Quoted: Quoted: Militant Jewish bomb plotter jailed for 20 years in US ... What a jackasss.  I guess he thought that increasing tensions between Muslims and Americans would help his cause. -green Of course he did.  Just like when they attacked the USS Liberty (killing American sailors) and tried to make it look like Arabs did it. USS Liberty

We do not discuss the Liberty accident on this sight.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Militant Jewish bomb plotter jailed for 20 years in US ... What a jackasss.  I guess he thought that increasing tensions between Muslims and Americans would help his cause. -green Of course he did.  Just like when they attacked the USS Liberty (killing American sailors) and tried to make it look like Arabs did it. USS Liberty We do not discuss the Liberty accident on this sight.

We do not lightly discuss the USS Liberty incident on this site.

And I'm heading off to prepare my tables for this weekend's Market Hall Gun Show.

No Hun, no 'real' USS Liberty discussion.

Eric The(FogOfWar)Hun

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Militant Jewish bomb plotter jailed for 20 years in US ... What a jackasss.  I guess he thought that increasing tensions between Muslims and Americans would help his cause. -green Of course he did.  Just like when they attacked the USS Liberty (killing American sailors) and tried to make it look like Arabs did it. USS Liberty We do not discuss the Liberty accident on this sight. That's news to me.  That we don't discuss it and that it was an "accident". I support JPFO so anyone that tries calling me an anti-Semite over this can forget it.

You didn't know, now you do.  There have been no less than 100 threads on this subject since 2000.  All have ended badly.  Very badly.  The agreement among the people here who have studied this subject in depth is that it shall be discussed no further.

Quoted:

That's news to me.  That we don't discuss it and that it was an "accident".

Hello, new guy!



A few years ago, that was about ALL we ever discussed on ARFCOM.

How do you think I got 30,000+ posts?

And, if you have any real knowledge concerning this tragic incident, it would NOT be 'news' to you that it might be called an 'accident' by some.

Including me.

I support JPFO so anyone that tries calling me an anti-Semite over this can forget it.

Jeepers!

Isn't that sort of akin to saying, 'I have black friends, so I simply cannot be a racist'?

In other words, it is totally possible to support the JPFO and to be an anti-Semite at the same time.

But you are wrong from the very beginning. No one supports the Israeli version of this tragedy more than I do, but I have never, ever accused anyone on the other side as being an anti-Semite!

And even my most earnest opponents in those other, numerous USS Liberty threads would likely admit that I have never used that word to describe them.

Now, don't get me wrong,  there may be many anti-Semites who do think that the USS Liberty was purposefully attacked by Israel.

But those are the same folks who think that the 'Jews' knew of September 11th beforehand, anyway!

Sorta like Louis Farakhan....you know.

But, no, you were not a party to any 'gentlemen's agreement' to NOT talk of the USS Liberty again.

So, have at it!

I will return later, from the gun show, to correct your work.



Eric The(FairAndBalanced)Hun

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's news to me.  That we don't discuss it and that it was an "accident". Hello, new guy! A few years ago, that was about ALL we ever discussed on ARFCOM. How do you think I got 30,000+ posts? And, if you have any real knowledge concerning this tragic incident, it would NOT be 'news' to you that it might be called an 'accident' by some. Including me. I support JPFO so anyone that tries calling me an anti-Semite over this can forget it. Jeepers! Isn't that sort of akin to saying, 'I have black friends, so I simply cannot be a racist'? In other words, it is totally possible to support the JPFO and to be an anti-Semite at the same time. But you are wrong from the very beginning. No one supports the Israeli version of this tragedy more than I do, but I have never, ever accused anyone on the other side as being an anti-Semite! And even my most earnest opponents in those other, numerous USS Liberty threads would likely admit that I have never used that word to describe them. Now, don't get me wrong,  there may be many anti-Semites who do think that the USS Liberty was purposefully attacked by Israel. But those are the same folks who think that the 'Jews' knew of September 11th beforehand, anyway! Sorta like Louis Farakhan....you know. But, no, you were not a party to any 'gentlemen's agreement' to NOT talk of the USS Liberty again. So, have at it! I will return later, from the gun show, to correct your work. Eric The(FairAndBalanced)Hun Well it's not really my work to correct.  It's the word of the NSA and other intelligence assets in the US Government.  And you are not an authority to issue such corrections.  Unless you have more than an internet say-so I'm going with what those intelligence assets had to say. I can see why this got dropped; there's really no debate.  A say-so isn't going to do it.  A link to objective evidence or the testimony of knowledgeable experts who were involved would do it otherwise it's just your opinion and as interesting as it might be I don't find it compelling.

Boy, you done stepped in it now.  

Quoted:

Well it's not really my work to correct.

Oh, trust me, it most certainly will be my work.

It is a work of love for me! Love for the truth!

You are too 'new' here, but we've heard all of the old bullshiite from James Bamford and the 'NSA' top secret asshats, and all, many, many times before.

I am still waiting for the production of that super secret Israeli witness that Mr. James Ennes (who has made this into a 'cottage industry' for himself and others) promised us back in....1993.....and yet, he won't even release the Israeli fellow's name now! 12 years later!

(Frankly, I think James Ennes is waiting to claim that the fellow 'died', and then release the notes of some interview with the dead man!)

I suppose the Mossad has already killed any IAF pilots who may have felt inclined to spill the lentils!

It's the word of the NSA and other intelligence assets in the US Government.

Yep. We've heard all their shiite before.

The 'overheard' radio transmissions from the IAF pilots describing the 'conspiracy', etc., etc., etc.

Thanks, anyway!

And you are not an authority to issue such corrections.

I only use the best and most credible sources!

The participants themselves!

Unless you have more than an internet say-so I'm going with what those intelligence assets had to say.

Be my guest!

BTW, did you know James Bamford is a stauch opponent of the Iraqi War?

Not that it's a bad deal to oppose our military involvement in Iraq...but for a 'researcher' to be an outspoken critic belies motivation that your views are anything remotely 'objective.'

The title of Bamford's newest investigative opus - A Pretext for War : 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies - says it all.

From an interview with Bamford....speaking about this book...

"Next, Pretext describes how the claims involving Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and Hussein's involvement with 9/11, were simply used as pretexts for a war long planned by a small group of neoconservatives supportive of the Israeli government's policies and the expansion of U.S. military power throughout the Middle East. It examines how top Bush administration officials Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser first drafted a war plan outlining an attack on Iraq, and removal of Saddam Hussein, in 1996. But the document, titled "A Clean Break," was drafted for Israel, not the United States.

""At the time, the three were acting as advisors to newly elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 'Israel can shape its strategic environment,' they wrote. 'This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective.'

"Not satisfied with regime change in Iraq, they went on to recommend that Israel continue to 'shape its strategic environment' by 'rolling back Syria.'

"Wurmser then authored a paper in January 2001 arguing that the U.S. and Israel jointly launch a preemptive war throughout the Middle East and north Africa to establish U.S.-Israeli dominance. The U.S. and Israel should 'strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region – the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza,' he wrote. He then added that, 'crises are opportunities.'

"About the same time, on Jan. 30, 2001, President Bush held his first National Security Council meeting and, according to former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, discussed only two topics: becoming closer to Israel's Ariel Sharon and locating targets to attack in Iraq.

"As Wurmser had suggested, following the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration immediately began using the crisis as an opportunity to launch their long-planned war against Iraq. At 2:40 p.m. on Sept.11, as the Pentagon was still burning, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld dictated notes indicating his intention to blame Saddam Hussein, even though there was no evidence of any such link and all the intelligence pointed exclusively to bin Laden and al-Qaeda. 'Hit S.H. at same time,' he wrote. 'Sweep' him up, whether 'related' to 9/11 or 'not.'

"Next, Wurmser was put in charge of a secret unit in Feith's office with the cover name Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group. Its function was to gather and feed less-than-credible intelligence – intelligence discounted by the CIA, such as the supposed Niger uranium deal – to the White House and Vice President Cheney's office. Wurmser is now Cheney's top Middle East advisor.

"Finally, Pretext closely examines the numerous lies and deceptions presented to the Congress, the American public, and the world in order to justify the war in Iraq."

Some researcher!

Nothing more than a rehash of 'Bush Lied, and Men Died', and indicative of the man's obesession with Israeli intrigues in US Foreign Policy!

I can see why this got dropped; there's really no debate.

Then carry on, little fellow!

Try and find something that none have ever seen before....as if you could possibly do that!

A say-so isn't going to do it.

Frankly, I cannot recall any 'gentlemen's agreement' NOT to discuss it, I merely thought the subject exhausted and no one likely to change their opinions, one way or the other.

But if Brother shotar says there was such an agreement, I believe him.

A link to objective evidence or the testimony of knowledgeable experts who were involved would do it otherwise it's just your opinion and as interesting as it might be I don't find it compelling.

Knock yourself out, little buddy!



First, begin with the testimony of Commander McGonagle, the USS Liberty's CO, and likely the only real hero in the entire affair, at the US Navy's Court of Inquiry held mere days after the incident.

It's contained here in its entirety:

www.ussliberty.org/nci.htm

Commander McGonagle did receive the CMOH for his actions that fateful June day in 1967, after all!

And, yet, when confronted with his challenging testimony, those who believe the attack was intentional resort to calling him a 'patsy', 'disconnected from his men', or, failing that, 'unconscious during the entire attack and not able to give any reliable testimony'!

In other words, to complete their tale of Israeli conspiracy, they feel compelled to tarnish the good name of a gentleman and US Naval officer!

Sad lot, those folks.

Eric The(BeenHere,DoneAllThisBefore)Hun

Quoted:

Boy, you done stepped in it now.

He has, indeed, my dear friend, but as I said earlier, I simply must leave NOW and set up my tables at the Dallas Market Gun Show!

With all these 'refugees' from Houston and environs, it may prove to be a very interesting show!

And it is the largest gun show in the Great State of Texas, already!

Eric The(Cha-Ching!)Hun

Quoted: Israel knew it was an American ship. The attack was inexcusable. I'm surprised some have the gall to say it was a mistake. It was no mistake.

Hmmm.

From the BBC back in 1991:

"It has emerged that "friendly fire" killed more British troops than the Iraqis did - of 16 British soldiers who died, nine were killed by Americans.

Of 148 Americans who died, 35 were killed by friendly fire."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/28/newsid_2515000/2515289.stm

So Americans killed more Brits than the Iraqis did?

It could not possibly have been a mistake!

Mistakes in war seldom occur, right?

The gall of some British mothers in thinking that the murder of their sons by Americans was intentional!

Eric The(FogOfWar,Again)Hun

I thought the JDL died back in the late 70s with its founder.
Katz?  was that it?

Quoted: Funny that he gets more time than the Muslim LA bomber guy.

Its ok to trash Jews.  If it was a muslim, someone might accuse the press of racism or get their feelings hurt.

Quoted:

You come off like your info is 'all that' but I don't agree.

I should come off as someone who, after examining the evidence presented by both sides, my logical conclusion is that...since Israel had absolutely NOTHING to gain from a premeditated attack on a US warship  on the high seas, and had EVERYTHING to lose (like a crippling military victory over their eternal Arab enemies), the attack was a mistake.

A stupid, careless, tragid mistake....and nothing more.

The lack of evidence of any Israeli motive for the attack is something that James Bamford has struggled with for many years, as well.

The motive which he gave for the attack in his 1981 book on the NSA, The Puzzle Palace, is NOT the same as the motive that he supplied for the attack in his more recent book on the NSA, Body of Secrets.

He is the man you should think has already made up his mind and is grasping to find evidence to support his theories!  

Did you make up your mind then research it or research it then make up your mind?

No, that would be James Bamford.

As I mentioned many times in those 'other' threads on the USS Liberty, I was a mere lad of 15, living in rural West Texas, when the Six Day War took place.

As you can well imagine, as a 15 year old boy with a lot of time on his hands, I followed that short war with keen interest!

We heard of the attack on the USS Liberty, right in the midst of celebrating the historic and complete victory of Israel over its eternal enemies, the Arabs!

It was explained as a mistake on all the news outlets (owned by Jews! I might add!), and we all accepted that this is what it was.

Why, in God's Holy Name, would Israel attack US, we thought.

Several years later, after reading more accounts of the attack, I became quite convinced that it was indeed an intentional attack, but still the reasoning for the attack was always fuzzy and contradictory.

I thought that the USS Liberty incident, and the deaths of 37 sailors, was the 'price' that the US paid for having Israel as a staunch ally in the Cold War.

I stayed with that view for quite some time.

And then....it changed again, after I read more on the subject....from conservative sources.

Which was strange, for it was 'conservative' sources that had preiously made me think the attack was intentional.

Simply put, there is NO CONCEIVABLE MOTIVE THAT ISREAL HAD ON JUNE 8, 1967, TO PURPOSEFULLY ATTACK THE USS LIBERTY!

And there were extraordinary motives for them NOT to do so.

Eric The(FairAndBalanced)Hun

I will add something to what the Hun has already written.  One of the best and most obvious evidences that this was an accident, is the fact that there are survivors at all.  The Israelis had both Air and sea assets in weapons range of the Liberty.  The US had no assets in weapons range to defend her.  In fact, the US forces did not even know she was there, placing her position some 100 miles away, leading them to believe it was not our ship.  Surely the Liberty would have been sunk with all hands had this been a deliberate attack.  If Israel was going to commit an act of treachery, why leave any witnesses to blame them.  Why would the torpedo boats break off their attack after recognizing that it was a US ship and not an Egyptian Freighter?  Why would the aircraft break off the attack as well?  

No, this was a tragic mistake.  The Israeli pilots were sent out to sink an Egyptian freighter ferrying arms.  Their intel was that there were no friendly ships in the area.  What did they find when they arrived in the target area?  A freighter ( the Liberty was a converted freighter ).  They saw exactly what they expected to see.  Only after the attack was underway was the mis identification detected and the attack halted.  There was no benefit to them in this attack and clearly, given the Israeli's military prowess, They would have finished her off had this been intentional.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You come off like your info is 'all that' but I don't agree. I should come off as someone who, after examining the evidence presented by both sides, my logical conclusion is that...since Israel had absolutely NOTHING to gain from a premeditated attack on a US warship  on the high seas, and had EVERYTHING to lose (like a crippling military victory over their eternal Arab enemies), the attack was a mistake. A stupid, careless, tragid mistake....and nothing more. The lack of evidence of any Israeli motive for the attack is something that James Bamford has struggled with for many years, as well. The motive which he gave for the attack in his 1981 book on the NSA, The Puzzle Palace, is NOT the same as the motive that he supplied for the attack in his more recent book on the NSA, Body of Secrets. He is the man you should think has already made up his mind and is grasping to find evidence to support his theories!   Did you make up your mind then research it or research it then make up your mind? No, that would be James Bamford. As I mentioned many times in those 'other' threads on the USS Liberty, I was a mere lad of 15, living in rural West Texas, when the Six Day War took place. As you can well imagine, as a 15 year old boy with a lot of time on his hands, I followed that short war with keen interest! We heard of the attack on the USS Liberty, right in the midst of celebrating the historic and complete victory of Israel over its eternal enemies, the Arabs! It was explained as a mistake on all the news outlets (owned by Jews! I might add!), and we all accepted that this is what it was. Why, in God's Holy Name, would Israel attack US, we thought. Several years later, after reading more accounts of the attack, I became quite convinced that it was indeed an intentional attack, but still the reasoning for the attack was always fuzzy and contradictory. I thought that the USS Liberty incident, and the deaths of 37 sailors, was the 'price' that the US paid for having Israel as a staunch ally in the Cold War. I stayed with that view for quite some time. And then....it changed again, after I read more on the subject....from conservative sources. Which was strange, for it was 'conservative' sources that had preiously made me think the attack was intentional. Simply put, there is NO CONCEIVABLE MOTIVE THAT ISREAL HAD ON JUNE 8, 1967, TO PURPOSEFULLY ATTACK THE USS LIBERTY! And there were extraordinary motives for them NOT to do so. Eric The(FairAndBalanced)Hun I disagree. I'm surprised you don't see how they could stand to gain.  They make it look like an Arab attack, get the US fired up and we go kick ass for them.  It's not a complicated motive.

Not needed.  They were already kicking the arab's asses.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Funny that he gets more time than the Muslim LA bomber guy. Its ok to trash Jews.  If it was a muslim, someone might accuse the press of racism or get their feelings hurt. Un-fucking-believable. That makes no sense. Why didn't he get more time?

Its a cunning ruse by the ZOG

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ... Not needed.  They were already kicking the arab's asses. If they could get the US to do it for them they would.

That is the single dumbest statement I have ever read in relation to the nation of Israel.  Never, since 1948 has Israel even remotely suggested that we put US warplanes over their skies or boots on the ground in defense of their nation.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ... Not needed.  They were already kicking the arab's asses. If they could get the US to do it for them they would.

Hmmm.
Yeah.
1967 was nip and tuck all the way, wasn't it?
Dude.  Passover comes, do you lock your children up so they don't get murdered to make matzos?

Quoted:

Your comparison would have actual meaning if the US identified British troops as British and attacked anyway. That is exactly what Israel did to the US.

No, that is precisely what did NOT happen back in June, 1967!

Read a bit more and get back with us!

The USS Liberty was clearly identified with a green marker on the situation board in the early morning hours of June 8, 1967.

The green marker, and its placement off the coast, meant that it was a 'neutral' ship.

That occurred about 8:00 AM local time.

No one noticed 4 hours later, when according to Israeli military protocol, all markers were swept from the situation board, and replaced with markers more current.

The green marker representing the USS Liberty was NOT replaced. It was simply removed, for there was no more current info that the Israeli commanders had on that ship.

Meanwhile, the US Naval attache in Tel Aviv assured the Israelis that ALL US ships had been withdrawn at least 100 miles off the coast of Israel.

The message that was supposed to have been sent to the USS Liberty, ordering it to steam away from the Israeli-Egyptian coast, was sent to the Philippines, by mistake...and only relayed to the USS Liberty many hours after the attack!

When units of the Israeli Army, mistakenly, reported that it was being shelled by an Egyptian warship off the coast of El Arish, in the Sinai area of Egypt, a chain of events were put into motion that resulted in the tragid attack on the USS Liberty.

The Israeli command in Tel Aviv received the report of 'naval gunfire' on its troops, and immediately checked the situation board...

No markers were present representing any ship in that area, and, based upon the assurances of the US Naval attache that he had received wpord that there were NO US Ships within 100 miles of the coast, the Israeli commanders made the reasonable decision that it MUST be an Egyptian warship of some type, that was responsible for this attack.

The 'shelling by naval warships' that was reported by the Israeli army units was simply the explosions of some Egyptian Army ammo depots that were burning at El Arish.

The Isaeli commanders then ordered surface ships, in the form of Israeli MTBs, to proceed to the area where the shelling supposedly came from - off the coast of El Arish.

It also ordered IAF fighter-bombers, to the area, and IF there was an enemy ship, to attack it.

These fighter-bombers were armed with fragmentation bombs, rockets, and even napalm, for a conventional attack on ground forces, and NOT on warships at sea.

When these Mirage fighter-bombers arrived in the arera, they sighted the USS Liberty and went into an immediate attack.

The air attack was over quickly, and the damage, while extensive, was not mortal. Few US sailors died in this attack.....13 if I recall correctly.

Then came the most crucial time period in the entire affir...the arrival of 5 Israeli MTBs into the area.

The commander of this MTB flotilla, when he saw the USS Liberty afire, realized that the ship that lay stricken before him was most certainly NOT the ship that he had expected from earlier reports.

Instead of immediately launching a torpedo attack, he incredibly brought his flotilla to a halt and began to attempt a line of communication with the stricken 'unknown' ship.

'Identify yourself, Identify yourself, Identify yourself' was blinked over and over through the ships signal lamps.

Commander McGonagle, on the bridge of the USS Liberty, and gravely wounded himself, had previously given the order to the men on the ships only armament, four .50 cal. machine gun turrets, to 'Prepare to repel boarders!'

When he saw the blinking signal lamps, through the smoke, on the bridge, he immediately commanded, 'Hold your fire' to the machine gun emplacements...but his order went unheard.

He then ordered his own signalmen to reply to the blinking signal lights....'Identify yourself first.'

(Which, it later turned out, was yet another tragis mistake. The commander of the Israeli MTB flotilla's father had been a captain in the 1956 War and an Egyptian warship when challenged by his MTBs had answered his signals with exactly the same response, 'Identify yourself first.')

Then one of the .50 cal machine gunners opened up on the Israeli MTB flotilla, 'effectively bracketing the center boat', as Commander McGonagle later recounted in his Board of Inquiry testimony.

That was all the Israeli MTB commander needed to convince him the ship must be Egyptian...he and his boats were under fire from this stricken, unknown ship!

The Israeli MTB flotilla then immediately lauched a torpedo attack upon the USS Liberty, firing 5 torpedoes, only one of which hit the USS Liberty.

Buit one was enough, and the torpedo struck the ship amidships, instantly killing 24 US personnel in the intelligence section of the ship.

Thereafter, the Israeli MTBs began to circle the ship and raked it with their own .50 cal machine gun fore...until they arrived at the stern and saw, in bold English letters, the ship's number.

The firing stopped and the Israeli MTB capatain immediately sdignaled again, 'Do you require assistance?'

'Stand off', was the reply, although some survivors said that the reply was much more profane and to the point.

The Israeli MTBs hung around in the area for about another 30 minutes, and an Israeli helecopter arrived in the area carrying the US Naval attache.

A note was dropped from the helicopter with a card from the US Naval attache, 'Permission to come aboard' was the request....but the helcopter was waved off!

With that, both the helicopter and the Israeli MTBs departed the area.

So ended the Attack on the USS Liberty.

And the stories began. And the spinning began. And the accusations and counter accusations began.

Now, have at it, if you wish, but I must leave NOW.  My associates have already called asking me WTF I am!

Eric The(GrabbingHisHatAndPipe)Hun

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: .. Not needed.  They were already kicking the arab's asses. If they could get the US to do it for them they would.

No, no, no, no!

Damit!

Read your history!

By the evening of June 7th, the day before the attack, the Arab Armies had been routed on all fronts!

Indeed, the headline of the New York Times on the day of the attack was 'Israel Routs Arabs'!

I have it on my photo gallery, but I can't get to it at present!

There was NO WAY on God's green earth that the Israelis could think that this attack would be blamed on the Arabs!

Indeed, they immediately took blame for the attack!

Why not just sink the ship? They could surely have done it...and dead men tell no tales!

They could have made up whatever story afterwards they wished!

But Israelis are far too much like Americans. Indeed, a good quarter of them are Americans!

They made a tragic mistake and quickly admitted it.

Eric The(LongGone)Hun

Quoted: Quoted: ... Eric The(GrabbingHisHatAndPipe)Hun No references?

You mean, 'Do you have someone as reputable as James Bamford to support your claims'??

Yes.

Commander McGonagle is my star reference!

My details of the attack come directly from his testimony given 3 days following the attack.

Thanks for asking!

Ask your reference why he changed his mind 180 degress concerning 'Why' the attack occurred!

(Secret US-Israeli documents released on the 30 year anniversary of the attack, blew his original thesis out of the water!)

Eric The(Gone!)Hun

Quoted:

Well a route is one thing.  Getting the US to 'finish the job' would have been quite another.

And risk war with the United States?

And the subsequent loss of their overwhelming victory over the Arabs?

The Arabs were routed. They were kaput!

There wasn't an organized Egyptian Army between the Israeli Army and Cairo!

No organized Jordanian Army between the Israeli Army and Amman!

Nope.

'Wouldn't be prudent'. ~ President George H. W. Bush, '41.

Eric The(Gone,ISwearIt!)Hun

Quoted:

Well really Eric, the only reference you have furnished so far is you.  Just like I suspected in the beginning you are posting your say-so.  No reference, no link to some body or information or records.

Hey!

Look at my first post!

I linked Commander McGonagle's testimony!

I understand what happened much more than James Bamford does!

Just as I understand the War on Iraq much better than James Bamford does!

Just argue the facts and leave me out of it, please.

Otherwise you may find yourself with 'a new one'!

I'm not trying to belittle or whatever; opinion and belief are what they are.  It’s just that I don't find that in itself compelling.

Spend about a tenth of the time with this subject as I have, and then I will listen to you!

Mmmkay?

Eric The(OuttaHere)Hun

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ... Not needed.  They were already kicking the arab's asses. If they could get the US to do it for them they would. That is the single dumbest statement I have ever read in relation to the nation of Israel.  Never, since 1948 has Israel even remotely suggested that we put US warplanes over their skies or boots on the ground in defense of their nation.   I'm pretty sure there are "US warplanes" routinely over Israel.  Bought from us with money we give them.

Certainly they buy planes from us.  They also used to buy them from the french.  Now, we did put patriot batteries on the ground there in GW1.  Why, because we didn't want them to engage the enemy in combat and as surely as the sun rises in the east, they would have attacked Iraq had we not demanded to defend them.  Thats right, it was our idea to keep them out of the conflict, not theirs.  In fact every $$ we send them is to keep them from killing arabs.  I'm sure they would prefer to not have arabs try to kill them so they could stop reciprocating and not need our money to rebuild and rearm after the massive attacks.

Quoted:

History is full of actions that were not prudent.  That it might not have been prudent is not in itself  evidence that it was not their intention.

Yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Read and then expound.

Tripe is NOT on my menu for the day!

Eric The(Pfft!)Hun