Announcement

**Edan** · July 10, 2003, 00:37

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[Q]

4 ) the liberty was warned,

No it wasn't.

They had been cabled to leave the area when it was discovered that they weren't where they were supposed to be (with the sixth fleet), but the cables arrived too late.

...... wtf was it doing in a warzone,

It was in international waters

It was in waters that Egypt had declared off limits to neutral vessels - it was in the warzone.

**MichaeltheGreat** · July 10, 2003, 01:27

Originally posted by Edan

Wait, so Israel attacked (but didn't sink)

It would have taken a lot more work and a lot more time to actually sink it. It would also have been a bit less possible to claim it was an accident, as well. If the mission had been to go after a warship, the aircraft used wouldn't have been armed up with ARM's and CBU's. Both of those are useless against an armored cruiser, and almost useless for sinking an Egyptian horse transporter, but real effective against microwave antennas and satellite dishes.

the American Intel ship (and risk antagonizing their major ally)

The risk is only if our bought off politicians wouldn't accept the "Gee, it was an accident, again and again and again" story. The US government had (and has) it's nose so far up Israel's ass that all that was needed was a semi-plausible excuse.

in order to prevent the US from listening or interfering even though they knew that once they did so, it would cause the US to have "every US asset in the area" record "everything for future analysis"? Anyone else see the flaw in this argument?

[/quote]

Uhhhhhhhhh..... nice try, but standard radio receivers listening to ship to ship and air to ground voice traffic on nearby aircraft and patrol boats involved in the attack is a bit different from the antenna array on the Liberty, which basically had the capability of picking up all RF traffic within several hundred miles.

And just what were they worried the US would be litening in or interfering with?

I don't know - if one of your gunboats hadn't approached to very close range while the Liberty was only making about 2.5 knots headway and fired a torpedo directly into the compartment with the Arabic, Hebrew and Russian linguists from NSA, then we'd have recovered a lot of those recordings. Instead, what wasn't burned in the torpedo explosion ended up in the bottom of the Med, with several of our people who's bodies weren't recovered.

**MichaeltheGreat** · July 10, 2003, 01:32

Originally posted by Edan
They had been cabled to leave the area when it was discovered that they weren't where they were supposed to be (with the sixth fleet), but the cables arrived too late.

How convenient. Sort of like the Japanese ambassador meeting with the Secretary of State on December 7. Or the warning cables that went to Pearl that morning by regular commercial route.

And "where they were supposed to be" according to whom? We don't take ****ing orders from your navy or anyone elses in international waters.

It was in waters that Egypt had declared off limits to neutral vessels - it was in the warzone.

Aaaah, so you use Egyptian declarations which have no basis in international or maritime law to determine if a ship is neutral or hostile?

Hey, the Libyans had the "line of death." Did you presume only Libyan ships transited those international waters?

**Edan** · July 10, 2003, 01:45

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

How convenient. Sort of like the Japanese ambassador meeting with the Secretary of State on December 7. Or the warning cables that went to Pearl that morning by regular commercial route
And "where they were supposed to be" according to whom?

The Joint Chiefs of Staff - They're the one's that sent the cable on June 7th.

From Six Days of War
"The navy's overloaded, overly complex communication system had routed the orders as far east as the Philippines before relaying them back to the Liberty."

And the source for it is: "LBJ, National Security file, History of the Middle East Crisis, box 19: JCS to USCINCEUR, June 8, 1967; box 104, 107, The National Military Command Center: Attack on the USS Liberty, June 6, 1967; Department of Defense: USS Liberty Incident, June 15, 1967; USNA, Chairman Wheeler files, box 27: The Court of Inquiry Findings, June 22, 1967"

Aaaah, so you use Egyptian declarations which have no basis in international or maritime law to determine if a ship is neutral or hostile?

Well, I don't, since I'm not an army, a navy or an air force. And that certainly isn't the sole basis for determining whether the ship was neutral or hostile. But either way, the ship wasn't where it was supposed to be, back with the sixth fleet.Hey, the

Libyans had the "line of death." Did you presume only Libyan ships transited those international waters?

Does the US think only Iranian military planes fly over iranian territorial waters? :P

**Panag** · July 10, 2003, 01:47

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

How convenient. Sort of like the Japanese ambassador meeting with the Secretary of State on December 7. Or the warning cables that went to Pearl that morning by regular commercial route.

And "where they were supposed to be" according to whom? We don't take ****ing orders from your navy or anyone elses in international waters.

Aaaah, so you use Egyptian declarations which have no basis in international or maritime law to determine if a ship is neutral or hostile?

Hey, the Libyans had the "line of death." Did you presume only Libyan ships transited those international waters?

hi ,

actually they did , ........

at one point they sunk a maltese fishing boat and at one other time the shot an algerian coastal patrol that had nav problems to pieces , .....

have a nice day

**MichaeltheGreat** · July 10, 2003, 01:56

Originally posted by Edan

The Joint Chiefs of Staff - They're the one's that sent the cable on June 7th.

From Six Days of War
"The navy's overloaded, overly complex communication system had routed the orders as far east as the Philippines before relaying them back to the Liberty."

And the source for it is: "LBJ, National Security file, History of the Middle East Crisis, box 19: JCS to USCINCEUR, June 8, 1967; box 104, 107, The National Military Command Center: Attack on the USS Liberty, June 6, 1967; Department of Defense: USS Liberty Incident, June 15, 1967; USNA, Chairman Wheeler files, box 27: The Court of Inquiry Findings, June 22, 1967"

The Navy, did not control the ships' mission. They hosted it, and the JCS didn't have the need to know. Whether they were where the US JCS thought they ought to be is an after the fact obfuscation that does nothing to address the clearly identifiable nature of the ship, it's nationality, and the fact that it's presence (in international waters) was known substantially ahead of time, as it cruised at a whopping eight knots. The Israelis had every opportunity to identify it, and they did, hence the first aircraft to attack being outfitted with a wholly atypical ordnance package for an anti-ship strike mission.

It is well known in the US, and among the Liberty crew members involved in testifying before the court of inquiry, that it was a pro forma proceeding to officially bury the issue, but get the press of the government's ass.

Well, I don't, since I'm not an army, a navy or an air force. And that certainly isn't the sole basis for determining whether the ship was neutral or hostile. But either way, the ship wasn't where it was supposed to be, back with the sixth fleet.

Which I'm sure the US and every other non-hostile power is obligated to inform Israel of where their ships are "supposed to be"

Az · July 10, 2003, 02:01

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Az - pro motives: plenty. The Israelis had no reason to want anybody to listen in or potentially "interfere" even if it was a "neutral" country or an ally.

a) So they sank a sink of one of the strongest countries in the world, because of a minor risk of interference from the US? The risk/benefit analysis doesn't add up. even vaguely.

b) How would the US interfere, exactly?

**MichaeltheGreat** · July 10, 2003, 02:01

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

actually they did , ........

at one point they sunk a maltese fishing boat and at one other time the shot an algerian coastal patrol that had nav problems to pieces , .....

have a nice day

Yeah, and we stuck a carrier battle group in there, and told Qaddafi "Go ahead, make my day" And he tried, and we spanked him.

The US has never recognized extralegal maritime restrictions, and anyone else who cares generally doesn't either. So the excuse (from the great grab bag) that "Gee, the Liberty was where the Egyptians said "stay out" so it obviously couldn't be neutral or US" is just one more example of the kind of absurd crap the Israelis dig for to justify their coverup and evasion of responsibility. Keep tryin', cuz we just ain't buyin'.

Az · July 10, 2003, 02:05

Liberty was where the Egyptians said "stay out" so it obviously couldn't be neutral or US" is just one more example of the kind of absurd crap the Israelis dig for to justify their coverup and evasion of responsibility. Keep tryin', cuz we just ain't buyin'.

Is panag an agent of the Israeli government?

**Panag** · July 10, 2003, 02:11

Originally posted by Azazel

Liberty was where the Egyptians said "stay out" so it obviously couldn't be neutral or US" is just one more example of the kind of absurd crap the Israelis dig for to justify their coverup and evasion of responsibility. Keep tryin', cuz we just ain't buyin'.

Is panag an agent of the Israeli government?

hi ,

sure

dont worry , just last week we where all involved in a huge conspiracy theory against the free world , .....

all the israeli posters at poly that is , ......

have a nice day

**Panag** · July 10, 2003, 02:13

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Yeah, and we stuck a carrier battle group in there, and told Qaddafi "Go ahead, make my day" And he tried, and we spanked him.

The US has never recognized extralegal maritime restrictions, and anyone else who cares generally doesn't either. So the excuse (from the great grab bag) that "Gee, the Liberty was where the Egyptians said "stay out" so it obviously couldn't be neutral or US" is just one more example of the kind of absurd crap the Israelis dig for to justify their coverup and evasion of responsibility. Keep tryin', cuz we just ain't buyin'.

hi ,

sure , not to mention that all of a sudden they started to trow at random yet regular times grenades in the water at bengazi and some other ports , not a single ship of the lib navy sailed out , .....

and the loacl media was full of terror acts from us navy seals , .....

have a nice one

**MichaeltheGreat** · July 10, 2003, 02:20

Originally posted by Azazel

Liberty was where the Egyptians said "stay out" so it obviously couldn't be neutral or US" is just one more example of the kind of absurd crap the Israelis dig for to justify their coverup and evasion of responsibility. Keep tryin', cuz we just ain't buyin'.

Is panag an agent of the Israeli government?

And the point would be?

If the official mantra keeps getting repeated, then it really doesn't matter if those repeating it are "official" apologists, or just doing it out of "we're never wrong, even when we make a 'mistake'" nationalism.

**Panag** · July 10, 2003, 02:24

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

And the point would be?

If the official mantra keeps getting repeated, then it really doesn't matter if those repeating it are "official" apologists, or just doing it out of "we're never wrong, even when we make a 'mistake'" nationalism.

hi ,

héy , look a bit up , .... at the huge post , that is a sign of getting at the truth

and btw , the Israeli governement is sorry for what has happend , they hold a special service each year to remember the 34 dead , and loads of lesson and safeguards are in order now to prevent it from happening again , ......

have a nice day

**MichaeltheGreat** · July 10, 2003, 02:26

Originally posted by Azazel

a) So they sank a sink of one of the strongest countries in the world, because of a minor risk of interference from the US? The risk/benefit analysis doesn't add up. even vaguely.

What risk? The Israelis have known for decades that the US government firmly has it's nose up your government's asses. Attack, disable, deny, then let the long-established PR machine go to work.

b) How would the US interfere, exactly?

If the Israelis were being naughty, and got caught, or if the Israeli version of who attacked who and when and where wasn't quite kosher, or if the Israelis were concerned about operational security. Better safe and pretending to be sorry, then really sorry you got burned.

**MichaeltheGreat** · July 10, 2003, 02:28

Originally posted by panag
and btw , the Israeli governement is sorry for what has happend , they hold a special service each year to remember the 34 dead , and loads of lesson and safeguards are in order now to prevent it from happening again , ......

have a nice day

So did they start that before the end of their more than decade long shuffle to avoid compensation to either the US government to the families, or after?

Not much worry of it happening again, since we can now get the same results without slow, vulnerable ships off of people's coasts.

Announcement

Another victory for the ZOG: doctored documents "prove" Liberty attack to be an error

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment