was about to happen. <g>
It appears the Israelis were getting enough in the way of a mixed US
signal however that if they were quick, then do it and make it fast.
And besides, according to Israeli records, the decision late Thursday
nite (well after the Liberty had been attacked) was to NOT strike the
Golan -- despite strong pressure to do so. Then in the early hours of
9 June, Dayan changes his mind and gives the go-ahead.
It's always been lacking; a credible and solid reason as why the
Israelis would want to sink the USS Liberty. Such an attack would not
have been made in such a vacuum.
MW
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.