(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message om...
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.