USS Liberty

[mikegriffith1]

Naw, because it was kind of stupid. First, it wasn't a "parade", it was a column moving through a small town during the larger Battle of Sedan.

It was a victory parade. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

Incidently, you make it sound like they attacked the whole division, and not just elements of it. Enemy French forces were in close proximity, and it was close to the heavily forested Ardennes region.

More of your typical silliness. It was a victory parade, with numerous flags and a senior officer review.

again, low visibility. (Also, they missed). Unlike the Liberty, which was out in BROAD DAYLIGHT and was attacked THREE SEPARATE TIMES.

Low visibility is not no visibility, and the Sheffield was far smaller than the Bismarck. And they missed because the Sheffield took evasive action.

First by Mirages.
then by Mysteres
Then by Torpedo boats.

One $(%$#, I could probably overlook.

Three $*%$%%, it looks a lot more suspicious.

Uh, yeah, nobody denies this, but, apparently unknown to you, there was a lot more to it than your simplistic summary. If you ever get around to reading the other side, you'll find out why several official investigations all reached the same conclusion: friendly fire.

That's kind of a dumb example. The Cardiff incident happened AT NIGHT, and they were relying on radar to tell them what they were shooting at. The helicopter turned off it's IFF system. (That's a transponder that identifies friendly aircraft.)

1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Again you run to Wikipedia. You must be kidding. Yes, it happened at night, but they had sophisticated radar that should have made it obvious that their target was far too small to be a C-130 Hercules. That's why the British tried to cover it up. It was a mind-boggling, inexcusable case of friendly fire.

Nope, because I don't care about Zionist LIES.

Phew! What a joke. Right, so I guess you're arguing that the Israelis forged the helicopter transcripts? Yes, of course.

Mao was a bastard... who made China a world power.

And never mind the tens of millions of Chinese he killed to consolidate his power, right? In previous threads, you actually defended Mao and claimed he was not as bad as Chiang Kai-Shek. And, FYI, China did not become a world power until after she abandoned communist economic policies, starting in the 1990s--until then, China was hardly a "world power."

Stalin was a bastard...who saved the world from Fascism.

Phew! Yeah, okay. And, again, never mind the 20-30 million Russians he killed, not to mention millions of non-Russians, right? Oh. . . . but that's right: those mass killings could not have happened because, gee, shucks, Soviet census numbers don't show them! You have actually repeatedly made this hilarious argument. I mean, gee, everybody knows how reliable Soviet government figures were!

The Zionists are a bunch of little twatnoodles plunging the middle east into perpetual war because they think their magic sky friend loves them the best.

Wow, well, thanks for voicing the Muslim terrorists' view of Israel and the cause of war in the Middle East! According to your sick mind, Arab terrorism and aggression aren't the cause of all the troubles in the Middle East--nah, it's those slimy Jews in Israel!

I'm glad you're letting people see what a wingnut you are.

 

[JoeB131]

It was a victory parade. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

Do you have a link from a non-crazy source. I actually did due diligence on this one, and the only reference I could find to it was that it happened during the Battle of France. No listing of how many Germans were killed or even if any were killed. (It just said casualties were "light".)

Low visibility is not no visibility, and the Sheffield was far smaller than the Bismarck. And they missed because the Sheffield took evasive action.

And because visibility was shit. And they were attacking it with 1930's technology.

Should also point outthat the Bismarck was travelling with the Prinz Eugene at the time.

Bismarck - 792 feet long
Prinz Eugene - 697 feet long
Sheffeild - 591 feet long

Easy to get those mixed up in bad weather conditions.

And never mind the tens of millions of Chinese he killed to consolidate his power, right? In previous threads, you actually defended Mao and claimed he was not as bad as Chiang Kai-Shek. And, FYI, China did not become a world power until after she abandoned communist economic policies, starting in the 1990s--until then, China was hardly a "world power."

You mean other than fighting the US and all her UN allies to a standstill in Korea? or having nuclear weapons? Or intimidating the US from actually invading North Vietnam.

As for the "Millions of people", the only way you get to that number is if you count the 1959-62 famine (my wife lived through that as a baby, and her parents said it was awful). Yup, that was a combination of a force of nature and bad policy. (Lower-level officials reported higher crop yields to please the higher-ups during a drought. Combined with a foolish initiative to kill sparrows, causing an explosion in the insect population.)

But don't take my word for it. Ask any Chinese what they think of Mao, and they consider him with more reverence than we give George Washington. (Who isn't doing that well with historical re-examination.)

Phew! Yeah, okay. And, again, never mind the 20-30 million Russians he killed, not to mention millions of non-Russians, right? Oh. . . . but that's right: those mass killings could not have happened because, gee, shucks, Soviet census numbers don't show them! You have actually repeatedly made this hilarious argument. I mean, gee, everybody knows how reliable Soviet government figures were!

We've been over this. Russia DID lose 20 million people in WWII, and you are claiming that Stalin supposedly killed an additional 30 million, which means there would have to be a 50 million person hole in the USSR's population between 1926 and 1954.

Yet... The population of the USSR increased from 147 million in 1926 to 191 million in 1954. They made up for those 50 million people and came up with another 44 million to boot.

By way of comparison, the population of the US increased from 117 million in 1926 to 158 million in 1954. That's with only light casualties in WWII, and massive immigration, and there wasn't a purge of Republicans.

Wow, well, thanks for voicing the Muslim terrorists' view of Israel and the cause of war in the Middle East! According to your sick mind, Arab terrorism and aggression aren't the cause of all the troubles in the Middle East--nah, it's those slimy Jews in Israel!

If Israel didn't exist, do you think we'd have a terror problem? We wouldn't.

 

[JoeB131]

Uh, yeah, nobody denies this, but, apparently unknown to you, there was a lot more to it than your simplistic summary. If you ever get around to reading the other side, you'll find out why several official investigations all reached the same conclusion: friendly fire.

Which shows how much influence the Zionist Lobby has in Washington, but they can't spin away reality.

The Zionists attacked Liberty 3 times. There's no way they didn't know what they were attacking.

Again you run to Wikipedia. You must be kidding. Yes, it happened at night, but they had sophisticated radar that should have made it obvious that their target was far too small to be a C-130 Hercules. That's why the British tried to cover it up. It was a mind-boggling, inexcusable case of friendly fire.

The only thing inexcusable about the Falklands War was the Falklands War. The Malvinas should have been returned to Argentina decades ago.




I mean, ******* seriously, they expended billions of dollars over barren Islands with only 1000 people living there and lots of Sheep.



But, yeah, turning off your IFF transmitter during an active combat situation was pretty stupid.

Phew! What a joke. Right, so I guess you're arguing that the Israelis forged the helicopter transcripts? Yes, of course.

That's usually my go to when dealing with Zionists. I assume they are lying. It also works with Mormon.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Again, I recommend A. Jay Cristol's website. Cristol, a U.S. Navy veteran, has been researching the Liberty incident for years and has secured dozens of documents through FOIA suits.

Here's Cristol's response to the spurious claims of Ron Gotcher. As some here may know, Gotcher falsely claimed that he worked for NSA, that while at NSA he saw the internal NSA report on the Liberty incident, and that the report proved the attack was deliberate. It turned out that Gotcher never even worked for NSA, and that no NSA report says the attack was deliberate:

On Friday January 3, 2003, at 11:48:01, Ron Gotcher posted an e-mail to Mr. R [redacted] which stated in part:

After my discharge, I worked for the agency [NSA] at Fort Meade. I saw the internal report on the attack, as did most agency employees. The report conclusively established that the attack was deliberate.

In response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request 50412, the NSA responded:

Our records reflect that Mr. James Ronald Gotcher, III has never been affiliated with this agency. (Emphasis added.)

The full texts of the Gotcher e-mail dated January 3, 2003, FOIA request 50412, the NSA release in response to FOIA request 50412, and the report to the NSA Director, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) 23 May - 8 June 1967 are reproduced below. . . .

Other documents of interest may be viewed on this website under DOCUMENTS:

Investigations (US): message from Director National Security Agency to White House dated 22 June 1967 at 1011Z; A Review of the Technical Research Program 1961-1969 by Julie Alger; National Security Agency Report (1981); the National Security Agency Release of 2 July 2003; and the National Security Agency Release of 6 June 2007.

No other NSA "internal reports on the attack" are known to exist. A careful reading of the above-described reports does not support, but rather refutes Mr. Gotcher's claim. (The Liberty Incident: Gotcher Debunked)

 

[Blaster]

It's time we put this incident behind us.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, I recommend A. Jay Cristol's website. Cristol, a U.S. Navy veteran, has been researching the Liberty incident for years and has secured dozens of documents through FOIA suits.

Here's Cristol's response to the spurious claims of Ron Gotcher. As some here may know, Gotcher falsely claimed that he worked for NSA, that while at NSA he saw the internal NSA report on the Liberty incident, and that the report proved the attack was deliberate. It turned out that Gotcher never even worked for NSA, and that no NSA report says the attack was deliberate:

Ah, Mormon Mike, you go down another rabbit hole when you get confronted by something you don't like.

The point was, the Zionist Squatters attacked the Liberty three separate times, even though she was CLEARLY marked as an American ship.

Our gutless sellout politicians, instead of demanding accountability, do what they always do when the Jews yell "jump", they answered, "How high?"

The Zionists are not our friends, they are not our allies, and they will happily sacrifice American lives to achieve their deranged religious goals.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[mikegriffith1]

Again, I recommend A. Jay Cristol's website. Cristol, a U.S. Navy veteran, has been researching the Liberty incident for years and has secured dozens of documents through FOIA suits.

Here's Cristol's response to the spurious claims of Ron Gotcher. As some here may know, Gotcher falsely claimed that he worked for NSA, that while at NSA he saw the internal NSA report on the Liberty incident, and that the report proved the attack was deliberate. It turned out that Gotcher never even worked for NSA, and that no NSA report says the attack was deliberate:

On Friday January 3, 2003, at 11:48:01, Ron Gotcher posted an e-mail to Mr. R [redacted] which stated in part:

After my discharge, I worked for the agency [NSA] at Fort Meade. I saw the internal report on the attack, as did most agency employees. The report conclusively established that the attack was deliberate.

In response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request 50412, the NSA responded:

Our records reflect that Mr. James Ronald Gotcher, III has never been affiliated with this agency. (Emphasis added.)

The full texts of the Gotcher e-mail dated January 3, 2003, FOIA request 50412, the NSA release in response to FOIA request 50412, and the report to the NSA Director, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) 23 May - 8 June 1967 are reproduced below. . . .

Other documents of interest may be viewed on this website under DOCUMENTS:

Investigations (US): message from Director National Security Agency to White House dated 22 June 1967 at 1011Z; A Review of the Technical Research Program 1961-1969 by Julie Alger; National Security Agency Report (1981); the National Security Agency Release of 2 July 2003; and the National Security Agency Release of 6 June 2007.

No other NSA "internal reports on the attack" are known to exist. A careful reading of the above-described reports does not support, but rather refutes Mr. Gotcher's claim. (The Liberty Incident: Gotcher Debunked)

Here are some basic facts to keep in mind as we read the wingnut conspiracy theories being floated by anti-Israeli radicals in this thread:

-- By the time the USS Liberty arrived off the Sinai coast, Israeli forces had already soundly whipped their Arab enemies and had already conquered most of the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. So the lunatic idea that the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty in the hope of blaming the attack on the Egyptians in order to get America to enter the war makes no sense.

And if the Israeli plan had been to blame the attack on the Egyptians, they surely would have removed all the Israeli decals from their planes, helicopters, and boats--and, needless to say, they would have sunk the Liberty and left no survivors. They would have also heavily jammed the entire frequency spectrum to prevent the Liberty from communicating with its parent fleet.

-- The Egyptian Navy had a record of disguising some of their ships with Western markings, and the Israelis were well aware of this fact.

-- Less than 3 hours before the Israelis mistook the USS Liberty for an Egyptian ship, a large explosion occurred at the Israeli coastal city of El Arish, causing the Israelis to believe that an Egyptian naval ship had bombarded the town. As a result, Israeli air and naval forces began looking for the Egyptian ship that had bombarded El Arish. The USS Liberty happened to be in the search area.

-- Less than 20 minutes before the attack, an Israeli torpedo boat mistakenly estimated that the suspect ship was fleeing toward Egypt at a speed of 30 knots, causing the Israelis to believe that the ship had to be Egyptian.

-- When three Israeli torpedo boats approached the USS Liberty after the first aerial attacks, smoke obscured their view and so they asked the ship to identify itself. In response, the Liberty asked the Israeli torpedo boats to identify themselves, since the Liberty crew could not see through the smoke either. However, then, one of the crewmen on the Liberty disobeyed orders and fired at the Israeli boats. Only then did the Israeli boats open fire on the Liberty.

One of the Israeli torpedoes hit the Liberty and killed 25 sailors.

The USS Liberty Incident: The Truth Behind the Tragedy | HonestReporting

In a tragic event during the 1967 Six-Day War, the USS Liberty came under attack from Israeli forces resulting in the deaths of 34 Americans.

honestreporting.com

"The USS Liberty: Case Closed"

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

 

[JoeB131]

Here are some basic facts to keep in mind as we read the wingnut conspiracy theories being floated by anti-Israeli radicals in this thread:

-- By the time the USS Liberty arrived off the Sinai coast, Israeli forces had already soundly whipped their Arab enemies and had already conquered most of the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. So the lunatic idea that the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty in the hope of blaming the attack on the Egyptians in order to get America to enter the war makes no sense.

And if the Israeli plan had been to blame the attack on the Egyptians, they surely would have removed all the Israeli decals from their planes, helicopters, and boats--and, needless to say, they would have sunk the Liberty and left no survivors. They would have also heavily jammed the entire frequency spectrum to prevent the Liberty from communicating with its parent fleet.

Three separate attacks, it certainly seems like they were trying very hard to sink it.

The problem with the "We were winning" doesn't take into account the Egyptians might have launched a counter attack. The problem with the Sinai occupation is that it was always a very tenuous thing for the Zionist Entity, as they would find out in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War and why they were so willing to give it back at Camp David. Getting the Americans in their corner with a false flag might have seemed like a good idea.

I'm not saying this scheme went up to the PM. It might have just been one rogue commander who got snapped back once his superiors figured out what he was up to.

The other theory is that the Liberty has picked up Israeli transmissions proving they were the aggressor in the Six-Day War, and they were trying to cover up the evidence.

-- The Egyptian Navy had a record of disguising some of their ships with Western markings, and the Israelis were well aware of this fact.

-- Less than 3 hours before the Israelis mistook the USS Liberty for an Egyptian ship, a large explosion occurred at the Israeli coastal city of El Arish, causing the Israelis to believe that an Egyptian naval ship had bombarded the town. As a result, Israeli air and naval forces began looking for the Egyptian ship that had bombarded El Arish. The USS Liberty happened to be in the search area.

Except that it was very clearly NOT a warship, so that shit ain't gonna fly.

 

[mikegriffith1]

BTW, the definitive book on the USS Liberty incident is A. Jay Cristol's The Liberty Incident Revealed: The Definitive Account of the 1967 Israeli Attack on the U.S. Navy Spy Ship.

The publisher's description of the book is worth quoting. Among other things, it points out how the Israel-bashing conspiracy theorists reacted when the released NSA intercepts destroyed their claim that the attack was intentional--predictably, they still argue that the NSA tapes were all fabricated/altered:

The Liberty Incident Revealed is the complete and final story about the Israeli Air Force and Navy attack on the USS Liberty during the Six Day War in June 1967. Cutting through all of the controversy and conspiracy theories about Israel‘s deadly attack, Cristol revises his well-regarded book about the event with an expanded and in-depth analysis of all of the sources, including the released tapes of the National Security Agency (NSA) intercepts.

When Cristol‘s first book on the subject, The Liberty Incident, was published in 2002, there remained many unanswered questions about Israeli Air Force audio tapes. The NSA intercepts tapes had not yet been released in 2002. Some conspiracy theorists alleged the NSA tapes would prove that the Israeli attack was premeditated. Cristol‘s successful Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the NSA, while resulting in the release of those tapes, has been greeted by anti-Israel sources insisting that the NSA tapes are fraudulent and are part of a larger conspiracy to deceive the American public.

After a quarter of a century of intensive research in both Israel and the U.S., researching all relevant archives from NSA, CIA and the State Department, reviewing both formerly classified and open source documents, and interviewing all then-living individuals directly involved in the incident, the factual and documentary record is clear. Cristol maintains that despite the fact that all of the official records and transcripts are now available for review, the truth has proven to be of no interest to those individuals and organizations who are motivated by hidden agendas, wish to keep conspiracy theories alive, or are trying to feed sensational stories to the media. Documenting his findings in six new chapters, Cristol establishes definitively that the Israeli attack was a tragic mistake and presents a convincing argument that will be regarded as the final chapter in the long-simmering debate about this incident.

In some previous baffling friendly fire incidents, some of the victims, perhaps understandably, came to believe the attacks were deliberate. They simply could not believe the attackers did not realize they were firing on friendly forces. Thus, it is not surprising that USS Liberty crew members rejected the Israeli explanation and continue to believe the attack was deliberate. It is impossible to reason with them, and fringe anti-Israeli critics love quoting them.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Now is the time to discuss the mind-boggling friendly fire incident that occurred in Iraq in 1994 when two U.S. F-15s shot down two U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopters in broad daylight, mistaking them for Soviet-made "Hind" helicopters, even after the F-15s did a visual identification of the choppers, and even though several American flags were prominently displayed on the choppers.

The Black Hawks were supporting Operation Provide Comfort and their passengers included four Kurdish civilians, one Chaldean civilian, three Turkish officers, two British officers, and one French officer, in addition to several Americans. To this day, some of the family members of the foreign passengers on the choppers suspect foul play, arguing there was "no way" the F-15s could not have realized the choppers were Black Hawks, "no way" they could have mistaken them for Hinds.

Both choppers were fitted with large sponson-mounted fuel tanks, and each tank had a large American flag on it. Moreover, each chopper was marked with the American flag on each side door, on the belly, and on the nose.

Yet, the F-15 pilots insisted they did not notice any of the American flags clearly displayed on the choppers when they did their visual ID. One of the F-15 flew close enough to the choppers to see the sponsons on one of the choppers. How did that pilot see the sponsons but not see the American flags prominently displayed on both choppers? Oh, it must have been intentional, right?!

The blunders of the AWACS operators who were monitoring the situation are equally mind boggling. Just one minute after the AWACS operators acknowledged F-15 pilot Wickson's notification of the radar contacts, the IFF returns from the Black Hawks were not only clearly visible but also identifiable as being in the same location as Wickson’s reported contacts. Yet, incredibly, no AWACS operator told the F-15 pilots about the presence of the two Black Hawks in the target area.

Entire books have been written about this astonishing friendly fire incident. Some foreign authors still question the U.S. explanation of the tragedy, and, as mentioned, some family members of some of the foreign passengers still suspect foul play was involved.

Here's a good article in The National Interest on the incident:

Tragedy: Inside the Accidental 1994 Shootdown of Two Army Black Hawks by Air Force F-15s

A Blue on blue.

nationalinterest.org

 

[JoeB131]

In some previous baffling friendly fire incidents, some of the victims, perhaps understandably, came to believe the attacks were deliberate. They simply could not believe the attackers did not realize they were firing on friendly forces. Thus, it is not surprising that USS Liberty crew members rejected the Israeli explanation and continue to believe the attack was deliberate. It is impossible to reason with them, and fringe anti-Israeli critics love quoting them.

Yes, the people the dirty, stinking Zionist scum tried to murder aren't forgiving about it at all, for some reason.

Imagine that.

Now is the time to discuss the mind-boggling friendly fire incident that occurred in Iraq in 1994 when two U.S. F-15s shot down two U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopters in broad daylight, mistaking them for Soviet-made "Hind" helicopters, even after the F-15s did a visual identification of the choppers, and even though several American flags were prominently displayed on the choppers.

Why are you trying to change the subject, Mormon Mike?

We aren't talking about radar contacts, we are talking about THREE attacks on a clearly-marked United States Naval Vessal.

 

[mikegriffith1]

You mean other than fighting the US and all her UN allies to a standstill in Korea? or having nuclear weapons? Or intimidating the US from actually invading North Vietnam.

As for the "Millions of people", the only way you get to that number is if you count the 1959-62 famine (my wife lived through that as a baby, and her parents said it was awful). Yup, that was a combination of a force of nature and bad policy. (Lower-level officials reported higher crop yields to please the higher-ups during a drought. Combined with a foolish initiative to kill sparrows, causing an explosion in the insect population.)

But don't take my word for it. Ask any Chinese what they think of Mao, and they consider him with more reverence than we give George Washington. (Who isn't doing that well with historical re-examination.)

We've been over this. Russia DID lose 20 million people in WWII, and you are claiming that Stalin supposedly killed an additional 30 million, which means there would have to be a 50 million person hole in the USSR's population between 1926 and 1954.

Yet... The population of the USSR increased from 147 million in 1926 to 191 million in 1954. They made up for those 50 million people and came up with another 44 million to boot.

By way of comparison, the population of the US increased from 117 million in 1926 to 158 million in 1954. That's with only light casualties in WWII, and massive immigration, and there wasn't a purge of Republicans.

LOL! Well, well, thank you for once again showing your true fringe colors on Mao and Stalin. You just can't help yourself, can you? You can only hide your nutjob beliefs for so long and then you reveal them again when goaded. Anyway, I won't bother re-posting the dozens of scholarly links I've given you before that document that Mao and Stalin each murdered tens of millions of their own citizens to consolidate their power. Anyone can Google and find them.

If Israel didn't exist, do you think we'd have a terror problem? We wouldn't.

Yikes! Holy jihadist nutjob, Batman! So everything would be fine in the Middle East if only those lousy Jews didn't have a tiny country there! Just FYI, there were numerous horrific wars and oppression among the Arabs in the Middle East long before Israel was reestablished in 1948. In addition, there've been wars among the Arabs since Israel's founding as well, e.g., Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the bloody Iraqi-Kurdish conflict, the uprising in Mosul, the Dhofar Rebellion, the Baathist takeover in Syria, the Yemenite War, etc., etc., etc.

Sheesh. Total wingnuttery.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL! Well, well, thank you for once again showing your true fringe colors on Mao and Stalin. You just can't help yourself, can you? You can only hide your nutjob beliefs for so long and then you reveal them again when goaded. Anyway, I won't bother re-posting the dozens of scholarly links I've given you before that document that Mao and Stalin each murdered tens of millions of their own citizens to consolidate their power. Anyone can Google and find them.

Yes, no one wants to read your Bircher garbage.

Still waiting to see you explain how the population of the USSR could go up by 45 million people when Stalin supposedly killed 30 million people. Them Russian babes must have been ******* like rabbits.

Yikes! Holy jihadist nutjob, Batman! So everything would be fine in the Middle East if only those lousy Jews didn't have a tiny country there! Just FYI, there were numerous horrific wars and oppression among the Arabs in the Middle East long before Israel was reestablished in 1948. In addition, there've been wars among the Arabs since Israel's founding as well, e.g., Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the bloody Iraqi-Kurdish conflict, the uprising in Mosul, the Dhofar Rebellion, the Baathist takeover in Syria, the Yemenite War, etc., etc., etc.

Okay, sure there have been wars. Most of them were instigated by the West, like the Iran-Iraq war, but never mind that.

Okay, now, how many of those petty wars would have been OUR problem if the Jewish Lobby didn't run Washington?

ZERO.

We wouldn't have cared. Not our problem.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Here is the declassified 1981 NSA report on the USS Liberty incident (LINK). The report concluded that the attack was an accident that occurred because of Israeli miscalculation and American communications failures: "the tragedy resulted not only from Israeli miscalculation but also from faulty U.S. communications practices." A few notable, interesting points discussed in the report:

-- The three Israeli planes that reconned the USS Liberty did so from at least 2 miles away. Two of the planes did their recon from 2 miles away and from an altitude of 5,000 feet. The third plane reconned from 3-5 miles away. Thus, none of the planes got very close to the ship during their recon.

-- When the Israeli torpedo boats arrived, they began to flash a signal light at the USS Liberty--from 1 mile away. The torpedo boats were asking the Liberty to identify itself, but the Liberty's captain could not discern the signals because of the smoke and flames caused by the air attacks. Similarly, the torpedo boats did not have a good view of the Liberty because of the smoke and flames.

-- The Liberty's captain suspected that the air attacks had been done in error, so he ordered the starboard forward gun to hold its fire. However, the gunner fired at the torpedo boats before he understood the captain's orders. At the same time, the other gun on the Liberty fired by itself because flames ignited bullets in the gun, causing it to fire in the direction of the torpedo boats.

Thus, from the standpoint of the torpedo boats, their request for identification was answered by two of the Liberty's guns firing at them, and only then did the torpedo boats begin firing at the Liberty.

-- There were egregious communications errors on the American side. The USS Liberty was not even supposed to be there. It had been ordered to move out of the area, but, for several reasons, the Liberty did not receive the order.

-- By the time of the attack on the USS Liberty, the Six-Day War was virtually over and Israel had won a smashing victory. (Thus, the nutty idea that the Israelis intended to sink the Liberty to draw America into the war makes no sense, aside from the fact that it's absurd on its face.)

 

[JoeB131]

Here is the declassified 1981 NSA report on the USS Liberty incident (LINK). The report concluded that the attack was an accident that occurred because of Israeli miscalculation and American communications failures: "the tragedy resulted not only from Israeli miscalculation but also from faulty U.S. communications practices." A few notable, interesting points discussed in the report:

Nice victim blaming, Mormon Mike.

Guy, you need to stop sucking up to the ZIonist Squatters... Jesus isn't coming back no matter what they do there.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Three separate attacks, it certainly seems like they were trying very hard to sink it.

This is your answer to the evidence I've presented?! "Three separate attacks!" You're a broken record that just keeps repeating nonsense that is rejected by the vast majority of scholars who've examined the incident. One of those "three separate attacks" was the torpedo boat attack where the Israeli boats were trying to get the USS Liberty to identify itself and did not fire on the Liberty until the Liberty mistakenly fired at them first. Gee, when you signal a ship to ID itself and the ship responds by firing at you, you're gonna conclude that the ship is the enemy and defend yourself, hey?

The problem with the "We were winning" doesn't take into account the Egyptians might have launched a counter attack.

Phew! LOL! The Egyptians were in no position to counter attack at that point! They had been decimated. Sheesh. Do you get your Middle East history from Al Qaeda, the Egyptian Brotherhood, ISIS--all three? What utter nonsense.

The problem with the Sinai occupation is that it was always a very tenuous thing for the Zionist Entity, as they would find out in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War and why they were so willing to give it back at Camp David. Getting the Americans in their corner with a false flag might have seemed like a good idea.

More ahistorical idiocy. The Israeli Sinai occupation was never "tenuous," and it is laughable that you would cite the Yom Kippur War to support such an erroneous claim.

Oh, the Israelis were "so willing" to give back the Sinai at Camp David?!?!?! Yikes and holy smokes--where do you get your craziness? As any history of the Camp David negotiations will tell you, the Israelis were not at all anxious to give up the Sinai at Camp David. It took enormous pressure and a great deal of political maneuvering to finally persuade the Israelis to agree to give back the Sinai as part of the Camp David Peace Accords. Once again, you have no clue what on earth you're talking about. I'll have to add this howler to the list of other howlers.

I'm not saying this scheme went up to the PM. It might have just been one rogue commander who got snapped back once his superiors figured out what he was up to.

#Back_pedaling. Uh, and who was this "rogue" commander? Got a name? What command position did he hold? What about the pilot transcripts that show the Israelis did not know it was an American ship? (Oh, that's right: according to you, all the transcripts were faked or altered.) What about the fact that the torpedo boats did not fire first but merely asked the Liberty to ID itself and only fired when the Liberty fired at them? What about the fact that the planes that reconned the Liberty never got closer than 2 miles?

Again, I only answer you for the sake of others. I have never seen such an obscene clown as you in any forum.

The other theory is that the Liberty has picked up Israeli transmissions proving they were the aggressor in the Six-Day War, and they were trying to cover up the evidence.

Wow! Phew! LOL! This is beyond idiocy. It is obscenely comical. Again, do you get your Middle East history from radical Muslim authors? Even the Wikipedia article on the Six-Day War refutes the ridiculous Arab lie that the Israelis were the aggressors in that war. Nasser was getting ready to attack Israel and made no bones about it, which is why he mobilized his army and then ordered UN peacekeepers to leave the Sinai, but Israeli simply beat him to the punch with a preemptive strike.

So let's just recap your latest embarrassing howlers: Israel was "so willing" to give up the Sinai at Camp David. Israel was the aggressor in the Six-Day War. At the time of the Liberty attack, Israel had to worry about an Egyptian counter attack. The Israelis attacked the Liberty in order to draw America into a war that they had already won, and won decisively. Thanks for sharing.

Except that it was very clearly NOT a warship, so that #E($#R$ ain't gonna fly.

That's a silly, childish circular argument. I'll just repeat that every single official investigation, and virtually every scholar who has studied the attack, has concluded the attack was an accident.

I notice you declined to discuss the astounding 1994 Black Hawk friendly fire incident, dodging it with the curious claim that discussing the incident is somehow changing the subject. Clearly, you don't want to discuss the Black Hawk Incident (as it is known), even though you've discussed other friendly fire cases, because it is far more baffling and inexcusable than the Liberty attack.

 

[JoeB131]

This is your answer to the evidence I've presented?! "Three separate attacks!" You're a broken record that just keeps repeating nonsense that is rejected by the vast majority of scholars who've examined the incident. One of those "three separate attacks" was the torpedo boat attack where the Israeli boats were trying to get the USS Liberty to identify itself and did not fire on the Liberty until the Liberty mistakenly fired at them first. Gee, when you signal a ship to ID itself and the ship responds by firing at you, you're gonna conclude that the ship is the enemy and defend yourself, hey?

the Liberty didn't "mistakenly" fire on them. They fired on assholes who had already attacked them.

Phew! LOL! The Egyptians were in no position to counter attack at that point! They had been decimated. Sheesh. Do you get your Middle East history from Al Qaeda, the Egyptian Brotherhood, ISIS--all three? What utter nonsense.

Really? So the Zionists were ready to March on Cairo? Oh, wait, no, they weren't.

More ahistorical idiocy. The Israeli Sinai occupation was never "tenuous," and it is laughable that you would cite the Yom Kippur War to support such an erroneous claim.

Oh, the Israelis were "so willing" to give back the Sinai at Camp David?!?!?! Yikes and holy smokes--where do you get your craziness? As any history of the Camp David negotiations will tell you, the Israelis were not at all anxious to give up the Sinai at Camp David. It took enormous pressure and a great deal of political maneuvering to finally persuade the Israelis to agree to give back the Sinai as part of the Camp David Accords. Once again, you have no clue what on earth you're talking about. I'll have to add this howler to the list of other howlers.

You left out the Yom Kippur War, where the Egyptians, using SAGER rockets, decimated the IDF in Sinai. that's when the Zionists realized occupying the Sinai was too much trouble.

#Back_pedaling. Uh, and who was this "rogue" commander? Got a name? What command position did he hold? What about the pilot transcripts that show the Israelis did not know it was an American ship? (Oh, that's right: according to you, all the transcripts were faked or altered.) What about the fact that the torpedo boats did not fire first but merely asked the Liberty to ID itself and only fired when the Liberty fired at them? What about the fact that the planes that reconned the Liberty never got closer than 2 miles?

Transcripts can be faked.

Again, nice victim blaming, that the service members on Liberty, having been attacked twice, decided to finally start fighting back.

Wow! Phew! LOL! This is beyond idiocy. It is obscenely comical. Again, do you get your Middle East history from radical Muslim authors? Even the Wikipedia article on the Six-Day War refutes the ridiculous Arab lie that the Israelis were the aggressors in that war. Nasser was getting ready to attack Israel and made no bones about it, which is why he mobilized his army and then ordered UN peacekeepers to leave the Sinai, but Israeli simply beat him to the punch with a preemptive strike.

Israel still fired the first shot, that makes them the aggressors.

That's a silly, childish circular argument. Again, even worse cases of friendly fire have happened, and every single official investigation, a virtually every scholar who has studied the attack, has concluded the attack was an accident.

Not every scholar, and again, the fact that the Jewish Lobby has our government in such a vice these shitballs can kill Americans and we apologize to them is horrendous.

I notice you declined to discuss the astounding 1994 Black Hawk friendly fire incident, dodging it with the curious claim that discussing the incident is somehow changing the subject. Clearly, you don't want to discuss the Black Hawk Incident (as it is known), even though you've discussed other friendly fire cases, because it is far more baffling and inexcusable than the Liberty attack.

I kind of got bored with your 'whataboutisms", guy.

The Liberty was a clearly marked American ship that was nearly 500 feet long. There's simply no way the Zionists could have mistaken it for ANYTHING ELSE three times.

 

[mikegriffith1]

This is your answer to the evidence I've presented?! "Three separate attacks!" You're a broken record that just keeps repeating nonsense that is rejected by the vast majority of scholars who've examined the incident. One of those "three separate attacks" was the torpedo boat attack where the Israeli boats were trying to get the USS Liberty to identify itself and did not fire on the Liberty until the Liberty mistakenly fired at them first. Gee, when you signal a ship to ID itself and the ship responds by firing at you, you're gonna conclude that the ship is the enemy and defend yourself, hey?

Phew! LOL! The Egyptians were in no position to counter attack at that point! They had been decimated. Sheesh. Do you get your Middle East history from Al Qaeda, the Egyptian Brotherhood, ISIS--all three? What utter nonsense.

More ahistorical idiocy. The Israeli Sinai occupation was never "tenuous," and it is laughable that you would cite the Yom Kippur War to support such an erroneous claim.

Oh, the Israelis were "so willing" to give back the Sinai at Camp David?!?!?! Yikes and holy smokes--where do you get your craziness? As any history of the Camp David negotiations will tell you, the Israelis were not at all anxious to give up the Sinai at Camp David. It took enormous pressure and a great deal of political maneuvering to finally persuade the Israelis to agree to give back the Sinai as part of the Camp David Peace Accords. Once again, you have no clue what on earth you're talking about. I'll have to add this howler to the list of other howlers.

#Back_pedaling. Uh, and who was this "rogue" commander? Got a name? What command position did he hold? What about the pilot transcripts that show the Israelis did not know it was an American ship? (Oh, that's right: according to you, all the transcripts were faked or altered.) What about the fact that the torpedo boats did not fire first but merely asked the Liberty to ID itself and only fired when the Liberty fired at them? What about the fact that the planes that reconned the Liberty never got closer than 2 miles?

Again, I only answer you for the sake of others. I have never seen such an obscene clown as you in any forum.

Wow! Phew! LOL! This is beyond idiocy. It is obscenely comical. Again, do you get your Middle East history from radical Muslim authors? Even the Wikipedia article on the Six-Day War refutes the ridiculous Arab lie that the Israelis were the aggressors in that war. Nasser was getting ready to attack Israel and made no bones about it, which is why he mobilized his army and then ordered UN peacekeepers to leave the Sinai, but Israeli simply beat him to the punch with a preemptive strike.

So let's just recap your latest embarrassing howlers: Israel was "so willing" to give up the Sinai at Camp David. Israel was the aggressor in the Six-Day War. At the time of the Liberty attack, Israel had to worry about an Egyptian counter attack. The Israelis attacked the Liberty in order to draw America into a war that they had already won, and won decisively. Thanks for sharing.

That's a silly, childish circular argument. I'll just repeat that every single official investigation, and virtually every scholar who has studied the attack, has concluded the attack was an accident.

I notice you declined to discuss the astounding 1994 Black Hawk friendly fire incident, dodging it with the curious claim that discussing the incident is somehow changing the subject. Clearly, you don't want to discuss the Black Hawk Incident (as it is known), even though you've discussed other friendly fire cases, because it is far more baffling and inexcusable than the Liberty attack.

I failed to mention another revealing fact about the Israeli helicopter-control tower transcripts discussed in the 6/13/67 CIA report on the incident: the pilots were ordered to try to rescue any sailors who had jumped into the water from the ship that had been attacked. I quoted from this report in an earlier reply, but it's worth quoting again:

. . . the intercepted conversations between the helicopter pilots and the control tower at Hatzor (near Tel Aviv) leave little doubt that the Israelis failed to identify the Liberty as a US ship before or during the attack. Control told (helicopter) 815 at 3:31 p.m. (8:31 a.m.) that “there is a warship there which we attacked. The men jumped into the water from it. You will try to rescue them.” (LINK)

Now, needless to say, if the Israelis had known the ship was American and had attacked it in the hope of blaming the Egyptians and drawing America into the war, they would not have tried to rescue any of the ship's crewmembers.

And I think it's worth noting again that the CIA report also pointed out that although the Liberty was much larger than the Egyptian ship El Quesir, it would have been easy for a pilot to mistake the Liberty for the Egyptian ship because both ships had similar hulls and had similar mast and stack arrangements--and also notice that the control tower identified the ship as Egyptian:

A subsequent message from the control tower to the helicopter identified the ship as Egyptian and told the pilot to return home. Although the Liberty is some 200 feet longer than the Egyptian transport El Quesir, it could easily be mistaken for the latter vessel by an overzealous pilot. Both ships have similar hulls and arrangements of masts and stack. (LINK)

Keep in mind, too, that the helicopter-tower comms occurred only about half an hour after the Liberty had been attacked. Thus, only about 30 minutes after the attack, the Hatzor control tower still believed the targeted ship was Egyptian.