Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/26/2001 6:08:20 PM EDT
Here is an interesting little article that I found that gives the Israeli perspective on the tragic attack by Israeli Air & Naval Forces on the USS Liberty, a naval surveillance ship, on June 8, 1967, the Fifth Day of Israel's Six Day War against her Arab neighbors. Much has been said on this Board by members on both sides of the issue - was the attack on the USS Liberty deliberate or an accident due to the 'fog of war'? Read the article to decide for yourself. The article is found at: [url]http://israeliculture.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.shalem.org.il/azure/9%2DOren.htm[/url] Of course, the article is written by an Israeli Jew, and published in an Israeli magazine, so that should be kept in mind while you read this version of events. Eric The(CheckItOut!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 4:37:12 AM EDT
A two hour (at least) long friendly fire attack on a clearly marked US ship ALONE in the middle fo the Mediterranean is an "accident???" Just like the guy selling oceanfront property in Arizona, I ain't buying it.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 4:44:09 AM EDT
More like 75 minutes, but I'm glad you read the article, at least. And not quite in the middle of the Mediterranean, and certainly not at 'least 100 miles offshore of Egypt and Israel' as the US Navy informed Israel! Eric The(Thankful)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 4:44:45 AM EDT
I wasn't clear on the time thing. Israeli jets were cleared to fire at 1:58PM and the Liberty made contact with US HQ at 5:05 (I believe) I talked with my mom about it - she remebers the incident well. Even did some reading about it. She said the Israelis attacked the Liberty as it was there to gather intel about allegations that Israel was torturing Egyptian POW's.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 4:46:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2001 4:46:04 AM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: And not quite in the middle of the Mediterranean, and certainly not at 'least 100 miles offshore of Egypt and Israel' as the US Navy informed Israel! Eric The(Thankful)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Eric- It was a clearly marked US ship ALONE in the Med - MILES from shore. It only had 4 .50's on it - that is IT!!!!!!!! And that warrants Israeli jet fighters and torpedo boats??? You are a pretty forgiving dude.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 5:35:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2001 5:48:30 AM EDT by Jarhead_22]
Eric, you reference an article which you admit was written by an Israeli Jew, so it can't be taken as an independent or non-partisan view. How about a website put up by survivors of the attack? [url]http://208.56.153.48/jim/ussliberty/[/url] Here ([url]http://208.56.153.48/jim/ussliberty/moorer3.txt[/url]) you will find a memorandum from Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This memorandum reads, in part: [i]"Israel knew perfectly well that the ship was American. After all, the Liberty's American flag and markings were in full view in perfect visibility for the Israeli aircraft that overflew the ship eight times over a period of nearly eight hours prior to the attack. I am confident that Israel knew the Liberty could intercept radio messages from all parties and potential parties to the ongoing war, then in its fourth day, and that Israel was preparing to seize the Golan Heights from Syria despite President Johnson's known opposition to such a move. I think they realized that if we learned in advance of their plan, there would be a tremendous amount of negotiating between Tel Aviv and Washington. And I believe Moshe Dayan concluded that he could prevent Washington from becoming aware of what Israel was up to by destroying the primary source of acquiring that information the USS Liberty. The result was a wanton sneak attack that left 34 American sailors dead and 171 seriously injured. What is so chilling and cold-blooded, of course, is that they could kill as many Americans as they did in confidence that Washington would cooperate in quelling any public outcry."[/i] Just because the US State Department has publicly accepted the Israeli story does not mean that it's the truth, or that the US government believes it. The State Department is always interested in pouring oil on troubled waters and getting relations back to normal as soon as possible. [Edited to say: Just because I don't believe the Israelis' version of the story or think that they always have our best interests at heart does not make me an anti-Semite, or even anti-Israel. Just a realist.] [b]Freedom isn't free[/b] Semper Fidelis Jarhead out. [img]http://www.inetnow.net/~kudzukid/enlemblem.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 5:48:09 AM EDT
Post from garandman -
It was a clearly marked US ship ALONE in the Med - MILES from shore
View Quote
According to both US and Israeli sources the USS Liberty was approximately 20 miles off the coast at the time of the initial attack, not the [b]100 miles[/b] that the JCS had ordered the USS Liberty to stand off, and not the [b]100 miles[/b] that the US Navy assured Israel was clear of US ships! From the article - "Before dawn on June 8, three days into the war, the Liberty finally reached its destination, barely within international waters north of the Sinai coast. Plying at a speed of five knots between Port Said and Gaza, the Liberty entered a lane rarely used by commercial freighters, which Egypt had declared closed to neutral vessels. [u]Anxious about his proximity to the fighting, McGonagle asked the Sixth Fleet commander, Vice-Adm. William Martin, for permission to pull back from the shore, or else to be provided with a destroyer escort. Martin rejected these requests, noting that the Liberty "is a clearly marked United States ship in international waters and not a reasonable subject for attack by any nation[/u]." Not exactly the best decision by the Admiral, huh? And again, from the article: But the United States was holding its own investigations into the affair, beginning with the Navy Court of Inquiry held in Malta shortly after the attack. The hearings revealed basic contradictions in the testimonies of McGonagle and other officers regarding the length and sequence of the attack, and raised the possibility that, due to light winds, the flag might well not have been visible to Israeli pilots. Furthermore, Rear-Adm. Isaac C. Kidd, Jr., the presiding officer, found no evidence that the attack was in any way intentional, calling it "a case of mistaken identity." Subsequent closed-door inquiries were conducted by the CIA, the NSA, the JCS, as well as by both houses of Congress. [u]All reached the same conclusion: That the Israeli attack upon the USS Liberty had been the result of error, and nothing more[/u]." There are some, however, who for political(?) purposes, wish to drive a wedge between the US and Israel. But after 34 years, they are not even close to so doing. Eric The(ThanksAgainForReadingTheArticle!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 6:20:02 AM EDT
Thank you, Jarhead_22, I have been to the USS Liberty website almost as many times as I have been to the IDF website, and that's quite a bit. And I've read Adm. Moorer's views on the subject, but in point of fact he simply wasn't there to opine whether or not the flag was a-fluttering on the day of the attack. He doesn't give any benefit of the doubt to the Israelis, but then why should he? I think we can gauge Adm. Moorer's view on the attack by his comments on the initial refusal by the Naval Academy to inscribe the name of Lt. Stephen Toth (one of the dead) in Memorial Hall:
I intervened and was able to reverse the apparent idea that dying in a [u]cowardly, one-sided attack by a supposed ally[/u] is somehow not the same as being killed by an avowed enemy.
View Quote
I do not doubt that had Israel not called off the torpedo attacks, the USS Liberty would have gone to the bottom. Which, if Adm. Moorer is correct, would have been much better for the Israelis! Wonder why they called off the torpedo attacks? It simply cannot be, as Adm. Moorer states, that the Israelis were worried about aircraft from the Sixth Fleet. They had more than enough time to finish off the USS Liberty, if they had desired. And the part about Israel not wanting to let the US know about its intentions in the Golan Heights is as ludicrous as the suggestion that the motive behind the attack was to prevent the discovery of either the murder or torture of any Egyptian prisoners of war by the IDF! But I am glad that you read the article. You are now aware of what the cowardly Israelis are saying to cover up their one-sided attack on an American warship 20-60-100 miles out on the open seas. Eric The(MaybeTheLiberalLeftHasMoreIdeasOnMotives,­TheOnesThey'vePutOutSoFarAreLame!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 6:27:38 AM EDT
The article, of course, is heavily slanted toward believing every bit of information from the Israelis, and disbelieving anything that might justify, in the mind of the Israeli military or intelligence community, the intentional attack on the Liberty. An Israeli Army Colonel investigated the attack and found it to be an accident? What a relief! He couldn't be under any pressure, or have any instructions regarding the expected outcome of his investigation, could he? Documents recently declassified couldn't have been subject to any editing in the meantime, could they? Repeated overflights of a 455 foot ship painted in standard US Navy colors, with a freshly painted designation clearly visible on the bow, with very large satellite antennae could not distinguish it from an old Egyptian scow less than half the Liberty's length. The case hasn't been conclusively closed, or there wouldn't be so much dissent.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 6:31:02 AM EDT
Eric, why do you put so much credence in the Israeli version of events, and so little in that of the survivors? The survivors have, by the way, been very keen to point out that there were several Jewish crewmen on board, and that their disbelief of the official line is not motivated by anti-Semitism. You seem very fired up about this, or any other opinion that is not 100% and foursquare behind Israel and the Israelis.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:04:45 AM EDT
Notwithstanding Adm. Moorer's comments, the facts are simply: "The hearings revealed basic contradictions in the testimonies of McGonagle and other officers regarding the length and sequence of the attack, and raised the possibility that, due to light winds, the flag might well not have been visible to Israeli pilots. Furthermore, Rear-Adm. Isaac C. Kidd, Jr., the presiding officer, found no evidence that the attack was in any way intentional, calling it "a case of mistaken identity." Subsequent closed-door inquiries were conducted by the CIA, the NSA, the JCS, as well as by both houses of Congress. All reached the same conclusion: That the Israeli attack upon the USS Liberty had been the result of error, and nothing more." This seems to be the consensus, that the attack was anything but deliberate, so I [u]do[/u] question the motives of those who allege otherwise.
The case hasn't been conclusively closed, or there wouldn't be so much dissent.
View Quote
But where is this dissent coming from? From the survivors of the USS Liberty who, admittedly, have not been provided with a reasonable explanation for their suffering at the hands of an ally, at least in their own minds. From Adm. Moorer, who, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time of the incident, must be aware that the steps taken by the JCS both before and during the incident allow for a lot of criticism! From the US State Department, which has [u]always[/u] viewed Israel with a clouded eye. And finally, from those on the political left who find both the US and Israel to be repugnant and will try any device to wedge these two allies apart!
Eric, why do you put so much credence in the Israeli version of events, and so little in that of the survivors? The survivors have, by the way, been very keen to point out that there were several Jewish crewmen on board, and that their disbelief of the official line is not motivated by anti-Semitism. You seem very fired up about this, or any other opinion that is not 100% and foursquare behind Israel and the Israelis.
View Quote
I am searching for [u]the[/u] answer to this event. I will listen to both sides and realize that just as the 'fog of war' may have clouded the eyes of the Israelis, that same fog may have clouded the eyes of the American sailors! Whenever you are presented with two distinct versions of the same event, and you are unaware of which to believe, then you are entitled to look just about anywhere for the answer. In this case, the crucial issue becomes the motive behind the attack by Israel. Remember they were (and still are) engaged in a life-or-death battle with their neighbors. Any torpedos, bombs, cannon rounds, etc., that were not being fired at their enemies, but, instead, at their friends, was utterly wasted ordnance! So what was the Israeli motive for this attack? They surely couldn't have been certain, now could they, that the US would [u]not[/u] have immediately sent a retaliatory strike against their country that would have totally erased the fruits of their almost completed Six Day War Triumph, and left them prostrate before the Arab armies? [b]Then why, oh Lord, why risk this pointless attack?[/b] Answer [u]that[/u] and the case may be closed! Eric The(ButMakeItABelievableMotive,Please!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:07:19 AM EDT
Eric, I've seen by your previous posts that you are very supportive of Israel. This is fine. But, when you put the best interests of Israel (or any other country for that matter) above the best interests of the USA, I have a REAL problem with that! You can argue about the exact location of the Liberty at the time of the attack. You can also quibble over the duration of the attack. The FACT remains that the Israelis KNEW they were attacking a US intelligence collection ship in international waters. DaMan
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:13:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: I will listen to both sides and realize that just as the 'fog of war' may have clouded the eyes of the Israelis, that same fog may have clouded the eyes of the American sailors!
View Quote
Fog of war??? [b] FOG OF WAR???[/b] They fired UNPROVOKED on a CLEARLY marked US ship, over [b] 20 miles [/b] from ANY fighting. This was NOT in the middle of a great naval battle. This was in the middle of the day, bright sunlight, in the middle of the Mediterranean. The ONLY "fog of war" was AFTER the attack, from a burning, torpedoed, strafed, rocketed US ship. Fog of war. Come on. That soundbite from the Israelis is simply SILLY. Actually, its insulting. And how do you figger the "fog of war" clouded the eyes of US sailors?? The only thing clouding their eyes was the blood of their dead and injured shipmates. They were essentially unarmed, in a slow moving tub. Israel is dirty on this one. No two ways here.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:16:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2001 7:17:09 AM EDT by Jarhead_22]
Eric, you're the only one here saying the case is closed. I've got no skin in this game, aside from the fact that it was a US Navy vessel in international waters attacked by the military of another nation. I don't care if it was Israel or Tonga. You give the impression that Israel should get some kind of special pass because of their status as the underdog assailed from all sides, or because they are "the only democracy in the Middle East and America's one true friend in the region." I'm trying to keep an open mind, while yours is the "Case Closed." [Edited because garandman also seems positive that the case is closed.]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:18:00 AM EDT
I am an ardent supporter of Israel, but that support would disappear as quickly as this morning's dew, if I thought that the Israelis set about to attack the USS Liberty on the high seas. The enemies of Israel know this, as well, and I believe it motivates some of the views held regarding this incident. I can support Israel even spying on the United States, simply cause we spy on them, and all of the US allies spy on each other, as well. But to take American lives, purposefully, is simply not an action that I could conceive that the Israelis would make. If they did, then I would be very sad indeed! I might still count them as allies, but their heroic stature as a nation would be irretrievably diminished, in my eyes at least. And I would be... Eric The(HorriblySaddened)Hun[>]:)] BTW, what's your take on the motivation behind the Israeli attack, assuming it was intentional?
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:20:11 AM EDT
And the 1980s Iraqi antiship missle attack on the USS Stark, while we were escorting reflagged KUWAITI tankers that killed about 39 sailors was also an [i]accident[/i]. As long as historians keep perpetuating fiction, someone will always believe it.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:26:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: [Edited because garandman also seems positive that the case is closed.]
View Quote
Well, I believe the issue of guilt is closed, but I believe the case, as a whole, is still VERY much "open."
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:29:12 AM EDT
Post from jarhead_22 -
You give the impression that Israel should get some kind of special pass because of their status as the underdog assailed from all sides, or because they are "the only democracy in the Middle East and America's one true friend in the region."
View Quote
Not so, if the attack was deliberate then they are less of a nation and ally than I would like to think. But if that's where the evidence leads, then so be it! But the fact that Israel IS a democracy and a good friend of ours DOES allow me to give them the benefit of the doubt! What motive, again I ask you, would have led the Israelis to do such a foolhardy thing in the midst of its own war, risking an all-out American counterstrike against itself? Please, the enemies of Israel have had 34 years now to come up with some plausible answer, and yet none has been produced!
I'm trying to keep an open mind, while yours is the "Case Closed."
View Quote
Then let's see if you can come up with a reasonable response to my simple question! I can't think of even one, so I'm admitting my own ignorance in the matter! Eric The(OpenMinded)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:40:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2001 7:45:44 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: And not quite in the middle of the Mediterranean, and certainly not at 'least 100 miles offshore of Egypt and Israel' as the US Navy informed Israel! Eric The(Thankful)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Eric- It was a clearly marked US ship ALONE in the Med - MILES from shore. It only had 4 .50's on it - that is IT!!!!!!!! And that warrants Israeli jet fighters and torpedo boats??? You are a pretty forgiving dude.
View Quote
1 flag on a ship that is almost five hundred feet long is not clearly marked. If you make no allowances for mistakes, you will have to say the US Navy killed all the people in the commercial jet that was shot down by the USS Vincennes, and that it was intentional. I have to wonder what the US didn't want a USN liaison officer as the Israeli's requested. I also have to wonder why they weren't told about the Liberty. Why didn't the Liberty stay in "shipping lanes" like a neutral ship. Both Israel and Egypt apparently issued warning to neutral ship which the USN disregarded. I also wonder how you guys would feel if during a war a spy ship from a "friendly" nation parked itself 20 miles off of Washington DC. What kind of bonehead when confronted by armed ships refuses to identify his ship?? Esp. after he has already been attacked once. We all know that US Forces have never mis-id'ed anything and shot up something they shouldn't have..............Hey wait isn't that what they call friendly fire??? Unless you are sayin the guard shack(s) the USN blew up on Vicues were intentional because the didn't want to train there anymore............ Jarhead-22, if Israel knew what the Liberty was doing........ Why wouldn't the torpedo boats send boarding parties and force the Liberty to leave the area?? If Israel attacked it intentionally, as in planned, why did the Liberty survive?? Why wasn't it one massive strike, destroying the ship and eliminating all the witnesses?? What about the Gulf on Tonkin?? USN spyships apparently attacked by ghosts.............
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:42:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Then let's see if you can come up with a reasonable response to my simple question! I can't think of even one, so I'm admitting my own ignorance in the matter! Eric The(OpenMinded)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
I'll give you what I have heard.... 1, The US was gathering intel on the torture of Egyptian POW's. 2. The US was gathering intel on Israels plans to invade the Golan heights. Now I'll give you MY opinion. Israel was at war. ANY intel ship off their coasts posed a threat. Even that of an "ally." And here's the kicker - Israel ALWAYS acts in ITS OWN best interests. I wish the USA would, especially when it comes to the ENTIRE Middle East situation. I don't even fault Israel for ALWAYS acting in their own best interests. It is the smart thing to do. My only desire is that the US be JUST as smart.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:48:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2001 7:52:50 AM EDT by Jarhead_22]
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Not so, if the attack was deliberate then they are less of a nation and ally than I would like to think.
View Quote
If it was deliberate, that would only make them [b]less of an ally?[/b] That logic escapes me.
But the fact that Israel IS a democracy and a good friend of ours DOES allow me to give them the benefit of the doubt!
View Quote
Israel is a friend of ours, at least in part, because we finance them to the tune of $3B a year. That money buys a lot of friends. As far as Israel being a democracy goes, that gets them a few points, but what have they done for us? This seems to be a one-way street. Bush the First got them to hold off on retaliating for Scud attacks during Desert Storm, but again, $3B/year is a large carrot to hang in front of anyone.
What motive, again I ask you, would have led the Israelis to do such a foolhardy thing in the midst of its own war, risking an all-out American counterstrike against itself?
View Quote
I have heard several theories floated, including one that Egypt had a feed out of the SIGINT that the Liberty was gathering. Is it possible that Israel just wanted that boat off the air during their attack on the Golan Heights? Not to mention the fact that Israel knew there was no chance of an all-out counterattack. After all, they're Israel, the only democracy in the middle east and our staunch ally...
Please, the enemies of Israel have had 34 years now to come up with some plausible answer, and yet none has been produced!
View Quote
So, if I don't necessarily believe the Mossad, pardon me, I mean Israeli line, it must be because I am an enemy of Israel.
Eric The(OpenMinded)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Please Eric, you've shown your open partisanship whenever any issue regarding Israel comes up. Your fervor in their defense is admirable, if not always understandable.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:50:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: If you make no allowances for mistakes.............
View Quote
I make NO allowances for "mistakes" that are over an HOUR long. FIVE torpedoes fired does NOT constitute "friendly fire." The Israeli fighters did EIGHT fly-bys. Surely, one of them would have seen the US flag, and the standard US navy insignia, and color of the ship. As far as not sinking the ship... A sunken US naval vessel is an act of war, an international incident. A severly damamged ship, that can be excused as "friendly fire" (no matter HOW absurd that assumption is) sends a CLEAR message to the USA - STOP getting intel about Isreli matters.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:55:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: I also wonder how you guys would feel if during a war a spy ship from a "friendly" nation parked itself 20 miles off of Washington DC.
View Quote
I would advocate SINKING it, most likely. But then, I wouldn't have the audacity to then expect that nation to send me ordnance, and funnel its tax dollars into my country. You know, the way teh US does for Israel, the nation that IMO (and ALOT of other peoples who have teh capacity to know) DELIBERATELY attacked us. In short, I would do whatever was in US interests. The way Isreal does. But no - not the US. We play butt boy (pardon the graphic expression) for Israel. How stupid is that???
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:59:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: Israel is a friend of ours, at least in part, because we finance them to the tune of $3B a year. That money buys a lot of friends.
View Quote
Right on. Heck, I'll pretend to be anyones friend for half that amount.
As far as Israel being a democracy goes, that gets them a few points, but what have they done for us?
View Quote
Right again. what HAVE they done for us?? Except for one thing. Israel ain't the same kind of democracy the USA is. They DO NOT allow freedom of religion. My sister-in-law went over there on a short term mission trip. She passed out salvaion tracts at RISK OF GOING TO JAIL. If that is freedom, I'll take the USSR, thank you.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:59:50 AM EDT
Yup, I also get the feeling when you see trees in groups you never understand the your looking at a forest. If you understood what happens during combat you would realize that you don't fire one shot check whether or not you hit.......... 5 torpedoes would probably be a salvo. They fire several at once so the target has less chance to evade. If the ship is sunk and sunk quick....... No one survives, no one tells stories, no radio transmissions....... The Israeli's (if intentional as you claim) could then tell the US "those Egyptians did it, they attacked your ship and killed the crew......." Then we would probably retaliate against Egypt. But to intentionally attack a USN ship knowing they need our support...............
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:04:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: I also wonder how you guys would feel if during a war a spy ship from a "friendly" nation parked itself 20 miles off of Washington DC.
View Quote
I would advocate SINKING it, most likely. But then, I wouldn't have the audacity to then expect that nation to send me ordnance, and funnel its tax dollars into my country. You know, the way teh US does for Israel, the nation that IMO (and ALOT of other peoples who have teh capacity to know) DELIBERATELY attacked us. In short, I would do whatever was in US interests. The way Isreal does. But no - not the US. We play butt boy (pardon the graphic expression) for Israel. How stupid is that???
View Quote
PING!!! Sonar reading dead ahead, Captain! Spot on, g-man!
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:07:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2001 8:11:31 AM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: If you understood what happens during combat
View Quote
I have already addressed this. This was NOT combat. This was an essentially UNARMED US ship sitting off by itself in the middle of the Mediterranean, on a clear day, in bright sunlight. EIGHT flybys. And they STILL misidentified us?? Forget sending military aid. We need to send them a massive shipment of eye glassses.
If the ship is sunk and sunk quick....... No one survives, no one tells stories, no radio transmissions.......
View Quote
Amd what?? The US just forgets the ship ever existed?? The families of the dead sailors forget they ever had these relatives??? yeah, let's call it a day, and forget it ever happened. [rolleyes]
But to intentionally attack a USN ship knowing they need our support...............
View Quote
At the time, we were funding Saddam, and training Osama bin Laden. You could HARDLY consider the US a nation Israel was looking to for support [b] at the time.[/b] We were gathering intel about their activities in the Golan Heights, actions our President DID NOT support. So, Israel attacks our ship, kills 34 of our finest, and to punish them, we become their ally. This game has REAALLY weird rules.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:10:44 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:12:58 AM EDT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the ship is sunk and sunk quick....... No one survives, no one tells stories, no radio transmissions....... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amd what?? The us just forgets the ship ever existed?? The families of the dead sailors forget they ever had these relatives??? yeah, let's call it a day, and forget it ever happened. This is an example of you not getting it, again. I covered what would happen later in that paragraph. You saw a tree, there was a forest. The attack was in 1967, Bin Laden was born in 1968. That would be an interesting feat to be supporting him a year before he was born.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:15:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Paul: 20 miles is a long way away at sea and clearly in international waters. Flying over a ship in a jet you can see the nationalities of the sailors on deck - you can see their faces, read their shoulder insignia, read the fricken bow number, stern markings and see a flag even if it's not windy. War ships are gray but they are even different enough shades of color that you can tell US from Australian from English gray ships at great distances at sea. The electronic signature would have been simple to use to determine the ship too. Our radars and communications equipment all have distinctive frequencies and pulse widths which would have been simple to read. To have aircraft attack a navy ship at sea without first knowing exactly what that ship is pure simple suicide as if it was a Cruiser, Destroyer or even a tiny Frigate it would have knocked out half the fricken aircraft that tried strafing it. The ship was quite distinctive in it's lay out and a near sighted person could recognize it from about four or five miles away let alone from 100 feet over the top of it. Think you could tell a Corvette from a Dodge Ram pickup truck at the distance of 100 feet? They clearly attacked an American ship intentionally - to think otherwise requires too much irrational thought. To learn more about surface warfare here's my web site dedicated to it: [url]http://home.earthlink.net/~paul1960/[/url] Senior Chief Petty Officer (Surface Warfare/Aviation Warfare Qualified)
View Quote
Ever heard of Q-ships?? think about it for a second. I also doubt the Liberty was doing any transmitting-COMSEC.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:17:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: The attack was in 1967, Bin Laden was born in 1968. That would be an interesting feat to be supporting him a year before he was born.
View Quote
bin Laden is younger than me??? I was born in '67. The years have NOT been kind to him. [}:D]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:25:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: If you understood what happens during combat
View Quote
I have already addressed this. This was NOT combat. This was an essentially UNARMED US ship sitting off by itself in the middle of the Mediterranean, on a clear day, in bright sunlight. EIGHT flybys. And they STILL misidentified us?? Forget sending military aid. We need to send them a massive shipment of eye glassses.
View Quote
You THINK you addressed this. Combat not only means being in the proximity of active fighting, but also the stress it has on command and control and rescource management. Israel only has so many planes. The longer they spend looking at a ship the fewer planes are available for CAP or air support. Not to mention they may have had to consider whether or not the were vulnerable to interception by enemy planes. They would also attemt to ID the ship from a "safe range" in case the ship had SAM's. They would also probably be flying at higher speeds than the do during peactime. The commanders would also have a lot of other important decisions to make. ANd they would have to make them quickly, with sometimes limited information. Whether or not the ship was ID'ed previously means nothing. When they assesed the ship as a possible threat they had to ID it. They wouldn't track every ship, they don't have the time or resources.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:27:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: The attack was in 1967, Bin Laden was born in 1968. That would be an interesting feat to be supporting him a year before he was born.
View Quote
bin Laden is younger than me??? I was born in '67. The years have NOT been kind to him. [}:D]
View Quote
Yeah, I'm pretty sure..........He's got a lot of stress. Besides the end is near for him anyway. [}:D]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:28:30 AM EDT
Osama was born in 1957, in Riyahd, Saudi Arabia. So your point stands. The US was not ACTUALLY training HIM specifically, but we were still were siding with the Arabs MUCH more than we were with Israel. And THERE is your motivation for the attack.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:31:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:31:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Ever heard of Q-ships?? think about it for a second. I also doubt the Liberty was doing any transmitting-COMSEC.
View Quote
I have read all about Q ships. They were freighters with deck guns camouflaged inside chicken coops and small shacks, manned by British Navy sailors in grungy clothes. This is what the USS Liberty looked like before the attack: [img]http://208.56.153.48/g/0016.gif[/img] Not even close to the same thing. As for COMSEC, the Liberty was a SIGINT ship, and radiated RF like a beacon. If it wasn't transmitting, it wasn't doing its job. It was a realtime tool, not a recorder.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:47:13 AM EDT
Garandman, I think it was actually 13 fly-bys not 8 as you stated! Attack on Golan took place the next day after the attack on the Liberty. Israelis wanted to keep the "element of surprise". They were afraid the US might "reign them in". They took a calculated risk of backlash.... and took action! They brought it off successfully! Better to ask for forgiveness ..... DaMan
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:50:16 AM EDT
Paul, If you were a pilot, serving a country at war, would you "loiter" over an unidentified ship?? I think not, you would try to ID at SAM range +1. I too think it was undefensible, how ever I'm still not sure that it wasn't a mis-id. I don't think that there was a "greater motive". Jarhead-22 you are describing "auxillary cruisers" The Germans had "merchant" ships all around the globe during WWII. Some were refitted to be combat ships. Higher performance, engines, radios etc. With guns and other weapons, some even had topredo tubes. These were guns with enough power to sink merchant ships and small warships. The also had redisgned stowage so the could re-supply U-boats, and other ships. The used to paint the ships while underway, to resemble other ships, the would even do things like put up fake exhaulst funnels. They would "re-name" and 're-flag" the ship to the ship the were trying to copy. These raiders were very succesful, often times the would get within a few hundred feet of their target before the deception was revealed. I didn't know that it was also transmitting.....Why would it have translators on board if it was sending out intercepts?? wouldn't it be more effecient to translate the intercepts someplace else???
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:58:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Jarhead-22 you are describing "auxillary cruisers"
View Quote
No, you said "Q-ships" and Q ships were tramp steamers during WW II that the British would false-flag, as you mentioned, and use to lure U-boats to their doom. They were meant to look like an easy kill, but when the boat would surface to put the defenseless freighter down with its deck gun to save precious torpedos, the sides of the fake chicken coops or deck shacks would drop revealing a five inch gun while the British Naval Ensign was run up the halyard.
I didn't know that it was also transmitting.....Why would it have translators on board if it was sending out intercepts?? wouldn't it be more effecient to translate the intercepts someplace else???
View Quote
You're asking of efficiency in a US government operation? [;D]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 9:02:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2001 9:08:41 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Q-ships is a term for any disquised armed ship. The German ships were also termed "Q-ships" they were much different from the British conversions, but the principle was the same. I believe "Q-ship" is the slang term and Auxillary Cruiser is the offical British Navy term/classification for thier "Q-ships". You got me on that effeciency thing. But I do wonder how much radio traffic the Liberty was sending out if messages to the ship took several hours to get to the ship.......
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 9:11:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Q-ships is a term for any disquised armed ship. The German ships were also termed "Q-ships" they were much different from the British conversions, but the principle was the same. I believe "Q-ship" is the slang term and Auxillary Cruiser is the offical British Navy term/classification for thier "Q-ships". You got me on that effeciency thing. But I do wonder how much radio traffic the Liberty was sending out if messages to the ship took several hours to get to the ship.......
View Quote
Can you say "Electronic Countermeasures?"
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 9:15:47 AM EDT
Did you read the article, the one linked here?? They said the USN ws routing messages every where but directly to where the needed to go and that some messages, toward the Med., actually went by way of the Phillipines......... So I wonder if the USN had some goof ball routing for messages to the Liberty if the Liberty wasn't storing the intercepts for analysis later.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 9:35:37 AM EDT
Recently an Israeli pilot came forward with the story that they knew the ship was American before they attacked it. This was the second Israeli officier to make this charge. Radio operators in Germany and Lebanon reported that Israeli recon aircraft reported that the ship was flying an American flag--before the attack began.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 10:02:27 AM EDT
Eric, you put big foot in mouth! The attack on the Liberty was deliberate and calculated! Every denial is NOW known as a deliberate cover up! DaMan
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 10:13:00 AM EDT
DonS.... you forgot to mention that the transmissions reporting the Liberty as a US ship were sent in Hebrew (Which they were)! Mistaken identity, MY ASS! DaMan
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 10:52:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DonS: Recently an Israeli pilot came forward with the story that they knew the ship was American before they attacked it. This was the second Israeli officier to make this charge. Radio operators in Germany and Lebanon reported that Israeli recon aircraft reported that the ship was flying an American flag--before the attack began.
View Quote
Got a link?
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 11:10:52 AM EDT
eric is "thinking"..... Give him some time! DaMan
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 12:17:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2001 12:23:09 PM EDT by DonS]
[url]http://208.56.153.48/jim/ussliberty/ijic.txt[/url] "The following appeared in the Fall, 1995 (Vol 8, No 3) Issue of the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence" "At dawn 8 June, Israeli aircraft began reconnoitering the ship, some flying so close that the pilots could clearly be seen, and as low as masthead height, obviously photographing it. This extensive observation lasted seven hours and involved eight separate observations, at about 0600, 0900, 1000, 1030, 1100, and 1130, 1200 and 1215 p.m. [b]U.S. intercept stations twice overheard Israeli pilots reporting that the ship was American[/b]. The visibility conditions were perfect; the ship's American flag was flying free and clear in a good breeze." "[b]Immediately preceding the attack, an Israeli pilot recognized Liberty as a U.S. ship and radioed this information to IDF headquarters. He was instructed to attack anyway.[/b] This dialogue was intercepted at the U.S. embassy in Beirut. Former U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter revealed the existence of this intercept in 1991." I found this on a survivar web site: [url]http://208.56.153.48/jim/ussliberty/[/url] Recently I heard the report on the news that an Israeli pilot came forward and said they knew they were attacking an American ship from the beginning. But at this point I don't have any link.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 12:45:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 2:01:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 2:09:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: You THINK you addressed this. Combat not only means being in the proximity of active fighting, but also the stress it has on command and control and rescource management. Israel only has so many planes. The longer they spend looking at a ship the fewer planes are available for CAP or air support. Not to mention they may have had to consider whether or not the were vulnerable to interception by enemy planes. They would also attemt to ID the ship from a "safe range" in case the ship had SAM's. They would also probably be flying at higher speeds than the do during peactime. The commanders would also have a lot of other important decisions to make. ANd they would have to make them quickly, with sometimes limited information. Whether or not the ship was ID'ed previously means nothing. When they assesed the ship as a possible threat they had to ID it. They wouldn't track every ship, they don't have the time or resources.
View Quote
"The attack was preceded by more than six hours of intense low-level surveillance by Israeli photo-reconnaissance aircraft, which buzzed the intelligence ship thirteen times, sometimes flying as low as 200 feet directly overhead. The reconnaissance pilots were heard by intercept operators in Germany and in Lebanon reporting to their headquarters that they could see an American flag and men sunbathing on deck." [url]http://208.56.153.48/jim/ussliberty/summary.txt[/url]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top