The National Review
April 23, 2002

Israel’s Ajax
The Tragedy of Mr. Sharon.
By Victor Davis Hanson

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson042302.asp

Sophocles once wrote a magnificent play about the Greeks' greatest fighter
at Troy after Achilles — Ajax, as irreplaceable in war as he proved
expendable in peace. During the struggle for Troy, the Greeks were often
saved by the towering, clumsy "donkey." Without the dash of a youthful,
handsome Achilles or the divine dispensation of a crafty Odysseus, Ajax
battered down the Trojans — fighting out of a sense of duty, personal honor,
and perhaps a sheer love of combat.

Yet once the victory was obtained, danger past, and spoils allotted, the
more politically astute and glib heroes — like the sons of Atreus and
Odysseus — came away with all the honors and prizes. In a fit of madness,
Ajax killed himself — bewildered that the race goes not to the swift, and
the memory of men is short and of the moment. In the increasing
democratization of fifth-century B.C. Athens, the playwright Sophocles was
apparently captivated by a few old war-horses still in his midst who had
once built Athens by blood and toil — and yet were clearly unfit for the
nuances and subtleties of the duplicitous politics of the contemporary
freewheeling assembly.

Films such as High Noon and Hombre draw on elements of the classical tragic
hero, the man who does society's dirty work, but receives no accolades for
his sacrifice — and as often as not ends up as publicly shunned as he is
privately admired from a safe distance. Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry films
played on the theme of an over-the-top and often out-of-control cop, who
bent the rules to thwart evil as he saw it. Shane was a similar figure. The
solitary and much-needed gunman saved the homesteaders from the cattle
barons; yet his skill at killing murderers ensured that such a dangerous
gun-toting firebrand had no real role amid the very peace he alone had
created.

Of course, Sophocles and Hollywood did not invent such figures, but rather
their art was modeled after the rare mavericks who occasionally come into
and out of democratic cultures — men who are blunt, unsubtle,
uncompromising, and deadly in their anger. William Tecumseh Sherman was such
a figure. Brilliant, but purposely uncouth, his fiery rhetoric ("I can make
this march, and make Georgia howl") and brutal marches terrified enemies,
frightened his superiors, ended the war — and earned him eternal hatred for
saving far more lives than he took.

It was probably fortuitous that the undiplomatic Patton died in December
1945, after his work at destroying Nazi Germany was done — but before his
lunatic fire and brimstone clichés repelled the country he had helped save.
His boasts that his GIs would "cut up" "Krouts" played well during the war.
But after his enemies were vanquished, the media increasingly found his
rhetoric dated — if not downright inflammatory in peace.

Others as raw come to mind — Arthur "Bomber" Harris and Curtis LeMay. The
former resurrected a morbid British Bomber Command, burned down Hamburg and
Dresden, helped to wreck the German economy, and was lauded during the
conflict for the outright carnage he inflicted on England's fascist enemies,
who were butchering thousands each day of the war. After 1945 it was a
different story. The portly general was quietly ostracized during the peace
as more an unpleasant Neanderthal with the blood of children on his hands
than the King's valiant warrior.

Over his long career, Curtis LeMay said ghastly things ("We're going to bomb
them back into the Stone Age") — and sometimes did the same. Taking his
magnificently designed, high-tech B-29s down from a safe 30,000 feet to
firebomb at low levels, he dropped leaflets of warning and then burned down
Japan's major cities — in the "collateral" damage killing innocent
civilians, combatants, and factory workers alike indiscriminately, as well
as wrecking Japanese communications, rail works, and storage facilities.
During the war he was seen as a genius who saved millions of lives who would
have been lost in the anticipated and much dreaded long land war against a
fully armed and stocked pristine Japan — a dictatorship that at the time was
killing thousands of American soldiers in the Pacific and far more innocents
in China, Korea, and the Philippines. In peace, the cigar-chomping LeMay
became the model for the repugnant and mad General Buck Turgidson of Stanley
Kubrick's Doctor Strangelove, who bragged of Armageddon ("only 10-20 million
Americans killed, tops").

Ariel Sharon is a similar figure. His past is checkered. Critics cite his
negligence in not restraining Lebanese militias from massacring
Palestinians. His former opposition to peace accords has emboldened
settlers — and gave encouragement to dangerous zealots and radicals.
Opponents remember all that and more — forgetting that in 1967, and
especially 1973, his service to Israel was heroic and life saving. Five
years ago no sane person in Israel thought that the widowed, obese,
sweating, blunt-speaking, untelegenic bulldog would ever be prime minister;
five years from now no sane person will ever quite believe he actually was.
But now? At this moment of Israel's greatest peril? Israel is lucky to have
the likes of him — one last time.

Without Israeli retaliation, Saddam Hussein's rained Scuds into Tel Aviv to
the cheers of Palestinians (who apparently hoped their payloads were
gas-laden as promised); the unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon brought not
the hoped-for peace, but the shelling of Israel proper; and the giveaway at
Camp David offered almost all of the West Bank and instead sired the
intifada — all that implanted the impression to many in the region not that
Israel was magnanimous, but rather tired, dispirited, and ready to call it
quits. And so the utopians, peacemakers, and conciliators, for all their
forbearance, got the murder-bombers — planned deliberately after Camp David,
but blamed on Mr. Sharon's single visit to the Temple Mount.

Despite being besieged by murder-bombers and hounded by the Europeans, the
United Nations, and many in our state department, Mr. Sharon nevertheless
did what all such gunslingers do. He said "no more," and plowed into the
West Bank to hunt down, kill, or capture the culprits. He barked out that he
probably should have had Arafat shot years ago. He promised to bring a
terrible retribution to the West Bank, which harbored, cheered, and aided
killer bombers. He said all that and more — without make-up, scripts, or
damage-control spinners and handlers.

Yet the reality was that his soldiers were far more humane than Russians who
blew up entire neighborhoods in Chechnya. His men probably killed fewer
civilians than did our outnumbered and trapped heroes in Mogadishu. Unlike
the Kuwaitis, Sharon did not ethnically cleanse Palestinians; unlike the
Jordanians he did not murder them in the thousands; unlike the Syrians he
did not wipe out an entire town and pave it over; and, of course, unlike the
Arab heroes, Nasser and Saddam Hussein, he did not gas civilians.

No, he sent combatants house-to-house, to pry out killers from boobytrapped
parlors, in narrow streets where gunmen shot and then ducked into living
rooms. No matter — he was Mr. Sharon and his soldiers were Israelis, and so
the world dammed this new Sherman come alive. A corrupt international
community that ignored thousands who were beheaded, incinerated, and blown
apart in the Congo, Bosnia, India, and Rwanda has demonized him for a
"massacre" in which less than a 100 Palestinians were killed in efforts to
apprehend the murderers among them.

Sharon expected all that condemnation and worse, but cared little — knowing
instead that his duty and his proper role, at this time and at this moment,
were to reestablish the first principle of Israel's existence: Attacks on
the Jewish state will invoke reprisals of such magnitude that no one will
dare again murder or maim its citizens in peace. The world believes he is a
little mad; but the world also trusts that when the murder-bombing starts up
again he will go back in to root out murderers and make clear to their
supporters, both tacit and open, the bitter wages of sanctioning mass
killing.

Pessimists now claim that the situation in the Middle East is worse for "Mr.
Sharon's War." Pundits proclaim nightly on the purported Sharon "fixation"
and "feud" with Mr. Arafat. Again, the weary warrior is an easy target of
the blow-dried, chattering classes — aged, plodding, with heavily accented
English, in poor health, and solitary. Indeed, Sharon seems to belong better
with a shovel and wading boots on his farm, or astride a tank than trying to
conduct a press conference in a cheap blazer with an ample belly.

Yet the truth we dare not speak is that had not Mr. Sharon acted, we would
have seen another dozen or so suicide bombings by now, hundreds of more
blown-up Jews, the increasingly frightening reality that Israel would not or
could not act — and a corrupt international community's sigh about butchered
Israelis that "perhaps it had to come to this." Due to Mr. Sharon's resolve,
his absolute disdain for the amoral posturing of European statesmen (who
really do have the blood of Bosnians and Kosovars on their hands), his
unconcern with the venom of the Arab world, and the irritation of the United
States, Israel is more, not less safe — and peace for all concerned is more,
not less, likely.

Now in his mid-70s Sharon will be lucky to get six months of retirement back
on his farm for his trouble. When he goes, Americans will sigh relief. Most
Israelis will learn that peacemaking will come easier for his absence. The
Europeans in time will be wily enough to say, "Sharon did it, not the
Israelis." And so in his lifetime, Mr. Sharon will get no credit and much
blame. At home most of his rivals who follow him to craft a peace will soon
conclude that "Sharon was right, but his methods were not nuanced"; the best
he can hope for abroad is something like "Well, the Palestinians asked for
Sharon, when they started murdering women and children."

No one will admit that Sharon's warmaking was necessary to save lives and
establish peace — and far more humane than the fighting that is
characteristic of the Russian, Indian, and Pakistani armies — and all the
Arab militaries without exception. You see, Sharon, is an Ajax. And all we
"civilized" and "sophisticated" armchair critics can find personal
redemption and smug self-righteousness in demonizing such men — but only
when their necessary work is done and we are no longer being blown to bits.

Hmmm, I wonder if [b]subsailor[/b] will read this?

He should, though I don't believe it will change his extremely low opinion of the man.

Eric The(OrShouldISay'Mensch'?)Hun[>]:)]

Read it though I was unfairly baited into the topic cause I thought we was gonna discuss household cleaning products !

Here is my new position after reading the article:

Arafat = Palestinian Garbage
Sharon = Israeli Garbage

Please note that I now capitalize "Garbage."


What in the HELL is my country doing even speaking with this "Garbage" [?]

Well, [b]subsailor[/b], I suppose that we will simply have to agree to disagree regarding this Sharon fellow.

For some reason, he has offended you so well and thoroughly that you cannot find it in your heart to forgive him his trespasses.

I thought the article properly showed Sharon to be the man I always thought he was. Not a fine gentlemanly type, but someone who knew how to give better than he took, and a helluva military commander.

Eric The(Honorable)Hun[>]:)]

Please don't ignore my equal contempt for Arafat.

Post from 5subslr5 -

Oh, yes, that [b]equal[/b] contempt that you have for Chairman Yasser 'Get Me A Wet Washcloth, Quickly' Arafat!

Let me remind you of this little incident:

On the night of March 2, 1973, PLO gunmen pumped 40 bullets into the bodies of the US ambassador to Sudan and two other diplomats held hostage at the Saudi embassy in Khartoum.

US ambassador Cleo Noel, US charge d'affaires George Curtis Moore, and Belgian charge d'affaires Guy Eid were among a group of diplomats held hostage by eight members of Yasser Arafat's Black September a faction of the PLO during a reception at the Saudi embassy in the Sudanese capital. [b]The terrorists demanded the release of Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, the Palestinian assassin of Robert Kennedy, as well as other Palestinians being held in Israel and European prisons[/b].

After President Richard Nixon refused to negotiate, Arafat's commander, Abu Iyad, in touch with the terrorists by high-frequency transmitter from PLO headquarters in Beirut, gave the instruction "Remember Nahr al-Bard. The people's blood in the Nahr al-Bard cries out for vengeance. We and the rest of the world are watching you." The radio messages were intercepted by Israeli intelligence, and transcripts later handed to the US State Department and Nixon.

"Nahr al-Bard", a reference to a terrorist training facility in Lebanon which had been attacked by Israeli troops 11 days earlier, was the code phrase ordering the gunmen to execute their hostages. At 9:06 pm on March 2, Noel, Moore and Eid were taken to the embassy basement, lined up against the wall and shot. "The terrorists fired from the floor upward, to prolong their agony of their victims by striking them first in the feet and legs, before administering the coup de grace," wrote Neil Livingstone and David Halevy in [u]Inside the PLO[/u] (New York: Quill/William Morrow, 1990).

A few minutes later, Beirut PLO headquarters again radioed the terrorists. [b]This time it was Arafat himself at the microphone. The PLO chairman asked whether the "Nahr al-Bard" code word had been understood.[/b] He was assured the instruction had already been carried out.

Arafat then contacted senior Sudanese officials, and asked that they take no precipitous action, such as storming the embassy.

- continued -

[b]Soon afterwards, the US embassy in Beirut intercepted another radio transmission from Arafat to the terrorists in Khartoum. "Your mission is ended," he told his men. "Release Saudi and Jordanian diplomats. Submit in courage to Sudanese authorities to explain your just cause to [the] great Sudanese Arab masses and international opinion. "We are with you on the same road ..."[/b]

The other diplomats being held were subsequently released, the gunmen surrendered to the Sudanese, who released two of them for "lack of evidence". In June of that year, the other six were found guilty of murdering the three diplomats. During the trial, the commander, Salim Rizak (Abu Ghassan), told the court:

"We carried out this operation on the orders of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and should only be questioned by that organisation."

After the six were interrogated, Sudanese vice president Mohammed Bakir said of them: "They relied on radio messages from Beirut Fatah headquarters, both for the order to kill the three diplomats and for their own surrender Sunday morning." (In June of that year, the six were sentenced to life imprisonment for the three murders. Twenty-four hours later, they were quietly flown out of Sudan and handed over to the PLO.)

[b]subsailor[/b], are you sure you can't bring yourself to hate Arafat just a wee bit more than you hate Sharon?

Your countrymen's blood cries out for vengeance, so it should be a simple matter!

Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)]

No my contempt is about equal.

Israel killed 34 U.S. Navy sailors and wounded another 171.  69% battle casualties.

The Israelis tried to kill them all.

Machine gunned the fucking life rafts.

Fuck the Israelis and the Palestinians.  I don't care if they kill each other in mass quantities I just don't want to pay for it.

Can I politely remind you, subsailor, that US Air Force, after several attempts, succeeded to kill 4 Canadian troops and wounded several others a few days ago?

You would equate the two incidents ?  These two incidents are equal in your mind ?

Tell me Paolo where are the Italians cowering these days ?

They at home or in the Afghan looking for someone to surrender to ?

Post from 5subslr5 -

Without starting another gut-wrenching USS Liberty thread, so it isn't [b]Sharon[/b] so much that you hate, since Sharon has never been linked to any aspect of that tragedy, but anyone who might happen to be Prime Minister of Israel at the present time?

OK, I can live with that. I just thought you might know something about Sharon that I didn't know, and which might make me hate him as well.

Eric The(FairEnough)Hun[>]:)]

The Israelis were killing unarmed POWs in the desert.

The Israeli military was using UHF freq's for communication (basically line-of-sight) and were afraid the Liberty had discovered the atrocities they were committing in the desert.  The Liberty as well as as a spy plane, an EC 121, 'HAD' picked up these UHF signals.

From the 'ISRAELI' military historian Aryeh Yitzhaki: "he and other officers had collected testimony from dozens of Israeli soldiers who admitted killing POW's."  According to Yitzhaki, Israeli troops killed, in cold blood, as many as 1000 Egyptian prisoners in the Sinai, including some 400 in the sand dunes of El Arish.

Sharon's sorry ass was was in the El Arish area.

Of the 1967 Sinai slaughter, Areyh Yitzhaki said, "The whole army leadership including Dayan, Rabin and the generals (Sharon included) knew about these things."

Senior Israeli officials refused to release a 1968 report prepared by Yitzhaki on the murders he prepared in 1968.

I'll only add:

sub-sl-r....sub-sl-r......sub-sl-r......



GOOOOOOOOOO, subslr!!!!!!!!!!!!


Give 'em heck!!!!!!!

Post from 5subslr5 -

Nonsense! They collected over 10,000 Egyptians POWs before they lost count.

Why would they kill any? I believe that the Egytians held less than a couple of hundred Israeli POWs, why risk having those guys killed in revenge?

Nonsense, again!

You've put too much faith in James Bamford and his seriously flawed version of history. To refresh your memory, this is the same fellow who in 1982, had claimed that the USS Liberty attack was to cover up the Israelis' forbidden attack on Syria's Golan Heights.

When the true documents were discovered about the US agreement to the Israelis' attack in the Golan Heights, Bamford seized on this pure load of BS to provide the motive for the attack on the USS Liberty!

How could he have been so wrong in the first place? Why didn't his thorough research show these 'mass murders of POWs' in his first book?

No one, but no one in Israel calls Aryeh Yitzhaki an 'historian', much less a military historian!

In an interview on NPR's "Fresh Air" program, Bamford related that at the moment of the alleged massacre, "the Liberty, which was an enormous United States eavesdropping factory, was sitting only about 13 miles off the coast, fully capable of eavesdropping on what was going on on the shore." And on page 236, Bamford writes that "on the morning of June 7, the Israeli military command received a report" that the Liberty was "secretly listening" while the war crime was taking place.

According to USS Liberty logs, however, as of midnight between June 7 and June 8, the ship was still 150 miles from the nearest coastal point of Israel and 50 miles north of the coast of Egypt. It did not reach its "Point Alpha" (18 miles east of the Sinai town of El Arish) until 8:38 a.m. on June 8.

This is [u]long[/u] after the alleged Egyptian POW murders, [b]subsailor[/b]!

Another gross inconsistency is Bamford's claim that National Security Agency officials provided him with secret documents which concur that the attack was deliberate. As reported on CNN, Bamford says that a secret NSA plane was overhead listening to Israel's attack on the Liberty, confirming the attack was deliberate.

- continued -

[b]No such fact has ever been published. No alleged transcript has ever been produced.[/b] Indeed, if an official U.S. aircraft was overhead, why didn't Israeli radars looking for enemy aircraft pick it up? Moreover, wouldn't an American NSA aircraft witnessing an attack on one of its ships attempt to seek assistance? [b]No such distress calls were noted in any of the official inquiries.[/b]

According to a Baltimore Sun review of the book, an NSA spokesman uncharacteristically spoke out against Branford's slander. [b]"We do not comment on operational matters, alleged or otherwise; [u]however[/u], Mr. Bamford's claim that the NSA leadership was 'virtually unanimous in their belief that the attack was deliberate' is simply not true," the spokesperson said. See article at:[url]http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.md.nsa24apr24.story[/url]

In fact, contrary to Bamford's sensationalistic work, a variety of exhaustive research concludes that Israel made a mistake that was by no means deliberate.

One important top-secret NSA document in the U.S. National Archives is entitled "Attack on the USS Liberty" (SRH-256). The 77-page brief, declassified in 1983, concludes: [b]"Reexamination of Israel's explanation of why its air and naval forces attacked the Liberty reveals egregious errors in both command judgments and operational procedures."[/b]

[b]Egregious errors, yes. Deliberate murder, no![/b]

This document is the subject of a doctoral thesis by A. Jay Cristol, who happens to be Chief Judge of the U.S. federal bankruptcy court in Florida. A former U.S. Navy flyer in the wars in Korea and Viet Nam, he knows ships and planes inside and out. Cristol reviews the gamut of conspiracy theories, and after exhaustive research, including more than 220 interviews, concludes: "This research project supports the validity of the conclusions of the official investigations, that the incident was the result of a series of tragic mistakes."

So is Bamford being honest about his report?For the AP article of the next day, August 17, 1995, revealed that Yitzhaki, a member of a far-right political party in Israel, admitted he came out with his charges to protect the leader of his party, who had just been indirectly implicated in some [u]genuine[/u] killings of Egyptian POWs in the 1956 Middle-East war.

- continued -

According to the AP, Yitzhaki “acknowledged that he spoke out mainly to shift attention ... from Tzomet leader Raphael Eitan ... to leading government officials, including Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.” That Yitzhaki’s credibility was therefore shaky at best is just another fact kept from readers by Bamford.

Does anyone have a copy of this report, or is this just another of Bamford's lies?

In addition, a Jerusalem Post story of August 17, 1995 quoted Yitzhaki’s then-commanding officer, historian Meir Pa’il, who stated that in 1968 Yitzhaki was not a military historian at all, but rather a mere clerk:

He was a clerk in the department's archive. In 1968, he was an assistant of mine when I conducted a comparative study of the conquests of Sinai in 1948, 1956, and 1967. Had he stumbled on these devastating so-called facts, he would have said so then. The fact is he didn't.

This report also states that “transcripts of orders from the Six Day War shown to the Jerusalem Post yesterday clearly indicate that the alleged mass murder of Egyptian POWs near El-Arish never occurred as described by [Aryeh Yitzhaki].”

According to the Post, what actually happened was a full-fledged battle between soldiers:

... several hundred armed Palestinian soldiers, in Egyptian Army uniforms, were trying to escape from the Gaza Strip towards Port Said – not knowing that the area was already under IDF control – on the last day of the war [with Egypt]. They exchanged fire with Nahal soldiers and most were later killed by soldiers from the Shaked reconnaissance unit.

Supporting this is a contemporaneous account from the New York Times, which reported precisely such battles, but no massacres. Datelined El-Arish, June 7, the Times article reported that:

... pockets of Egyptian troops in Sinai and Palestinian troops in the Gaza Strip continued desperate resistance...

The army base here was also in Israeli hands yesterday evening after a three hour battle. Heavy casualties were inflicted, more than a thousand prisoners surrendered and some Egyptian soldiers fled into the desert.

- continued -

At dawn today an Egyptian commando company struck back. An officer told reporters that the enemy had stormed the camp at daybreak with submachine guns blazing. They inflicted casualties, but were gunned down.

Later this morning, when a battalion commander went toward the home of the governor to arrange for a formal surrender, fire was opened from several houses in the town. The Israelis withdrew, and orders were given to subdue the enemy by shelling.

Brief and sporadic bursts of machinegun fire were heard between mortar blasts. Reporters were told that Egyptians were being flushed out of stone-lined trenches around the town. (New York Times, June 8, 1967; emphasis added)

Perhaps as important as the corroborating details offered by this account, is the affirmation that in El Arish on June 7th Israeli forces were accompanied by reporters who evidently neither saw nor heard even a hint of Bamford’s alleged “slaughterhouse.”

And not just reporters; photographers also accompanied the Israeli troops throughout their advance into the Sinai. Indeed, an American photographer for Life Magazine, Paul Schutzer, was killed while riding with Israeli troops in a half-track that came under Egyptian attack. Despite the dangers, these news photographers, both Israeli and foreign, filed numerous battle images, as well as photos of the war’s immediate aftermath, such as Israeli soldiers dealing with Arab POWs in El Arish [u]during the very time that Bamford charges there was an ongoing slaughter[/u]!

Eric The(LoyalToUS)Hun[>]:)]

HA-hahahahahaha!!!!!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

Really - I just fell out of my chair, Eric!!!

I guess "lost count" is the Israeli euphemism for "killed off the rest." [}:D]

I think (no, actually I KNOW )Hitler "lost count" as well.

But who could blame them? Even wars are subject to budget constraints. They had only budgeted for 10K in POW's. Their unexpected success was gonna "blow the budget." Every addt'l POW was cutting into their combat pay and matzos allowance. So, they "lost count."

I guess you could say they "downsized" the POW camp. Or gave them "early (permanent) retirement." Gave them the "gold watch."[:D]

The old severance (heads from their shoulders) "pay."

Cancelled their subscription to "Life."

LOL!!!! [:D] [}:D] [;)]



garand(OrIsThatTheLawyersEuphemism?)man

Eric -

You are embarrassing yourself with these NON-answers.




What???So since he's not an "official historian" his testimony is to be ignored? Whatlegal system  do you work for??? Since the people accused of the atrocity don't like the credentials of the witness, then his testimony is not viable???

Example -

Prosecutor: Mr. Simpson, Mr. Kailin says you killed Nicole.

OJ: He's not an "official historian."

Prosecutor: Geez, yer right. Yer free to go, Mr . Simpson.

[rolleyes]



Yeah, right. At the time, the US gov't was busy COVERING UP the entire incident, and THREATENING the men present on the Liberty with JAIL TIME if they dared speak about it. They repaired the Liberty within days (the kind of productivity not see even during WW2) and buried all the other evidence. And these log books are your defense?? When the gov't with custody of the logs books lied and deceived and threatened witnesses? THAT is your defense???


Honestly, Eric. I ahve NEVER seen such an unwillingness to simply admit the truth. To go to SUCH lengths to avoid seeing what is in plain sight.


I woudl LOVE to show this thread to yer boss. He would either fire you post haste, or give you a HUGE promotion and pay increase. (The ONLY way he'd give you a pay increase is IF Israel were your one and only client. Personally, I suspect that is EXACTLY the case.)

Eric,

you support those (the Israelis) that have killed United States Military personnel.

In my 'opinion' the reason we don't want to put U.S. troops in Israel/Palestinians Territories is because we're afraid the Israelis - not the the Palestinians - will continue with their propensity to kill U.S. service personnel.

Remember, I care about the United States of America and care virtually nothing about either Israel or the Palestinian Territories.

I just don't want American taxpayers to continue to pay Israel to kill Palestinians.

If we don't pay 'either' group let them kill one another in ever increasing quantities.  Please.

Post from 5subslr5 -

There were more than 5,300 'friendly fire' incidents in Vietnam.

Should I [u]not[/u] support the folks in Vietnam who committed these friendly fire incidents?

Should Canada withdraw from the coaltion in the War on Terrorism because of the recent friendly fire deaths of 4 of its troops?

Give me one blessed reason for Israel to purposefully fire on the USS Liberty and you may just be responsible for converting this old Hun!

Just don't use any of the same lame old reasons given by others, who should know better!

Eric The(Sincere)Hun[>]:)]

So you are going to compare Vietnam (four+ years) and Afghanistan(4+ months) BOTH of which were war zones, with a single Liberty ship, sitting alone in international waters, armed only with 50 cal machine guns, in broad daylight, clearly marked, after eight flybys by enemy fighters???

Honestly? With a straight face yer making that comparison??

Yer comparing the Vietnam and Afghani FF incidents, ALL of which occurred in a matter of split seconds, with an hour and 15 minute long concerted gunboat, torpedo and rocket attack???

I suppose the ONLY way you'll EVER come to understand teh difference is if the JBT's coem and kick in your door, and strafe your house with machine gun fire (and worse) for an hour and fifteen minutes, killing 60 % of your family and then say "Gee - OOOOPPPSSS!!!" I'm expecting you to be JUST as forgiving of them as you are of those Israeli murderers.

let's hear you say it - Waco and ruby Ridge were "freindly fire" accidents, right??? Indeed it seems you allow Israelis to murder US citizens more so than you do our own gov't.



Cuz you would HAVE to be an idiot, or an Israeli, to beleive it was friendly fire?? Cuz everyone, to the man, who lived thru the attack, KNOWS it was freindly fire???

There's two for starters.

gee, who do I beleive - EricThe(self-deluded)Hun and the accused, or the eye witness victims?

1) Yes. I equate. And because that it is not the first time that US troops kills their own soldier, allied soldiers or even civilians citizien of an allied country with their irresponsible behaviour of "first shoot then make questions". 22 were killed in Italy by a USMC pilot that KNEW where was the cableway, they KNEW that was forbidden to flight so low. Two F16 flew under the feet of two German handgliders, always in Italy, in a place where ALL FLIGHT were interdicted and I saw with my eyes because I was about to take off too! It's not a single case, like the Israelis and the Liberty, but I can mention hundreds of cases!
The cousin of my father, that was a former Brg. General of the Aereonautica Militare (Italian Air Force) reported me that when making manouvers with americans, they were afraid because US pilots almost never respected international rules of flights! I don't want to say anything bad, and I KNOW that there are a lot of good guys in the US military, but I see only double standards from you when considering US troops and "anybody else" troops.

2)I don't take any responsibility for the orders and the behaviour of my government. I think in a completely different way, and this should be evident because I am in this forum. I am ashamed because good soldiers of Italian SF (some of them are in the same battalion where I served 14 years ago) are kept in second line duties because our gutless polititians are afraid to loose consensus by their electors. I am ashamed because I live in a country that pretends that nothing is happening, and is doing nothing to be ready in case of conflict (as usual since the fall of the Roman Empire...), and I am ashamed that while even Germany SF are on active duty in Afghanistan, our Italians Generals take their pride in commanding NATO contingents in Kosovo, where very few is happening, and most of the job is not "tactical" but "political". I would like that Italians would have a more active part in the War against Terror, also because pragmatically the experience that my army can gain is invaluable and we can have a better army. Unfortunately, a better army is not well seen in Italy neither by our politicians.

3) After the Liberty attack, subsailor, my political correct hero, can you mention any other circumtance that lead IDF regular units to attack US Forces?

Frankly, I don't think you can... see ya!