Another victory for the ZOG: doctored documents "prove" Liberty attack to be an error - Page 3

chequita guevara · July 9, 2003, 17:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I've heard that they had an american flag on board. but after the first attack, it's very possible that it wasn't visible.

After the first attack, they replaced the smaller flag with a much larger flag that simply could not have been missed.

DinoDoc · July 9, 2003, 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
stop flooding, Panag. noone's going to read this.

I think that's his intention.

Panag · July 9, 2003, 17:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
stop flooding, Panag. noone's going to read this.

hi ,

they should , ........

"helicopter" , .........

facts are what count , the above are the facts up to a certain level , ....... sorry , no link on that , so it had to be cut in order to be posted , ......

have a nice day

Panag · July 9, 2003, 17:14

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

After the first attack, they replaced the smaller flag with a much larger flag that simply could not have been missed.

hi ,

read the facts from the US investigation , .........

have a nice day

Panag · July 9, 2003, 17:15

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I think that's his intention.

hi ,

no , the intention is to show the thruth , .... in responce of some complete nonsense , ......

have a nice day

DinoDoc · July 9, 2003, 17:16

Here's a question for anyone that cares to answer: Why was it necessary to attack a nonthreatening ship on the high seas (assuming that we agree that the Israelis mistook the Liberty for the horse carrier El Quseir) before suface ships arrived to confirm the id?

chequita guevara · July 9, 2003, 17:19

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

1 ) the americans believed they where under attack by egyptian torpedo boats

Not according to the sailors

Quote:

2 ) the Israeli's tought it was an egyptian ship

Only if they were completely incompetent, since the American ship was much larger and looked nothing like the ship the Israelis claimed they though they were attacking. On top of that, the sophisticated electronics equipment and large American flag should have been clues that it was not an Egyptian horse carrier.

Quote:

3 ) the egyptians had just shelled the shores

Irrelevent

Quote:

4 ) the liberty was warned,

No it wasn't.

Quote:

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

It was in international waters

Quote:

why did med fleet command not send protection , ......

They did. A wave of fighters was sent to defend the Liberty until Johnson learned that it was the Israeli's attacking. Since he didn't want to be in the position of shooting down Israel planes (he should have done it anyway), he recalled the fighters).

Quote:

5 ) why did they not answer to leave the waters and identify themselfs , ......

The were in international waters, they were identified by an American flag, and the communications systems were taken out. The last part is rather curious, since the ELF ship had lots of communications systems, which an Egyptian horse carrier wouldn't have, and yet the Israeli's knew just where to hit the Liberty to silence her.

chequita guevara · July 9, 2003, 17:20

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

read the facts from the US investigation , .........
have a nice day

I have. I've also read the depositions of the sailors on board the Liberty. I'll take their word over yours every day of the week.

Panag · July 9, 2003, 17:21

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Here's a question for anyone that cares to answer: Why was it necessary to attack a nonthreatening ship on the high seas (assuming that we agree that the Israelis mistook the Liberty for the horse carrier El Quseir) before suface ships arrived to confirm the id?

hi ,

read the above , ........

the shores where just shelled , the liberty and six fleet had confirmed they where no longer in the area , ......

recon was launched , they saw a ship near grid so and so , .... they believed it was the egyptian cruiser , torpedo boats where launched , on the way they had some other encounters also , .....

they never came to close , jets where called , jets attacked , no flag to be seen , jets attack again , pilots see funny things , they wait , one goes down and sees they are puling a flag up , pilots wait , pilots see flag , ....... thats the whole story in a nut , ........

why did the six med fleet provide any protection , why did they launched twice fighters , yet they never flew as far as the liberty , ......

have a nice day

Edan · July 9, 2003, 17:24

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Here's a question for anyone that cares to answer: Why was it necessary to attack a nonthreatening ship on the high seas (assuming that we agree that the Israelis mistook the Liberty for the horse carrier El Quseir) before suface ships arrived to confirm the id?

They Originally believed that it was an Egyptian Warship that had been shelling the coast, IIRC.

DinoDoc · July 9, 2003, 17:24

Quote:

Originally posted by panag
recon was launched , they saw a ship near grid so and so , .... they believed it was the egyptian cruiser ,

Are sophisticated electronic equipment and US flags common among Egyptian horse carriers?

Imran Siddiqui · July 9, 2003, 17:26

DD: Of course! Don't you know anything!

Edan · July 9, 2003, 17:27

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara It was in international waters

It wan't where it was supposed to be. It was supposed to be couple of hundreds of miles away. At least, that's what the Israelis had been told.

chequita guevara · July 9, 2003, 17:28

When conservatives, liberals, and radicals unite (including people who support Israel) on an issue, then it's pretty clear that the issue has merit.

Sirotnikov · July 9, 2003, 17:29

che - so they say, and so it may have happenned and something may have prevented the israelis from seeing that. you can not know what could or could not have been missed in mid combat, when you think you're attacking an enemy.

proof of that is the numerous friendly fire incidents in american army campaigns.

you'd be surprised at how many accidents and stupid errors happen in the military.

but the fact that even american intelligence supports the notion it was an accident, shouldn't disturb you

Imran Siddiqui · July 9, 2003, 17:30

Quote:

When conservatives, liberals, and radicals unite (including people who support Israel) on an issue, then it's pretty clear that the issue has merit.

Well most people can see that the whole thing is very, very fishy... and no 'official' answer has been satisfactory.

Az · July 9, 2003, 17:32

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
When conservatives, liberals, and radicals unite (including people who support Israel) on an issue, then it's pretty clear that the issue has merit.

It's the "300 million people can't be wrong" logic. lo and behold.

Arrian · July 9, 2003, 17:33

On the other side of the incompetance argument, let me pose this question:

Why, if Israel deliberately attacked the Liberty, did they not sink it? Shocking incompetance!

-Arrian, devil's advocate for a day (no, Israel isn't the devil

)

Az · July 9, 2003, 17:38

OK, so let's summarize things now:

Pro Deliberate sinking arguments:
-----------------------------------------
-The attack lasted for 2 1/2 hours.
-They raised a big flag after the attack started.

Con Arguements:
---------------------
- No motive.
- Recordings by Israelis.
- Recordings by Americans.

TCO · July 9, 2003, 18:27

My father who served in the Med and was familiar with the Isr. Navy and the Liberty beleived that the attack was deliberate. He was not a conspiracy theorist.

Edan · July 9, 2003, 19:05

According to Six Days of War, the attack started at 1:57, making it an hour and 15 minutes, not two and a half hours.

DinoDoc · July 9, 2003, 19:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Edan
According to Six Days of War, the attack started at 1:57, making it an hour and 15 minutes, not two and a half hours.

Even if we accept this time frame, don't you think that even this length of time stretches things quite a bit.

MichaeltheGreat · July 9, 2003, 20:18

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I had no idea that the Israeli military was so stupid and incompatent then.

Transparent horseshit. You think they didn't know that after the attack, every US asset in the area wouldn't be recording everything for future analysis?

Yes, they're going to say "American Intel ship"

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.

The time frame isn't that significant, because it was multiple passes by multiple air and sea craft. For every one of those individuals to misidentify a 10,000 ton floating antenna farm with an unmistakeably radical profile, huge flag, and big fat US number and name, the moon bounce antenna (only four of it's kind existed in the world, and they were undoutedly of great interest to all intel communities around the world), for a 2300 ton garbage scow that was disabled in port for months (something also undoubtedly known to Israeli intel, since they were keenly interested in all aspects of the Egyptians combat capabilities on an on-going basis), is simply absurd.

DinoDoc · July 9, 2003, 20:26

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Transparent horseshit.

Of course it is. However that is what Az seems to be implying by trumpeting this out as some sort of definative proof.

TCO · July 9, 2003, 20:30

I don't think it is definitive. It does help the "accident case". I wish they woudn't bring in red herrings like the apology or compensation. (Which was NOT IMMEDIATE. was in 1987.)

Panag · July 9, 2003, 20:56

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Transparent horseshit. You think they didn't know that after the attack, every US asset in the area wouldn't be recording everything for future analysis?

Yes, they're going to say "American Intel ship"

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.

The time frame isn't that significant, because it was multiple passes by multiple air and sea craft. For every one of those individuals to misidentify a 10,000 ton floating antenna farm with an unmistakeably radical profile, huge flag, and big fat US number and name, the moon bounce antenna (only four of it's kind existed in the world, and they were undoutedly of great interest to all intel communities around the world), for a 2300 ton garbage scow that was disabled in port for months (something also undoubtedly known to Israeli intel, since they were keenly interested in all aspects of the Egyptians combat capabilities on an on-going basis), is simply absurd.

hi ,

héy , we had no money , times where a bit different in 67 then today , .......

and dont forget the area the liberty was in was been, getting shelling for days by some cruiser that used hit and run tactics , ......

and things are not what they seem to be in a war , .... people act differently , they put things in other perspectives and all , ......

have a nice day

MichaeltheGreat · July 9, 2003, 21:02

The Egyptians didn't have cruisers - they had small coastal craft, and a few destroyers at most 1/5th the tonnage of the Liberty.

I agree things are different in war. It's just too bad your side can't admit you hosed the ship because you didn't want anyone listening in on communications.

It's not like the US is gonna ally with the PA and Hamas and Syria and help drive you into the Med.

Boris Godunov · July 9, 2003, 21:10

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's not like the US is gonna ally with the PA and Hamas and Syria and help drive you into the Med.

No, but it could seriously damage U.S. perceptions of Israel were they to make the admission. Most people who weren't born or old enough to witness the Liberty incident probably have no idea it even occured, or have vague ideas about it. An admission now that Israel deliberately attacked a U.S. ship would probably make a lot of people who are currently either pro-Israel or in the middle start shifting more against Israel.

Edan · July 9, 2003, 21:53

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Transparent horseshit. You think they didn't know that after the attack, every US asset in the area wouldn't be recording everything for future analysis?

Yes, they're going to say "American Intel ship"

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.

Wait, so Israel attacked (but didn't sink) the American Intel ship (and risk antagonizing their major ally) 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?

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

Tuberski · July 9, 2003, 23:15

Do I think it was deliberate? Yes.

Do I care? No.

If an Israeli intelligence gathering vessel was operating off of the cost of our country while we were at war with a third, you can bet your ass I'd sink the bastard.

I'd also make restitution and lead everybody believe that it was an accident.

ACK!