Zone1 Antisemites lie about Israel being an apartheid state

[Hafar1014]

"Other than both ships having general hull lines of cargo-type ships, the two ships had little in common (as highlighted below). The USS Liberty had:

• no portholes in her hull,
• two tall and vertical pole-masts (forward and aft),
• a large tower-mast on top of forward superstructure,
• a large (four-level) superstructure,
• a vertical stack in the middle of the superstructure,
• an angled (78 degree) bow point,
• a very large radio antenna reflector dish aft the superstructure,"

The Mistaken Identity Claim: USS Liberty vs El Quseir

The Liberty was attacked because her captain was incompetent

 

[georgephillip]

The Liberty was in an active war zone caused by the incompetence of its captain.

The Liberty was in international waters and representing a country that was officially neutral in Israel's war of aggression in 1967.

F.A.Q. "Why did Israel attack?"

"What other reason might they have had for attacking?

"A:

Intelligence analysts agree that they attacked because they feared we might learn something that they did not want the United States to know. That could have been "1. The planned invasion of the Golan Heights which was set to start a few hours after Liberty's arrival in the area. When Liberty arrived, the invasion was postponed for 24 hours, Liberty was attacked, and the invasion took place the next day. Did they postpone the invasion until Liberty was out of the way and unable to report on the war? "2. It is possible that they were afraid that Liberty might learn and report to the United States that Israeli forces were executing up to 1,000 Egyptian Prisoners of War at El Arish at the very moment that Liberty was just 13 miles off shore."

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I can think of two very good reasons.

1) They were afraid the Liberty had decoded their transmissions authorizing a sneak attack on Egyptian forces.

The sneak attack had already happened three days earlier which means the U.S. likely knew about it by then. The entire purpose of the attack was to surprise them.

They were preemptive strikes and they knew that everyone would know after the fact, including the U.S., that they were preemptive. It would make no sense to sink the spy ship when they had to know that the U.S. and everybody else would have known by then.

2) They thought if they sank the Liberty, they could drag the US into the war.

Or maybe they didn't like the color. This is pure speculation.

 

[Hafar1014]

The sneak attack had already happened three days earlier which means the U.S. likely knew about it by then. The entire purpose of the attack was to surprise them.

They were preemptive strikes and they knew that everyone would know after the fact, including the U.S., that they were preemptive. It would make no sense to sink the spy ship when they had to know that the U.S. and everybody else would have known by then.


Or maybe they didn't like the color. This is pure speculation.

The LIbert'ys captain was responsible for placing the ship in harms way.

 

[JoeB131]

The Liberty was in an active war zone caused by the incompetence of its captain.

Um, no. Quite the opposite. Captain McGonagle was decorated for his actions on that day.

The Medal of Honor was presented to him, in secret, at the Washington Navy Yard by the Secretary of the Navy, rather than at the White House by the President. This represents the only time a Medal of Honor recipient was awarded in such a manner. After being promoted to captain in October 1967 and recovering from his wounds he was given command of the new ammunition ship USS Kilauea. He then served as commanding officer of the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps Unit at the University of Oklahoma before retiring from active duty in 1974.


Get that. He was given the Medal of Honor PRIVATELY as to not call attention to what Israelis did to an American Ship.


Now, compare that to how the Captain of USS Stark was treated.

Glenn R. Brindel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

USS Stark incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A court of inquiry under Rear Admiral Grant Sharp was formed to investigate the incident and later Captain Brindel was recommended for court-martial but was ultimately only reprimanded and relieved of duty.

 

[Hafar1014]

Um, no. Quite the opposite. Captain McGonagle was decorated for his actions on that day.

The Medal of Honor was presented to him, in secret, at the Washington Navy Yard by the Secretary of the Navy, rather than at the White House by the President. This represents the only time a Medal of Honor recipient was awarded in such a manner. After being promoted to captain in October 1967 and recovering from his wounds he was given command of the new ammunition ship USS Kilauea. He then served as commanding officer of the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps Unit at the University of Oklahoma before retiring from active duty in 1974.


Get that. He was given the Medal of Honor PRIVATELY as to not call attention to what Israelis did to an American Ship.


Now, compare that to how the Captain of USS Stark was treated.

Glenn R. Brindel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

USS Stark incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A court of inquiry under Rear Admiral Grant Sharp was formed to investigate the incident and later Captain Brindel was recommended for court-martial but was ultimately only reprimanded and relieved of duty.

Thats called a cover up the Captain screwed up.

 

[JoeB131]

The sneak attack had already happened three days earlier which means the U.S. likely knew about it by then. The entire purpose of the attack was to surprise them.

They were preemptive strikes and they knew that everyone would know after the fact, including the U.S., that they were preemptive. It would make no sense to sink the spy ship when they had to know that the U.S. and everybody else would have known by then.

But what wasn't known at the time was why the sneak attack was carried out, or what the Zionists were saying among themselves.

Or maybe they didn't like the color. This is pure speculation.

Now you are deflecting. the fact is, they did attack a clearly marked American ship in international waters. And our government covered it up because they are too beholden to their government.

Thats called a cover up the Captain screwed up.

the only cover-up was to protect the Israelis.

 

[Hafar1014]

But what wasn't known at the time was why the sneak attack was carried out, or what the Zionists were saying among themselves.



Now you are deflecting. the fact is, they did attack a clearly marked American ship in international waters. And our government covered it up because they are too beholden to their government.


the only cover-up was to protect the Israelis.

No one cares

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Um, yeah, about that.

View attachment 1200679

And?

Except that they attacked the Liberty. Three times.

And? It still doesn't prove they knew it was American. However, it does fit better with their claim they thought it was Egyptian.

But that's the whole point. Unethical people would do that.

Well, that's a personal opinion, isn't it?

I'm not interested in opinions, especially those rooted in your personal feelings about Zionism. Give me evidence or an interpretation that makes sense. It doesn't make sense that they would set out to sink the ship, withdraw without sinking the ship and then contact the U.S. and admit to a mistake and apologize.

Or you factor in the Zionists are manipulative, deceitful, and unethical bastards... And then it makes all sorts of sense.

Again, personal opinion. I'm not going to factor in your personal opinion. That would would just be plain stupid.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The LIbert'ys captain was responsible for placing the ship in harms way.

According to what I've been able to find, Liberty was sent to the area before the war started. When the war started, the captain made a request to Sixth Fleet Headquarters to send a destroyer to "...serve as its armed escort and as an auxiliary communications center". His request was denied on the grounds that the "Liberty is a clearly marked United States ship in international waters, not a participant in the conflict and not a reasonable subject for attack by any nation".

In the meantime, messages were sent to the Liberty (apparently from a source other than Sixth Fleet) to increase its range from the Egyptian and Israeli coasts to, at first, 12.5 and 6.5 nautical miles, respectively. A later message increased the ordered range to 20 and 15 NM and again later to 100 NM for both countries.

Due to sloppy message handling, the Liberty received none of these messages until after the attack. On top of all that is the captain's responsibility to follow orders. He was obligated to follow the orders he had in hand, which were to conduct signals intelligence collection near the north coast of Sinai, Egypt. He simply would not have been able to arbitrarily decide not to proceed to and work in the area without risking a court martial or some disciplinary action. That is, unless they came under attack. Only then can he deviate from orders to either defend the ship or leave the area.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

"Other than both ships having general hull lines of cargo-type ships, the two ships had little in common (as highlighted below). The USS Liberty had:

• no portholes in her hull,
• two tall and vertical pole-masts (forward and aft),
• a large tower-mast on top of forward superstructure,
• a large (four-level) superstructure,
• a vertical stack in the middle of the superstructure,
• an angled (78 degree) bow point,
• a very large radio antenna reflector dish aft the superstructure,"

The Mistaken Identity Claim: USS Liberty vs El Quseir

It must be pointed out that the ship was never positively identified by Israel as being the El Quseir and is not why they attacked. They attacked because they couldn't identify the ship. That it was the El Quseir was a guess and because they couldn't identify it, they simply assumed it was probably Egyptian in any case, no matter if it was the El Quseir or not.

 

[georgephillip]

Thats called a cover up the Captain screwed up.

How, exactly, did Captain McGonagle screw up?

William Loren McGonagle | Vietnam War | U.S. Navy | Medal of Honor Recipient

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not interested in opinions, especially those rooted in your personal feelings about Zionism. Give me evidence or an interpretation that makes sense. It doesn't make sense that they would set out to sink the ship, withdraw without sinking the ship and then contact the U.S. and admit to a mistake and apologize.

I gave you two. Both of them make a lot more sense than THREE groups of Israeli professionals mistook a clearly marked American surveliance ship for an Egyptian Horse carrier 1/4 its size.

And?

And you can clearly tell those ships look nothing alike. Neither is armed or a danger.

And? It still doesn't prove they knew it was American. However, it does fit better with their claim they thought it was Egyptian.

Not really. Again, one misake, I might be able to squint and say, "yeah, shit happens".

But the same mistake. Three times?

It must be pointed out that the ship was never positively identified by Israel as being the El Quseir and is not why they attacked. They attacked because they couldn't identify the ship. That it was the El Quseir was a guess and because they couldn't identify it, they simply assumed it was probably Egyptian in any case, no matter if it was the El Quseir or not.

Well, don't you think they should have identified the ship before they attacked it in international waters? Given it wasn't a warship, even moreso.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I gave you two.

Both of which were based on your hatred of Zionism.

I've been debating with you long enough to know that you are incapable of objectivity when it comes to groups or people you hate.

Both of them make a lot more sense than THREE groups of Israeli professionals mistook a clearly marked American surveliance ship for an Egyptian Horse carrier 1/4 its size.

Irrelevant. Once the order was given to attack, no one was trying to identify the ship. Hence, three attacks. It wasn't clear until after the attack that it was American.

Besides all that, your theories as to their motive do not hold water and make no sense under the circumstances. Even if the attack was deliberate, there would be no point trying to hide the fact that the attack on Egypt was preemptive. Everybody would have known by that time what the manner of attacks was and Israel otherwise made no other attempts to hide that fact.

And you can clearly tell those ships look nothing alike. Neither is armed or a danger.

As I told George, it was never definitively established by Israel that the ship was the El Quseir and is not why they attacked. They attacked because they couldn't identify it. That it might be El Quseir was a guess because the profile of the ship "resembled" that of the El Quseir to the skipper on one of the torpedo boats. In any case, they suspected it was Egyptian and that it was being used as a support vessel in the shelling of the port of El-Arish that had happened earlier that day.

Not really. Again, one misake, I might be able to squint and say, "yeah, shit happens".

But the same mistake. Three times?

Again, irrelevant. Once the order was given to attack, no one was really trying to identify the ship. Hence, three attacks. It wasn't clear until after the attack that it was American.

Well, don't you think they should have identified the ship before they attacked it in international waters? Given it wasn't a warship, even moreso.

Perhaps. Can we criticize the Israelis for being overzealous and overreacting? Probably so. But was it a deliberate attack on a known American vessel for some ulterior motive? I highly doubt it. None of the theories offered so far make any sense given the circumstances.

 

[JoeB131]

I've been debating with you long enough to know that you are incapable of objectivity when it comes to groups or people you hate.

I've been, well, I wouldn't call it debating because you aren't capable of that, with you long enough that you will come up with any excuse for bad behavior by White People, whether it be genocidal Zionists, smirking punks, or trigger-happy cops.

Irrelevant. Once the order was given to attack, no one was trying to identify the ship. Hence, three attacks. It wasn't clear until after the attack that it was American.

But why was the order given? It wasn't a warship. And if they didn't know what it was, they risked killing third party bystanders..unless that was the intent.

Besides all that, your theories as to their motive do not hold water and make no sense under the circumstances. Even if the attack was deliberate, there would be no point trying to hide the fact that the attack on Egypt was preemptive. Everybody would have known by that time what the manner of attacks was and Israel otherwise made no other attempts to hide that fact.

Well, sure it would make a difference, if their attack was to grab territory and not to respond to an imagined buildup. So it really depends on what they were afraid got intercepted.

As I told George, it was never definitively established by Israel that the ship was the El Quseir and is not why they attacked. They attacked because they couldn't identify it. That it might be El Quseir was a guess because the profile of the ship "resembled" that of the El Quseir to the skipper on one of the torpedo boats. In any case, they suspected it was Egyptian and that it was being used as a support vessel in the shelling of the port of El-Arish that had happened earlier that day.

Um, you don't attack things you can't identify. This is why when I was in the service, we spent a LOT of time on being able to identify friendly, enemy, or allied planes and vehicles.

Perhaps. Can we criticize the Israelis for being overzealous and overreacting? Probably so. But was it a deliberate attack on a known American vessel for some ulterior motive? I highly doubt it. None of the theories offered so far make any sense given the circumstances.

Sure they do. But in your limited brain, it's just not possible that a duplicitous nation would have an ulterior motive.

Why would Israel pay Jonathan Pollard to spy on the US? Was that also an "accident"? Isreal seems to have more accidents than Nana in the nursing home.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

you will come up with any excuse for bad behavior by White People, whether it be genocidal Zionists, smirking punks, or trigger-happy cops.

"Smirking punks" JoeBob? [plural no less]... give us some examples of actual excuses being made for "smirking punks" JoeBob.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

you will come up with any excuse for bad behavior by White People, whether it be genocidal Zionists, smirking punks, or trigger-happy cops.

TRANSLATION: "It aint racist if it's the jews"

 

[JoeB131]

TRANSLATION: "It aint racist if it's the jews"

Jews aren't a minority race; they are a religion.

Most of them are whiter than I am.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

ews aren't a minority race; they are a religion.

Most of them are whiter than I am.

proving the translation is spot on and your post a confession

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Jews aren't a minority race; they are a religion.

Most of them are whiter than I am.

I don't suppose ya can clear up the whole "smirking punks" [plural] thing for us could ya...if ya need some inspiration I am smirking with every post.