Why was the USS Liberty where it was?

[Carver]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Israel's attack very nearly started WWIII, btw, as the Soviets sent a fleet to attack Israel. The US sent a fleet to attack the Soviet fleet. If the Israelis hadn't finally stopped their war, it's possible none of us would be here to discuss this.

And 35 years later here we are with the Isreali land grab being the cause of turmoil throughout dozens of nations and providing legitimacy to terrorists who wish to harm us. The six million people of Isreal occupy too much of our government's foreign policy attention, cause undue complications in our relations throughout the world and cost the US taxpayer billions a year. And no, the US has no strategic interests in Isreal. We have aircraft carriers and have no use for that strip of desert. Its time to cut off the Isreal lobby.

[MOBIUS]

What's the matter, ran out of islamic sites to quote?

B'Tselem Islamic huh? There's a new one!

https://www.btselem.org

Nothing like getting news straight from the horse's mouth!

As always MOBIUS is sure that his mere words are substancial proof of his message.

Yep! That we all know that if you're happy defending/justifying a lost cause like this, that nothing you say can be trusted...

And most importantly - with MOBIUS - Fact's Just Don't Matter.

Actually you're the one for whom facts don't matter...

1) The ship was reconned numerous times for a number of hours - you claimed the ship was travelling at significant speed therefore the flag must have been flying in such a way as to be clearly visible!!!.

Besides, what about the gigantic antenna??? Back in '67, the would been very few ships indeed to have had that kind of tech (IIRC MtG said so in an earlier thread!), much less a f***ing Horse carrier!!!

Then there's the huge GTR-5 on the ships bows - if the Israeli flyers are that blind, it's a wonder they even hit the ship in the 1st place!

Finally there's the fact that it had no weapons (defenceless target!) and is much smaller than the horse carrier (my, such an important target - worthy of such a huge use of Israeli resources!) in question!

So after (from memory) 6 hours of recon by 13 overflights, you're telling me that these pilots did not relay this info to relevant Israeli Intel operatives?????

With such detailed recon, they could not have helped seeing the US flag fluttering in the ship's own slipstream (even 5 knots does it according to GP, our resident Naval expert!), seeing the huge antenna or seeing the GTR-5, which the Israelis must have been able to cross reference with a Ship ID listing! That's why it's there - to be ID'ed! You're telling me Israeli intelligence doesn't have this kind of info!!???

As for motive, plenty! 1st there's the Egyptian desert atrocity, but I doubt it's that cos frankly Israeli army atrocities are two a penny over the years... Or there's the impending Golan Heights attack, which if the US got wind of perhaps could have stopped - Israel didn't want another country with any 'adverse' power over it's destiny...

As for questioning it's sanity at attacking it's biggest ally, why the hell not. After all, it's giving the US a clear message that any US intelligence gathering is subject to attack!

I bet there weren't any US ELINT ships or any other assets anywhere near Israel during '73...

Remember that kids.

Taking you apart is kid's stuff Siro...

Made all the easier when you support an untenable argument - why is it that you cannot admit it was a deliberate attack when [b]all[/] the evidence suggests that it must be!!? The worrying question is, just how far would you go to justify Israeli actions?

You are blinded by your nationalism.

Yes, as you know the Zionist Elders insisted that all Zionists have big and deep pockets where we can store all our money which we get from controlling the world banks and the world media.

Actually I was alluding to the fact that many of the people in positions of power in DC are Jewish or have Jewish connections - it usually helps when those that make the decisions are on your side!

Why else does America support the Israeli cause when it is an hypocritical policy?

[Ned]

Assuming for the moment that Israel knew the Liberty was American and one of the reasons for the attack was to disable the Liberty from its intel mission, why did they try to sink the vessel with the topedo boats? Intel had little to with this decision as the communications center had been apparently already been attacked and disabled.. This means the primary motivation had to be sending the US a message.

IIRC, the US up until that time had been decidedly cool to Israel's cause. It had embargoed arms shipments to Israel even as the USSR continued to supply the UAR and Syria. It had not vetoed Security Council resolutions calling for a cease fire. It had apparently permitted (perhaps, even encouraged) a direct Soviet threat to invade Isreal by allowing the Soviet fleet to station itself right offshore from Israel while the US Sixth Fleet moved hundreds of miles to the West. Overall, the actions of the US were not the actions one would expect of "ally."

Thus the message.

[TCO]

Ned, strain the cran-ium a little harder.

Originally posted by Ned
Assuming for the moment that Israel knew the Liberty was American and one of the reasons for the attack was to disable the Liberty from its intel mission, why did they try to sink the vessel with the topedo boats? Intel had little to with this decision as the communications center had been apparently already been attacked and disabled.. This means the primary motivation had to be sending the US a message.

Doubtful that such BDA (battle damage assessment would be known in the thick of the fight.

IIRC, the US up until that time had been decidedly cool to Israel's cause. It had embargoed arms shipments to Israel even as the USSR continued to supply the UAR and Syria. It had not vetoed Security Council resolutions calling for a cease fire. It had apparently permitted (perhaps, even encouraged) a direct Soviet threat to invade Isreal by allowing the Soviet fleet to station itself right offshore from Israel while the US Sixth Fleet moved hundreds of miles to the West. Overall, the actions of the US were not the actions one would expect of "ally."

Thus the message.

Kind of ironic than, that Johnson recalled American planes while the attacks were occuring and said, "I don't want us hitting an ally."

[chequita guevara]

If they sank the boat and killed the survivors, then no one would have been left alive to tell the American side of things.

As far as moving the fleet away from the Soviets, the exact opposite happened. The US sailed directly towards the Soviets and had the Soviets hit Israel, we would have hit them, which would very likely have destroyed sparked WWIII, and none of us would be here arguing the point.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Ned
Assuming for the moment that Israel knew the Liberty was American and one of the reasons for the attack was to disable the Liberty from its intel mission, why did they try to sink the vessel with the topedo boats? Intel had little to with this decision as the communications center had been apparently already been attacked and disabled.. This means the primary motivation had to be sending the US a message.

I think that you and I both know that if Israel had really wanted to sink the ship, they would have!

IIRC, the US up until that time had been decidedly cool to Israel's cause. It had embargoed arms shipments to Israel even as the USSR continued to supply the UAR and Syria. It had not vetoed Security Council resolutions calling for a cease fire. It had apparently permitted (perhaps, even encouraged) a direct Soviet threat to invade Isreal by allowing the Soviet fleet to station itself right offshore from Israel while the US Sixth Fleet moved hundreds of miles to the West. Overall, the actions of the US were not the actions one would expect of "ally."

Sounds like you've answered the question on your own...

Has it occurred to you that perhaps the US was trying to stop the Israelis from starting WWIII?

Given your explanation regarding the Soviet fleet offshore from Israel, I have another theory over the numerous Israeli over USS Liberty - They were making sure it wasn't a Soviet ship!

Coz let's face it, the Soviets wouldn't have taken it up the arse and said 'oh that's OK, we don't mind you bombing our ship...'

In the link below are two massive reasons why Israel had a motive to attack the USS Liberty. I for one, in the interests of believing that the Israeli military are human beings, favour the Golan Heights attack. Because if it was to cover up the El Arish massacre, then we're taking complicity in a war crime going all the way up to the highest echelons of power - we're talking the perpetration of another war crime (attacking Liberty) in a desperate attempt to cover up the first!

But then, that is nothing new when the 'higher echelons of power' have included such luminaries as Shamir, Begin and Sharon (to name the worst offenders!)...

*Cough* COVER UP! *cough*

Now I'm not one to use the word 'conspiracy', but GUYS!!!??

Bottom line is that in the light of the recent patriotism, the US has badly let down it's own servicemen...

Specifically, Commander Jacobsen found that
the attack was not legally justified, that it constituted an act of aggression under the United Nations Charter, that the use of unmarked aircraft, the wanton destruction of life rafts in the water, the jamming
of international radio distress frequencies, and the failure of the torpedo boat commanders to render immediate assistance to a disabled and
helpless enemy were all violations of international law.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


I think that you and I both know that if Israel had really wanted to sink the ship, they would have!

How can you say this so blithely? The ship almost did sink. There was a 30 foot hole at the waterline. Do you think this is so easy to dial in?

[Felch]

Jesus Christ, the only reason I started this thread was to antagonize David Floyd. Is it a thread-jacking if you make a flame thread into a legitimate discussion? If so, I want a moderator to delete this, or at least close it.

Also, that would make the retarded and clearly wrong statements I made a thing of the past. People will forget how stupid I am, and will only remember me as the guy who has a really cool name and almost never posts.

[chequita guevara]

Hah!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GP
How can you say this so blithely? The ship almost did sink. There was a 30 foot hole at the waterline. Do you think this is so easy to dial in?

If they had been attempting to sink the ship, they would have used different ordinance. The main target was the intelligence section that was destroyed.

[TCO]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


If they had been attempting to sink the ship, they would have used different ordinance. The main target was the intelligence section that was destroyed.

1. Specifically how so?

2. Given that the attack was mounted repsonsively (wether against Egypt or against US) how can you be so sure that they had time to get optimim ordnance?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GP
1. Specifically how so?

You're the squid. How effective are napalm and 50 caliber machine gun fire in sinking a ship of the type that the USS Liberty was?

2. Given that the attack was mounted repsonsively (wether against Egypt or against US) how can you be so sure that they had time to get optimim ordnance?

They had 13 recon flights to plan a well coordinated assault on the ship. I would assume that a modern army such as the IDF could sink an unarmed ship, either Egyptian or US, with that amount of time to plan.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by GP
How can you say this so blithely? The ship almost did sink. There was a 30 foot hole at the waterline. Do you think this is so easy to dial in?

That's why I emphasised the word 'really'...

Their aim was to attack it, they succeeded. Perhaps they didn't care if they sunk it.

But the point is it remained afloat - I'm sure they could have torpedoed it some more until it sank.

But they didn't.

[TCO]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


You're the squid. How effective are napalm and 50 caliber machine gun fire in sinking a ship of the type that the USS Liberty was?

1. What about the torpedo boats?
2. Maybe the ordnance was judged sufficient for a horse carrier. It almost DID sink the Liberty.
3. Since you made the statement, I just thought you would describe your thinking a little more fully.

They had 13 recon flights to plan a well coordinated assault on the ship. I would assume that a modern army such as the IDF could sink an unarmed ship, either Egyptian or US, with that amount of time to plan.

Well...maybe...but they did have a war going on at the same time. The whole thing happened in a time-now manner. (regardless of the number of reconns, they were only a few hours before the attacks.)

[Felch]

Chegitz bumped this because I actively tick him off all the time, but MOBIUS, GP, and DinoDoc, you guys are just being plain mean.

The horse is very dead. You could keep on beating it, but it's just going to make the mush even mushier. So why don't you all at least go on like nice posters and jack a World Cup thread into this discussion and let my crappy thread die an honorable death.