Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 4
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 5:49:01 AM EDT
[#1]
Post from Scipio -
Reinforcements have arrived...situation well in hand.
View Quote

Sorry to leave you high and dry, [b]Scipio[/b], but these USS Liberty threads drive me to distraction!

Besides, you were doing excellent work in knocking the ball outta the park.[:D]

There was a blurb over the wires back in 1993, that an aging Israeli airman was about to come forward and confess his role in the deliberate attack on the USS Liberty.

We waited and waited, but no one showed up!

Still, that blurb appears on the USS Liberty Memorial website.

There was never any name to this Israeli airman, just that he was going to come clean.

And [u]that[/u] is how this story will always play out!

James Bamford, in his 1982 book, The Puzzle Palace, says that the Israelis deliberately attacked the USS Liberty in order to conceal their pending attack on the Golan Heights, which the Johnson Administration was dead set against!

When in 1997, the 30 year rule allowed what had up to that point been classified information to be released, we learned that the Israelis and the Johnson Administration had been carefully coordinating in the Six Day War, and that Washington not only knew about the pending Israeli attack, but gave them the green light, warned the Soviets that the attack was only for the limited purpose of securing the oft-shelled Israeli villages below the Golan, and then instructed its UN Ambassador to delay any UN Security Council meeting on calling for a cease fire until after the Israelis has signaled that the Golan had been taken!

When this came out, it shot down Bamford's original thesis like a blimp over Berlin, but he was not to be deterred!

Oh no, not anti-Israeli Bamford, he just changed his research to show that the real reason for the attack on the USS Liberty is that it was trying to coverup an ongoing massacre of Egyptian POWs by Israel in the Sinai!

The fact that the Egyptian government has never made such an accusation, that no bodies have been dug up in an area that has been under Egyptian control since it was handed back to Egypt by Israel in 1979, and that all sources for such a story have proved to be erroneous, does not faze our boy Bamford at all!

Nor does it faze his supporters.

There are, after all, bigger things involved here than the [b]truth[/b], ferchrissakes!

Eric The(AndSupposedIsraeliPerfidyIsOneOfThem)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 5:49:20 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
I find the language used in descibing the attack to be a bit odd.

[b]"hideously wounded"

"savage"

"brutal"[/b]

etc.

You never hear other accounts of modern AIR ATTACKS described with such visceral language.
Nor do you hear the actual eye-witnesses (or victims, as their supporters describe them)use these terms.
Only their supporters.

No one speaks of the USS Cole in these terms, nor do they speak this way in describing the attack on the USS Stark.
Only the Liberty evokes such florrid, descriptive terms and emotions.
Must be something about Israel....
View Quote


Visceral for sure.

I can understand, anyway, that being bombed and seeing my comrades dieying would make me boil of wrath...
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 5:51:39 AM EDT
[#3]
Why did they attack?
Is it just because of the Israelis' inherantly "treacherous" nature?

Why?
Bloodlust?
Hatred for America?
Practice?

Why?
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 5:52:03 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hannah_Reitsch, you have consistently said that the attack lasted 6 hours. Can you give us any explanation for this 6 hour time period?
View Quote

The six hour time period covers the multiple reconaissance overflights by Israeli warplanes, the rocket attacks by Israeli warplanes, the napalm attacks from Israeli warplanes, the torpedo runs by Israeli naval assets and the machinegun runs by Israeli naval assets.

No, Sir, no, Sir. The only question that remains is for those of you who believe the attack to have been deliberate, why would Israel deliberately attack a US ship in international waters?
View Quote

Here's an interesting theory:
Quoted:
One question: If a Israeli (British, French, Australian, German and so on) ship was spying US Army communication during Gulf War and passing those information to Saddam Hussein, should US Armed forces stop it with any mean or not?
View Quote


How many threads have we had on the USS Stark? The USS Cole?

How many threads on the Malmedy Massacre during the Battle of the Bulge?

The Bataan Death March?
View Quote

I know I've brought up the Cole several times myself, as well as the Bataan Death March. Regardless, there are no Iraqi partisans here that are able to conceive of no treachery on the part of the Iraqis and inundating us with propaganda on their behalf. There is no al-Qaeda cheering section here that bends over backwards to justify what was obviously a terrorist attack on the Cole. There is no one here trying to justify the horrors that the Japanese inflicted on American prisoners of war on Bataan. And no on is attempting to justify or whitewash the actions of the Waffen SS in Malmedy, or call it an accident, that the Nazis didn't [i][b]really mean[/b][/i] to murder all those US troops.
View Quote


And there is no comparison with the people you quoted.

Can you answer to my hipotetical question I did above?
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 5:55:47 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Why did they attack?
Is it just because of the Israelis' inherantly "treacherous" nature?

Why?
Bloodlust?
Hatred for America?
Practice?

Why?
View Quote


Why?

[sarcasm mode ON]

It's obvious... because they are treacherous bloodthirsty Jews...

[sarcasm mode OFF]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 5:57:29 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I find the language used in descibing the attack to be a bit odd.

[b]"hideously wounded"

"savage"

"brutal"[/b]

etc.

You never hear other accounts of modern AIR ATTACKS described with such visceral language.
Nor do you hear the actual eye-witnesses (or victims, as their supporters describe them)use these terms.
Only their supporters.

No one speaks of the USS Cole in these terms, nor do they speak this way in describing the attack on the USS Stark.
Only the Liberty evokes such florrid, descriptive terms and emotions.
Must be something about Israel....
View Quote


Visceral for sure.

I can understand, anyway, that being bombed and seeing my comrades dying would make me boil of wrath...
View Quote


...yet it isn't the witnesses who use these terms, it's their "supporters".
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 5:59:22 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why did they attack?
Is it just because of the Israelis' inherantly "treacherous" nature?

Why?
Bloodlust?
Hatred for America?
Practice?

Why?
View Quote


Why?

[sarcasm mode ON]

It's obvious... because they are treacherous bloodthirsty Jews...

[sarcasm mode OFF]
View Quote


That IS the insinuation that many here present.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:02:02 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why did they attack?
Is it just because of the Israelis' inherantly "treacherous" nature?

Why?
Bloodlust?
Hatred for America?
Practice?

Why?
View Quote


Why?

[sarcasm mode ON]

It's obvious... because they are treacherous bloodthirsty Jews...

[sarcasm mode OFF]
View Quote


That IS the insinuation that many here present.
View Quote


I know... I a waiting for the moment I will read that Jews make [i]matzot[/i] with virgins blood...
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:03:54 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
One question: If a Israeli (British, French, Australian, German and so on) ship was spying US Army communication during Gulf War and passing those information to Saddam Hussein, should US Armed forces stop it with any mean or not?
View Quote

And there is no comparison with the people you quoted.

Can you answer to my hipotetical question I did above?
View Quote

I didn't draw any comparisons. I merely answered EricTheHun's question about why there aren't threads about the Stark, the Cole, Bataan and Malmedy.

If the US was being spied on by Israel --and I know that concept is so difficult for some to get their heads around-- I would hope that we would do whatever was necessary to put an end to it, whether that was a protest to the Israeli government or a combined air and naval attack. In the aftermath, I would hope that America would tell them, "Hell yes, we blew your shit up, and we'll do it again if you play the same games against us."

Of course, the Israelis maintain that they thought they were attacking an Egyptian horsecarrier called El Quseir. They also say that they weren't running Pollard, even though they paid him handsomely and gave him Israeli citizenship, so this [b]really is[/b] a hypothetical discussion, isn't it?
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:05:04 AM EDT
[#10]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:07:55 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why did they attack?
Is it just because of the Israelis' inherantly "treacherous" nature?

Why?
Bloodlust?
Hatred for America?
Practice?

Why?
View Quote


Why?

[sarcasm mode ON]

It's obvious... because they are treacherous bloodthirsty Jews...

[sarcasm mode OFF]
View Quote


That IS the insinuation that many here present.
View Quote


I know... I a waiting for the moment I will read that Jews make [i]matzot[/i] with virgins blood...
View Quote

I deal in facts and logic, not insinuations and blood libel. Please point out any "bloodthirsty Jew" comments I've [b]ever[/b] made on this board or anywhere else. I'll wait.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:11:10 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One question: If a Israeli (British, French, Australian, German and so on) ship was spying US Army communication during Gulf War and passing those information to Saddam Hussein, should US Armed forces stop it with any mean or not?
View Quote

And there is no comparison with the people you quoted.

Can you answer to my hipotetical question I did above?
View Quote

I didn't draw any comparisons. I merely answered EricTheHun's question about why there aren't threads about the Stark, the Cole, Bataan and Malmedy.

If the US was being spied on by Israel --and I know that concept is so difficult for some to get their heads around-- I would hope that we would do whatever was necessary to put an end to it, whether that was a protest to the Israeli government or a combined air and naval attack. In the aftermath, I would hope that America would tell them, "Hell yes, we blew your shit up, and we'll do it again if you play the same games against us."

Of course, the Israelis maintain that they thought they were attacking an Egyptian horsecarrier called El Quseir. They also say that they weren't running Pollard, even though they paid him handsomely and gave him Israeli citizenship, so this [b]really is[/b] a hypothetical discussion, isn't it?
View Quote


For what I know, Pollard is known to be an Israel spy even in Israel... it's not hypotetical...

But what you call "traitor" can be called by someone else hero...

Think of an Israeli that, seeing that his govt. is not willing to transmit info that are vital for USA security, starts to pass those infos to USA agencies...

For Israelis would be a traitor
For Americans this man would be a hero...
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:13:53 AM EDT
[#13]
I deal in facts and logic, not insinuations and blood libel. Please point out any "bloodthirsty Jew" comments I've [b]ever[/b] made on this board or anywhere else. I'll wait.
View Quote


You haven't made any comments of this sort.
Insinuations are subtle.
But you don't seem ask "why" the attack occurred.

Why would they attack, without reason?
Even if their reasons were faulty.

For them to attack, with absolutely no reason, the only conclusion that one could draw is that they are "bloodthirtsy" and "treacherous".

It is the reasonable assumption.

Again, why do you think the attack occurred?



Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:20:41 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
For what I know, Pollard is known to be an Israel spy even in Israel... it's not hypotetical...

But what you call "traitor" can be called by someone else hero...

Think of an Israeli that, seeing that his govt. is not willing to transmit info that are vital for USA security, starts to pass those infos to USA agencies...

For Israelis would be a traitor
For Americans this man would be a hero...
View Quote

That's right. You're exactly right. Pollard was a US citizen who decided on his own hook that he should sell Top Secret US information to a foreign government. He is a traitor to his country. The Israelis may view him as a hero, but he's going to rot in a US federal supermax prison, with fluorescent lights on 24 hours a day in a concrete hell.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:22:37 AM EDT
[#15]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:25:06 AM EDT
[#16]
The US government did nothing, because they were being controlled by the INTERNATIONAL JEWISH CONSPIRACY.
Everyone knows that [rolleyes].
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:26:22 AM EDT
[#17]
Post from Jarhead_22 -
The six hour time period covers the multiple reconaissance overflights by Israeli warplanes, the rocket attacks by Israeli warplanes, the napalm attacks from Israeli warplanes, the torpedo runs by Israeli naval assets and the machinegun runs by Israeli naval assets.
View Quote

A 'six hour attack' is a 'six hour attack.' Simply defined, simply put. Period.

Even the USS Liberty Memorial website, as I pointed out in my opening post calls it a '75 minute attack', but some would like us to believe it was 6 hours! [b]Why?[/b]

There is an agenda, [b]Jarhead_22[/b], an agenda that you are not aware of, I suspect.
I know I've brought up the Cole several times myself, as well as the Bataan Death March.
View Quote

'Brought up', yes, so have I, but have you ever made a thread on the USS Cole. One that lasted 7-10 pages? Nope, only the USS Liberty elicits such a response!
Regardless, there are no Iraqi partisans here that are able to conceive of no treachery on the part of the Iraqis and inundating us with propaganda on their behalf. There is no al-Qaeda cheering section here that bends over backwards to justify what was obviously a terrorist attack on the Cole. There is no one here trying to justify the horrors that the Japanese inflicted on American prisoners of war on Bataan. And no on is attempting to justify or whitewash the actions of the Waffen SS in Malmedy, or call it an accident, that the Nazis didn't really mean to murder all those US troops.
View Quote

[b]So is that what [u]I'm[/u] doing, Jarhead_22?[/b] Shilling for Israel?

I beg to differ! As I've said before, when I was alive and kicking back in Chillicothe during 1967, we were ecstatic over Israel's victory over its bastard neighbors, much like a modern retelling of the story of David and Goliath!

When the news came out about the attack on the USS Liberty, I was quite shocked and believed that there must be some reason for Israel to have done this dirty deed. In other words, I thought the Israelis were guilty.

Since then, I have studied the situation in much greater depth and detail, and I have come to the conclusion that it must have been a huge and tragic mistake.

Not emotional, but intellectual honesty compels me to say that when two people argue over what happened and both are equally worthy of being believed, then you can only safely say that one or the other is correct if there is some sort of external evidence that you can point to and say, this is the determining factor!

In the case of the USS Liberty, it would be motive. What [u]motive[/u] did Israel have for risking a shooting war with the United States on the very eve, nay, the very day of its utter and unbelievable victory over its enemies?

- continued -
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:26:55 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
You haven't made any comments of this sort.
Insinuations are subtle.
But you don't seem ask "why" the attack occurred.

Why would they attack, without reason?
Even if their reasons were faulty.

The only conclusion that one could draw is that they are "bloodthirtsy" and "treacherous".

It is the reasonable assumption.

Again, why do you think the attack occurred?
View Quote

Your conclusions are your own problem. If I haven't said it, don't impose your invented standards on me and try to hold me responsible for the way you feel. That's patently bullshit.

The facts of the matter lead me to the inescapable conclusion that the Israelis intentionally attacked a US Navy ship in international waters, killing 34 and wounding 172 US servicemembers. I have stated in other threads a few theories on why they might have done so, but I don't have any access to Israeli secrets, and I guess I won't until US intelligence agencies can recruit a Pollard of our own.

And you know what they say about assumptions, right?
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:28:19 AM EDT
[#19]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:28:29 AM EDT
[#20]
- continued from above -

Did the Israelis know that there was no hope that rescue, relief, or defensive aircraft were [b]not[/b] going to be sent from the USS Saratoga or the USS Ranger?

If they did know that the United States would [u]not[/u] defend its ship, then explain that!

Did they know that the United States would not immediately launch an all-out attack, maybe even with nuclear weapons against them in retaliation for this attack?

If they did know that no retaliation was going to occur, explain that!

Did they know that the United States would not change its whole attitude toward Israel and demand in the UN Security Council that Israel immediately return all seized and occupied Arab lands to its neighbors?

If they did know that the US would continue to stand by them despite the murder of US Naval personnel on the high seas, then explain that!

You see, if you continue down this path it will lead you nowhere.

The simplest answer is almost always the correct answer. It was a tragic mistake!

To think otherwise requires motives. A motive for the Israeli attack, as well as a motive to believe that the attack was deliberate.

You may post all the [u]still[/u] pictures and photos of both ships you may wish, but can you tell me what such ships look like in an attack at 400-500-600-700 miles an hour?

And the Israeli Air Force had not been given a whole lot of practice on warfare against any ships at sea. They didn't even have the correct ordnance to attack a warship on the high seas. Napalm? Rockets? Sounds like these planes were going after ground troops (which they were, BTW), not a warship/

When you have been repeatedly told over and over by the United States government that no US ships were anywhere within 100 miles of the coast?

The Israeli Air Force just the day before had tragically attacked a column of Israeli Centurion tanks. Couldn't they distinguish between their own tanks and those of the Arabs?

It's called the 'fog of war.'

Eric The(Historical)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:28:34 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
For what I know, Pollard is known to be an Israel spy even in Israel... it's not hypotetical...

But what you call "traitor" can be called by someone else hero...

Think of an Israeli that, seeing that his govt. is not willing to transmit info that are vital for USA security, starts to pass those infos to USA agencies...

For Israelis would be a traitor
For Americans this man would be a hero...
View Quote

That's right. You're exactly right. Pollard was a US citizen who decided on his own hook that he should sell Top Secret US information to a foreign government. He is a traitor to his country. The Israelis may view him as a hero, but he's going to rot in a US federal supermax prison, with fluorescent lights on 24 hours a day in a concrete hell.
View Quote


When you decide to play the Big Game, you know that there is a price to pay...
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:32:11 AM EDT
[#22]
Post from Jarhead_22 -
I didn't draw any comparisons. I merely answered EricTheHun's question about why there aren't threads about the Stark, the Cole, Bataan and Malmedy.
View Quote

Not posts, but [u]threads[/u]! How many threads have we seen on the Stark, the Cole, Bataan, and Malmedy? Not many that I can recall!

But on the USS Liberty?

It's Hannah_Reitsch's theme song![:D]

Eric The(OhWell[i][b]JedemDasSeine[/b][/i])Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:36:04 AM EDT
[#23]
What I see is that there is people that are always pointing put the ONLY TIME that a Israeli military attack (unfortunately) carried away American lives.

Where the heck are the times, since then, that OTHERS made ominous attacks to carried many others US soldiers lives? And we are still making deals wiht them?

Beirut 82? USS Cole? The chief of the CIA in Beirut? The humiliation of the US Embassy in Teheran? and many others...
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:37:23 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
You haven't made any comments of this sort.
Insinuations are subtle.
But you don't seem ask "why" the attack occurred.

Why would they attack, without reason?
Even if their reasons were faulty.

The only conclusion that one could draw is that they are "bloodthirtsy" and "treacherous".

It is the reasonable assumption.

Again, why do you think the attack occurred?
View Quote

Your conclusions are your own problem. If I haven't said it, don't impose your invented standards on me and try to hold me responsible for the way you feel. That's patently bullshit.
View Quote
No, not bullshit, and not standards that are being imposed.  Just reasonable conclusions.  For one who feels so strongly about this issue, you seem to offer no conclusions.

No one claims that the attack didn't occur.
IF it was intentional, as in "let's attack this US ship", one has to wonder why.
Many people don't seem to care why.
They're just satisfied that the Liberty incident supports their already held convictions about Israel and Jews.
That's a fact.

If you're not of those people, Jarhead, good for you.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:45:09 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
You Jew haters make me sick......
View Quote


Sigh.......
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:49:10 AM EDT
[#26]
All it takes is a phone call from the Israeli prime minister to the White House saying, "Oops! Boy, do we have egg on our faces! That was your ship? We thought it was an Egyptian ship. Damn, we're sorry, we'll stop firing those poor sailors right away!"

Can you think of a recent example of when the US responded to force with immediate force in a case where there weren't already hostilities in progress? The Israelis had to know that they'd have some time to obfuscate and apologize, and sure enough, the fighters were called back to the carrier. Is it your contention that American already had proof that this was an accident? Or do you think it's more likely that they got comm from the Israelis that it was an accident, and that that might have stayed their hand long enough for this to become an "unfortunate incident" rather than the covered up deliberate attack that it is?

But now I'm hypothesizing and making guesses, which plays into the "Israel can do no wrong" folks' hands.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 6:54:26 AM EDT
[#27]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:00:08 AM EDT
[#28]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:04:15 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:

Paul said "The only question that remains is why they deliberately attacked a US ship in international waters."

View Quote


Yes.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:05:13 AM EDT
[#30]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:06:59 AM EDT
[#31]
Post from Jarhead_22 -
All it takes is a phone call from the Israeli prime minister to the White House saying, "Oops! Boy, do we have egg on our faces! That was your ship? We thought it was an Egyptian ship. Damn, we're sorry, we'll stop firing those poor sailors right away!"
View Quote

Strange, [b]Jarhead_22[/b], that the Israelis had such an open door with the White House at a time when the United States had an arms embargo on against them!

It wasn't until after the Six Day War that Israel started receiving any military assistance from the United States - those were French built and supplied Dassault Mirage and Mystere aircraft that attacked the USS Liberty!

That's probably why the USS Liberty's log kept referring to 'unidentified' aircraft and not to Israeli aircraft, since the Israelis were the only ones in the area flying these aircraft!

You would think that US Naval personnel would be extremely familiar with aircraft types and nationalities in a war zone!
Can you think of a recent example of when the US responded to force with immediate force in a case where there weren't already hostilities in progress? The Israelis had to know that they'd have some time to obfuscate and apologize, and sure enough, the fighters were called back to the carrier. Is it your contention that American already had proof that this was an accident? Or do you think it's more likely that they got comm from the Israelis that it was an accident, and that that might have stayed their hand long enough for this to become an "unfortunate incident" rather than the covered up deliberate attack that it is?
View Quote

Yes. When the Captain of the USS Saratoga sent a squadron of aircraft to the rescue of the USS Liberty is an example of the US launching a strike against someone who had just attacked them. So the example comes from the very incident that we're discussing!

Do you know [u]why[/u] Washington recalled those fighters and another squadron launched as well?

Hmmmmm?


The answer:

Washington was still under the impression, one that it had been given by the JCS, that the USS Liberty was at least 60 - 100 miles off the Egyptian coast when it was attacked by 'unidentified' aircraft.

They thought that it was Soviet aircraft that were attacking the USS Liberty for trying to snoop on the Soviet bombers stationed in Egypt!

They did not want to get into a shooting war with the Soviet Union over this, at least until they had more information.

When the Israelis notified the US that it was their aircraft and boats that had attacked the ship, there was a great sigh of relief in all of Washington, DC.

Simple enough, eh?

Eric The(Historical)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:07:48 AM EDT
[#32]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:09:06 AM EDT
[#33]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:09:40 AM EDT
[#34]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:12:23 AM EDT
[#35]
The British Centurion tank:
[img]www.iwm.org.uk/duxford/images/centurio.jpg[/img]

The Soviet IS-3 tank:
[img]www.battlefield.ru/tanks/is3/is3_16.jpg[/img]

A certain similarity in size and shape, wouldn't you say?

The USS Liberty:
[img]gidusko.50megs.com/agtr5/agtr5.gif[/img]

The Egyptian El Quseir:
[img]ussliberty.org/g/elquseir.gif[/img]

The Liberty was twice the length and [b]four times[/b] the displacement of the El Quseir.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:16:13 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:



Israel did apologize for the tragedy and paid millions of dollars in reparations to the United States and to the families of the victims.

The other side of the coin...
View Quote


Scipio (aka "ASSWIPE")

Obviously you're either a fucking idiot or an Israel Firster.  If you're going to lie and condone the Israel attack on the USS Liberty at least work on getting your lies straight.

Fact:
Israel paid $100,000 to the families of each U.S. sailor murdered by Israel.

Fact:  Israel paid $20,000 to each U.S. sailor wounded.  (But only after the wounded obtained legal representation so a substantial portion of the $20,000 went for legal fees.)

Fact:  Israel, after stalling for over 13 years, finally offered President Carter $6 million to pay for the USS Liberty.  Carter accepted the trivial payment in December 1980 when he was on his way out of office.

The true "other side of the coin......"

(Of course Israel didn't really pay one fucking dollar as the U.S taxpayer actually paid Israel.)
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:17:46 AM EDT
[#37]
Post from Paul -
I'm not an English major but could you point out the difference between "why they deliberately attacked a US ship in international waters." and "why would Israel deliberately attack a US ship in international waters?"
View Quote

Well, first off, thank God I was an English Major (and History Major)!

The difference is very simple. Look at my entire sentence, if you will. I have taken the liberty of underlining the parts that need to be considered.

My statement:

"No, Sir, no, Sir. The only question that remains is [u]for those of you who believe the attack to have been deliberate[/u], why would Israel [u]deliberately[/u] attack a US ship in international waters?"

The [u]only[/u] folks who have questions about the 'why' for the motive of the [u]deliberate[/u] attack are those who have already come to the conclusion that the attack was deliberate!

Your statement -

"The only question that remains is why they [u]deliberately[/u] attacked a US ship in international waters."

- assumes that the attack [u]was[/u] [u]deliberate[/u]!

And that's a point a lot of us are not willing to concede. To put it mildly.

The only question that I have for you who contend that the attack was deliberate, is why did the attack occur?

Eric The(SimpleEnough?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:17:57 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
What I see is that there is people that are always pointing put the ONLY TIME that a Israeli military attack (unfortunately) carried away American lives.

Where the heck are the times, since then, that OTHERS made ominous attacks to carried many others US soldiers lives? And we are still making deals wiht them?

Beirut 82? USS Cole? The chief of the CIA in Beirut? The humiliation of the US Embassy in Teheran? and many others...
View Quote

Beirut, 1983: Hizbollah
USS Cole: al-Qaeda
William Buckley, CIA Chief of Station, Beirut: Hezbollah
US Embassy, Tehran: Hezbollah

I wasn't aware that we had diplomatic relations with al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:20:24 AM EDT
[#39]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:24:21 AM EDT
[#40]
Post from Paul -
Then the torpedo boats closed to within 100 feet of the Liberty to continue the attack with cannons and machine guns, resulting in further casualties.

It is telling, with respect to whether total
annihilation was the intent, that the Liberty crew has reported that the torpedo boats' machine guns also were turned on life rafts that were deployed into the Mediterranean as well as those few on deck that had escaped damage.
View Quote

[b]100 feet?[/b]

[b]Machine gunning the lifeboats?[/b]

Tell me, [b]Paul[/b], where did you come up with this information. I have read just about every document that I could find from the Board of Inquiry transcripts of the testimony of eyewitnesses.

Who said '100 feet', and who said 'machine gunning the lifeboats'?

Give me the sailor's name and the date of his testimony and I'll go look it up!

Eric The(Patient)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:27:35 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I see is that there is people that are always pointing put the ONLY TIME that a Israeli military attack (unfortunately) carried away American lives.

Where the heck are the times, since then, that OTHERS made ominous attacks to carried many others US soldiers lives? And we are still making deals wiht them?

Beirut 82? USS Cole? The chief of the CIA in Beirut? The humiliation of the US Embassy in Teheran? and many others...
View Quote

Beirut, 1983: Hizbollah
USS Cole: al-Qaeda
William Buckley, CIA Chief of Station, Beirut: Hezbollah
US Embassy, Tehran: Hezbollah

I wasn't aware that we had diplomatic relations with al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.
View Quote


In the Clancy's book "A Clear and Present Danger" the cuban colonel was thinking about american govt. behaviour in all the quoted cases: no retaliation. While the Soviets always retaliate who was attacking their men.

Beirut, 1983: Hizbollah = Iran and Syria
USS Cole: al-Qaeda = Saudi Arabia
William Buckley, CIA Chief of Station, Beirut: Hezbollah = Iran and Syria
US Embassy, Tehran: Hezbollah = Iran and Syria


For what I know USA have still embassies in Saudi Arabia and Syria...
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:28:30 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Post from Paul -
I'm not an English major but could you point out the difference between "why they deliberately attacked a US ship in international waters." and "why would Israel deliberately attack a US ship in international waters?"
View Quote

Well, first off, thank God I was an English Major (and History Major)!

The difference is very simple. Look at my entire sentence, if you will. I have taken the liberty of underlining the parts that need to be considered.

My statement:

"No, Sir, no, Sir. The only question that remains is [u]for those of you who believe the attack to have been deliberate[/u], why would Israel [u]deliberately[/u] attack a US ship in international waters?"

The [u]only[/u] folks who have questions about the 'why' for the motive of the [u]deliberate[/u] attack are those who have already come to the conclusion that the attack was deliberate!

Your statement -

"The only question that remains is why they [u]deliberately[/u] attacked a US ship in international waters."

- assumes that the attack [u]was[/u] [u]deliberate[/u]!

And that's a point a lot of us are not willing to concede. To put it mildly.

The only question that I have for you who contend that the attack was deliberate, is why did the attack occur?

Eric The(SimpleEnough?)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote


One of the criticisms from my ex-wife, valid, was that I am incapable of hating or holding a grudge.

However, in the case of Israel I [b]HATE and DETEST ISRAEL[/b] with every fiber of my being.  My hatred remains as strong or stronger after more than 30 years.  (No, I don't hate the people of Israel just their governments.)

When I see Americans, U.S. citizens, supporting those who [b]murder U.S. sailors..............[/b]

The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was no mistake and the point of the attack was to murder every living soul on the USS Liberty.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:29:21 AM EDT
[#43]
5subslr5 (AKA Fuckface)

That information was not written by me...

I read Hannah's post and looked for information that supported the otherside solely for the purpose of creating a balanced discussion...One side submitted by an obvious anti-semite and the other submitted by an objective open-minded person. I haven't studied the incident at great depth and don't have the time to now...

Not surprising that you fail to point out the inaccuracies in the letter Posted by Hannah that have come to light in the later portions of this thread...go figure


Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:29:46 AM EDT
[#44]
Guys, trying to argue with someone who uses a concentration camp line on her sig line is really a waste of time. If she lived in Germany, she's be in jail for this type of garbage. But as she lives here she is entitled to lather on, even though she clearly fits into the category of one who
C.an't U.understand N.ormal T.hinking
But hey, it's a free country. I guess there should be a forum here for wannabee nazis.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:29:52 AM EDT
[#45]
In the spirit of all the posts concerning the killing of the 4 Canadian Soldiers in Afganistan and the recent killing of from 40-125 ( your guess is as good as mine) Afgan Civilians due to American "accidents"  I would like to take this opportunity to point out as has been said concerning BOTH of these incidents that........


[b]SHIT HAPPENS[b]

It just does not smell as good when the shit is on you.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:31:09 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Strange, [b]Jarhead_22[/b], that the Israelis had such an open door with the White House at a time when the United States had an arms embargo on against them.
View Quote

I don't think that taking a phone call from someone who just killed 34 and wounded 172 of your sailors and took a multimillion dollar ship out of action is exactly an "open door policy."

Yes. When the Captain of the USS Saratoga sent a squadron of aircraft to the rescue of the USS Liberty is an example of the US launching a strike against someone who had just attacked them. So the example comes from the very incident that we're discussing!
View Quote

That wasn't a strike, was it, because they were ordered back to the ship.

When the Israelis notified the US that it was their aircraft and boats that had attacked the ship, there was a great sigh of relief in all of Washington, DC.

Simple enough, eh?
View Quote

Simple to some, disgusting to me.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:33:37 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Post from Paul -
Then the torpedo boats closed to within 100 feet of the Liberty to continue the attack with cannons and machine guns, resulting in further casualties.

It is telling, with respect to whether total
annihilation was the intent, that the Liberty crew has reported that the torpedo boats' machine guns also were turned on life rafts that were deployed into the Mediterranean as well as those few on deck that had escaped damage.
View Quote

[b]100 feet?[/b]

[b]Machine gunning the lifeboats?[/b]

Tell me, [b]Paul[/b], where did you come up with this information. I have read just about every document that I could find from the Board of Inquiry transcripts of the testimony of eyewitnesses.

Who said '100 feet', and who said 'machine gunning the lifeboats'?

Give me the sailor's name and the date of his testimony and I'll go look it up!

Eric The(Patient)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote


PAUL,
with your permission, I can answer the above questions.
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:34:17 AM EDT
[#48]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:35:42 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
In the spirit of all the posts concerning the killing of the 4 Canadian Soldiers in Afganistan and the recent killing of from 40-125 ( your guess is as good as mine) Afgan Civilians due to American "accidents"  I would like to take this opportunity to point out as has been said concerning BOTH of these incidents that........


[b]SHIT HAPPENS[b]

It just does not smell as good when the shit is on you.
View Quote


[sarcastic mode ON]

For an AC130 to kill and wound all that people with AIMED fire, took time... but, you know, maybe there were some Jews in the crew...

[sarcastic mode OFF]
Link Posted: 7/3/2002 7:37:44 AM EDT
[#50]
Post from 5subslr5 -
PAUL, with your permission, I can answer the above questions.
View Quote

No need for that, [b]subsailor[/b], I'll put the question to you!

Eric The(EasyEnough)Hun[>]:)]
Page / 4
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top