USS Liberty

[ABBAFAN]

I recently watched a documentary on this ship which apparently was attacked by disguised israeli aircrat on the 8th june 1967 in order to bring America into the six day war against Egypt.The israelis claimed it was an accident but soome belive it was done deliberatly to make it look as though the Egyptians had attacked a US ship.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Not again. :roll:

PD

[bradclark1]

Last time I took part in a thread on this I got accused of being anti-semitic. You don't have enough options on your poll.
I think the Israeli's did it for some unknown reason or their pilots and gunboat commanders were stupider than the village idiot.

[Ishmael]

If it was done on purpose, it was probably within the context of maintaining secrecy of operations in the attack on Egypt. The Liberty was an intelligence ship like the Pueblo. In a way it reminds me of the old China gunboats, to weak to fight & to slow to run away.

[Jimbuna]

I read a lengthy piece on this about 20 years back in one of those weekly collectible war series 'War Machine'.
The bit that I always remember was at the end when the Israelis reckoned they first realised their mistake and radioed the captain of the Liberty asking him if they could give any assistance.
IIRC his response went something like "Go to h*ll you bas*ards"

[ABBAFAN]

This "war machine" was it on different subjects every issue and lots of line drawings of planes tanks ships etc and cvcame in a blue binder?
i have a book of magazines like rthis i got it in southampton in 1992 id love to get more copies of it.

[Yahoshua]

http://www.ujc.org/page.html?ArticleID=44455

http://hometown.aol.com/__121b_GFpm/agh4OOmL1iBkdig2k7I7LUFrhU+aivllAwj8BU=

[The Avon Lady]

The Liberty Incident (http://www.thelibertyincident.com/).





I think the Israeli's did it for some unknown reason or their pilots and gunboat commanders were stupider than the village idiot.
Nothing stupid about it at all. Snippets from Mitchell Bard's Myths & Facts: the USS Liberty (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/1967war.html#f9):

Also, contrary to claims that an Israeli pilot identified the ship as American on a radio tape, no one has ever produced this tape. In fact, the official Israeli Air Force tape clearly established that no such identification of the ship was made by the Israeli pilots prior to the attack. Tapes of the radio transmissions made prior, during and after the attack do not contain any statement suggesting the pilots saw a U.S. flag before the attack. During the attack, a pilot specifically says, “there is no flag on her!” The recordings also indicate that once the pilots became concerned about the identity of the ship, by virtue of reading its hull number, they terminated the attack and they were given an order to leave the area. A transcript of the radio transmissions indicates the entire incident, beginning with the spotting of a mysterious vessel off El Arish and ending with the chief air controller at general headquarters in Tel Aviv telling another controller the ship was “apparently American” took 24 minutes.5 Critics claimed the Israeli tape was doctored, but the National Security Agency of the United States released formerly top secret transcripts in July 2003 that confirmed the Israeli version.

..........

In October 2003, the first Israeli pilot to reach the ship broke his 36-year silence on the attack. Brig.-Gen. Yiftah Spector, a triple ace, who shot down 15 enemy aircraft and took part in the 1981 raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor, said he had been told an Egyptian ship was off the Gaza coast. "This ship positively did not have any symbol or flag that I could see. What I was concerned with was that it was not one of ours. I looked for the symbol of our navy, which was a large white cross on its deck. This was not there, so it wasn't one of ours." The Jerusalem Post obtained a recording of Spector's radio transmission in which he said, "I can't identify it, but in any case it's a military ship."

..........

Accidents caused by “friendly fire” are common in wartime. In 1988, the U.S. Navy mistakenly downed an Iranian passenger plane, killing 290 civilians. During the Gulf War, 35 of the 148 Americans who died in battle were killed by “friendly fire.” In April 1994, two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters with large U.S. flags painted on each side were shot down by U.S. Air Force F-15s on a clear day in the “no fly” zone of Iraq, killing 26 people. In April 2002, an American F-16 dropped a bomb that killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. In fact, the day before the Liberty was attacked, Israeli pilots accidentally bombed one of their own armored columns.

[stabiz]

Not very strange that Israelis writes this up as an accident. Personally I lean towards stupidity and arrogance.

[The Avon Lady]

Not very strange that Israelis writes this up as an accident.
Brilliant logic of proof of guilt here.
Personally I lean towards stupidity and arrogance.
Look.

In.

Mirror.

[PeriscopeDepth]

While it would be really really hard to misidentify an 8,000 ton ship, it is possible. And there is just no reasoning behind an intentional attack that doesn't stink of wacky conspiracy theory and can be backed up by anything but the author of said wacky conspiracy theory...

By the way, I actually saw one of the flags from the USS Liberty at the National Cryptologic Museum. Pretty interesting museum if you get the chance to go.

PD

[The Avon Lady]

While it would be really really hard to misidentify an 8,000 ton ship, it is possible.
You're in a war where the existance of your country is at stake. You scramble. You're told its an enemy ship. You don't see a flag and you misread the marking. The ship is located exactly where reported and there's not another one in site.

For everyone else the "fog of war" is OK but it can't be here?

[PeriscopeDepth]

While it would be really really hard to misidentify an 8,000 ton ship, it is possible. You're in a war where the existance of your country is at stake. You scramble. You're told its an enemy ship. You don't see a flag and you misread the marking. The ship is located exactly where reported and there's not another one in site.

For everyone else the "fog of war" is OK but it can't be here?

I never ruled out fog of war, in fact I think that's the most likey explanation by a wide margin. Especially when fighter pilots are involved. But there are still aspects of the incident that bother me.

PD

[The Avon Lady]

While it would be really really hard to misidentify an 8,000 ton ship, it is possible. You're in a war where the existance of your country is at stake. You scramble. You're told its an enemy ship. You don't see a flag and you misread the marking. The ship is located exactly where reported and there's not another one in site.

For everyone else the "fog of war" is OK but it can't be here?
I never ruled out fog of war, in fact I think that's the most likey explanation by a wide margin.
I was elaborating your point, not questioning you.

[PeriscopeDepth]

While it would be really really hard to misidentify an 8,000 ton ship, it is possible. You're in a war where the existance of your country is at stake. You scramble. You're told its an enemy ship. You don't see a flag and you misread the marking. The ship is located exactly where reported and there's not another one in site.

For everyone else the "fog of war" is OK but it can't be here? I never ruled out fog of war, in fact I think that's the most likey explanation by a wide margin. I was elaborating your point, not questioning you.

Sorry, fog of war got me. Just assumed the Avon Lady was being argumentative. :D

PD

[The Avon Lady]

While it would be really really hard to misidentify an 8,000 ton ship, it is possible. You're in a war where the existance of your country is at stake. You scramble. You're told its an enemy ship. You don't see a flag and you misread the marking. The ship is located exactly where reported and there's not another one in site.

For everyone else the "fog of war" is OK but it can't be here? I never ruled out fog of war, in fact I think that's the most likey explanation by a wide margin. I was elaborating your point, not questioning you.

Sorry, fog of war got me. Just assumed the Avon Lady was being argumentative. :D

NO I WAS NOT!

;)

[Takeda Shingen]

Not very strange that Israelis writes this up as an accident.
Brilliant logic of proof of guilt here.
Personally I lean towards stupidity and arrogance.
Look.

In.

Mirror.

No.

Personal.

Attacks.

Thanks,
The Management

[Jimbuna]

This "war machine" was it on different subjects every issue and lots of line drawings of planes tanks ships etc and cvcame in a blue binder?
i have a book of magazines like rthis i got it in southampton in 1992 id love to get more copies of it.

Yeah that sounds like the one... the binder is blue and the lettering is gold and outlined in red :yep:
I'm gonna look through them and scan the USS Liberty section :up:

[Lurchi]

Identifying a ship from a fast moving plane is very difficult - especially by fighter-bomber pilots who aren't trained for this.

On the other hand:
Why were the Fast attack boats unable to identify it?
Why noone asked the for the reason why this unidentified ship didn't fight back?
Why wasn't this -obviously defenseless- ship contacted by those attack boats who were seemingly close enough to shoot at it with guns?

A ship with so much antennas and cupolas could only belong to the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. as it was clearly a reconnaissance ship. Personally i believe the israeli commanders knew very well what they are doing: The ship was well known before and the only reason for the attack i can imagine is that they didn't want the U.S. to gain information about their tactics ...

Many friendly fire incidents were pretty short encounters - however, this one was not: First the planes and then torpedo boats attacked half an hour later which placed a torpedo into the Liberty's side.

Looks pretty much like a planned and coordinated attack to me.

[Jimbuna]

Identifying a ship from a fast moving plane is very difficult - especially by fighter-bomber pilots who aren't trained for this.

On the other hand:
Why were the Fast attack boats unable to identify it?
Why noone asked the for the reason why this unidentified ship didn't fight back?
Why wasn't this -obviously defenseless- ship contacted by those attack boats who were seemingly close enough to shoot at it with guns?

A ship with so much antennas and cupolas could only belong to the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. as it was clearly a reconnaissance ship. Personally i believe the israeli commanders knew very well what they are doing: The ship was well known before and the only reason for the attack i can imagine is that they didn't want the U.S. to gain information about their tactics ...

Many friendly fire incidents were pretty short encounters - however, this one was not: First the planes and then torpedo boats attacked half an hour later which placed a torpedo into the Liberty's side.

Looks pretty much like a planned and coordinated attack to me.

I have a tendancy to agree with you there :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

Identifying a ship from a fast moving plane is very difficult - especially by fighter-bomber pilots who aren't trained for this.

On the other hand:
Why were the Fast attack boats unable to identify it?
Damage, heavy smoke, the Liberty fired upon them, keeping them at range. The Liberty signal-identified itself as "AA", the same signal given by an Egyptian warship that attacked Israel and evaded Israel's navy in 1956.
Why noone asked the for the reason why this unidentified ship didn't fight back?
But the Liberty did, during the torpedo boats' approaches.
Why wasn't this -obviously defenseless- ship contacted by those attack boats who were seemingly close enough to shoot at it with guns?
But it was.
A ship with so much antennas and cupolas could only belong to the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. as it was clearly a reconnaissance ship.
In fact, it was assumed to be Russian and that was due to the blunder of the Israelis not recognizing the Latin letters on the hull.

Everything I say above is from the 2002 IAF report (http://www.thelibertyincident.com/docs/israeli/israel-air-force.pdf) on the Liberty incident. Sorry, it's in Hebrew. Yes, I know some of you want me to spend days translating it for you. Cannot do. :nope:
Personally i believe the israeli commanders knew very well what they are doing: The ship was well known before
According to all documented reports, the last thing that entered any Israeli commander's mind was that there was a US ship - of any kind - in the area, which was an assumed battle zone, as Israeli ground forces in El Arish, Sinai, reported prior to the attack that they were being shelled, possibly from the sea.
and the only reason for the attack i can imagine is that they didn't want the U.S. to gain information about their tactics ...
Baseless.

And when you add such baseless to the fact the you didn't get any of your main facts above correct, the whole picture is one of simply a war tragedy that could have happened to anyone under such circumstances.
Many friendly fire incidents were pretty short encounters - however, this one was not: First the planes and then torpedo boats attacked half an hour later which placed a torpedo into the Liberty's side.

Looks pretty much like a planned and coordinated attack to me.
It was very well coordinated. That does not detract from the fact that Israel only realized their mistake after the attack was over and the damage was done.

[joea]

Well sh&* happens in war, if someone made a list of all the friendly fire incidents in war it could fill a book. Hey the IAF is very efficient and some of the most skilled pilots in the world today.

So was the Luftwaffe in it's time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wikinger

Bombed Dublin too IIRC. :hmm:

No political connotations intended.

[Tronics]

Most modern blue v blue incidents are a caused by poor communications...period.

80% of US FF incidents unfortunately involve other NATO constituitents, this is partly because of the complete unfettered chaos and lack of discipline that is and revolves around NATO communications protocols.

And no it's not the US Army messing it up...CANFORCE (blame Canada?) comms make the US ARMY communications disaster seem like a heated debate on the metaphysical clauses of Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

The remaining 20% involves US forces hitting themselves because again, someone isn't where they said they were, or aren't following their orders....which leads yet again to communications.

Personally I don't think that the Israeli military made a conscious decision to hit a US Electroinc Warfare vessel.

It dosen't strike me that Israel would bite the hand that feeds intentionally and just to mess up some intel gathering or porbing operaton.

I think that probably someone in a cockpit made that decision because they heard what they wanted to hear, or at least they thought they did, and who knows maybe they did hear it correctly and the comms operator was the one who heard wrong...

Only one person really knows and they have to live with it for the remainder of their days.

[Jimbuna]

The 'War Machine' USS Liberty section :up:

http://files.filefront.com/USS_Libertyrar/;7745016;;/fileinfo.html

[The Avon Lady]

The 'War Machine' USS Liberty section :up:

http://files.filefront.com/USS_Libertyrar/;7745016;;/fileinfo.html
:down: :down: :down:

I'm out for the evening but from a cursory glance, the details in this article versus those documented by the IAF are different in so many ways.

And the devil's in the details.

[Jimbuna]

There are so many different versions out there I prefer to leave it to the individual to reach their own conclusion :yep:

[PeriscopeDepth]

The ship was well known before and the only reason for the attack i can imagine is that they didn't want the U.S. to gain information about their tactics ...

Then they probably shouldn't be training together all the time and sharing intelligence, either. :roll:

PD

[stabiz]

Not very strange that Israelis writes this up as an accident. Brilliant logic of proof of guilt here.
Personally I lean towards stupidity and arrogance. Look.

In.

Mirror.

:rotfl:Not a very surprising response. Maybe the dominant child inside you needs a hug.

[Jimbuna]

The ship was well known before and the only reason for the attack i can imagine is that they didn't want the U.S. to gain information about their tactics ...

Then they probably shouldn't be training together all the time and sharing intelligence, either. :roll:

PD

My own teke on it was at the time....the Americans were under pressure from around the world to reign the Israelis in...but the Israelis had the upper hand in the fighting and needed to buy time to achieve their military objectives...it was not in their interests to let the Americans know how well things were going :yep:

[robbo180265]

In all honesty this is the first I've heard of this incident,but as has been said earlier these things happen fairly often in war,those poor A10 pilots not so long ago spring to mind.

I wouldn't put it past any country to organise an accident,if that country stood to gain from it. But as far as I can see Israel could have lost a lot,and stood to gain little from it.

So I reckon it was probably an accident.

[MadMike]

"Pre-attack reconnaissance. Israel says there was no pre-attack reconnaissance. Any aircraft we saw, they say, were high in the sky carrying troops to the battlefield. Not so. Here is an Israeli reconnaissance airplane that circled the ship about an hour before the attack. The pilot was heard reporting to HQ that he saw an American flag and men sunning themselves on deck."


http://www.ussliberty.com/g/0044.gif


http://www.ussliberty.com/gifs.htm

Yours, Mike

[bradclark1]

Whats a real pisser is how the crew was treated like prisoners by their own country when they got back and was threatened with court martial if they talked about it. The president recalled the carrier flight that was going to the rescue because he thought the Liberty was being shot up by Russians and didn't want to antagonize the situation.:nope:

[Lurchi]

The ship was well known before and the only reason for the attack i can imagine is that they didn't want the U.S. to gain information about their tactics ...
Then they probably shouldn't be training together all the time and sharing intelligence, either. :roll:

PD The fact that countries are allied doesn't mean they share all their intelligence. You are naive when you believe a country gives all information to another - especially not in wartime.

Now you seem to be of a different opinion so i would like to ask you why the U.S. sent SR-71s over the Negev to get information about the Israeli Nuclear program for example? Why U.S. ships shadowed new german submarines of Type 212A during tests in norwegian waters?

This is not unusual at all ... and i believe it is true what jimbuna said:
The U.S. were not aware of the extent and targets of the israeli operation especially not of those aimed at the Golan - that's why they probably sent the Liberty.

And the Liberty was indeed almost unarmed: 4 50cal machine guns in open mounts are pretty useless against fast jet-fighters or torpedo boats. The return fire must have been pretty weak and according to crew members they were silenced pretty soon.

The Liberty even wore her unique designation which easily identified her as an U.S. ship and which were much different in style from soviet ships. A quick encounter between friendly forces can always happen - but this was a massacre, partly at point-blank range. Seems that the americans knew pretty soon who attacked them ...


Israel is very sensitive in respect to intelligence gathering:
Recently an F-16 fired warning shots above the reconnaissance ship "Alster" which is very similar to the Liberty in it's mission. First it was said that this incident happened in israeli waters - later it became clear that this ship was 100 km away from the lebanese coast.

[ABBAFAN]

ON the subject of "WAR MACHINE"

do you know where copies can be got?who was the pu8blisher?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Of course even allied nations don't share everything. But in times of need when both benefit, say in the middle of the Cold War when Israel was fighting Soviet client states they certainly share a lot more than normal.

I am under no illusion about the relationship between the United States and Israel. They will not hesitate to stab us in the back when it suits them. I can understand why though as they are a small country whose very existance is far from a sure thing, they have to play dirty and frequently do. I just don't think the Liberty was one of those times.

PD

[Smaragdadler]

[...]
Recently an F-16 fired warning shots above the reconnaissance ship "Alster" which is very similar to the Liberty in it's mission. First it was said that this incident happened in israeli waters - later it became clear that this ship was 100 km away from the lebanese coast.

That was last October. Since then there where even more incidents of this kind. But they get not the big attention of mainstream media anymore...

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,482491,00.html

[The Avon Lady]

"Pre-attack reconnaissance. Israel says there was no pre-attack reconnaissance.
Once again, false. The full Israel report discusses the pre-attack fly overs in full detail.

Rather than everyone keep repeating the same falsehoods, why don't you do a little investigative reading on your own. I just ordered Cristol's book, The Liberty Incident (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1574885367/102-5308451-6120106) for a whopping US$0.54. OK, the postage was $3.99. :damn:

To all those talking about sharing intel, back in 1967, the US didn't share much anything military with Israel and vice versa.

[bradclark1]

Reviews are interesting. A nice cross section. Not a book I'd look to for facts though.

[The Avon Lady]

Not a book I'd look to for facts though.
Based on what?

So far a lot being said here is contradictory to documented facts.

We are what we eat.

[bradclark1]

http://judicial-inc.biz/w,ard_boston_on_the_uss_liberty_a.htm

and
It makes mention of Cristols book.

Ward Boston, revealed at a public news conference conducted in Washington in 2003 that he was ordered by his superiors to issue a report indicating that the attack was accidental, all facts to the contrary be damned.

DECLARATION OF WARD BOSTON, JR., CAPTAIN, JAGC, USN (RET.)

I, WARD BOSTON, JR. DO DECLARE THAT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS TRUE AND COMPLETE:

1. FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS, I HAVE REMAINED SILENT ON THE TOPIC OF USS LIBERTY. I AM A MILITARY MAN AND WHEN ORDERS COME IN FROM THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I FOLLOW THEM.

2. HOWEVER, RECENT ATTEMPTS TO REWRITE HISTORY COMPEL ME TO SHARE THE TRUTH.

3. IN JUNE OF 1967, WHILE SERVING AS A CAPTAIN IN THE Judge Advocate General Corps, Department of the Navy, I WAS ASSIGNED AS SENIOR LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE NAVY'S COURT OF INQUIRY INTO THE BRUTAL ATTACK ON USS LIBERTY, WHICH HAD OCCURRED ON JUNE 8TH.

4. THE LATE ADMIRAL ISAAC C. KIDD, PRESIDENT OF THE COURT, AND I WERE GIVEN ONLY ONE WEEK TO GATHER EVIDENCE FOR THE NAVY'S OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE ATTACK, DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE BOTH HAD ESTIMATED THAT A PROPER COURT OF INQUIRY INTO AN ATTACK OF THIS MAGNITUDE WOULD TAKE AT LEAST SIX MONTHS TO CONDUCT.

5. ADMIRAL JOHN S. MCCAIN, JR., THEN COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, NAVAL FORCES EUROPE (CINCUSNAVEUR), AT HIS HEADQUARTERS IN LONDON, HAD CHARGED ADMIRAL KIDD (IN A LETTER DATED JUNE 10, 1967) TO "INQUIRE INTO ALL THE PERTINENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO AND CONNECTED WITH THE ARMED ATTACK; DAMAGE RESULTING THEREFROM; AND DEATHS OF AND INJURIES TO NAVAL PERSONNEL."

6. DESPITE THE SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME WE WERE GIVEN, WE GATHERED A VAST AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE, INCLUDING HOURS OF HEARTBREAKING TESTIMONY FROM THE YOUNG SURVIVORS.

7. THE EVIDENCE WAS CLEAR. BOTH ADMIRAL KIDD AND I BELIEVED WITH CERTAINTY THAT THIS ATTACK, WHICH KILLED 34 AMERICAN SAILORS AND INJURED 172 OTHERS, WAS A DELIBERATE EFFORT TO SINK AN AMERICAN SHIP AND MURDER ITS ENTIRE CREW. EACH EVENING, AFTER HEARING TESTIMONY ALL DAY, WE OFTEN SPOKE OUR PRIVATE THOUGHTS CONCERNING WHAT WE HAD SEEN AND HEARD. I RECALL ADMIRAL KIDD REPEATEDLY REFERRING TO THE ISRAELI FORCES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTACK AS "MURDEROUS BASTARDS." IT WAS OUR SHARED BELIEF, BASED ON THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY WE RECEIVED FIRST HAND, THAT THE ISRAELI ATTACK WAS PLANNED AND DELIBERATE, AND COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN AN ACCIDENT.

8. I AM CERTAIN THAT THE ISRAELI PILOTS THAT UNDERTOOK THE ATTACK, AS WELL AS THEIR SUPERIORS, WHO HAD ORDERED THE ATTACK, WERE WELL AWARE THAT THE SHIP WAS AMERICAN.

9. I SAW THE FLAG, WHICH HAD VISIBLY IDENTIFIED THE SHIP AS AMERICAN, RIDDLED WITH BULLET HOLES, AND HEARD TESTIMONY THAT MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE ISRAELIS INTENDED THERE BE NO SURVIVORS.

10. NOT ONLY DID THE ISRAELIS ATTACK THE SHIP WITH NAPALM, GUNFIRE, AND MISSILES, ISRAELI TORPEDO BOATS MACHINE-GUNNED THREE LIFEBOATS THAT HAD BEEN LAUNCHED IN AN ATTEMPT BY THE CREW TO SAVE THE MOST SERIOUSLY WOUNDED - A WAR CRIME.

11. ADMIRAL KIDD AND I BOTH FELT IT NECESSARY TO TRAVEL TO ISRAEL TO INTERVIEW THE ISRAELIS WHO TOOK PART IN THE ATTACK. ADMIRAL KIDD TELEPHONED ADMIRAL MCCAIN TO DISCUSS MAKING ARRANGEMENTS. ADMIRAL KIDD LATER TOLD ME THAT ADMIRAL MCCAIN WAS ADAMANT THAT WE WERE NOT TO TRAVEL TO ISRAEL OR CONTACT THE ISRAELIS CONCERNING THIS MATTER.

12. REGRETTABLY, WE DID NOT RECEIVE INTO EVIDENCE AND THE COURT DID NOT CONSIDER ANY OF THE MORE THAN SIXTY WITNESS DECLARATIONS FROM MEN WHO HAD BEEN HOSPITALIZED AND WERE UNABLE TO TESTIFY IN PERSON.

13. I AM OUTRAGED AT THE EFFORTS OF THE APOLOGISTS FOR ISRAEL IN THIS COUNTRY TO CLAIM THAT THIS ATTACK WAS A CASE OF "MISTAKEN IDENTITY."

14. IN PARTICULAR, THE RECENT PUBLICATION OF JAY CRISTOL'S BOOK, THE LIBERTY INCIDENT, TWISTS THE FACTS AND MISREPRESENTS THE VIEWS OF THOSE OF US WHO INVESTIGATED THE ATTACK.

15. IT IS CRISTOL'S INSIDIOUS ATTEMPT TO WHITEWASH THE FACTS THAT HAS PUSHED ME TO SPEAK OUT.

16. I KNOW FROM PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS I HAD WITH ADMIRAL KIDD THAT PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT MCNAMARA ORDERED HIM TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ATTACK WAS A CASE OF "MISTAKEN IDENTITY" DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

17. ADMIRAL KIDD TOLD ME, AFTER RETURNING FROM WASHINGTON, D.C. THAT HE HAD BEEN ORDERED TO SIT DOWN WITH TWO CIVILIANS FROM EITHER THE WHITE HOUSE OR THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, AND REWRITE PORTIONS OF THE COURT'S FINDINGS.

18. ADMIRAL KIDD ALSO TOLD ME THAT HE HAD BEEN ORDERED TO "PUT THE LID" ON EVERYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE ATTACK ON USS LIBERTY. WE WERE NEVER TO SPEAK OF IT AND WE WERE TO CAUTION EVERYONE ELSE INVOLVED THAT THEY COULD NEVER SPEAK OF IT AGAIN.

19. I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THE ACCURACY OF THAT STATEMENT AS I KNOW THAT THE COURT OF INQUIRY TRANSCRIPT THAT HAS BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IS NOT THE SAME ONE THAT I CERTIFIED AND SENT OFF TO WASHINGTON.

20. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE IT WAS NECESSARY, DUE TO THE EXIGENCIES OF TIME, TO HAND CORRECT AND INITIAL A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PAGES. I HAVE EXAMINED THE RELEASED VERSION OF THE TRANSCRIPT AND I DID NOT SEE ANY PAGES THAT BORE MY HAND CORRECTIONS AND INITIALS. ALSO, THE ORIGINAL DID NOT HAVE ANY DELIBERATELY BLANK PAGES, AS THE RELEASED VERSION DOES. FINALLY, THE TESTIMONY OF LT. PAINTER CONCERNING THE DELIBERATE MACHINE GUNNING OF THE LIFE RAFTS BY THE ISRAELI TORPEDO BOAT CREWS, WHICH I DISTINCTLY RECALL BEING GIVEN AT THE COURT OF INQUIRY AND INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT, IS NOW MISSING AND HAS BEEN EXCISED.

21. FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT OF INQUIRY, ADMIRAL KIDD AND I REMAINED IN CONTACT. THOUGH WE NEVER SPOKE OF THE ATTACK IN PUBLIC, WE DID DISCUSS IT BETWEEN OURSELVES, ON OCCASION. EVERY TIME WE DISCUSSED THE ATTACK, ADMIRAL KIDD WAS ADAMANT THAT IT WAS A DELIBERATE, PLANNED ATTACK ON AN AMERICAN SHIP.

22. IN 1990, I RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM JAY CRISTOL, WHO WANTED TO INTERVIEW ME CONCERNING THE FUNCTIONING OF THE COURT OF INQUIRY. I TOLD HIM THAT I WOULD NOT SPEAK TO HIM ON THAT SUBJECT AND PREPARED TO HANG UP THE TELEPHONE. CRISTOL THEN BEGAN ASKING ME ABOUT MY PERSONAL BACKGROUND AND OTHER, NON-COURT OF INQUIRY RELATED MATTERS. I ENDEAVORED TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS AND POLITELY EXTRICATE MYSELF FROM THE CONVERSATION. CRISTOL CONTINUED TO RETURN TO THE SUBJECT OF THE COURT OF INQUIRY, WHICH I REFUSED TO DISCUSS WITH HIM. FINALLY, I SUGGESTED THAT HE CONTACT ADMIRAL KIDD AND ASK HIM ABOUT THE COURT OF INQUIRY.

23. SHORTLY AFTER MY CONVERSATION WITH CRISTOL, I RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM ADMIRAL KIDD, INQUIRING ABOUT CRISTOL AND WHAT HE WAS UP TO. THE ADMIRAL SPOKE OF CRISTOL IN DISPARAGING TERMS AND EVEN OPINED THAT "CRISTOL MUST BE AN ISRAELI AGENT." I DON'T KNOW IF HE MEANT THAT LITERALLY OR IT WAS HIS WAY OF EXPRESSING HIS DISGUST FOR CRISTOL'S HIGHLY PARTISAN, PRO-ISRAELI APPROACH TO QUESTIONS INVOLVING USS LIBERTY.

24. AT NO TIME DID I EVER HEAR ADMIRAL KIDD SPEAK OF CRISTOL OTHER THAN IN HIGHLY DISPARAGING TERMS. I FIND CRISTOL'S CLAIMS OF A "CLOSE FRIENDSHIP" WITH ADMIRAL KIDD TO BE UTTERLY INCREDIBLE. I ALSO FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THE STATEMENTS HE ATTRIBUTES TO ADMIRAL KIDD, CONCERNING THE ATTACK ON USS LIBERTY.

25. SEVERAL YEARS LATER, I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM CRISTOL THAT CONTAINED WHAT HE PURPORTED TO BE HIS NOTES OF OUR PRIOR CONVERSATION. THESE "NOTES" WERE GROSSLY INCORRECT AND BORE NO RESEMBLANCE IN REALITY TO THAT DISCUSSION. I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THESE "NOTES" WERE THE PRODUCT OF A MISTAKE, RATHER THAN AN ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE. I INFORMED CRISTOL THAT I DISAGREED WITH HIS RECOLLECTION OF OUR CONVERSATION AND THAT HE WAS WRONG. CRISTOL MADE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO ARRANGE FOR THE TWO OF US TO MEET IN PERSON AND TALK BUT I ALWAYS FOUND WAYS TO AVOID DOING THIS. I DID NOT WISH TO MEET WITH CRISTOL AS WE HAD NOTHING IN COMMON AND I DID NOT TRUST HIM.

26. CONTRARY TO THE MISINFORMATION PRESENTED BY CRISTOL AND OTHERS, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT ISRAEL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIBERATELY ATTACKING AN AMERICAN SHIP AND MURDERING AMERICAN SAILORS, WHOSE BEREAVED SHIPMATES HAVE LIVED WITH THIS EGREGIOUS CONCLUSION FOR MANY YEARS.

DATED: JANUARY 8, 2004 AT CORONADO, CALIFORNIA.

WARD BOSTON, JR., CAPTAIN, JAGC, USN (RET.) SENIOR COUNSEL TO THE USS LIBERTY COURT OF INQUIRY

[The Avon Lady]

[23. SHORTLY AFTER MY CONVERSATION WITH CRISTOL, I RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM ADMIRAL KIDD, INQUIRING ABOUT CRISTOL AND WHAT HE WAS UP TO. THE ADMIRAL SPOKE OF CRISTOL IN DISPARAGING TERMS AND EVEN OPINED THAT "CRISTOL MUST BE AN ISRAELI AGENT." I DON'T KNOW IF HE MEANT THAT LITERALLY OR IT WAS HIS WAY OF EXPRESSING HIS DISGUST FOR CRISTOL'S HIGHLY PARTISAN, PRO-ISRAELI APPROACH TO QUESTIONS INVOLVING USS LIBERTY.

24. AT NO TIME DID I EVER HEAR ADMIRAL KIDD SPEAK OF CRISTOL OTHER THAN IN HIGHLY DISPARAGING TERMS. I FIND CRISTOL'S CLAIMS OF A "CLOSE FRIENDSHIP" WITH ADMIRAL KIDD TO BE UTTERLY INCREDIBLE. I ALSO FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THE STATEMENTS HE ATTRIBUTES TO ADMIRAL KIDD, CONCERNING THE ATTACK ON USS LIBERTY.
Pawned (http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/Kidd.pdf).

There's a Talmudic saying that comes to mind:

""Ha-sin'ah mekalkelet et ha-shurah" - "Hate removes one from the bounds of common sense."

[bradclark1]

There's a Talmudic saying that comes to mind:

""Ha-sin'ah mekalkelet et ha-shurah" - "Hate removes one from the bounds of common sense."

When all else fails there is always the tried and true "He hates"!
Didn't expect any less. 242!:roll:

[The Avon Lady]

There's a Talmudic saying that comes to mind:

""Ha-sin'ah mekalkelet et ha-shurah" - "Hate removes one from the bounds of common sense."

When all else fails there is always the tried and true "He hates"!
Didn't expect any less. 242!:roll:
If you thought I was referring to you, sorry, I wasn't. I was referring to Ward Boston and others that fan the flames.

[bradclark1]

My apologizes then.

There are two for sure facts about this.
Your fact are pro-Israeli and my facts are pro-crew and neither of them are ever going to change. :know:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-boston.html

2nd to the last paragraph.

Several years later, I received a letter from Cristol that contained what he purported to be his notes of our prior conversation. These “notes” were grossly incorrect and bore no resemblance in reality to that discussion. I find it hard to believe that these “notes” were the product of a mistake, rather than an attempt to deceive. I informed Cristol that I disagreed with his recollection of our conversation and that he was wrong. Cristol made several attempts to arrange for the two of us to meet in person and talk but I always found ways to avoid doing this. I did not wish to meet with Cristol as we had nothing in common and I did not trust him.

[The Avon Lady]

My apologizes then.

There are two for sure facts about this.
Your fact are pro-Israeli and my facts are pro-crew and neither of them are ever going to change. :know:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-boston.html

2nd to the last paragraph.

Several years later, I received a letter from Cristol that contained what he purported to be his notes of our prior conversation. These “notes” were grossly incorrect and bore no resemblance in reality to that discussion. I find it hard to believe that these “notes” were the product of a mistake, rather than an attempt to deceive. I informed Cristol that I disagreed with his recollection of our conversation and that he was wrong. Cristol made several attempts to arrange for the two of us to meet in person and talk but I always found ways to avoid doing this. I did not wish to meet with Cristol as we had nothing in common and I did not trust him.
As already blatantly shown, Boston's claims regarding Admiral Kidd are disproven.

This has nothing to do with being pro-Israel or pro-Crew. What is this? A sports match?! Absolutely ridiculous.

As for Boston's claims about Cristol, Cristol responds (http://www.libertyincident.com/boston-comments.html).

But now I that I look at the site you're linking to, I can't help wondering whether I should retract my prior apology or not. :hmm:

[August]

Something from the previous Liberty thread I have never understood.

The Liberty was basically a WW2 cargo ship. These things could be and were sunk with a single WW2 era torpedo, yet the Israelis weren't able to sink it in spite of several hours of constant air and seaborne attacks using modern weapons.

If this was indeed a deliberate attempt by the Israelis to sink the ship, murder the crew and blame it on the Egyptians and/or Russians then why weren't these objectives accomplished? One would think that for such an operation to have any chance at success the ship and crew would have had to be taken out instantly before any communication could be made Yet not only was the attack conducted with the wrong equipment for such purposes (strafing jets for example), it was also very poorly coordinated with the torpedo boats showing up long after the jets had begun the attack.

Then once the proper tools for the job were finally gathered together the Israelis broke off the attack when clearly finishing the job would have been in their best interests. A basic rule of covert operations is that you don't leave witnesses alive to tell the tale so why did they?

[bradclark1]

This has nothing to do with being pro-Israel or pro-Crew. What is this? A sports match?! Absolutely ridiculous.
Okay. You believe the Israeli version of events while I believe the crew events and that Israel knowingly attacked an American vessel.
Good enough?

As for Boston's claims about Cristol, Cristol responds (http://www.libertyincident.com/boston-comments.html).
Who to believe huh. I'll believe an affidavit because Boston has nothing to gain.


But now I that I look at the site you're linking to, I can't help wondering whether I should retract my prior apology or not. :hmm:
:) I search till I find what I want. Unless it's pornographic I'll use it.

[The Avon Lady]

This has nothing to do with being pro-Israel or pro-Crew. What is this? A sports match?! Absolutely ridiculous.
Okay. You believe the Israeli version of events while I believe the crew events and that Israel knowingly attacked an American vessel.
Good enough?
No. How does the crew "know" what went on in the command room and over the phone in Tel Aviv?

How does the crew "know" what the pilots overhead attacking them were thinking?

Absolutely stupid.
As for Boston's claims about Cristol, Cristol responds (http://www.libertyincident.com/boston-comments.html).
Who to believe huh. I'll believe an affidavit because Boston has nothing to gain.
Only his reputation. :roll:
But now I that I look at the site you're linking to, I can't help wondering whether I should retract my prior apology or not. :hmm:
:) I search till I find what I want. Unless it's pornographic I'll use it.
Once again, we are what we eat.

[bradclark1]

Once again, we are what we eat.
Ain't that the fact.
Interesting to note that the US would not allow Kidd to go to Israel during the investigation wouldn't you say? Kind of lop sided.

I'm reading the declassified report from the NSA right now. 83 pages so this will take a bit.

[bradclark1]

This has nothing to do with being pro-Israel or pro-Crew. What is this? A sports match?! Absolutely ridiculous.
Okay. You believe the Israeli version of events while I believe the crew events and that Israel knowingly attacked an American vessel.
Good enough?
No. How does the crew "know" what went on in the command room and over the phone in Tel Aviv?

How does the crew "know" what the pilots overhead attacking them were thinking?

Absolutely stupid.

Not really. I find it hard to believe that the Israeli pilot and gunboat skipper was that incompetent is all.

[geetrue]

Identifying a ship from a fast moving plane is very difficult - especially by fighter-bomber pilots who aren't trained for this.

On the other hand:
Why were the Fast attack boats unable to identify it?
Why noone asked the for the reason why this unidentified ship didn't fight back?
Why wasn't this -obviously defenseless- ship contacted by those attack boats who were seemingly close enough to shoot at it with guns?

A ship with so much antennas and cupolas could only belong to the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. as it was clearly a reconnaissance ship. Personally i believe the israeli commanders knew very well what they are doing: The ship was well known before and the only reason for the attack i can imagine is that they didn't want the U.S. to gain information about their tactics ...

Many friendly fire incidents were pretty short encounters - however, this one was not: First the planes and then torpedo boats attacked half an hour later which placed a torpedo into the Liberty's side.

Looks pretty much like a planned and coordinated attack to me.


I agree with Lurchi, looks like it was on purpose, but why ... will have to wait for some insider's book.

I would rather be friends with Israel than on their enemies side any old day.

Apparently every President since Harry Truman agree's. :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

This has nothing to do with being pro-Israel or pro-Crew. What is this? A sports match?! Absolutely ridiculous.
Okay. You believe the Israeli version of events while I believe the crew events and that Israel knowingly attacked an American vessel.
Good enough?
No. How does the crew "know" what went on in the command room and over the phone in Tel Aviv?

How does the crew "know" what the pilots overhead attacking them were thinking?

Absolutely stupid.

Not really. I find it hard to believe that the Israeli pilot and gunboat skipper was that incompetent is all.
What precisely do you view as their incompetence? Have you ever flown over a ship in a jet, under pre-assumptions that the ship might be an armed enemy ship?

As pointed out by others here, many other friendly fire incidents have occurred in modern military history. Yet this one magically cannot be! :hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

I'm reading the declassified report from the NSA right now. 83 pages so this will take a bit.
Keep in mind that it was Judge Cristol who sued the NSA (http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/cristol.html) in the first place to have that information released to the public.

[bradclark1]

What precisely do you view as their incompetence? Have you ever flown over a ship in a jet, under pre-assumptions that the ship might be an armed enemy ship?
A low level recon flight, people sunbathing, people waving, a great big American flag, a cargo vessel who's silhouette and size match nothing in Egyptian inventory, an antenna farm, huge latin numbers, US Navy grey, no evasive maneuvers.

As pointed out by others here, many other friendly fire incidents have occurred in modern military history. Yet this one magically cannot be! :hmm:
I know that but few had the time line from beginning to end of this one.

[The Avon Lady]

What precisely do you view as their incompetence? Have you ever flown over a ship in a jet, under pre-assumptions that the ship might be an armed enemy ship?
A low level recon flight, people sunbathing, people waving, a great big American flag, a cargo vessel who's silhouette and size match nothing in Egyptian inventory, an antenna farm, huge latin numbers, US Navy grey, no evasive maneuvers.

In fact, Israeli records show that the ship was at first identified as American by the slower recon plane that made the initial passes.

Why don't you read the detailed records and logs before posting?

[Jimbuna]

Apparently every President since Harry Truman agree's.

...and they always will with such a huge Jewish voting population in the States :yep:

[August]

I thought there was an American flag flying but I don't see one in any of the pictures from the site referenced by MadMike.

Taken after the battle. Where is the flag?

http://www.ussliberty.com/g/lg/sliberty.jpg

[The Avon Lady]

Apparently every President since Harry Truman agree's.
...and they always will with such a huge Jewish voting population in the States :yep:
Jews represent under 2% of the US voting population. And the vast majority of them vote Democratic.
I thought there was an American flag flying but I don't see one in any of the pictures from the site referenced by MadMike.

Taken after the battle. Where is the flag?
I think it was knocked down in the first attack run. Not sure and I'm too tired to read the reports now.

[August]

I think it was knocked down in the first attack run. Not sure and I'm too tired to read the reports now.

Ok but I don't see one in the pre attack pictures either. Then there is the hull markings. I have never seen a US Navy ship marked like that with smaller letters preceeding the ship number.

[Jimbuna]

Jews represent under 2% of the US voting population. And the vast majority of them vote Democratic.

1.78% 5,648,500 give or take a few :D

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html

An awful lot of votes in any language :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

Jews represent under 2% of the US voting population. And the vast majority of them vote Democratic.

1.78% 5,648,500 give or take a few :D

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html

An awful lot of votes in any language :yep:
<2% "an awful lot"?

Whatever.

[bradclark1]

Read below.

[bradclark1]

Who to believe?
All I can suggest is read the NSA report. Read the crew supported books largely of the attacks itself which is skimpy in the NSA report.
Understand that the US investigation team was not allowed to go to Israel They were not allowed to question any Israeli sources. They took what the Israeli's submitted as gospel no questions asked. Note that for some reason a lot is based on signet of two Israeli helicopter crews which covers nothing much but one asking the other "whats going on?" conversation for some reason.
There is no way whatsoever that the Liberty could have been mistaken for an Egyptian cargo vessel. The sizes and silhouette differences are vast.
The NSA report doesn't say it but I think three flags were shot down if I remember from a book correctly.
Commander McGonagle was promoted and awarded the Medal of Honor but LBJ couldn't be bothered to award our nations highest honor I guess and the Secretary of the Navy gave it.
Captain McGonagle went on to command the ammunition ship Kilauea and led the NROTC Unit at the University of Oklahoma. Hmmm
Make your own decision.
And you can always check out http://www.ussliberty.org/

[dean_acheson]

what?

[bradclark1]

What precisely do you view as their incompetence? Have you ever flown over a ship in a jet, under pre-assumptions that the ship might be an armed enemy ship?
A low level recon flight, people sunbathing, people waving, a great big American flag, a cargo vessel who's silhouette and size match nothing in Egyptian inventory, an antenna farm, huge latin numbers, US Navy grey, no evasive maneuvers.

In fact, Israeli records show that the ship was at first identified as American by the slower recon plane that made the initial passes.

Why don't you read the detailed records and logs before posting?
By that you mean Israeli logs and records right?

[August]

There is no way whatsoever that the Liberty could have been mistaken for an Egyptian cargo vessel. The sizes and silhouette differences are vast.

Trouble with that is the USS Liberty was a WW2 era Liberty class cargo ship. Not something the US Navy could be expected to be using 20 years later. Also hundreds of Liberty ships were sold off after the war to any number of countries. It would not be suprising at all for one of them to be picked up by the Egyptians.

[The Avon Lady]

There is no way whatsoever that the Liberty could have been mistaken for an Egyptian cargo vessel. The sizes and silhouette differences are vast.
Nothing like comments from the SH3/SH4 recognition manual world!

There is "no way"? Once again, Cristol gives some classic historical examples (http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/Misidentification.pdf).

Now let's start a serious analysis of why the Brits intentionally attacked their own ship. :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: After all, there's "no way" the Sheffield could have been misidentified as the Bismark, especially in slower speed WWII Swordfish planes. I wonder what would have happened had magnetic torpedo triggers not been defective at the time. :hmm:

I demand a board of inquiry! :yep:

[Reaves]

I don't know much about the incident but one thing does bug me...

Do Americans think they can spy on every country without consequence? I'd like to think i'm not an American hating moron like so many people are nowadays but come on! If I was in a position of power and was informed that another countries spy ship was in our waters i'd demand that they be boarded and arrested. In times of war I might just give the order to attack...

I'm assuming that the American ship was in Israel controlled waters and not international on this but either way my point still remains. If a Russian intelligence ship went into American waters while the USSR still existed, what would happen to it?

[PeriscopeDepth]

I don't know much about the incident but one thing does bug me...

Do Americans think they can spy on every country without consequence? I'd like to think i'm not an American hating moron like so many people are nowadays but come on! If I was in a position of power and was informed that another countries spy ship was in our waters i'd demand that they be boarded and arrested. In times of war I might just give the order to attack...

I'm assuming that the American ship was in Israel controlled waters and not international on this but either way my point still remains. If a Russian intelligence ship went into American waters while the USSR still existed, what would happen to it?

The Liberty was in international waters. And America isn't the only country that does these types of missions. Every other country with the capability to do so sends ships loaded with ELINT gear to sit off the coast (just barely in international waters, as the Liberty was) of countries of interest. Sometimes these ships are obvious, registered naval vessels with a known purpose and sometimes they are disguised.

PD

[Reaves]

The Liberty was in international waters. And America isn't the only country that does these types of missions. Every other country with the capability to do so sends ships loaded with ELINT gear to sit off the coast (just barely in international waters, as the Liberty was) of countries of interest. Sometimes these ships are obvious, registered naval vessels with a known purpose and sometimes they are disguised.

PD

Hmm well in international waters the Liberty had every right to be there. But still, if I was playing a game like Civilization and another country had ships like that sitting off my coast i'd probably teach them a lesson.... Horrible event either way but as mentioned by others these things happen in war. Afghanistan is a perfect example and i've heard a few about Iraq as well.

Good thing yall have satellites now. :up:

[The Avon Lady]

I don't know much about the incident but one thing does bug me...

Do Americans think they can spy on every country without consequence? I'd like to think i'm not an American hating moron like so many people are nowadays but come on! If I was in a position of power and was informed that another countries spy ship was in our waters i'd demand that they be boarded and arrested. In times of war I might just give the order to attack...

I'm assuming that the American ship was in Israel controlled waters and not international on this but either way my point still remains. If a Russian intelligence ship went into American waters while the USSR still existed, what would happen to it?
The ship was at 1300, shortly before the attack, 13 miles off the coast of Sinai, which you can view as Egyptian territory being captured at the time by Israel (see the Liberty's ship log (http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/Logs1-24.pdf)). The ship was in an active war zone.

Regarding flags, discussed earlier, I recalled correctly. Liberty's log entry at 14:26 notes that the "normal steaming ensign which had been flying from the gaff had been shot away during the air attack", followed by "holiday sized ensign hoisted on port yardarm."

[The Avon Lady]

Commander McGonagle was promoted and awarded the Medal of Honor but LBJ couldn't be bothered to award our nations highest honor I guess and the Secretary of the Navy gave it.
Captain McGonagle went on to command the ammunition ship Kilauea and led the NROTC Unit at the University of Oklahoma. Hmmm
Make your own decision.
McGonagle's letter to Cristol (http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/McGonagle.pdf) on the subject of his Medal of Honor. Read it all the way through. Can you spot McGonagle's own words that damn this conspiracy nonsense?

How can you make decisions when you don't know the facts?! :nope: Pathetic. :down:

EDIT: Incidentally, here's a relevant snippet from Judge Cristol's biography (http://www.libertyincident.com/author.html):
In November 1951, during the Korean conflict, A. Jay Cristol joined the US Navy as an aviation cadet, earning his Navy Wings of Gold in April 1953. He deployed with VS-37, a Navy anti-submarine squadron aboard the aircraft carrier Princeton (CV-37) to the Western Pacific and the Sea of Japan. He was also part of TG70.4 during February 1955, in support of evacuating Nationalist Chinese from the Tachen Islands near the Communist China mainland in the South China Sea. He flew day and night missions as both a hunter pilot flying the Grumann AF-2W and a killer pilot flying the Grumann AF-2S. He was subsequently attached to the Fleet All Weather Training Unit, Pacific at San Diego, California as an instrument flight instructor and taught maneuvers for the delivery of nuclear weapons. Upon returning to civilian life, Cristol joined the Naval Air Reserve where he qualified as a four-engine Navy transport plane commander. In the 1960s, he flew operational flights during the Cuban Missile Crises and volunteer airlift missions to Vietnam.

After 18 years as a Naval aviator, Cristol joined the Judge Advocate General's Corps. He graduated with distinction from Naval Justice School. He served as a lawyer for another twenty years. His duties included teaching law of war and serving as the administrative officer for the summer Naval Reserve law courses. In 1983, he was made an honorary professor by the Naval Justice School. He has performed special active duty in the office of the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations. In the 1980s, the Department of Defense sent him to the International Institute of Humanitarian Law at San Remo, Italy to lecture on Law of Naval warfare to senior foreign military officers. Captain Cristol retired in 1988. He wears more than a dozen military decorations including the Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal, and the Navy Achievement Medal.
Obviously a man of ill repute.

[bradclark1]

McGonagle's letter to Cristol (http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/McGonagle.pdf) on the subject of his Medal of Honor. Read it all the way through. Can you spot McGonagle's own words that damn this conspiracy nonsense?

How can you make decisions when you don't know the facts?! :nope: Pathetic. :down:

I think you had better read that letter again and try using your glasses this time AL. It doesn't say squat. Please show where he damns this conspiracy nonsense. In fact what is this letter supposed to point out?
Who is pathetic? You I do believe.:roll:

[bradclark1]

There is no way whatsoever that the Liberty could have been mistaken for an Egyptian cargo vessel. The sizes and silhouette differences are vast.
Nothing like comments from the SH3/SH4 recognition manual world!

What are you babbling about? Silhouette identification is standard in most armies, navies and air forces so you can cut your attempted insult. Pure AL!

There is "no way"? Once again, Cristol gives some classic historical examples (http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/Misidentification.pdf).

Now let's start a serious analysis of why the Brits intentionally attacked their own ship. :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: After all, there's "no way" the Sheffield could have been misidentified as the Bismark, especially in slower speed WWII Swordfish planes. I wonder what would have happened had magnetic torpedo triggers not been defective at the time. :hmm:

I demand a board of inquiry! :yep:
Attacking armed warship vs. attacking cargo vessel?

Center third of silhouettes have no comparison. Notice funnel. No Egyptian cargo vessel would be painted navy grey. How many passes were made on the Liberty?

[bradclark1]

There is no way whatsoever that the Liberty could have been mistaken for an Egyptian cargo vessel. The sizes and silhouette differences are vast.

Trouble with that is the USS Liberty was a WW2 era Liberty class cargo ship. Not something the US Navy could be expected to be using 20 years later. Also hundreds of Liberty ships were sold off after the war to any number of countries. It would not be suprising at all for one of them to be picked up by the Egyptians.
I believe Egypt possesed something like five ships (I could be wrong). I would believe Israel would know what they were and again navy grey paint.

[The Avon Lady]

McGonagle's letter to Cristol (http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/McGonagle.pdf) on the subject of his Medal of Honor. Read it all the way through. Can you spot McGonagle's own words that damn this conspiracy nonsense?

How can you make decisions when you don't know the facts?! :nope: Pathetic. :down:

I think you had better read that letter again and try using your glasses this time AL. It doesn't say squat. Please show where he damns this conspiracy nonsense. In fact what is this letter supposed to point out?
Who is pathetic? You I do believe.:roll:
The letter explains that President Johnson's diary shows that the President did not award any MOH's the day when McGonagle received his.

McGonagle's medal was pinned on him by the Secretary of the Navy, no less.

McGonagle's award was noted in several prestigious papers around the US, some including his photo.

In addition to all of the above, McGonagle accepts Cristol's rationalle why there was no diminishment of honor in McGonagle's MOH ceremony.

All of the above is contrary to what you claimed.

Contrary to what I claimed, there is no dismissal by McGonagle of the conspiracy nonsense.

Bottom line is you did indeed get the facts all wrong when it comes to McGonagle's MOH.

[bradclark1]

The letter explains that President Johnson's diary shows that the President did not award any MOH's the day when McGonagle received his.

McGonagle's medal was pinned on him by the Secretary of the Navy, no less.

McGonagle's award was noted in several prestigious papers around the US, some including his photo.

In addition to all of the above, McGonagle accepts Cristol's rationalle why there was no diminishment of honor in McGonagle's MOH ceremony.

All of the above is contrary to what you claimed.

Contrary to what I claimed, there is no dismissal by McGonagle of the conspiracy nonsense.

Bottom line is you did indeed get the facts all wrong when it comes to McGonagle's MOH.
I'm trying to understand what you are attempting convey.
I said the SecNav gave the MH to McGonagle. I said LBJ did not bother himself with it. What facts do I have wrong?

[The Avon Lady]

There is no way whatsoever that the Liberty could have been mistaken for an Egyptian cargo vessel. The sizes and silhouette differences are vast.
Nothing like comments from the SH3/SH4 recognition manual world!

What are you babbling about? Silhouette identification is standard in most armies, navies and air forces so you can cut your attempted insult. Pure AL!

There is "no way"? Once again, Cristol gives some classic historical examples (http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/Misidentification.pdf).

Now let's start a serious analysis of why the Brits intentionally attacked their own ship. :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: After all, there's "no way" the Sheffield could have been misidentified as the Bismark, especially in slower speed WWII Swordfish planes. I wonder what would have happened had magnetic torpedo triggers not been defective at the time. :hmm:

I demand a board of inquiry! :yep:
Attacking armed warship vs. attacking cargo vessel?

Center third of silhouettes have no comparison. Notice funnel. No Egyptian cargo vessel would be painted navy grey. How many passes were made on the Liberty?
Whatever suits you. Fact is FUBARs (pardon my acronym :roll: ) happen.

Regarding passes, several, at least according to the US Naval Court of Inquiry's own records, based on testimony and the Liberty's own log, if that's hopefully good enough for you. Why don't you simply read the timeline (http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/timeline.pdf). See pages 17 and 18 of 56.

I have already mentioned those earlier pre-attack passes and the initial reports hours earlier assuming it was indeed an American ship.

[The Avon Lady]

The letter explains that President Johnson's diary shows that the President did not award any MOH's the day when McGonagle received his.

McGonagle's medal was pinned on him by the Secretary of the Navy, no less.

McGonagle's award was noted in several prestigious papers around the US, some including his photo.

In addition to all of the above, McGonagle accepts Cristol's rationalle why there was no diminishment of honor in McGonagle's MOH ceremony.

All of the above is contrary to what you claimed.

Contrary to what I claimed, there is no dismissal by McGonagle of the conspiracy nonsense.

Bottom line is you did indeed get the facts all wrong when it comes to McGonagle's MOH.
I'm trying to understand what you are attempting convey.
I said the SecNav gave the MH to McGonagle. I said LBJ did not bother himself with it. What facts do I have wrong?
Many medals of honor were given out that day. LBJ didn't attend any/most of them. It had nothing to do with being bothered and it wasn't to spite McGonagle or to belittle the Liberty incident.

[bradclark1]

Regarding passes, several, at least according to the US Naval Court of Inquiry's own records, based on testimony and the Liberty's own log, if that's hopefully good enough for you. Why don't you simply read the timeline (http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/timeline.pdf). See pages 17 and 18 of 56.

I have already mentioned those earlier pre-attack passes and the initial reports hours earlier assuming it was indeed an American ship.
I meant attack runs/passes. Timeline just states attack time.

[tenakha]

It seems Israeli forces are quite often involved in such incidents:

Israeli jets clash with German ship near Lebanon
Wed Oct 25, 2006 5:24 PM BST
BERLIN (Reuters) - Two Israeli warplanes and a German navy vessel have clashed off the Lebanese coast, the Defence Ministry in Berlin said on Wednesday without giving further details.
Germany daily Der Tagesspiegel earlier on Wednesday quoted a junior German defence minister as telling a parliamentary committee that two Israeli F-16 fighters flew low over the German ship and fired two shots.
The jets also released infra-red countermeasures to ward off any rocket attack, the paper quoted him as saying.
The minister did not say when the incident happened or what had caused it, the paper said.
"I can confirm that there was an incident," a ministry spokesman told Reuters on Wednesday. An investigation was underway and he therefore was unable to provide further information, he added.
An Israeli military spokeswoman said she was checking the report.
Germany assumed command of a United Nations naval force off the coast of Lebanon 10 days ago and has sent a force of eight ships and 1,000 service personnel to join the international peace operation in the region.
The naval force is charged with preventing weapons smuggling and helping maintain a cease-fire between Israel and radical Lebanese-based Islamic group Hezbollah.

French forces almost fired on Israeli jets
F-15s dived on Peacekeepers in Lebanon defense official says


By Molly Moore (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/molly+moore/)
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, November 10, 2006; Page A22

PARIS, Nov. 9 -- French peacekeeping forces in southern Lebanon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/lebanon.html?nav=el) came within seconds of firing missiles at Israeli F-15 fighter jets that repeatedly dived on their positions last week, according to French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie.
Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy summoned Israel's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/israel.html?nav=el) ambassador to Paris to his office on Thursday to express "serious concern" about the incident and demand that Israel halt its flights over southern Lebanon.

"Our troops barely avoided a catastrophe," Alliot-Marie told the lower house of France's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/france.html?nav=el) Parliament on Wednesday night in remarks broadcast Thursday. "In legitimate defense, our soldiers removed the covers from the missile battery and were two seconds away from firing at the planes that were threatening them."
A spokesman for the Israeli Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv said reports of the Oct. 31 incident were under investigation.
The United Nations and France, which leads the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, have repeatedly protested Israel's flights over the area, saying they are a violation of the cease-fire that ended this summer's 33-day war between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas.
Israeli officials say the flights are needed to monitor Lebanon's compliance with U.N. mandates that it prevent the smuggling of weapons to Hezbollah.
But U.N. peacekeepers reported 14 violations by Israeli aircraft last week during mock raids, including three over the headquarters of French troops in the southern Lebanese town of Froun.
French officials said the warplanes dived toward the ground, then jerked skyward in maneuvers that could be used to drop bombs or fire on ground forces.
The planes were "clearly in attack position," the French defense minister said.
The French complaints follow allegations that Israeli fighters fired over a German warship off the Lebanese coast, which Israel denied, and a report of a non-hostile encounter between Israeli F-16 fighters and a German helicopter.

[The Avon Lady]

Regarding passes, several, at least according to the US Naval Court of Inquiry's own records, based on testimony and the Liberty's own log, if that's hopefully good enough for you. Why don't you simply read the timeline (http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/timeline.pdf). See pages 17 and 18 of 56.

I have already mentioned those earlier pre-attack passes and the initial reports hours earlier assuming it was indeed an American ship.
I meant attack runs/passes. Timeline just states attack time.
First relevant timeline entry:
1358 1158 0758
Liberty records single aircraft seen passing down track of ship, 135 degrees relative, five or six
miles distance, approximate attitude 7,000 feet. [US Naval Court of Inquiry/Exhibit 27:
Chronology of Events.]
Next relevant timeline entry, 2 minutes later:
1400 1200 0800
Air attack commenced. Liberty reported her position as 31-23N, 33-25E [US Naval Court of
Inquiry/Document 87 of Exhibit 48: DTG 081235Z June 1967, USS Saratoga to
CINCUSNAVEUR.] The generally accepted time of the initial attack is 1400 Sinai time. It is the
author’s opinion that the first Mirage IIICJ rolled into its run at about 1357 and began firing
about 1358. The Liberty handwritten CIC Log indicates attack began at 1358 [US Naval Court
of Inquiry: Exhibit 14 (incorrectly marked as Liberty Underway Log)] as do copies of her Radio
Logs [US Naval Court of Inquiry: Exhibits 23 and 24.] IAF audio tapes indicate 1358. IDF
History indicates 1400. MTB Division 914 War Log records “Target is being hit by aircraft” at
1400. Liberty reports the time as 1405. [US Naval Court of Inquiry/Document 46 of Exhibit 48:
DTG 081715Z June 1967.] Follow-on initial releases from the US Government would state 1405
based on Liberty’s 081715Z message. The 13 June 1967 CIA Report [SC No. 01415/67.]
indicates 3:05 P.M., which is 1505 local time of the attack. The Washington time of the CIA
Report states 8:05 A.M.(0805) which is essentially correct. It is presumed that the CIA Report,
prepared in five days failed to account for the change from seven to six hours of time differential
between Washington, which was on daylight time, where the report was prepared and times
received in real-time and the Sinai time which was not on daylight time.
Fifth standoff Message, 080917Z, from COMSIXTHFLT to Liberty ordering 100 mile pullback
arrived at Army DCS Relay Station Asmara. This message was sent by mistake to NCS Greece
instead of NCS Asmara at 1415. [House Armed Services Committee Report, May 10, 1971.]
Sad. Liberty never received the 100 mile pullback order, mentioned much earlier in the timeline:
0150 2350 1950
Secure telephone call from JCS duty officer, Major D. C. Breedlove, to CINCUSNAVEUR duty
officer, Lieutenant E. L. Galavotti, who verbally ordered Liberty to be withdrawn to no closer
than 100 miles. Breedlove did not have the DTG for the new instructions, but stated a written
message would follow. [House Armed Services Committee Report, May 10, 1971.] Captain M.
J. Hanley, Deputy Chief of Staff, CINCUSNAVEUR, requested issuance of the written message,
i.e., the DTG. [US Naval Court of Inquiry: Exhibit 47.] If Navy Captain Hanley had taken the
oral order of a Major, the Liberty tragedy might never have occurred. It must however be noted
that this phone call order was not in accord with several established procedures. [US Naval Court
The Liberty Incident Time Line Page 13 of 56
of Inquiry/Document 52 of Exhibit 48: Statement of Captain Hanley.]

[bradclark1]

The letter explains that President Johnson's diary shows that the President did not award any MOH's the day when McGonagle received his.

McGonagle's medal was pinned on him by the Secretary of the Navy, no less.

McGonagle's award was noted in several prestigious papers around the US, some including his photo.

In addition to all of the above, McGonagle accepts Cristol's rationalle why there was no diminishment of honor in McGonagle's MOH ceremony.

All of the above is contrary to what you claimed.

Contrary to what I claimed, there is no dismissal by McGonagle of the conspiracy nonsense.

Bottom line is you did indeed get the facts all wrong when it comes to McGonagle's MOH.
I'm trying to understand what you are attempting convey.
I said the SecNav gave the MH to McGonagle. I said LBJ did not bother himself with it. What facts do I have wrong?
Many medals of honor were given out that day. LBJ didn't attend any/most of them. It had nothing to do with being bothered and it wasn't to spite McGonagle or to belittle the Liberty incident.
Any/most is the question. LBJ disliked the military, period.
Command from an intel ship to an ammo hauler then to an ROTC isn't exactly a reward. But this is just my opinion. It has no bearing on the incident itself.

[The Avon Lady]

It seems Israeli forces are quite often involved in such incidents:
Are you being intentionally selective? Since you're listing "such incidents", how about a list of all the blue-on-blue incidents where Israeli forces have fired on their own, inflicting casualties and injured?

I bet those were intentional, too.

Regarding your particular cases that you mentioned, no target was fired on. Both the IDF and the Minister of Defence, Comrade Peretz :smug: denied this.

In the meantime, thanks to the do-nothingness of said German and French forces, Hizballah have full recovered, rearmed and reinfiltrated. Thanks for nothing. Till the next war..........................

[Smaragdadler]

It seems Israeli forces are quite often involved in such incidents:


The where at least 3 incidents with German Navy by now, I already linked SPIEGEL-article in German.

And then there was the bombed UN post last Summer...

-> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14029827/

[bradclark1]

Sad. Liberty never received the 100 mile pullback order, mentioned much earlier in the timeline:

Whats also sad is that McGonagle had asked for an escort ship when given the mission but was refused.

[The Avon Lady]

It seems Israeli forces are quite often involved in such incidents:


The where at least 3 incidents with German Navy by now, I already linked SPIEGEL-article in German.

And then there was the bombed UN post last Summer...

-> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14029827/
Talk about smut!

Investigate a little harder and find out how Hizballah were operating within stone throw distances from UN posts and the UN did nothing to either distance the terrorists or themselves from being part of the target areas.

[Smaragdadler]

...The UN report says each time the UN contacted Israeli forces, they were assured the firing would stop. A senior Irish soldier working for the UN forces had warned the Israelis six times that their bombardment was endangering the lives of UN staff, Ireland's foreign ministry said.
Had Israel responded to the requests, "rather than deliberately ignoring them", the observers would still be alive, a diplomat familiar with the report said. ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5217176.stm

really wicked those Hizballah guys...seems they have lured you in a diplomatic trap, counting on your bad shooting skills...:D

[bradclark1]

Israel had no choice. The Hizballah was sitting on top of them using the UN as a shield. What the UN should have done is just leave the area.

[The Avon Lady]

...The UN report says each time the UN contacted Israeli forces, they were assured the firing would stop. A senior Irish soldier working for the UN forces had warned the Israelis six times that their bombardment was endangering the lives of UN staff, Ireland's foreign ministry said.
Had Israel responded to the requests, "rather than deliberately ignoring them", the observers would still be alive, a diplomat familiar with the report said. ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5217176.stm

really wicked those Hizballah guys...seems they have lured you in a diplomatic trap, counting on your bad shooting skills...:D
Within 3 meters is "bad shooting skills?"

Canadian General: UN Observer Post Used By Hizballah (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21786_Canadian_General-_UN_Observer_Post_Used_By_Hizballah&only)

Kofi Annan Could Have Ordered Peacekeepers to Leave (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200607/INT20060726c.html)

Canada’s PM doubts Israeli bombing of UN outpost deliberate (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060726/wl_canada_afp/mideastconflictcanada)

And it's off till later tonight - to the bookfair we go! :)

[Jimbuna]

Anyone else for tennis? :D

[August]

I believe Egypt possesed something like five ships (I could be wrong). I would believe Israel would know what they were and again navy grey paint.

The US Navy doesn't have exclusive use of grey paint Brad. If you'll look around you'll see that just about every country, including Egypt, paints their ships the same flat grey color because that is the best color to use.

[bradclark1]

I believe Egypt possesed something like five ships (I could be wrong). I would believe Israel would know what they were and again navy grey paint.

The US Navy doesn't have exclusive use of grey paint Brad. If you'll look around you'll see that just about every country, including Egypt, paints their ships the same flat grey color because that is the best color to use.
Each country has a specific shade(really). I'm not even sure El Quseir was a grey either.

[Lurchi]

The US Navy doesn't have exclusive use of grey paint
Okay, but those markings seen in the pic you posted - so typical USN and so untypical for a freighter. (A)GTR-5, only the USN uses such abbreviations.

That the jetfighters misidentified this ship is believable - they are just pilots ;).

On the other hand i cannot believe that the torpedo boats were unable to identify it: With all those antennas and this number the ship could be easily recognized with just a look. They had also plenty of time to do this as the Liberty was (almost) unarmed.

The israelis were so close that they could even ask for identification!

In the meantime, thanks to the do-nothingness of said German and French forces ... thanks for nothing.
I don't think this was necessary to say this but okay, no problem - as we know ourselves (unlike some politicians) that this whole mission is useless and a waste of german taxpayer's money. However there is still no need to provoke our ships as they seem to have enough problems already: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=116569 :oops:

Maybe we should see if we can get some of this tax money back by selling some subs to Iran?
They are probably willing to fully pay for them (unlike Israel).

Many thanks for taking our sub presents ... and for shooting over our (unarmed) reconaissance ships to show us how much you appreciate it ;).

[Dowly]

...The UN report says each time the UN contacted Israeli forces, they were assured the firing would stop. A senior Irish soldier working for the UN forces had warned the Israelis six times that their bombardment was endangering the lives of UN staff, Ireland's foreign ministry said.
Had Israel responded to the requests, "rather than deliberately ignoring them", the observers would still be alive, a diplomat familiar with the report said. ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5217176.stm
really wicked those Hizballah guys...seems they have lured you in a diplomatic trap, counting on your bad shooting skills...:D Within 3 meters is "bad shooting skills?"

Canadian General: UN Observer Post Used By Hizballah (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21786_Canadian_General-_UN_Observer_Post_Used_By_Hizballah&only)

Kofi Annan Could Have Ordered Peacekeepers to Leave (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200607/INT20060726c.html)

Canada’s PM doubts Israeli bombing of UN outpost deliberate (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060726/wl_canada_afp/mideastconflictcanada)

And it's off till later tonight - to the bookfair we go! :)

But if it would have been a house full of civilians, would it have been still shelled? Why dont use soldiers to mob up the Hizbollah in situations like this? Or is it acceptable to kill few foreigners to save your own skin? :nope:

[August]

Each country has a specific shade(really). I'm not even sure El Quseir was a grey either.

So your argument is based on shades of grey? :D

[August]

Okay, but those markings seen in the pic you posted - so typical USN and so untypical for a freighter. (A)GTR-5, only the USN uses such abbreviations.

I don't claim to be a naval expert but of the couple hundred USN ship pictures I googled last night before making that post, none of them had small letters before the ship number.

[tenakha]

El Qseir
http://palestine1967.site.voila.fr/images/discorde/liberty03elqsair.jpg


Liberty
http://palestine1967.site.voila.fr/images/discorde/liberty04.jpg


note the differences

http://palestine1967.site.voila.fr/images/discorde/liberty04bis.jpeg

[Lurchi]

... of the couple hundred USN ship pictures I googled last night before making that post, none of them had small letters before the ship number.
Ah, please don't look for fighting ships but for Auxiliary ships like Replenishment Oilers, Tenders and such:
Here are just a few examples:

http://www.bluejacket.com/usn_ship_image_ad-ah.html

Ammunition ship Mars AFS
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/7135/afs3dvic011gy2.th.jpg (http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?image=afs3dvic011gy2.jpg)

2x Fleet Oiler Kalamazoo AOR
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/3005/aor61ue6.th.jpg (http://img502.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aor61ue6.jpg) http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/6937/aor63zt9.th.jpg (http://img110.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aor63zt9.jpg)

Submarine Tender AS
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/9471/as31dvic029ip7.th.jpg (http://img503.imageshack.us/my.php?image=as31dvic029ip7.jpg)

The "A" for Auxiliary is normally left away. The way the number is painted is pretty unique and very consistent in the USN (unlike the Soviet Navy, which pennant numbers look much different and change through the ship's life). Among all navies, USN ships are the easiest to identify - even their submarines wear a big number.

The Liberty wore her number which even included a hint on her mission. She could be easily identified by a short look into a book like Weyer's Handbook of combat fleets.

Which recognition book does the USN use? Jane's?
The israelis use none obviously - or they didn't need one because they knew what they were doing ...

[bradclark1]

Each country has a specific shade(really). I'm not even sure El Quseir was a grey either.

So your argument is based on shades of grey? :D
You brought up the question of the grey paint on ships and I answered. I'm not going to repeat everything else again.


Edit: You can also add this:
Jamming: An additional point on which Israel did not comment is the use of radio jamming. In the absence of reliable records, it is only left to speculate whether jamming (of Navy tactical and international maritime distress frequencies) did take place, or whether the deficiency in communications originated in the attack itself (i.e., loss of power and damage of antennas). Both Liberty and USS Saratoga radio operators reported hearing the distinctive buzzing sound usually indicative of radio frequency jamming. According to a book by Russell Warren Howe (see below), Captain McGonagle testified that the jamming of his transmissions had been on American, not Egyptian, frequencies, suggesting that the Israelis were aware of the nationality of the ship. The U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry concluded that Liberty experienced jamming (finding 48).

[The Avon Lady]

The U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry concluded that Liberty experienced jamming (finding 48).
Court's findings document (http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/FindingsOfFact.pdf).

Quote:
Liberty apparently experienced a phenomenon identified as electronic jamming of her voice radio just prior to and during air attacks. This jamming was described as a steady carrier without modulation.
Please give us a very detailed explanation of why such jamming would be unusual when one force attacks an assumed enemy target. Some counter-suggestions here (http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Israeli_attack_on_USS_Liberty#The_jamm ing).

Note that the Liberty's voice frequencies were jammed. The Liberty, though with difficulty, did send via high command radio radio circuit (hicom) a flash message that they're being attacked, required assistance and included the Liberty's exact coordinates. This message was received immediately by the carrier USS Saratoga and relayed to USN HQ. (Details on page 28 of this very lengthy NSA report (http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/nsa/NSAreport.pdf).

Similarly, this article (http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/alert/hchannel2.html) states:
Mr. Ennes’s assertion raises an obvious question. According to Ennes (and this view seems to be endorsed by the History Channel) the Liberty was attacked to prevent it from intercepting sensitive Israeli radio messages. But why would the Israelis bother to attack the ship if they had the capability to jam all the Liberty’s frequencies? Why not just jam the frequencies and avoid the risk of attacking a US ship?

It should also be noted that Ennes’s claim that the Liberty’s outgoing signals were jammed is physically impossible. The Liberty would have been able to send its distress calls no matter what jamming the Israelis might have attempted. (The technical reason is that incoherent radiation sources cannot interfere with eachother.) Why did the History Channel fail to consult any experts who might have informed viewers of these facts?
All this is above and beyond my AM/FM tuner dial turning life experience. :p It just sounds like there are quite plausible explanations for this.

Regarding ship identification, once again, rather than hear it from you SH3/4 recognition manual holding armchair commanders, I'd prefer a professional's opinion:
In reconstruction of the attack, the Liberty crew makes much of flying the American flag, as if it would somehow protect them in harm's way (see Ennes, p. 152). Little does the crew appreciate the difficulty of identifying a ship from an aircraft merely on the basis of a flag or even a hull number (GTR 5 displayed by the Liberty). Based on my experience of flying many "low and slow" reconnaissance flights over ships in the Med and Atlantic with VQ2, unless the flights are almost overhead, target identification is virtually impossible. High-powered binoculars are not much good in a bouncing low-level aircraft. Even post facto photos do not always reveal identification. See, for example, Ennes' photo of the ship on page 146. This crisp overhead photo does not clearly show the identity of the American ship. So how could the attacking Israeli forces conclude this was a friendly ship?

Additionally, in an interesting commentary Mr. Ennes takes Captain McGonagle to task about identifying flags. The MTBs were flying the Israeli flag prior to the torpedo attack (pp. 148-148). Ennes says his captain must have erred (Ennes' emphasis) during the Naval Court of Inquiry; because "it would have been practically impossible to identify a tiny and wildly fluttering Star of David [flag] a mile away..." Mr. Ennes also doesn't understand why the Israeli MTB's did not recognize the hull number, GTR 5, in their July 6, 1967 account (pp. 171-173). He claims the Israeli sailors had to understand the significance of GTR 5. I would challenge him; I believe I know American sailors who could not decipher such a hull number.

I point out the above in the interest of showing the difficulty of identifying vessels by flags and hull numbers in the heat of battle. Further, identification of a ship's flag by high-performance jet fighters would be even more difficult. Consider that the Israeli pilots are engaged in a war situation, flying combat air patrols (CAPs) and flying to and from the front. They could hardly be expected to identify a small fluttering flag on a ship far below them. My son, an ex-Navy F18 pilot, confirms my contention. While the Liberty crew thinks these pilots were intent on identifying them, in fact the pilots were probably engaged in more pressing activity to protect their country.
I'm quoting from Enclosure 3: Exculpatory evidence supporting a mistaken attack (http://www.libertyincident.com/nowicki-evidence.html), one of many documents (http://www.libertyincident.com/nowicki.html) authored by Dr. Marvin Nowicki. Dr. Nowicki was the US Navy supervisor on the EC-121 aircraft who heard the actual Israel Air Force radio transmissions, in Hebrew, live during the attack and was later instrumental in insisting that the US government release the tape transcripts to the public to clear up many of the rumors once and for all.

And you can read this NSA released transcript (http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/nsa/summary.pdf) of post torpedo boat attack Israeli air communications, where only then was positive ID of a US flag made.

But earlier, post aerial attack, you can read in this NSA released transcript (http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/nsa/104-transcript.pdf), Israeli pilots state with no doubt (3rd page):

"Pay attn: the ship has now been identified as an Egyptian ship. You are now returning home."

Similarly, on the 6th page:

"For your info, it is apparently an Arab ship."

and a few moments later:

"It is an Egyptian supply ship"




While we're here, maybe someone would like to start a thread about the French traitor Alfred Dreyfus as well.

In other matters:

In the meantime, thanks to the do-nothingness of said German and French forces ... thanks for nothing.
I don't think this was necessary to say this but okay, no problem - as we know ourselves (unlike some politicians) that this whole mission is useless and a waste of german taxpayer's money. However there is still no need to provoke our ships as they seem to have enough problems already: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=116569
In that particular incident, I don't know who provokes whom. I do not fully understand the arguments that the German vessel "lit up" the Israeli planes on radar. I simply have no idea of exactly what happened and whose claims are correct. If the Israeli pilots did this fly-over to childishly show off, they should have been severly reprimanded. But again, I have no idea from all the media news reports I read on the events of exactly what took place and more importantly why.
Maybe we should see if we can get some of this tax money back by selling some subs to Iran?
They are probably willing to fully pay for them (unlike Israel).

Many thanks for taking our sub presents ... and for shooting over our (unarmed) reconaissance ships to show us how much you appreciate it .
Once again, Israel has denied any shooting and to the best of my knowledge even the Germans that claim there was didn't state that the guns were aimed at the ships, rather than overhead shots.

You yourself mentioned that this mission is useless but it's worse than that. Not only is it money down the drain, it is an unnecesary endangerment to foreign troops, such as the Germans and French. And the fact of the matter is that their expected lack of motivation to fight someone else's battles has lead to everything that their emplacement was supposed to prevent in the first place.

In all honesty, if it will make you feel better, the blame should be laid at Israel's and the UN's feet for opting for this and allowing it to take place. I assure you that it is hard to find bigger morons than our current Prime Minister and Defence Minister, who messed us up completely last year in the first place. Have you seen our DM Peretz lately (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sucTvv-TXRw)? :roll:




One last response to Dowly and I must do some work (for a change):
But if it would have been a house full of civilians, would it have been still shelled?
IMO, it very well potentially should have been, if the house was being used to perpetrate attacks.
Why dont use soldiers to mob up the Hizbollah in situations like this?
Are you a military expert and an on-hand witness to know in this particular circumstance what was the most appropriate method of attempting to take out the enemy with minimal risk to our soldiers?

To quote General Patton (unsourced):

"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
Or is it acceptable to kill few foreigners to save your own skin?
Actually, it is under such circumstances, according to the whatever-it's worth Geneva Convention:

"Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."

One of the fatalities in that UN observer post last year July was Canadian Major Paeta Derek Hess-von Kruedener. Several days before his death, he had sent an email to his former commander, retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, in which he described the Israeli bombardment:
"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."
MacKenzie interpreted this language for a reporter (http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50):
"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the IDF'"




Hi, ho! Hi, ho!.........................................

[bradclark1]

Please give us a very detailed explanation of why such jamming would be unusual when one force attacks an assumed enemy target. Some counter-suggestions here.

"electronic jamming of her voice radio just prior to and during air attacks."
Who would jam just prior to and during an attack? I don't think the Egyptians were supporting the Israeli's in the attack by jamming American frequencies just prior to and during the air attacks. That kind of narrows down suspects.
Mr. Ennes’s assertion raises an obvious question. According to Ennes (and this view seems to be endorsed by the History Channel) the Liberty was attacked to prevent it from intercepting sensitive Israeli radio messages. But why would the Israelis bother to attack the ship if they had the capability to jam all the Liberty’s frequencies? Why not just jam the frequencies and avoid the risk of attacking a US ship?
Isn't that part of the $64.00 question? WHY?
In reconstruction of the attack, the Liberty crew makes much of flying the American flag, as if it would somehow protect them in harm's way (see Ennes, p. 152). Little does the crew appreciate the difficulty of identifying a ship from an aircraft merely on the basis of a flag or even a hull number (GTR 5 displayed by the Liberty).
In regards to numbers. The actual numbers meaning doesn't mean much to most people. What matters is that the numbers were there. You don't have to understand their meaning.
"the Liberty crew makes much of flying the American flag, as if it would somehow protect them in harm's way"
Kind of sets the tone for for this persons whole argument wouldn't you say?
After the overflight at 0600, the next overflight occurs at 1030. It was made at near masthead level, reminiscent of our VQ2 low level flights (explained below).
While I will concede it is likely this Noratlas crew observed the American flag, we have no way of actually knowing that fact, nor if identified, when the information reached the war room in Tel Aviv. We on the VQ2 EC121M did not hear any such reporting by radio; only later in the afternoon did we hear references to flag during the attacks.
Again, they would have seen the numbers and if the wind was blowing as the crew says I would think that at mast level the flag would be visible.

unless the flights are almost overhead, target identification is virtually impossible.
"It was made at near masthead level" wish he'd make up his mind.

I'm not much on electronic intercepting but I find it odd that the only intercepts were from the helicopters. None from the recon flights and none from the fighters. Why? The recon and fighters didn't need communications because they knew what they were doing?

[Steel_Tomb]

Friendly fire seems to be a major problem in war, usually caused by faulty information been passed on to those in the air or on the ground. However, Israel really does take the #1 spot for this kind of thing. Journalists killed in Gaza, UN troops on a well known UN position bombed in the recent Israel/Lebanon war. I'm not saying the US or british, or any other armed force is perfect, they aren't, but Israel is really pushing its luck and is running out of excuses. Personally I think it was a case of mistaken identity, and incredible poor thinking by the Israeli military. As was proven in the conflict with Lebanon, the Israeli armed forces may have the latest tech, but are not the top notch force they would appear to be.

Although, it wouldn't be the first time Israel has twisted events to suit its own purposes.

[The Avon Lady]

Please give us a very detailed explanation of why such jamming would be unusual when one force attacks an assumed enemy target. Some counter-suggestions here.

"electronic jamming of her voice radio just prior to and during air attacks."
Who would jam just prior to and during an attack? I don't think the Egyptians were supporting the Israeli's in the attack by jamming American frequencies just prior to and during the air attacks. That kind of narrows down suspects.
I never said that Israel didn't do the jamming. Would jamming an assumed opponent's communications during an attack be out of the ordinary?
Mr. Ennes’s assertion raises an obvious question. According to Ennes (and this view seems to be endorsed by the History Channel) the Liberty was attacked to prevent it from intercepting sensitive Israeli radio messages. But why would the Israelis bother to attack the ship if they had the capability to jam all the Liberty’s frequencies? Why not just jam the frequencies and avoid the risk of attacking a US ship?
Isn't that part of the $64.00 question? WHY?
Simple and all the evidence points to it: Israel thought they were attacking an Egyptian ship.

Remember when $64 used to go a long way?!
In reconstruction of the attack, the Liberty crew makes much of flying the American flag, as if it would somehow protect them in harm's way (see Ennes, p. 152). Little does the crew appreciate the difficulty of identifying a ship from an aircraft merely on the basis of a flag or even a hull number (GTR 5 displayed by the Liberty).
In regards to numbers. The actual numbers meaning doesn't mean much to most people. What matters is that the numbers were there. You don't have to understand their meaning.
Why? Aren't many military ships worldwide numbered? And if they aren't, is that general knowledge?

As Dr. Nowicki stated:
"Based on my experience of flying many "low and slow" reconnaissance flights over ships in the Med and Atlantic with VQ2, unless the flights are almost overhead, target identification is virtually impossible. High-powered binoculars are not much good in a bouncing low-level aircraft. Even post facto photos do not always reveal identification. See, for example, Ennes' photo of the ship on page 146. This crisp overhead photo does not clearly show the identity of the American ship. So how could the attacking Israeli forces conclude this was a friendly ship?"
"the Liberty crew makes much of flying the American flag, as if it would somehow protect them in harm's way"
Kind of sets the tone for for this persons whole argument wouldn't you say?
As I mentioned, "this person", as you prefer to leave him a nameless entity, was the US Navy supervisor on the EC-121 aircraft who heard the actual Israel Air Force radio transmissions, in Hebrew, live during the attack and was later instrumental in insisting that the US government release the tape transcripts to the public to clear up many of the rumors once and for all.

But obviously he's just a nobody, a traitorous American naval servicemen, with ulterior motives to offend his fellow navymen and country. Yep. That must be it.
After the overflight at 0600, the next overflight occurs at 1030. It was made at near masthead level, reminiscent of our VQ2 low level flights (explained below).
While I will concede it is likely this Noratlas crew observed the American flag, we have no way of actually knowing that fact, nor if identified, when the information reached the war room in Tel Aviv. We on the VQ2 EC121M did not hear any such reporting by radio; only later in the afternoon did we hear references to flag during the attacks.
Again, they would have seen the numbers and if the wind was blowing as the crew says I would think that at mast level the flag would be visible.
And again I point out (3rd time, I believe), the ship was actually identified tentatively early that day as American, by those first IAF planes. Here's the relevant snippet from the IDF History Department Report (http://www.libertyincident.com/IDF-history.html):
http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/5676/53534054dz1.jpg
unless the flights are almost overhead, target identification is virtually impossible.
"It was made at near masthead level" wish he'd make up his mind.
As I just mentioned above, there was tentative ID that it was American during those earlier flyovers. So Dr. Nowicki was correct.
I'm not much on electronic intercepting but I find it odd that the only intercepts were from the helicopters. None from the recon flights and none from the fighters. Why?
If you would, for a change, bother reading Dr. Nowicki's documentation (http://www.libertyincident.com/nowicki.html), you would know that Dr. Nowicki's involvement began in picking up IAF voice communications on the completion of the aerial attack and thereafter. Therefore the transcripts he got declassified from his flight contain mainly the later chopper communications.

However, I also posted the NSA's transcripts in English of all IAF communications and both sides of the transcripts, from completely separate sources, prior, during and after the attack, all contain different IAF crewmen stating this to be an Egyptian ship.

[Steel_Tomb]

If the ship had been ID'd as a US ship, why in gods name would the IAF attack it??? Sorry if I'm missing something (I haven't had the time to read the thread in its entirety), but it seems very strange that the IAF would attack a ship they couldn't ID without much thought about it. They could have sent in boarding vessels quite easily, with fighter protection should the vessel prove to be hostile. Its just common sence and proper military planning. The US has a very keen interest in the state of Israel, and I would have thought the top brass in the IAF and the rest of the Israrli military would have been on the look out of US ships in the med.

Although I understand your just supporting your country, as I would support the UK, theres no need to go on the defensive and just ignore any other viewpoint than your own. I don't mean to be offensive, but just listen to other peoples views and assess their validity before we start flaming each other.:up:

[The Avon Lady]

If the ship had been ID'd as a US ship, why in gods name would the IAF attack it??? Sorry if I'm missing something (I haven't had the time to read the thread in its entirety), but it seems very strange that the IAF would attack a ship they couldn't ID without much thought about it.
Hours passed between the initial ID and the actual attack. The actual attack was in response hours later to Israeli ground forced being attacked and it was misassumed that some/all of the incoming fire was coming from the sea. As per above, it was also assumed that the ship identified as American had long disappeared by now. There was simply a total disconnect between morning and afternoon events.

This is all tragic and incompetent but that's what all the documentation from original US and Israeli military sources points to.
[quote]They could have sent in boarding vessels quite easily, with fighter protection should the vessel prove to be hostile. Its just common sence and proper military planning.
Not after IDF ground forced in El Arish were being attacked at that time, not with the assumption that the same US ship would no longer be there, and not with the mistaken ID of the incoming fighter jets, who were flying much higher and faster than the early morning Israeli recon planes.
[quote]The US has a very keen interest in the state of Israel, and I would have thought the top brass in the IAF and the rest of the Israrli military would have been on the look out of US ships in the med.
Not that close. In fact, the Liberty wasn't supposed to approach within 100 miles of the coastline, in order to avoid the risk of entering an active confrontation area. And that is why - again and again - Israel assumed that it was normal for a US ship to possibly get that close but it wouldn't hang around for half a day.
Although I understand your just supporting your country,
I support the facts.

I'm also a US citizen and I support the United States. This whole conspiracy stinks and does not benefit either country, which makes a lot of other people more than happy to keep on supporting the conspiracy, with full disregard of the facts and of the opinions of experienced military professionals on both sides of the ocean, based on the documentation and historical precedents. This should never have gotten this far.
as I would support the UK, theres no need to go on the defensive and just ignore any other viewpoint than your own.
You have a lot of nerve. I haven't ignored anything said here. In fact, I did just the opposite, sighting documentation to disprove or explain practically ever claim that's been made on this thread so far.

Now ask yourself what made you accuse me of ignoring others viewpoints?
I don't mean to be offensive
But you were. Too late.

And with that, I close off another day of having to deal with one of the latest blood libels against my people. Yes, that's what it is - a blood libel - plain and simple.

[Steel_Tomb]

Like I said, I haven't had the time to read the entire thread, so may have missed some of your previous statements. I always try to see things from both sides, and it looks like a failure to ID the vessel correctly, also assuming a ship has left the area should not mean that you can get away with not ID'ing a ship. Its just not the way things are done.

I did mention that I didn't intend to offend you, and I'm sorry if I have, but I also stated that I wasn't able to read the whole thread (I'm doing Biology work) so I most likely missed out some of the stuff you put forward.

[The Avon Lady]

Like I said, I haven't had the time to read the entire thread, so may have missed some of your previous statements. I always try to see things from both sides, and it looks like a failure to ID the vessel correctly, also assuming a ship has left the area should not mean that you can get away with not ID'ing a ship. Its just not the way things are done.

I did mention that I didn't intend to offend you, and I'm sorry if I have, but I also stated that I wasn't able to read the whole thread (I'm doing Biology work) so I most likely missed out some of the stuff you put forward.
Arg! :arrgh!: Let's wipe the slate clean. :yep:

This tragedy is the result of definite incopitence and hasty military procedures along with a series of immediate events during the heat of a war, in a battle arena. That's what it boils down to. That's what the documentation from all sides shows. That's what has happened in numerous friendly fire incidents that took place both before and after the Liberty incident, including cases where much more sophisticated equipment and communications were involved.

[Happy Times]

And with that, I close off another day of having to deal with one of the latest blood libels against my people. Yes, that's what it is - a blood libel - plain and simple.

So you dont eat babies? :o




Joking..:rotfl:


And the Khiam incident was investigated well by the FDF. If there would have been any doubts they would have not send a batallion to Lebanon after the war. Even though i personally dont see any point in sending them anyway.

[geetrue]

Hours passed between the initial ID and the actual attack. The actual attack was in response hours later to Israeli ground forced being attacked and it was misassumed that some/all of the incoming fire was coming from the sea. As per above, it was also assumed that the ship identified as American had long disappeared by now. There was simply a total disconnect between morning and afternoon events.


Perhaps the Israel forces had a shift change in those few hours or the request for permission to bomb the USS Liberty may have had to come from a much higher authority and I don't mean God.

Mistakes happen is very true ... I'm still alive and my fellow shipmates from the Liberty are dead.

Makes life more precious when I think of all the extra years I have had. :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

or the request for permission to bomb the USS Liberty may have had to come from a much higher authority and I don't mean God.
Yet there's not a shred of evidence or a word of testimony of a single witness involved that even hints of this.

And that's what whipped-out-of-thin-air conspiracies are all about.

[bradclark1]

never said that Israel didn't do the jamming. Would jamming an assumed opponent's communications during an attack be out of the ordinary?
They were jamming American frequencies. Why would they jam American frequencies unless they knew the ship was American. They did not jam Eygyptian frequencies.

Why? Aren't many military ships worldwide numbered? And if they aren't, is that general knowledge?

Show me middle eastern ships at that time that had numbers. Not only was the Eygyptian navy miniscule(5?) but Israel had for sometime tracked their ships(I read that in a 6 Day War book.) plus had spies where in fact one person during that timeframe was executed for spying on their navy.


As I mentioned, "this person", as you prefer to leave him a nameless entity,
I didn't and don't care what his name is. I'm just interested in what he's saying.
But obviously he's just a nobody, a traitorous American naval servicemen, with ulterior motives to offend his fellow navymen and country. Yep. That must be it.

Nope I didn't attack him or Cristol either. I just think they are wrong. I didn't say anything about being a traitor or having ulterior motives. All I meant is what I said, that one comment sets the tone for his argument.

If you would, for a change, bother reading Dr. Nowicki's documentation, you would know that Dr. Nowicki's involvement began in picking up IAF voice communications on the completion of the aerial attack and thereafter.
That is what I more or less said. The communications were from just the helicopters. You know and I know that commo was intercepted from the helicopters after the attack. Why would I need to keep saying it? No communications were used by the recon plane nor fighters. Why would that be? I've read the communications documentation probably more than you have.

I'll tell you my thoughts on this conspiracy theory :). I don't think it was an attack by Israel as a goverment per se. I think it was directed by person/persons unknown(Dyan?) for whatever reason I don't know.

with full disregard of the facts and of the opinions of experienced military professionals on both sides of the ocean
Your version of facts are different than my version of facts or should I say interpreted differently.

[bradclark1]

And with that, I close off another day of having to deal with one of the latest blood libels against my people. Yes, that's what it is - a blood libel - plain and simple.
Is that aimed at me?

[The Avon Lady]

never said that Israel didn't do the jamming. Would jamming an assumed opponent's communications during an attack be out of the ordinary?
They were jamming American frequencies. Why would they jam American frequencies unless they knew the ship was American. They did not jam Eygyptian frequencies.
Please document this. They were jamming voice frequencies. How do you know that the jamming didn't cover a very wide swath of frequencies, which also included the Liberty's?

Once again, if it's so obvious, why isn't this pointed out as such by any of the inquiries? It should have been very easy for communication experts to have pointed this out. There were no lack of them yet no one makes any such claim.

You're obviously an expert. What are your qualification in radio communications?
Why? Aren't many military ships worldwide numbered? And if they aren't, is that general knowledge?

Show me middle eastern ships at that time that had numbers. Not only was the Eygyptian navy miniscule(5?)
Pilots were scrambled up in the air on the assumption of an attack. Did they have a recognition manual with them? Did they have time to look at it under the assumed circumstances of ground forces under naval attack? Did these pilots have any reason to assume there was anything down there but an Egyptian ship?
but Israel had for sometime tracked their ships(I read that in a 6 Day War book.) plus had spies where in fact one person during that timeframe was executed for spying on their navy.
And that made these individual pilots just how much more aware of the ID of the ship they saw below? Having accurate intel doesn't mean that every pilot or officer in the entire military is aware of the details. How could you even draw such a conclusion?
As I mentioned, "this person", as you prefer to leave him a nameless entity,
I didn't and don't care what his name is.
Correct. That is what I assumed. Persons who were witness at the time who don't parrot the conspiracy fantasies are deemed irrelevant.
But obviously he's just a nobody, a traitorous American naval servicemen, with ulterior motives to offend his fellow navymen and country. Yep. That must be it.

Nope I didn't attack him or Cristol either. I just think they are wrong.
Based on wishful thinking and whether the flag blew this way or that way and in total disregard for every single transcripts for all sides involved and without a shred of evidence that anyone authorized this attack with criminal intent.

Classic kangaroo court, Mr. Kangaroo.
If you would, for a change, bother reading Dr. Nowicki's documentation, you would know that Dr. Nowicki's involvement began in picking up IAF voice communications on the completion of the aerial attack and thereafter.
That is what I more or less said. The communications were from just the helicopters. You know and I know that commo was intercepted from the helicopters after the attack. Why would I need to keep saying it? No communications were used by the recon plane nor fighters. Why would that be? I've read the communications documentation probably more than you have.
Once again (2nd time? 3rd time? 4th? I've lost track), read the transcripts on this page (http://www.thelibertyincident.com/nsa2003.html) for NSA recordings 104 and 105.
I'll tell you my thoughts on this conspiracy theory :). I don't think it was an attack by Israel as a goverment per se. I think it was directed by person/persons unknown(Dyan?) for whatever reason I don't know.
Magical, mystical, wonderful................................

But of course, the evil pirate with the eyepatch! Just like in the movies! Oops - he had 2 legs. :roll:

Guess, guess, guess! Why not?! So what if it's baseless!
with full disregard of the facts and of the opinions of experienced military professionals on both sides of the ocean
Your version of facts are different than my version of facts or should I say interpreted differently.
Nope. Mine are both documented, factually pointing out the errors of the accusers and showing actual military precedents where such tragedies have happened throughout modern military history up until the most recent times.

Really gotta go!

[The Avon Lady]

And with that, I close off another day of having to deal with one of the latest blood libels against my people. Yes, that's what it is - a blood libel - plain and simple.
Is that aimed at me?
Nope. Some of the people whose claims you promote. The conspiracy is a libel. BTW, search around and you'll find a number of crewmembers and their general asusmptions about Israel and Jews.

Bye! Really! :damn:

[Jimbuna]

Arg! :arrgh!: Let's wipe the slate clean. :yep:

This tragedy is the result of definite incopitence and hasty military procedures along with a series of immediate events during the heat of a war, in a battle arena. That's what it boils down to. That's what the documentation from all sides shows. That's what has happened in numerous friendly fire incidents that took place both before and after the Liberty incident, including cases where much more sophisticated equipment and communications were involved.

Personally speaking, I'd settle for that :yep:

[bradclark1]

Please document this. They were jamming voice frequencies. How do you know that the jamming didn't cover a very wide swath of frequencies, which also included the Liberty's?
I would assume the commander would know what he was talking about. Some bearing on this being a Signit ship and all. The aircraft carrier also reported jamming. It's in those reorts you like throwing around but some reason you don't read yourself.The high command voice circuit regardless of frequency. Do I need to translate that for you?
Once again, if it's so obvious, why isn't this pointed out as such by any of the inquiries? It should have been very easy for communication experts to have pointed this out. There were no lack of them yet no one makes any such claim.
If you read the NSA report which I'm beginning to think you haven't read squat it's on page 28.
You're obviously an expert. What are your qualification in radio communications? I talked on them a lot. :)
Pilots were scrambled up in the air on the assumption of an attack. Did they have a recognition manual with them? Did they have time to look at it under the assumed circumstances of ground forces under naval attack? Did these pilots have any reason to assume there was anything down there but an Egyptian ship?
Exactly what would an assumed Egyptian cargo ship use to fire rounds 10 plus miles? The planes weren't taken under fire. What was this hurry?
The actual El Quseir did have a 3" gun on it and the maximum range would be about 6km which is a little over three miles.
Having accurate intel doesn't mean that every pilot or officer in the entire military is aware of the details. How could you even draw such a conclusion?
Thats why they call it intelligence.
Correct. That is what I assumed. Persons who were witness at the time who don't parrot the conspiracy fantasies are deemed irrelevant.
Why don't you quote the whole block.
I didn't and don't care what his name is. I'm just interested in what he's saying.
Comes across a little differently now doesn't it?
Once again (2nd time? 3rd time? 4th? I've lost track), read the transcripts on this page for NSA recordings 104 and 105.
You are beginng to look silly. I think you need to put your glasses on again.
That is what I more or less said. The communications were from just the helicopters. You know and I know that commo was intercepted from the helicopters after the attack. Why would I need to keep saying it? No communications were used by the recon plane nor fighters. Why would that be? I've read the communications documentation probably more than you have.
What don't you understand? I'm saying the only intercepted communications was helicopter communications. I don't even know what you are arguing about. Their control is guiding them or it's helicopter to helicopter. What is the problem? You can also read page 34/35 on the NSA report.
Based on wishful thinking and whether the flag blew this way or that way and in total disregard for every single transcripts for all sides involved and without a shred of evidence that anyone authorized this attack with criminal intent.
Classic kangaroo court, Mr. Kangaroo.

The reports ask's more questions then it answers. I'm amplifing those questions. Try reading the transcripts before you try quoting them.
Magical, mystical, wonderful................................
But of course, the evil pirate with the eyepatch! Just like in the movies! Oops - he had 2 legs.
Guess, guess, guess! Why not?! So what if it's baseless!
All you are doing is assuming Cristol and Nowicki are clearing Israel but you haven't even read any reports that they've put out because if you had you wouldn't be making some of the comments you're making because the information is right there.
Nope. Mine are both documented, factually pointing out the errors of the accusers and showing actual military precedents where such tragedies have happened throughout modern military history up until the most recent times.
What errors? I've answered every comment you have made with facts and all you do is answer garbage (like the above). The tragedy was intentional or unintentional? I say intentional but not condoned by the Israeli goverment.

I seem to be coming across as agressive. Not meant to be kind of. :)