U.S.S. Liberty [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

Iceman

09-14-05, 04:13 PM

I don't know if this topic has been discussed elsewhere on this forum but after reading alot of Kaptains latest post I stumbled onto stories about the USS Pubelo and more intrestingly the USS Liberty...the following article and articles so far I have read are pretty trippy and disturbing.

'The USS Liberty': America's Most Shameful Secret
by Eric S. Margolis

NEW YORK – On the fourth day of the 1967 Arab Israeli War, the intelligence ship 'USS Liberty' was steaming slowly in international waters, 14 miles off the Sinai Peninsula. Israeli armored forces were racing deep into Sinai in hot pursuit of the retreating Egyptian army.

'Liberty,' a World War II freighter, had been converted into an intelligence vessel by the top-secret US National Security Agency, and packed with the latest signals and electronic interception equipment. The ship bristled with antennas and electronic 'ears' including TRSSCOMM, a system that delivered real-time intercepts to Washington by bouncing a stream of microwaves off the moon.

'Liberty' had been rushed to Sinai to monitor communications of the belligerents in the Third Arab Israeli War: Israel and her foes, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

At 0800 hrs, 8 June, 1967, eight Israeli recon flights flew over 'Liberty,' which was flying a large American flag. At 1400 hrs, waves of low-flying Israeli Mystere and Mirage-III fighter-bombers repeatedly attacked the American vessel with rockets, napalm, and cannon. The air attacks lasted 20 minutes, concentrating on the ship's electronic antennas and dishes. The 'Liberty' was left afire, listing sharply. Eight of her crew lay dead, a hundred seriously wounded, including the captain, Commander William McGonagle.

At 1424 hrs, three Israeli torpedo boats attacked, raking the burning 'Liberty' with 20mm and 40mm shells. At 1431hrs an Israeli torpedo hit the 'Liberty' midship, precisely where the signals intelligence systems were located. Twenty-five more Americans died.

Israeli gunboats circled the wounded 'Liberty,' firing at crewmen trying to fight the fires. At 1515, the crew were ordered to abandon ship. The Israeli warships closed and poured machine gun fire into the crowded life rafts, sinking two. As American sailors were being massacred in cold blood, a rescue mission by US Sixth Fleet carrier aircraft was mysteriously aborted on orders from the White House.

An hour after the attack, Israeli warships and planes returned. Commander McGonagle gave the order. 'prepare to repel borders.' But the Israelis, probably fearful of intervention by the US Sixth Fleet, departed. 'Liberty' was left shattered but still defiant, her flag flying.

The Israeli attacks killed 34 US seamen and wounded 171 out of a crew of 297, the worst loss of American naval personnel from hostile action since World War II.

Less than an hour after the attack, Israel told Washington its forces had committed a 'tragic error.' Later, Israel claimed it had mistaken 'Liberty' for an ancient Egyptian horse transport. US Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, and Joint Chiefs of Staff head, Admiral Thomas Moorer, insisted the Israeli attack was deliberate and designed to sink 'Liberty.' So did three CIA reports; one asserted Israel's Defense Minister, Gen. Moshe Dayan, had personally ordered the attack.

In contrast to American outrage over North Korea's assault on the intelligence ship 'Pueblo,' Iraq's mistaken missile strike on the USS 'Stark,' last fall's bombing of the USS 'Cole' in Aden, and the recent US-China air incident, the savaging of 'Liberty' was quickly hushed up by President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara.

The White House and Congress immediately accepted Israel's explanation and let the matter drop. Israel later paid a token reparation of US $6 million. There were reports two Israeli pilots who had refused to attack 'Liberty' were jailed for 18 years.

Surviving 'Liberty' crew members would not be silenced. They kept demanding an open inquiry and tried to tell their story of deliberate attack to the media. Israel's government worked behind the scenes to thwart these efforts, going so far as having American pro-Israel groups accuse 'Liberty's' survivors of being 'anti-Semites' and 'Israel-haters.' Major TV networks cancelled interviews with the crew. A book about the 'Liberty' by crewman James Ennes' was dropped from distribution. The Israel lobby branded him 'an Arab propagandist.'

The attack on 'Liberty' was fading into obscurity until last week, when intelligence expert James Bamford came out with Body of Secrets, his latest book about the National Security Agency. In a stunning revelation, Bamford writes that unknown to Israel, a US Navy EC-121 intelligence aircraft was flying high overhead the 'Liberty,' electronically recorded the attack. The US aircraft crew provides evidence that the Israeli pilots knew full well that they were attacking a US Navy ship flying the American flag.

Why did Israel try to sink a naval vessel of its benefactor and ally? Most likely because 'Liberty's' intercepts flatly contradicted Israel's claim, made at the war's beginning on 5 June, that Egypt had attacked Israel, and that Israel's massive air assault on three Arab nations was in retaliation. In fact, Israel began the war by a devastating, Pearl-Harbor style surprise attack that caught the Arabs in bed and destroyed their entire air forces.

Israel was also preparing to attack Syria to seize its strategic Golan Heights. Washington warned Israel not to invade Syria, which had remained inactive while Israel fought Egypt. Bamford says Israel's offensive against Syria was abruptly postponed when 'Liberty' appeared off Sinai, then launched once it was knocked out of action. Israel's claim that Syria had attacked it could have been disproved by 'Liberty.'

Most significant, 'Liberty's' intercepts may have shown that Israel seized upon sharply rising Arab-Israeli tensions in May-June 1967 to launch a long-planned war to invade and annex the West Bank, Jerusalem, Golan and Sinai.

Far more shocking was Washington's response. Writes Bamford: 'Despite the overwhelming evidence that Israel attacked the ship and killed American servicemen deliberately, the Johnson Administration and Congress covered up the entire incident.' Why?

Domestic politics. Johnson, a man never noted for high moral values, preferred to cover up the attack rather than anger a key constituency and major financial backer of the Democratic Party. Congress was even less eager to touch this 'third rail' issue.

Commander McGonagle was quietly awarded the Medal of Honor for his and his men's heroism – not in the White House, as is usual, but in an obscure ceremony at the Washington Navy Yard. Crew member's graves were inscribed, 'died in the Eastern Mediterranean..' as if they had be killed by disease, rather than hostile action.

A member of President Johnson's staff believed there was a more complex reason for the cover-up: Johnson offered Jewish liberals unconditional backing of Israel, and a cover-up of the 'Liberty' attack, in exchange for the liberal toning down their strident criticism of his policies in the then raging Vietnam War.

Israel, which claims it fought a war of self defense in 1967 and had no prior territorial ambitions, will be much displeased by Bamford's revelations. Those who believe Israel illegally occupies the West Bank and Golan will be emboldened.

Much more important, the US government's long, disgraceful cover-up of the premeditated attack on 'Liberty' has now burst into the open and demands full-scale investigation. After 34 years, the voices of 'Liberty's' dead and wounded seamen must finally be heard.

From this web site...http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html

what's intresting to me is the statement about the 2 pilots jailed for 18yrs for not firing...to me if this is true then these men are Hero's to me.

The fact of the whole incident does not surprise me really, and accident or not, although seems highly unlikely, considering the reputation of Isreali pilots being ranked the best in the world...the act of the those pilots refusing to fire is to be commended and rewarded.A damn movie should be made of them if nothing else to let people remember little ugly incidents like this and more to remember the fallen and pay homage to the real Hero's.

18yrs in jail is a damn long time.

Anyway Kaptain...this is what happens when ya keep posting intresting topics.As a person from Isreal, Avon Lady or anyone else I would be curious to learn more about this incident.

http://www.ussliberty.org/g/libertyd13a.jpg
http://www.ussliberty.org/g/lg/lgwalsh06.jpg
http://www.ussliberty.org/g/lg/lg0031.jpg

Kapitan

09-14-05, 04:17 PM

this most definatly was an attack a stray plane witha few bullets and a bomb would be a mis judgement but fighters and napalm definat attack

mind you long time coming its bound to happen when you poke your nose into forign affairs you end up getting it broken

Type941

09-14-05, 04:30 PM

she did well to stay afloat. I think it's a miracle the ship didn't think. I heard about this in small detail, but nothing like the shooting of lifeboats to smithereens.

Kapitan

09-14-05, 04:44 PM

about the same time a flight of mig 25's were recording speed records over isreal the isrealies claimed mach 3 and above for these fighters.

as for this incident i can do my best to find out but its a US ship isreali jets nothing to do with russia or its forign poloicy so i cant realy help but what i will say is this.

any ship found to be ease dropping off the coast or near coast is a target it doesnt matter if its from another country thats not involed it doesnt matter if its in international waters

if a country wants you to poke your nose out of its busisness then this is the result and it will happen time after time your vessels are all labeld targets to any side even if you are nutrel.

now all i could suggest is that isreal is trying to cover something up in attacking this ship possibly it could help convict them if they loose of war crimes or perhapse they just wanted to be left alone

who knows i will try my best to find out

Iceman

09-14-05, 04:45 PM

mind you long time coming its bound to happen when you poke your nose into forign affairs you end up getting it broken

This sounds like a pretty crappy comment...almost sounds like you are content and smug about the incident, or it's like a comment from the wizard....Yep I predicted it type of nonsense.

Rockstar

09-14-05, 04:56 PM

It's only my opinion but I's say accident. It just doesn't make sense for Israel to knowingly attack the U.S. What would they have gained by it?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty1.html

Kapitan

09-14-05, 04:56 PM

what i was meaning when i said that was not ment to be offencive it was ment to translate something like this:

if you send a ship to spy on a country during a war then it stands to reason one side doesnt want another country knowing what its doing so to stop that country from finding out they do this ^^^^

im not smug about the incident in fact im quite shocked im very surprised that isreal was not taken to an international court over this incident which could have led to a more detailed investigation

the ship shouldnt have been attacked the ship was nutrel it was also in international waters and it was not helping any side this directly violates international law !

no im not smug about it in fact i resent the comment just cause i see one picture of a blown up us ship doesnt mean im all over the moon in fact its rather the opposite i can only but feel for the poor guys on that ship knowing that i could also be in the same situation in years to come.

i am to join the navy very soon i could be in that position i dont celebrate the idea of having any ship blown beneath any person certinaly if its a nutrel and not breaking any laws.

if you want to put it into my words that is exactly what i do and what i say

when some one pokes there nose into my buisness round my way they know about it generaly because i give them a warning and if they continue i make thier life hell i aint a nice person when im taken down to skin and bone i fight alot because others invade my space i dont like that the comment is just my way of saying something its not ment to offend

bradclark1

09-14-05, 05:27 PM

I read the book. They had the U.S. flag flying and clearly visible. They were waving a flag at the gunboats. It was a deliberate attack.
What sucks is that the ships commander when he recieved his instructions warned it was too close and he also tryed to get an escort but was refused.
When word of the attack finaly made it to fleet they launched a strike but it got called back. They had to be ordered twice to return to the carrier because they couldn't believe the recall. The Liberty was left to hang and had to make it back to fleet by itself. I got the impression that the U.S. would have preffered it to have sunk with all hands. The crew was treated like prisoners when Liberty returned to port. They were not even allowed off the ship while repairs were underway.
The blame was unofficialy but on the skipper. The skipper is now dead and died with the Liberty hanging over him.
An instance of a nation turning it's back on it's servicemen.

Kapitan

09-14-05, 05:30 PM

and im accused of being smug :nope: :stare:

Iceman

09-14-05, 07:07 PM

Following their torpedo attack, the torpedo boats moved up and down the length of the ship (both the port and starboard sides), continuing their attack, raking the ship with cannon and machine gun fire.[21] In Malta, crewmen were later assigned the task of counting all of the holes in the ship that were the size of a man’s hand or larger. They found a total of 861 such holes, in addition to "thousands" of .50 caliber machine gun holes. Taken from...http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.htm

I don't care who's Navy it is ,or who Isreal thought they were attacking ,it is/was a shameful act.Even if they were atatcking they're "enimes" have they no concious?
Makes ya take a double take...My own government is most to blame for letting it go unsettled to boot don't get me wrong.I could see how those big 15inch guns too looked ominius too..yea right.

Iceman

09-14-05, 07:19 PM

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ussliberty.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/selquseir2.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/sliberty2.jpg
Mistaken Identity? I'll concede that being a civillian but I am not a trained pilot like the guy who comments on this link..Those big numbers on the front of the boat may tell me something though being a noob.

The more I look into this the more I become leary of Isreali intentions....http://www.washington-report.org/archives/August_2005/0508016.html

Not to be onesided either can anyone tell me what they think of some of these links...or this one too plz.
http://www.masada2000.org/

tycho102

09-14-05, 08:54 PM

Yeah, I remember reading about that awhile back. I have no doubt that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing. The American government, at the time, felt discretion was the better part of valour. I don't know exactly why.

Didn't know about them shooting the life rafts. The only thing I can think of is they thought the Americans might have some fairly sensitive information concerning Israeli communications, and if they were taken hostage by Egyptian, Palestinian, or Syrian forces, it could cause some serious problems.

It's a rocky relationship. It's been a rocky relationship.

Iceman

09-14-05, 10:20 PM

Yea I hear ya Tyco...I spent all day reading stuff about both sides..of this incident and between Isreal and Arabs...man..lot of hate on all sides. :gulp: run Forest run..bummer incident no matter how ya look at it.

bradclark1

09-14-05, 10:38 PM

What really sucked is that there was nowhere on the ship that was safe. 50 cal. rounds were punching through to the center and beyond of the thin skined ship. It didn't matter where you were.

August

09-14-05, 10:47 PM

Iceman

09-14-05, 11:19 PM

The Avon Lady

09-15-05, 01:43 AM

The Avon Lady

09-15-05, 01:45 AM

The excuse that they didn'nt know who they were shooting is irrelevant..would it have mattered?To anhaliate a crew in this manner is a war crime in my book.
Yes.

I think all the American WWII pilots who attacked Japanese ships should be put on trial and to shame for their actions - even posthumously.

Sinking ships! Pfffft! Who ever heard?!

Yeh.

Right.

Sure.

Abraham

09-15-05, 02:29 AM

What strikes me as hard to believe with the intentional attack theory is all the firepower the Israelis are supposed to have used and they still couldn't sink the ship. Machine gunning the lifeboats and they still left enough of the crew alive to work the ship out of the danger zone.

Now i'm no expert, but it seems to me that if they really intended to sink the ship and murder the survivor/witnesses, then the Israelis did a strikingly lousy job of it.

A couple other things i'm wondering about:

A 6 hour timelag between recon and attack. Now a ship can cover a lot of distance in 6 hours, and i wonder, regardless of what the recon had identified her as, how the attacking planes knew it was the same vessel.

The second attack, (third if you want to count the boats seperate) an hour later was apparently called off at the last second because of a threat that if, if the attacks were intentional, had existed for at least 2 and a half hours.

What i do know is that flying a neutral flag is an old deception in naval warfare, nobody in Washington told the Isrealis that the Liberty was going to be there and even today friendly fire incidents are a fact of war.
I've read the book. I found it interesting, but in many points inaccurate and biased towards Israel. It ends with a highly speculative conspiracy theory.
August touches some good points here.

The authoritive study on the Six Day War, "Six Days of War", by Michael Oren (Oxford University Press 2002) gives the following further info:
1. Egypth had declared a 100 miles off limits zone for neutral shipping.
2. The US government had not reacted on repeated Israeli requests to provide them with a naval liason to contact the 6th Fleet if necessairy, because Johnson considered that too much involvment.
3. Rabin (Israeli Chief of Staff) had summoned the US naval attaché and told him that Israel would defend it's coast by all means possible and requested that the US should acknowledge or remove all ships.
4. Rabin had given a standing order that any inidentified ships in the war area should be sunk.
5. The Israeli navy was - at that time - badly equipped and performed poorly during the Six Day War.
6. The US 6th Fleet stayed at least 240 miles off the coast.
7. The JCS had sent 5 cables ordering the USS Liberty 100 miles off coast, but due to the overloaded navy communication system (there was a war going on in Vietnam!) and human error these orders were first routed to the Navy headquarters in the Phillipines and only reached the ship when it was far too late.
8. Consequently the USS Liberty was still sailing at 5 kts 13 miles off the Sinai coast between Port Said and El Arish, an area rarely used by merchant shipping, on June 8th, when it was spotted at 05:55 by an Israeli reconaissance flight.
9. Israeli Navy Headquarters first marked the position of the USS Liberty with a red marker ("unidentified") but after research in Jane's Fighting Ships with a green marker ("neutral").
10. In accordance with SOP's the navy duty officer removed at 11:00 the green marker (at the end of his shift) because it was too old and not longer considered accurate. The Israeli navy thought the USS Liberty had moved away.
11. Around 11:25 there was a huge series of explosions at El Arish - which was actually an ammunition dump igniting - that was reported as shelling from sea (Egypth had shelled the coast near El Arish on June 7th).
A naval observer with the army spotted "two ships" off the coast.
12. Rabin reiterated his standing order to sink any unidentified ships but cautionned because Russian ships were reportedly operating nearby.
13. Since no Israeli aircraft were available the navy was requested to intercede.
14. Around the same time the USS Liberty reached the eastern limit of its patrol and turned back in the direction of Port Said.
15. Naval headquarters in Haifa did not respond to the order of the General Staf for half an hour after which a rebuke containing the mistake was sent: "The coast isbeing shelled and you - the navy - have done nothing".
16. Around noon the navy dispatched three torpedo boats to find and destroy the "enemy".
17. Since the MTB's did not expect to overtake the "enemy", naval headquarters contacted the air force, which diverted 2 Mirages from a routine patrol over the Sinai. The planes were cleared to attack if the ship was not Israeli.
18. At 13:57 this attack started.
After that things went completely out of control. The air force competited with the navy about the kill. The air force planes were not equipped to attack a ship. There were at certain levels of command still doubts about the identity of the ship etc.
During a strafing run an air force pilot made a positive identification and broke off the attack.
Since Dayan was with the army at Hebron and the chief of the air force, Motta Hod, was en route from a briefing Rabin took personal command of the air force and navy operations. He sent two helicopters to help the crew of the USS Liberty and at 14:20 ordered the torpedo boats to remain at a distance (without furter explanation).
The torpedo boats nevertheless arrived on the scene at 14:44, made a completely wrong identification ("Egypthian supply vessel"), tried to signal the USS Liberty and after that failed, attacked. The attack was as lousy as the identification. The air force helicopters were told that the ship was Egypthian after all. Only when the torpedo boats were convinced of their mistake and positively identified the ship, they broke off the attack.
About two hours later Johnson got a cable that the USS Liberty was attacked "60-100 miles north of Egypth". He first assumed that the Soviets had attacked... Again two hoiurs later the Israeli embassy in Washington confirmed the Israeli "mistaken action".

In my opinion it was a screw up from the US and the Israeli's and both had lots of reasons to downplay their own mistakes. What was the ship doing without adequate protection so close to the coast? Why were the cables to withdraw recieved too late? Why was there no naval liason between the US and Israel established? are some of the nasty questions for the Americans. The incompetence and trigger-happiness of the Israeli navy is clear to everyone.

One thing is certain to me: although Israeli units did their best to sink the USS Liberty, there was no intention from the Israeli command to attack the american vessel for any sinister reason. It seems that the mission of the USS Liberty was a mistake by itself - unless the ship was there to relay secret communications from US submarines operating off the Egypthian coast (operation "Frontlet 615"), which was an operation that could not be revealed at that time for political reasons.

Skybird

09-15-05, 04:37 AM

Don't know much about it, just imagine some info from one docu film I have seen some years ago. From that I concluded that the Israelis prooved that the Liberty was sent to a location where the Americans knew in advance they shouldn'T send it to. Klingons. So intention of US that was perceived as intel threat or provocation by the Israelis, and intentional attack on Israeli side. But this is just my less than 2 cents, and it was just one docu.

6. The US 6th Fleet stayed at least 240 kts off the coast.
yeah, they built them pretty fast back then :-j

M.Mira

09-15-05, 08:13 AM

u.s.s liberty
this is my fierst posting
abraham, this is very interesting
i am thankful
:up:

Rockstar

09-15-05, 09:32 AM

I think one choice is missing in the poll. The fog of war.

bradclark1

09-15-05, 10:05 AM

The Avon Lady

09-15-05, 11:59 AM

Kapitan

09-15-05, 12:45 PM

id just like to ask where the heck does religion come into this ?

bradclark1

09-15-05, 02:01 PM

The conspiracy crackpottery lives on..................................

The USS Liberty: Case Closed (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=5456&only)

USS Liberty Bombing: An Accident (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=7412&only)

Pilot Who Bombed USS Liberty Talks (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8491&only)

Enjoy the show!

Not exactly neutral links AL. They are Jewish links.
Oh my goodness! Jewish links!

And I thought we were talking about Israelis. Silly me! :nope:

Hey the pilot was Jewish, so he doesn't count, right?!

And I'm Jewish, so I don't count, too. I'll just voluntarily place the duct tape back across my mouth.........................

EDIT: By the same logic, Americans and Christians are not reliable sources for this story either. Ain't that a shame!

Those links say this "a linchpin of antisemitic conspiracy". What utter B.S.
So I take it you think it's an antisemitic conspiracy?
What are your reasons for beleiving it was an antisemetic conspiracy?
The pilot said he didn't see a flag. That takes all believeability from it. An American naval vessel does not take down it's flag. They even hauled up a larger flag after the first got shot down.
I'm trying to think of a reason why the crew would lie about anything and I can't think of one.

The Liberty was an unarmed vessel. Why didn't the Israeli navy try to sieze the Liberty. It would have been an easy addition to the Israeli navy plus whatever inteligence they could get from the ship.
They didn't even try. The crew even waved a U.S. flag at the gunboats and the only thing that accomplished was to get the 50 cals turned on them. Why were the life boats shot up so the crew could not leave the ship?

And I thought we were talking about Israelis. Silly me! :nope:
Whats the difference between an Israeli and Jew. I thought they are the same thing. If I offended you I apoligize.
Actually you have me confused or we crossed wires somewhere.

Kapitan

09-15-05, 02:36 PM

Whats the difference between an Israeli and Jew. I thought they are the same thing. If I offended you I apoligize

some isralis arnt jews some are acctualy christian my good friend yaniv comes from isreal and he is christian there is a huge diffrence

its a bit like saying to an american there communist doesnt exactly work does it. fair enough the majority isrealies are jewish but the minority what about them?

as for ceasing the boat easier said than done unless the vessel was in bad credit (ie owed money this is mainly merchant ships) or the ship was a nutrel ship helping the enamy or the ship was carrying some illigal cargo to the enamy the ship should not have been attacked

if it was carrying illicet cargos helping the enamy or what ever else is posted then yes it could be attacked because its against international law therefore the isrealies have a right to attack

using the cover of a nutrel vessel to gain or obtain arms munitions or intelligence is against the international law

but i can see why the pilots attacked it they could have though the liberty was working for the enamy and using the cover of a nutrel country to gather intel which is again against international law

Type941

09-15-05, 02:44 PM

After reading this story it seems that the US had a spy ship that was too close to a zone of war, and Israelis attacked first, and asked the questions later. Bad communication played part. The US didn't want to embarass themselves in what was an obviously embrassing failure which resulted in a tragic loss of life, and they decided to hush hush the incident as good relations with Israel are more important than 1 ship. I can see americans having trouble dealing with the screw up but I don't think he attack was deliberate as in they knew it was american and that's why they attacked.

Abraham

09-15-05, 02:52 PM

u.s.s liberty
this is my fierst posting
abraham, this is very interesting
i am thankful
:up:
Welcome Aboard, Bilge rat, and thanks for the compliment!
:up:

bradclark1

09-15-05, 02:53 PM

Ah okay, thanks. Makes sense.
Israel was at war with Egypt. They could have legally siezed the ship.

The gunboats came close enough to be able to have visual on the crew. Closer with binoculars. Crewmen waving a flag should have been enough to give pause and further investigate.
Eqyptians don't look like Americans.

Abraham

09-15-05, 03:21 PM

Those links say this "a linchpin of antisemitic conspiracy". What utter B.S.
So I take it you think it's an antisemitic conspiracy?Actually it's not. It was a "blame game" between Israel and the US who both had something to hide. But it quikly became a rallying point for anti-Israeli sentiments, especially within the State Department. The book about the question is not anti-semitic, but - as I wrote before - certainly biased and one-sided against Israel.
The pilot said he didn't see a flag. That takes all believeability from it. An American naval vessel does not take down it's flag. They even hauled up a larger flag after the first got shot down.The first U.S. Navy inquiry, conducted by adm. Kidd Jr. when te U.S.S. Liberty reached Sicily, suggested that the slow speed of the U.S.S. Liberty, 5 knots(!) may have been the reason why the flag was not clearly visible. If you've read my earlier post you know that the pilots had orders to destroy any non-Israeli vessel but be aware of not hitting Soviet ships. The pilot clearly noticed that the U.S.S. Liberty did not have Israeli deck markings (at that time a white cross on a blue background) and attacked conform orders. Your suggestion that it was a deliberate attack leaves an inportant question open: Why did the Israeli navy halt its attack after they positively identified the U.S.S. Liberty and did not sink it anyway...?I'm trying to think of a reason why the crew would lie about anything and I can't think of one.The crew did not lie. They were under a fierce attack allright. But the point was that it was not deliberately ordered by the Israeli's but was a stupid foul up. You could also try to answer the question why the intelligence ship was there without warning the warring parties. I know the answer. If you go into harms way ...
The Liberty was an unarmed vessel.No it was not. It was armed with four .50 cal. machine guns. Not much, but still armed. And two fired back at the torpedo boats during the attack, notwithstanding orders to hold fire.
Why didn't the Israeli navy try to sieze the Liberty. It would have been an easy addition to the Israeli navy plus whatever inteligence they could get from the ship.
They didn't even try.Of course they did not. Why shpould they? Estranging their only political ally/superpower? It was not a deliberate attack on an intelligence gathering ship but a bad foul up like they happen during wartime. Boarding and gaining information should prove a deliberate attack.
The crew even waved a U.S. flag at the gunboats and the only thing that accomplished was to get the 50 cals turned on them. Why were the life boats shot up so the crew could not leave the ship?The planes had orders to destroy the target. Waving a flag does not change orders during wartime. The torpedo boats were just trigger happy and made many mistakes during the attack, some of them stupid, some of them fatal. They were clearly incompetent.

I just want to get the facts straight, in order to improve the level of discussion...

Type941

09-15-05, 05:04 PM

I think the it's a mistake to think that just by waving a flag it's enough to identify the ship - as in wartime it is concievable that an enemy ship would try to disguise itself as an ally/neutral. It's possible. As I said above, it seems to be that the LIberty was where it wasn't supposed to be and got attacked for it as there were reports of coastal shelling just before she was sighted. The Israeli seems to have seriously screwed up over identification, but again, to think that they on purpose carnaged a vessel is a little overboard.

Kapitan

09-15-05, 05:41 PM

as i recal two american flags one a huge sized flag and one a normal sized flag was raised also men on deck waiving flags and the fact the numbers on the hull give it kinda away

im sure it was an accident a mis identification not :nope: how the heck can you miss identify that ?

when i mean numbers i mean each navy has its own unique set of numbers italy uses red america white britian black ect ect also some use letters aswell

bradclark1

09-15-05, 05:46 PM

bradclark1

09-15-05, 05:59 PM

as I wrote before - certainly biased and one-sided against Israel.

Understandable, it was written from the crews perspective.

suggested that the slow speed of the U.S.S. Liberty, 5 knots(!) may have been the reason why the flag was not clearly visible.
It was noted there was a brisk breeze. And again crewmen were also waving a flag.

Of course they did not. Why shpould they? Estranging their only political ally/superpower?
Now your saying they knew it was American.

The planes had orders to destroy the target. Waving a flag does not change orders during wartime.
Thats why they have smart people drive airplanes.

Skybird

09-15-05, 06:01 PM

my fault, deleted.

Type941

09-15-05, 06:01 PM

I said above, it seems to be that the LIberty was where it wasn't supposed to be and got attacked for it as there were reports of coastal shelling just before she was sighted.

I don't think you can mistake the Liberty having deck guns.

you don't need a deck gun to shell a coast - rockets would do... :stare:

bradclark1

09-15-05, 09:54 PM

August

09-15-05, 09:59 PM

This ship looked like a freighter.
It had guns capable of shelling the coast.
It flew various neutral flags as a disguise.

The Raider Atlantis
http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/hilfskreuzer/pictures/hk_atlantis/hk_atlantis_01_in_indian_ocean.jpg

Abraham

09-15-05, 10:35 PM

as I wrote before - certainly biased and one-sided against Israel.
Understandable, it was written from the crews perspective.Understandeble that - some of - the crew take an one-sided anti-Israel perspective, but that's not understandeble for an investigative journalist who suggests to reveal the truth. His description of the political situation leading up to the Six Day War and of the Israeli military intentions towards especially Jordan and Syria is extremely one-sided.

suggested that the slow speed of the U.S.S. Liberty, 5 knots(!) may have been the reason why the flag was not clearly visible.
It was noted there was a brisk breeze. And again crewmen were also waving a flag.If you had quoted my line fully it would be clear to others that this was suggested at an U.S. Navy inquiry. I left this statement as a fact and did not give my opinion about it.

Of course they did not. Why should they? Estranging their only political ally/superpower?
Now your saying they knew it was American.No, you don't get my intentions. It was a war zone. There were standing orders to protect the - vulnerable - Israeli cost at any cost, orders of which the U.S. had been warned. The U.S. did want to play a level game with Arabs and Israeli's so it refused Israeli requests for a naval liason, the ship was at the wrong time at the wrong place, misidentiofied as I pointed out and attacked. But at no time had the Israeli's the intention to attack an U.S. vessel. Why should they? Estranging their only political ally/superpower?

The planes had orders to destroy the target. Waving a flag does not change orders during wartime.
Thats why they have smart people drive airplanes.I agree, that's why it was the Israeli air force that made the first positive identification and stopped the attack, which led to Rabin stepping in - before the torpedo boats misidentified the boat again and made their attack by the way.

We all know that in war things screw up. Patriots shoot down Tornado's in Iraq; U.S. F-16's bomb Canadian ground forces in Afghanistan... the list is endless.
The U.S. apologizes, pays compensation and leaves some hurt families, appoints a commission and that's it. It's the anatomy of a screw up.
There are many questions remaining about the U.S.S. Liberty, especially why it was still there and what it was doing, but suggesting that the ship was not attacked by accident but by a deliberate Israeli decision with sinister motives can't stand up to historic scrunity.
I've read 'Operation Cyanide' (the book) some time ago, and big parts of it again after this thread started, I follow the webside of the U.S.S. Liberty and I stick to my conclusion that the book is biased, it projects the wrong factual circumstances and the attack was an accident.
And I don't believe all the rumors around the story.
If the Israeli's really wanted to 'get rid' of the ship they could have send one properly equipped flight of planes and the ship would have been sunk in minutes. The attack was piecemeal because it was not properly coordinated.
And what would have been a convincing argument forthe Israeli's to attack an American naval vessel? The book asks questions but does not come with historically correct answers...because there are none!

Iceman

09-15-05, 11:40 PM

The conspiracy crackpottery lives on..................................

The USS Liberty: Case Closed (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=5456&only)

USS Liberty Bombing: An Accident (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=7412&only)

Pilot Who Bombed USS Liberty Talks (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8491&only)

Enjoy the show!

I expected a little better response from you Avon Lady...I don't suggest any conspiracy at all just trying to look at the facts.Hoped to get a little better input from you, I read the one sided pages from both sides and you hopped right on board with them which is cool, I understand about being defensive about ones country.It is intresting to me to hear how Isreal claims it did not start this 6 day War yet when you look it up on like Encyclopidea.com or whatever it says they did...and really that is not my point...what I try to understand is that Isreal had so much Crap going on, on all it's borders it does not suprise me one bit to see how this happened when war is going on all around Isreal.America I feel is to blame really for not having more wisdom to see this potential accident waiting to happen...also ya got the always cloak and dagger type crap going on between America and Isreal...maybe the ship "was" relaying info to Isreal and mistakingly told them there own position as a target.... :doh: ...God only knows....Was just reading some history really about the USS Pubelo because somehow Kaptain got me into all these new topics and somehow I came across this one.No hard feelings.

enjoy the show lol...

bradclark1

09-16-05, 09:58 AM

This ship looked like a freighter.
It had guns capable of shelling the coast.
It flew various neutral flags as a disguise.

It's disguse is of a civilian frieghter. Liberty is clearly a military ship.

bradclark1

09-16-05, 10:01 AM

This is just going round and round going nowhere. No minds are going to be changed. I'm done.

Brad

Type941

09-16-05, 10:22 AM

Abraham

09-16-05, 11:38 AM

This is just going round and round going nowhere. No minds are going to be changed. I'm done.
Brad
Mine has certainly changed!
After reading "Operation Cyanide' I gave some credibility to the "Israel intentionally wanted to sink the U.S.S. Liberty"-story, untill I read a serious study about the Six Day War that really covers all angles of the matter, ducked no questions and put the matter in the correct political and military framework.
The result is - as I said before - a screw-up from both Americans and Israeli's during war time, but not a sinister plot of one of the two parties involved.

If some want to believe in complicated conspiracies without logic reason an not based on historic facts, feel free to do so, but don't complain about lacking credibility...

USS Liberty...Accident or Attack?
Accident 9% [ 2 ]
Attack 72% [ 16 ]
Failure in chain of command 0% [ 0 ]
Bound to happen given the circumstances 18% [ 4 ]
Other... 0% [ 0 ]
The first four answers are correct:
It was an accidental attack, caused by failure in the chain of command and was bound to happen given the circumstances.

Kapitan

09-16-05, 11:59 AM

blatent attack no one unless blind misses an american flag its unique only to america now if it was dutch russian chinease then maybe

tycho102

09-16-05, 12:14 PM

On the question of why it didn't sink:

Cargo ships and military ships have a fundamentally different honeycomb internal structure. Cargos have large open areas, and military ships are compartmentalized to a far larger extent. If you hit an ammo bunker, then it's going create a large, open internal space. Which floods, which sinks the canoe.

It's a converted cargo ship, and there would have been some changes made to it. Those large open areas would have been compartmented with a bit of welding, just to increase internal security of classified gear and increase living space.

I remember something about it was flying a flag other than American when the first recon of the ship was done. I think after the first attack, the American flag was raised. So, there was deception on the part of the crew, of course.

bradclark1

09-16-05, 12:25 PM

August

09-16-05, 12:39 PM

It's disguse is of a civilian frieghter. Liberty is clearly a military ship.

I disagree. The Liberty was a converted WW2 cargo ship and except for some extra antennas and some numbers painted on the bow, still looked a lot like one. So given that, and the fact the US didn't inform the Israelis of its presence in the war zone, which of the following scenarios is more believable?

a. US navy using an obsolete cargo ship as a military vessel
b. Egyptian navy using an obsolete cargo ship as a military vessel

Besides, iirc, Atlantis once disguised herself as an auxillary cruiser, but the point was that a flag alone is not really an effective means of differentiating between friend, neutral and foe in war.

Type941

09-16-05, 03:02 PM

Abraham

09-16-05, 04:27 PM

Mine has certainly changed!
After reading "Operation Cyanide' I gave some credibility to the "Israel intentionally wanted to sink the U.S.S. Liberty"-story, untill I read a serious study about the Six Day War that really covers all angles of the matter, ducked no questions and put the matter in the correct political and military framework.
The result is - as I said before - a screw-up from both Americans and Israeli's during war time, but not a sinister plot of one of the two parties involved.

If some want to believe in complicated conspiracies without logic reason an not based on historic facts, feel free to do so, but don't complain about lacking credibility...

Okay, whats your source for this serious study?
The most authoritive and comprehensive study at this moment on the Six Day War, its political causes and military actions is - as I wrote in my frist posting on this thread - "Six Days of War", by Michael Oren (Oxford University Press 2002). It uses Arab, Israeli, Soviet and American sources and personal interviews.

Some essential points that need to be considered before anybody can give an evenhanded judgement are:
1. The area where the U.S.S. Liberty sailed was declared a war zone by Egypth and thus forbidden for neutral shipping This was acknowledged by the US, and the Sixth Fleet was withdrawn to a safe distance. So one could expect only warships of Egypth and Israel in that area;
2. Egypth had planned an attack from the Gaza strip along the Israeli coast line on Saturday (Sabbath) May 27, 1967 at first light (Operation Dawn). Orders were given but this attack was litterally halted at the very last moment.
The story is almost unbelievable. Israeli intelligence found out on May 26 that Egypth would strike the next morning. Israel immediately alarmed and informed Washingthon. Shortly after midnight of Saturday May 27, less than six hours before H-hour, Moscow received this news by cable from Washington with an US warning. Premier Kosygin knew about the Egypthian preparations but was shocked to learn that Israel knew them too. He immediately dispatched the Soviet Ambassadors in Israel and Egypth to Premier Eshkol and President Nasser. Within 2 hours Ambassador Chuvakhin woke Eshkol up and spoke to him on Saturday morning between 02:15 and 04:00 in the Dan hotel in Tel Aviv. He achieved nothing. The Soviet Ambassador in Egypth, Pojidaev, spoke at 02:00 for less than an hour with Nasser. Nasser immediately went to the Supreme Headquarters and informed the Army that Operation Dawn was exposed and dhould be stopped. Litteraly 15 minutes(!) before the Egypthian air attack was bound to start the pilots received orders to stand down!
So much for who was the agressor in the Six Day War...
3. Israel had repeatedly requested a naval liason officer from the U.S. 6th Fleet. President Johnson had refused this because he considered it contrairy to his policy of evenhandedness and a possible reason for the Arabs to accuse the US Fleet of support for Israel. This frustrated the Israeli Ambassador in the US so much that he complained: "If war breaks out, we would have no telephone number to call, no code for plane recognition and no way to contact the Sixth Fleet."(!)
4. There were serious political differences between the US and Israel during the weeks before the war. The US withdrew its obligation towards Israel to keep the (intrenational) Straits of Tiran open after Nasser closed them, which was a shock for Israel, and never OK'd the Israeli attack. The U.S. was only willing to lend material support if Israel was struck first, something the country was not prepared to accept.
5. Rabin (Israeli Chief of Staff) had summoned the US naval attaché and told him that Israel would defend it's coast by all means possible and requested that the US should acknowledge or remove all ships.
6. Rabin had given a standing order that any unidentified ships in the war area should be sunk.

The book 'Operation Cyanide' contains many serious factual mistakes.

According to some sources, there might have been a British radar intel operation going on from Jordan towards Israel and a denieable CIA operation with a couple of unarmed RF-4's from Israel to provide both Israel and the US with accurate post strike information against Egypthian targets, as well as a Russian intel and training operation within Egypth. The U.S.S. Liberty may have been tasked to relay intelligence information from US subs off the Egypthian coast. There were US subs in the area (Operation Frontlet 615).
However officially non of the superpowers was or got involved; the Arabs got - conditional and certainly not full - political support from Russia and Israel - conditional and certainly not full - political support from the US.

bradclark1

09-16-05, 05:14 PM

The U.S.S. Liberty may have been tasked to relay intelligence information from US subs off the Egypthian coast. There were US subs in the area (Operation Frontlet 615).
The Liberty was recording radio communications of Israel and Egypt. Thats a fact. They had to go as close to shore as they did because of the range of their equipment and the area they needed to cover.

http://www.rense.com/general47/betey.htm

bradclark1

09-16-05, 05:16 PM

August

09-16-05, 05:23 PM

, but the point was that a flag alone is not really an effective means of differentiating between friend, neutral and foe in war.

You've hit a nail on the head. I hope the confused who think that a flag is enough will stop and think a little before they say that a number on a bow in a color particular to the US Navy is enough to identify the ship. In a time of war.

Exactly how big do you think their navies are?

I would hazard to guess at least bigger than a fighter pilot or gun boat skipper could be expected to remember.

Brad you don't seriously think Isreal attacked the Liberty knowing it was a US ship do you?

bradclark1

09-16-05, 05:41 PM

August

09-16-05, 10:11 PM

Moorer's panel suggested several possible reasons Israel might have wanted to attack a U.S. ship. Among them: Israel intended to sink the ship and blame Egypt because it might have brought the United States into the 1967 war.

That theory makes absolutely no sense. The Israelis were not sporting Egyptian colors, nor were they keeping radio silence.

Only an instantaneous sinking, with no survivors, had any chance of keeping the attacking units from being identified and reported, which is exactly what happend. However the attack was not conducted with weapons that would quickly sink the ship and they didn't even finish the job. If it were indeed a machiavellian plot to frame the Egyptians then it was a strikingly inept one, requiring the cooperation and silence of a very large number of people.

Ship under surveilance for 8 hours prior to attack as close as 200ft

Correction, it was surveilled 8 hours prior to the attack, then contact was broken until the attack itself. That's a long time to guarentee with any degree of certainty the target is the same one seen earlier.

In fact, as is mentioned earlier in this thread, the report the Isreali air and sea units were responding to was not the air recon 8 hours earlier, now removed from the plotting board as too old, but by a ground based observer only a couple hours before the attack.

Ship lettered in white western numerals.
American flag flying.

A trip to my local hardware store and 30 bucks provides me both paint and flag. No US Navy ships were supposed to be there remember?

Looks nothing like anything Egyptian navy has.

It was a (then) 25 year old war surplus cargo design that was still in use by many countries around the world as civilian merchantmen. It doesn't have to be listed in the Egyptian naval order of battle for it to be converted and used by the Egyptian navy. Again, no US Navy ships were supposed to be in the area.

With antenna system an obvious electronic inteligence gatherer.

Antennas are used for more things than intelligence gathering, but even granting that, the question remains whose ship was it? Certainly not the Americans as their fleet, as far as the Israelis knew, was 250 miles away.

bradclark1

09-16-05, 10:52 PM

That theory makes absolutely no sense. The Israelis were not sporting Egyptian colors, nor were they keeping radio silence.
No but they were jamming the ships radio for some odd reason and they would have heard the transmission from Liberty to the fleet.
If they were going to sink an animal transport why would they bother jamming it's radio's?
However if they meant to sink a U.S. navy ship and didn't want it found out they would jam.
Israel never once claimed that they assumed it was the animal transport in disguise. The only one that came up with that assumption is you.

A trip to my local hardware store and 30 bucks provides me both paint and flag. No US Navy ships were supposed to be there remember?

It was a (then) 25 year old war surplus cargo design that was still in use by many countries around the world as civilian merchantmen. It doesn't have to be listed in the Egyptian naval order of battle for it to be converted and used by the Egyptian navy. Again, no US Navy ships were supposed to be in the area.

The Israeli's knew what the Egyptian navy had. It did not look anything like the ship they said it was. You are also wildly assuming this
It doesn't have to be listed in the Egyptian naval order of battle for it to be converted and used by the Egyptian navy or were you there?

Antennas are used for more things than intelligence gathering, but even granting that, the question remains whose ship was it? Certainly not the Americans as their fleet, as far as the Israelis knew, was 250 miles away.
Right, they stuck a large amount of anntena on a animal transport. Painted it gray, used western numerals and flew an american flag to disguise it to shell the shoreline. Does this sound a little dippy? I think it would be obvious that it's an American ship irregardless of where the fleet was.

August

09-17-05, 12:17 AM

I think it would be obvious that it's an American ship irregardless of where the fleet was.

So your assumption is less wild than mine? Lets agree to disagree since it's obvious i'm not going to change your mind.

Kapitan

09-17-05, 01:22 AM

you know what happens to a ship that impersonates a millatery vessel ?

for the royal navy its commendeard or ceased the origanal owners are put in the brig for trying to impersonate one of her majestys ships

Abraham

09-17-05, 01:56 AM

Brad you don't seriously think Isreal attacked the Liberty knowing it was a US ship do you?

Let me see-:
Ship under surveilance for 8 hours prior to attack as close as 200ft
Ship lettered in white western numerals.
American flag flying.
Looks nothing like anything Egyptian navy has.
With antenna system an obvious electronic inteligence gatherer.

Moorer's panel suggested several possible reasons Israel might have wanted to attack a U.S. ship. Among them: Israel intended to sink the ship and blame Egypt because it might have brought the United States into the 1967 war.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1184

So, yes I do. To me you have to be blind not to.Well Bradclark1, you are a true believer and difficult to convince by facts...I have given the answers on the questions you pose. There are really no logic reasons why Israel would intentionally attack an U.S. naval vessel that cannot been countered by reasonable arguments rising from the circumstances, the warsituation and its progress.
Two things we agree upon:
1. The Israeli Defence Forces were capable enough to sink the U.S.S. Liberty if that was really a priority for them.
2. The Israeli Defense Forces did attack but not sink the U.S.S. Liberty, actually halted their air attack first and their navy attack later.
Conclusion: it was a screw up. In your eyes that she was not sunk, in my eyes that she was attacked (and I keep my eyes open in every direction).

bradclark1

09-17-05, 11:50 AM

Edited:: No sense dragging this out more.

The Avon Lady

09-17-05, 12:23 PM

http://www.rense.com/general47/betey.htm
No one seems to have picked up which rabid racist site BC here is quoting from. If you haven't caught his drift yet, here's the home page of Rense (http://www.rense.com/).

I can think of plenty a reputable forum where links to such sites would not be tollerated for a moment.

You be the judge.

Abraham

09-17-05, 01:42 PM

Edited:: No sense dragging this out more.
You're a poor loser, bradclark1...
First I give you the facts and you ignore them.
I give them again, you dispute me and I answer, but you don't reply.
Then you ask me for my source, I give it and you ignore it again.
I point out that you got the facts wrong, that your conclusions are biased and that your sources, which I studied - are at fault and you seem not able to defend your own point of view.
I hope you're not one of those 'don't bother me with the facts because they don't comply with my opinion' guys...
:hmm:
For me this is not a matter of 'winning' but getting the facts straight. Why? Because there are people with a hidden agenda about not getting the facts straight, if you know what I mean.
I've read 'Operation Cyanide' and - given the authorative tone of the 'investigative journalist' - I was ready to give it some credit. But when I checked it with other sources, even 'revisionist' Jewish historians it turned out to be one of those cheap conspiracy stories without much credibility. The crew of the U.S.S. Liberty deserved better...

I've checked your link:http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?=1184.
I do hope they stand up to their name, but they are still a long way from their goal.
What factual credibility has a source that makes enormous blunders by stating:The USS Liberty was an electronic intelligence-gathering ship that was cruising international waters off the Egyptian coast June 8, 1967. Israeli planes and torpedo boats opened fire on the Liberty at what became known as the outbreak of the Israeli-Arab Six-Day War.while the Six Day War started at June 5th 1967 was in its fourth day at that moment?
:rotfl:
Why the Israelis would want to attack an American vessel has never been explained, but the incident came a few months before the 1967 Middle East warin which Egypt and Israel were adversaries.while it was stated above - wrongly - that the attack came at the outbreak of that same war?
:rotfl:

If they can't get the simple historic facts right, they can not be considered a serious source for a debate.

@ The Avon Lady:
One has to scroll a little bit and there it is: anti-Bush and... yes: pure anti-semitism... one subject afer another. Laughable if it would not have been made so disgusting by recent history...
:down:

bradclark1

09-17-05, 02:41 PM

Conclusion: it was a screw up. In your eyes that she was not sunk, in my eyes that she was attacked (and I keep my eyes open in every direction).
Funny I thought conclusion meant conclusion. Let me guess. You made yourself look silly on the Haliburton thread so you thought you would start this up again after AL brought up the links. :rotfl: :rotfl: :up:

Ya'll got me on the truthseeker link. I'll give you that, though the Admiral Moorer link(rense) article is from the Houston Chronicle so you can take it as a matter of public record.Admiral Moorer was CNO at the time. I googled "Egyptian Navy" and these came up so I thought I'd use them. My bad. Should have read more. Does it change anything I've said earlier? No it doesn't.
I've read two books on the Liberty and both say basically the same thing so I'll stand by what I have said.

This says nothing about the "Liberty" incident. It's a blanket statement.
You are "ASSUMING" everything you've said about the Liberty. What I have said is fact.
The most authoritive and comprehensive study at this moment on the Six Day War, its political causes and military actions is - as I wrote in my frist posting on this thread - "Six Days of War", by Michael Oren (Oxford University Press 2002). It uses Arab, Israeli, Soviet and American sources and personal interviews.

Some essential points that need to be considered before anybody can give an evenhanded judgement are:
1. The area where the U.S.S. Liberty sailed was declared a war zone by Egypth and thus forbidden for neutral shipping This was acknowledged by the US, and the Sixth Fleet was withdrawn to a safe distance. So one could expect only warships of Egypth and Israel in that area;
2. Egypth had planned an attack from the Gaza strip along the Israeli coast line on Saturday (Sabbath) May 27, 1967 at first light (Operation Dawn). Orders were given but this attack was litterally halted at the very last moment.
The story is almost unbelievable. Israeli intelligence found out on May 26 that Egypth would strike the next morning. Israel immediately alarmed and informed Washingthon. Shortly after midnight of Saturday May 27, less than six hours before H-hour, Moscow received this news by cable from Washington with an US warning. Premier Kosygin knew about the Egypthian preparations but was shocked to learn that Israel knew them too. He immediately dispatched the Soviet Ambassadors in Israel and Egypth to Premier Eshkol and President Nasser. Within 2 hours Ambassador Chuvakhin woke Eshkol up and spoke to him on Saturday morning between 02:15 and 04:00 in the Dan hotel in Tel Aviv. He achieved nothing. The Soviet Ambassador in Egypth, Pojidaev, spoke at 02:00 for less than an hour with Nasser. Nasser immediately went to the Supreme Headquarters and informed the Army that Operation Dawn was exposed and dhould be stopped. Litteraly 15 minutes(!) before the Egypthian air attack was bound to start the pilots received orders to stand down!
So much for who was the agressor in the Six Day War...
3. Israel had repeatedly requested a naval liason officer from the U.S. 6th Fleet. President Johnson had refused this because he considered it contrairy to his policy of evenhandedness and a possible reason for the Arabs to accuse the US Fleet of support for Israel. This frustrated the Israeli Ambassador in the US so much that he complained: "If war breaks out, we would have no telephone number to call, no code for plane recognition and no way to contact the Sixth Fleet."(!)
4. There were serious political differences between the US and Israel during the weeks before the war. The US withdrew its obligation towards Israel to keep the (intrenational) Straits of Tiran open after Nasser closed them, which was a shock for Israel, and never OK'd the Israeli attack. The U.S. was only willing to lend material support if Israel was struck first, something the country was not prepared to accept.
5. Rabin (Israeli Chief of Staff) had summoned the US naval attaché and told him that Israel would defend it's coast by all means possible and requested that the US should acknowledge or remove all ships.
6. Rabin had given a standing order that any unidentified ships in the war area should be sunk.

This is the only thing you have been right in.
I've checked your link:http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?=1184.
I do hope they stand up to their name, but they are still a long way from their goal.
What factual credibility has a source that makes enormous blunders by stating:www.thetruthseeker.co.uk wrote:
The USS Liberty was an electronic intelligence-gathering ship that was cruising international waters off the Egyptian coast June 8, 1967. Israeli planes and torpedo boats opened fire on the Liberty at what became known as the outbreak of the Israeli-Arab Six-Day War.
while the Six Day War started at June 5th 1967 was in its fourth day at that moment?

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk wrote:
Why the Israelis would want to attack an American vessel has never been explained, but the incident came a few months before the 1967 Middle East warin which Egypt and Israel were adversaries.
while it was stated above - wrongly - that the attack came at the outbreak of that same war?

If they can't get the simple historic facts right, they can not be considered a serious source for a debate.

AvonLady

No one seems to have picked up which rabid racist site BC here is quoting from.
What is racist about that article? Irregardless of the mother site it has no bearing on the article. Where it comes from is the Houston Chronicle so get off your horse.

bradclark1

09-17-05, 03:40 PM

"Six Days of War"
Michael B. Oren is a senior fellow at The Shalem Center in Jerusalem

Shalem Center quarterly. http://www.azure.org.il/

Abraham

09-17-05, 03:40 PM

Conclusion: it was a screw up. In your eyes that she was not sunk, in my eyes that she was attacked (and I keep my eyes open in every direction).
Funny I thought conclusion meant conclusion. Let me guess. You made yourself look silly on the Haliburton thread so you thought you would start this up again after AL brought up the links. :rotfl: :rotfl: :up:
If you really think that because you say I made myself look silly on the Haliburton thread, I am making a posting on the U.S.S. Liberty thread, I suddenly understand your line of reasoning much better!
I thought these were two completely different subjects...
Ya'll got me on the truthseeker link.I could get you on any of the so called facts, because yore sources are at fault.
Check page 81/82 of the "explosive" book 'Operation Cyanide', where the author tries to paint a picture of Egypth being defensive, although attacked first by Israel: "During the Six-Day War, Egypth's surface ships tyook no part in hostilities, resisting the temptation to wipe out Israel's puny contingent... The decision not to deploy its surface naval fleet undermines Israel's claim that Nasser was planning an invasion; the Egypthian Navy could have wrought much damage on coastal cities such as Haifa, Tel Aviv and Ashdod and the Israeli Navy did not have the firepower on its own to counter it."
Should we believe this nonsense?
Of course not!
The passivity of the Egypthian Navy proved nothing of the sort.
Egypth couldn't attack the Israeli coast with naval forces because Israel had gained air supremacy after the first few hours of the war. That sounds more logical to me.
My bad.Not really, I would say: stubbornly ignorant.
Should have read more.Not necessairely. It's in the quality, not in the quantity that you read...
Does it change anything I've said earlier? No it doesn't.I knew you wouldn't surprise me on that one!
:D
I've read two books on the Liberty and both say basically the same thing so I'll stand by what I have said.I've read one book that says one thing and three books that say another thing, so I'll stand by what I have said.
This says nothing about the "Liberty" incident. It's a blanket statement.If you say so...
You are "ASSUMING" everything you've said about the Liberty. What I have said is fact.That's what you ASSUME; but for your information I quoted from an authorative source.
The most authoritive and comprehensive study at this moment on the Six Day War, its political causes and military actions is - as I wrote in my first posting on this thread - "Six Days of War", by Michael Oren (Oxford University Press 2002). It uses Arab, Israeli, Soviet and American sources and personal interviews.

Some essential points that need to be considered before anybody can give an evenhanded judgement are:
1. The area where the U.S.S. Liberty sailed was declared a war zone by Egypth and thus forbidden for neutral shipping This was acknowledged by the US, and the Sixth Fleet was withdrawn to a safe distance. So one could expect only warships of Egypth and Israel in that area;
2. Egypth had planned an attack from the Gaza strip along the Israeli coast line on Saturday (Sabbath) May 27, 1967 at first light (Operation Dawn). Orders were given but this attack was litterally halted at the very last moment.
The story is almost unbelievable. Israeli intelligence found out on May 26 that Egypth would strike the next morning. Israel immediately alarmed and informed Washingthon. Shortly after midnight of Saturday May 27, less than six hours before H-hour, Moscow received this news by cable from Washington with an US warning. Premier Kosygin knew about the Egypthian preparations but was shocked to learn that Israel knew them too. He immediately dispatched the Soviet Ambassadors in Israel and Egypth to Premier Eshkol and President Nasser. Within 2 hours Ambassador Chuvakhin woke Eshkol up and spoke to him on Saturday morning between 02:15 and 04:00 in the Dan hotel in Tel Aviv. He achieved nothing. The Soviet Ambassador in Egypth, Pojidaev, spoke at 02:00 for less than an hour with Nasser. Nasser immediately went to the Supreme Headquarters and informed the Army that Operation Dawn was exposed and dhould be stopped. Litteraly 15 minutes(!) before the Egypthian air attack was bound to start the pilots received orders to stand down!
So much for who was the agressor in the Six Day War...
3. Israel had repeatedly requested a naval liason officer from the U.S. 6th Fleet. President Johnson had refused this because he considered it contrairy to his policy of evenhandedness and a possible reason for the Arabs to accuse the US Fleet of support for Israel. This frustrated the Israeli Ambassador in the US so much that he complained: "If war breaks out, we would have no telephone number to call, no code for plane recognition and no way to contact the Sixth Fleet."(!)
4. There were serious political differences between the US and Israel during the weeks before the war. The US withdrew its obligation towards Israel to keep the (intrenational) Straits of Tiran open after Nasser closed them, which was a shock for Israel, and never OK'd the Israeli attack. The U.S. was only willing to lend material support if Israel was struck first, something the country was not prepared to accept.
5. Rabin (Israeli Chief of Staff) had summoned the US naval attaché and told him that Israel would defend it's coast by all means possible and requested that the US should acknowledge or remove all ships.
6. Rabin had given a standing order that any unidentified ships in the war area should be sunk.

This is the only thing you have been right in.
I've checked your link:http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?=1184.
I do hope they stand up to their name, but they are still a long way from their goal.
What factual credibility has a source that makes enormous blunders by stating:www.thetruthseeker.co.uk wrote:
The USS Liberty was an electronic intelligence-gathering ship that was cruising international waters off the Egyptian coast June 8, 1967. Israeli planes and torpedo boats opened fire on the Liberty at what became known as the outbreak of the Israeli-Arab Six-Day War.
while the Six Day War started at June 5th 1967 was in its fourth day at that moment?

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk wrote:
Why the Israelis would want to attack an American vessel has never been explained, but the incident came a few months before the 1967 Middle East warin which Egypt and Israel were adversaries.
while it was stated above - wrongly - that the attack came at the outbreak of that same war?

If they can't get the simple historic facts right, they can not be considered a serious source for a debate.

AvonLady

No one seems to have picked up which rabid racist site BC here is quoting from.
What is racist about that article? Irregardless of the mother site it has no bearing on the article. Where it comes from is the Houston Chronicle so get off your horse.
I just want to say that there are dozens of inaccurate or plain faulty facts in 'Operation Cyanide' and where the book gives facts, it's only halve truths. believe me on my word, it was a stupid accident, both sides were to blame, and the case is closed.

bradclark1

09-17-05, 04:04 PM

"Six Days of War" would seem to me to be a one sided history.

Not really, I would say: stubbornly ignorant.
riiight. :roll:

I just want to say that there are dozens of inaccurate or plain faulty facts in 'Operation Cyanide' and where the book gives facts, it's only halve truths. believe me on my word, it was a stupid accident, both sides were to blame, and the case is closed.
Can't say. I've never read it.

Your thinking is based on one thing. Egypt called the area a war zone and that Begin ordered all non Israeli ships sunk. Thats your whole argument.
It isn't one.
The Mei Lie(spelling?) massacre was a liget shoot huh? They were in a free fire zone. Thats your line of thinking.

That's what you ASSUME; but for your information I quoted from an authorative source.
What authorative source. Six Days of War doesn't even mention the Liberty incident(From what you've shown here)

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Abraham

09-17-05, 04:28 PM

It's too late here in Holland now, bradclark1, but I'll promise I'll cut-throat your reaction first thing in the morning!
:D

bradclark1

09-17-05, 05:33 PM

It's too late here in Holland now, bradclark1, but I'll promise I'll cut-throat your reaction first thing in the morning!
:D

Don't rush on my account. :lol:

bradclark1

09-17-05, 07:52 PM

washingtonpost.com
The Attack On Liberty
In 1967, Israeli Forces Bombarded a U.S. Intelligence Ship, Killing 34 Americans and Leaving a Legacy of Suspicion

By Ken Ringle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 1, 2003; Page C01

On June 8, 1967, in one of the periodic explosions of violence we've learned to expect in the Middle East, an American intelligence ship named the USS Liberty was attacked with rockets, cannon fire and torpedoes while in international waters off the town of El Arish in the Sinai desert.

Thirty-four Americans were killed and 171 injured in what would remain the largest post-World War II loss of U.S. lives in the Middle East until the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983.

But unlike that latter attack, or the 1983 truck bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut or the suicide bombing of the U.S. destroyer Cole in Aden, Yemen, which killed 17 less than three years ago, the attack on the Liberty was not made by terrorist bombs but by the jet fighters and torpedo boats of the nation of Israel.

The attack on the Liberty has never been fully explained. Official reports by both the Israelis and the U.S. Navy declared it accidental: "a case of mistaken identity" during the Six-Day War.

But today, dozens of Web sites still argue one side or another, and they're multiplying. Pro- and anti-Israeli authors, journalists and activists have sought to spin the Liberty story for their own purposes over the years. The controversy keeps growing, much as Middle East conflicts have grown to become the largest foreign policy and defense issue occupying the U.S. government.

For the Israelis, compared with the Americans, there has been less reason for resentment, blame and further investigation -- their people weren't killed, and after their government admitted its mistake, they did not have victims making charges of coverups. Not that they have ignored it: In 2000, for instance, Israeli historian Michael B. Oren wrote an article titled "The U.S.S. Liberty: Case Closed" -- a position he also took in the New Republic in 2001.

The attack on the Liberty, and the Six-Day War that surrounded it, introduced us to a fog of war that gets ever thicker. The same sort of bewilderment, suspicions and anger aroused by the Liberty incident continue to bedevil governments as U.S. troops mass on the borders of Iraq, war protesters parade and intellectuals debate.

The Six-Day War was "a turning point in our relationship with Israel," says former ambassador Richard Parker, political counselor of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo in 1967. The war did more than double the size of Israel with captured lands still the focal point of Israeli-Arab turmoil: "Up to that point we had avoided being a major arms supplier to Israel. And afterward, the security of Israel became one of our strategic objectives, which it had never been . . ."

The attack on the Liberty was not simply a case of a single bomb going astray. According to those who survived, it continued for nearly two hours. It involved rocket and napalm attacks by multiple flights of Israeli jet fighters, a simultaneous torpedo attack by three vessels of the Israeli navy and the machine-gunning of lifeboats tossed overboard as the Liberty survivors prepared to abandon their wounded ship.

Last month, during a program on the Liberty at the Middle East Institute here, Parker said those on record as believing that the Israeli attack was deliberate include former secretary of state Dean Rusk, former CIA chief Richard Helms, Adm. Thomas Moorer (a former chief of naval operations) and a host of former directors of the National Security Agency, as well as then-President Lyndon B. Johnson. Parker said he believes that the attack was accidental. But he also believes that a congressional investigation into the Liberty incident, even at this late date, "would be very useful."

In the past year alone, a Front Royal, Va., filmmaker has produced a video calling for a congressional investigation of the Liberty incident, and a Miami bankruptcy judge has published a book and set up an associated Web site endorsing the "mistaken identity" thesis and attempting to lay the incident to rest. Meanwhile a BBC documentary last June presented documents purporting to link the attack and its subsequent coverup to a mysterious covert operation the United States and Israel planned against Egypt, complete with nuclear weapons.

As the United States prepares for war in Iraq, the attack on the Liberty looms like a specter. Whether accidental or deliberate, the incident is full of examples of bungled orders, missed communications, operational stupidity and interservice rivalry on both sides -- the sort of foul-ups that dog every country's military in every conflict.

A Phantom Investigation?
"They tried to kill all the witnesses," Phil Tourney, president of the Liberty Veterans Association, said recently. "They didn't want any one of us left alive."

The official reports have been repeatedly rejected as insufficient by Liberty survivors and a sizable group of historians and scholars, who contend that the Israeli attack was deliberate. It was intended, many say, to erase the Liberty before its electronic eavesdropping could discover events Israel was anxious the world not know.

They say as well that a coverup (if not a conspiracy) has kept the truth about the incident from the American public for more than 35 years. They point to crucial NSA intercepts of Israeli radio signals known to have been made during the attack -- intercepts that remain classified by the U.S. government in the name of national security. That restriction has already lasted more than a decade longer than the one that cloaked "Ultra" -- the most crucial and tightly held code-breaking operation of World War II.

"There has never been a real investigation," says James Bamford, author of "Body of Secrets," a critically praised 2001 investigative history of the NSA that includes perhaps the most concise documented account of the attack on the Liberty. Disinformation was a major strategy employed by the Israelis in the Six-Day War from the beginning, he says, and the U.S. government, preoccupied at the time with the Vietnam War and the Cold War, chose to avoid looking closely at what happened to the Liberty.

"An investigation is what we did after the Cole bombing when we sent agents to Aden, or after the bombings at the embassies in Africa, when we sent agents there to find who was responsible," Bamford says. "Nobody was ever sent to Israel to ask questions about the Liberty. We just took the Israelis' word for what happened."

A Navy court of inquiry, Bamford says, "concerned itself with the ship's response to the attack. They never even questioned most of the survivors about why all those Americans died. And neither has Congress to this day."

And unlike the two U.S. pilots who face possible court-martial for the "friendly fire" bombing of Canadian troops last year in Afghanistan, no Israeli has ever been tried or reprimanded for the 205 U.S. casualties on the Liberty. Wrote the colonel who headed Israel's official investigation into the attack: "I have not discovered any deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct which would justify a court-martial."

In Harm's Way
To seek out the truth of what happened to the Liberty is to immerse oneself in a maelstrom of conflicting testimony, disputed accounts and questioned motives, not excluding suspicions of anti-Semitism. It is possible, however, to arrive at a basic outline of events using mainly agreed-upon facts.

The Liberty (GTR-5) was what was then known as a General Technological Research Vessel -- a converted 455-foot former World War II Liberty ship purportedly investigating science but actually an offshore electronic eavesdropper.

Its real mission was highly secret not only because spy ships might not be welcomed into every port but also because reading another nation's mail by intercepting radio signals (SIGINT) was seriously forbidden at that time. Despite its thousands of employees, the SIGINT-handling NSA was so secret in 1967 that officially it didn't exist. In the intelligence community, its initials were said to stand for No Such Agency.

Though it was technically a Navy ship and most of its 295 crewmen were Navy personnel, the Liberty generally reported directly to the NSA. In May 1967 it had been sailing slowly up and down the west coast of Africa, listening in on the messy wars in the Congo and other newly independent colonies.

On May 23, however, with war clouds gathering over Israel and Egypt, the ship was ordered to the eastern Mediterranean. Egypt was a major client state of the Soviet Union, and any Egyptian attack on America's ally Israel held the danger of dragging the United States into a nuclear war. The NSA had a need to know.

While the Liberty was still steaming eastward, however, Israel on June 5 launched its air force against Egyptian airfields, destroying almost all of that nation's air power in about 80 minutes.

Informed that war had broken out, the U.S. Navy ordered all its vessels to keep at least 100 miles from the war zone. The NSA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff followed that up with at least five similar orders directed specifically to the Liberty, according to Navy radio transcripts since made public. But the Liberty never received them. A series of bureaucratic bungles that defy logic or explanation delayed the messages for 16 hours and then routed them via Hawaii into some communications twilight zone.

The Liberty took station just outside Egypt's 12-mile territorial limit off the Gaza Strip at dawn on June 8. Though they knew they were in a war zone and kept careful watch, crew members were relaxed enough to sunbathe when off duty. Israeli planes circled the ship several times at close range. Crewmen waved at the pilots.

Then, shortly before 2 p.m., a flight of delta-wing Mirage jets approached the ship in what Capt. William McGonagle recognized as an attack pattern. He shouted a warning, but before he could sound the ship's general alarm the planes raked the ship from bow to stern with rockets and cannon fire, killing several sailors, along with the executive officer.

The attack shattered virtually all of the ship's 45 communications antennae. It took technicians more than 10 minutes to jury-rig enough wire to send an SOS to the 6th Fleet, 500 miles to the north. A radio operator on the USS Saratoga heard the message that the Liberty was under attack but demanded an authentication code that had been blown away by the first shots.

"Listen to the goddamn rockets, you son of a bitch!" Liberty's radio operator screamed into the microphone, according to one survivor's account.

Drawing a Bead
Crew members on the Liberty had seen explosions on the beach earlier. The Israelis would later discover that the blasts were caused by Egyptian stragglers blowing up ammunition dumps. But at the time, the Israelis say, they received reports that an unidentified ship was shelling El Arish and sent three high-speed torpedo boats to investigate.

The Liberty was armed with only four 50-caliber machine guns with an effective range of less than two miles. It was cruising at about 5 knots. The Israelis say a plotting error aboard the torpedo boats convinced them that the Liberty was traveling at 30 knots -- the rate of a serious warship and more than 10 knots beyond the Liberty's highest attainable speed. The Israeli navy then summoned the air force to intercept the mysterious vessel.

The Israelis concede that they had investigated the Liberty earlier and had identified it as a U.S. ship. But they say that when a new shift of officers came on duty that information was somehow not passed along, even though the Liberty was the only such vessel within probably 50 miles and the Egyptian navy was effectively nonexistent.

Partial transcripts of Israeli air force communications from the fighters sent to investigate, recently declassified by Israel, reflect more than a little uncertainty about the identity of the Liberty and include at least one suggestion it might be American. But they reflect a greater concern that the jets sink the ship before the navy could share the glory: "Before the navy arrives, it will be a mitzvah [good deed]," says one of the pilots.

The torpedo boats did arrive, however. Uncertain about the identity of their target, they attempted to communicate with signal lights. By this time, however, the Liberty had eight men dead and 75 injured from rockets, cannon fire and napalm. Seeing three torpedo boats approaching in attack formation, the crew assumed the worst and one seaman opened fire before McGonagle could stop him.

The torpedo boats, assuming only an enemy would fire at them, launched their attack and loosed five torpedoes. McGonagle managed to avoid four of them. The fifth, however, blew a 40-foot hole in the Liberty's starboard side, shattering the ship's cryptographic compartment and killing most of the men in it. Only heroic damage-control measures by the survivors in the following hours kept the Liberty from sinking before it limped into Malta days later. Shipyard workers there counted more than 800 holes in its superstructure.

Digging for Information
Those are the basic facts of the incident, together with the Israeli explanation for why it happened. There is, of course, far more to the story, including much debate about whether the Liberty's American flag was visible, whether the Israeli jets were unmarked, whether the Liberty's lifeboats were targeted by the Israelis. There is debate over whether the Israelis could, as claimed, have mistaken the Liberty for the El Quseir, a decrepit, unarmed 38-year-old Egyptian coastal transport half the size of the Liberty and markedly different in profile.

Such debates are not helped by the narrow focus of the debaters, which tends to exclude the context of the Cold War, including Soviet vessels in the eastern Mediterranean, and an increasingly divisive Vietnam War.

The debates will probably never be resolved. But far more intriguing is the evidence that suggests a U.S. government coverup, past and present, of much surrounding the Liberty incident. The ship's casualties were vastly underreported initially. Survivors were threatened with court-martial, prison or worse if they talked about the incident. The Pentagon clamped a lid on discussion even as the Liberty was sold for scrap and the shattered pieces of those who died were buried in a common grave in Arlington National Cemetery. Israel eventually paid $6 million in restitution to the survivors of those killed and, in 1980, another $6 million to the U.S. government to end litigation. That $12 million was less than half the cost of the ship's SIGINT equipment alone.

James M. Ennes Jr., a Liberty survivor whose 1979 book, "Assault on the Liberty," was the first comprehensive effort to tell the crew's story, has since found a document in the Liberty's file at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library in Austin referring to a meeting of the White House "303 Committee" in April 1967, a few months before the outbreak of the Six-Day War. It concerns something called Operation Cyanide, which apparently involved a U.S.-Israeli covert operation that would have stationed a submarine in Egyptian waters.

Asked on camera by the BBC about Operation Cyanide, Rafi Eitan, who was with the Israeli secret service in 1967, smiled cryptically and said: "I know what I am able to tell you and where I have to stop. And here I stop."

When the same interviewers questioned former CIA chief Helms on camera, he confirmed the covert function of the 303 Committee but said, "You'll have to ask McNamara" about Operation Cyanide. When Robert McNamara, secretary of defense in 1967, was asked on camera about Operation Cyanide, he replied, "I won't say a word about the Liberty." Why?

When the U.S. Navy finally heard the Liberty was under attack, it was assumed the attackers were Egyptian. Strike aircraft were launched from the carrier Saratoga and elsewhere and Parker, the former ambassador, says he was warned in Cairo that they were en route to the Egyptian capital. But when Israel was identified as the attacker, they were recalled -- on direct orders from McNamara, according to several Navy sources. Other third-hand reports cited by Ennes and other authors claim the president himself, despite his belief that the attack was deliberate, ordered the Navy to send no planes to the aid of the Liberty.

Those speculating on reasons for Israel's attack on the Liberty have asserted it was to prevent Washington from learning of Israel's coming seizure of the Golan Heights from Syria, or to prevent disclosure of war crimes against Egyptian prisoners of war.

Bamford uncovered a July 27, 1967, CIA report quoting an Israeli official to the effect that Israel knew who the Liberty was and what she was doing, but was unsure who besides the United States might have access to the ship's intercepts, so it put the Liberty out of commission just to be sure.

There may indeed have been a conspiracy surrounding the Liberty. But Miami Judge A. Jay Cristol, in his 2002 book, "The Liberty Incident," discounts that possibility, quoting an old Marine proverb: "Never attribute to malice what can be blamed on stupidity."

Will we ever learn everything surrounding the attack on the Liberty? Probably not without intense pressure on the government from the public and the media, both of which have been fitful at best in their concern with the 205 U.S. casualties at the hands of a U.S. ally 35 years ago.

Bamford, who clearly won the cooperation of many at the NSA in writing "Body of Secrets," points out that a special public law exempts the NSA from the Freedom of Information Act so that only Congress or the White House has access to what's classified there.

At the Johnson library, tape recordings of LBJ's phone calls and office meetings are slowly being declassified, but it will be more than a year before archivists deal with those of June 1967. There is no certainty even then that anything dealing with the Liberty will come to light.

But as debate continues about the U.S. role in the Middle East, a growing chorus of voices is asking why an incident as central to our current involvement in the region as the attack on the Liberty continues to be shrouded for "national security" after so many years.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

bradclark1

09-17-05, 08:16 PM

Here's Orens take.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty1.html

tycho102

09-17-05, 08:38 PM

I couldn't figure out what was racist in Bradclark1's link. I saw the "Kosher pr0n" thing, but I didn't really look all that hard through the site. I didn't find anything "racist" in the article, though.

Speaking of SIGINT, didn't one of our subs get caught off the coast just a few months back, and bailed out when it was detected? :hmm:

Iceman

09-18-05, 12:35 AM

"The incident began with the ill-conceived decision to send the Liberty to the crisis-torn Middle East, a mere half-mile beyond Egyptian waters, in an area not used by commercial shipping and which Nasser had declared off-limits to neutral vessels."

After listening to and reading alot this seems to me like a pretty good sumation of the event....alot is unknown and will never be known..at least not now.

To me, being an American...not actually stepping in the ring with Isreal full toe to toe with it's enimes and wanting to stand by so closely ..."Knowing" what was transpiring was error on the part of my government at the highest lvls...especially the Naval lvls...knowing a country is fighting a war on so many fronts "I" would not want my ships close in any dang way...unless I planned on joining in on the fight. It's like trying to have the cake and eating it too.We suffered uneccessarily due to our own mistake.

To rehash this is agitating an old wound...thk you all for participating in this poll and discussion.This is a great community with intelligent people from all over the world and I am proud and honored to know all of you.

Abraham

09-18-05, 01:01 AM

"Six Days of War" would seem to me to be a one sided history.Did you read it? It's generally considered the standard work... If you can point out anything 'one sided' in it, please let me know.
Your thinking is based on one thing. Egypt called the area a war zone and that Begin ordered all non Israeli ships sunk. Thats your whole argument.(Begin = Rabin)
These are only two of the many circumstances that led to the attack. The point is the Israeli commanders had no idea that they ordered an attack against an U.S. Navy vessel.
The Mei Lie(spelling?) massacre was a liget shoot huh? They were in a free fire zone. Thats your line of thinking.No, Mi Lay was quite different, machinegunning women & children.
You are "ASSUMING" everything you've said about the Liberty. What I have said is fact.That's what you ASSUME; but for your information I quoted from an authorative source.What authorative source. Six Days of War doesn't even mention the Liberty incident(From what you've shown here)You really think that what I call "an authorative source" does not extensively cover this important incident?
Read my previous postings again and check "Six Days of War" pp. 263-271.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.If it looks like a screw-up in the fog of war, if both parties say it's a screw-up in the fog of war, if there is no other logical reason for it but a screw up in the fog of war, it must be an American-Israeli conspiracy!
Remember 9/11...

Abraham

09-18-05, 01:10 AM

Thanks bradclark1 for the objective Washington Post article from 2003 and for this link:Here's Orens take.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty1.html :up:
That's indeed the historian I've been quoting.
I find his argumentation extremely convincing and rich in sources.
(The only - small - mistake in the article is that he writes about "F-104's" being launched from the U.S.S. Saratoga - clearly a spelling error; in his book he wrote "F-4's".)
Anybody who believes the Israeli's intended to sink this U.S. vessel is left with two questions:
Why would they sink her and why didn't they sink her?

bradclark1

09-18-05, 09:55 AM

I'm wrapping this up on my end with this.
Why would the Chief of Naval Operations and future Chief of Staff believe it was an attack on the Liberty? Why would the then Chief of Staff say the President ordered him to classify the incident as an accident when he clearly did not think so? They certainly know more than we do.
Why are the pilot intercepts still classified as Secret?
Supposedly there is a new push this year to reopen the investigation. Maybe they will even open up the pilot intercepts. Who knows.
The key is the pilots intercepts.
The orginization Oren belongs to forces me to believe it's a one sided story. I'm going to get this book and read it. It can be gotten used on Amazon for $3.90. My libraries don't carry it.
Maybe I'll restart this thread. :D

Brad

Abraham

09-18-05, 10:30 AM

I'm also ending this.

You gave a very good link, it actually gives the answer on most of your questions.
Michael B. Oren doesn't belong to the organisation of that link, his article was just quoted.
He's a Ph.D. in Middle East studies from Princeton University, is a well known historian and is now teaching at the Shalem Centre in Jerusalem.

I really hope you'll find his book(s) interesting.
When you'll restart this thread, maybe we'll agree that it was a screw up.
Whenever you'll find a reasonable answer on the question why the ship was attacked by the Israeli's and why it why it was not sunk by the Israeli's let me know and I might change my mind...
:D

bradclark1

09-18-05, 04:05 PM

You might have missed this. It went up while you were replying to another comment.

Michael B. Oren is a senior fellow at The Shalem Center in Jerusalem
Shalem Center quarterly. http://www.azure.org.il/

Added:
RESEARCH FUNDING AREA(S): Hebrew and Jewish Literature, Hebrew
and Semitic Languages, History, Jewish History, Jewish Society,
Judaic Studies, Land of Israel Studies, Law (Juridicial Sciences),
Philosophy, Political Science and Governmet Studies

MadMike

09-18-05, 06:58 PM

Ahem...
My old man worked at NSA from '65 to '70 (I only found that out after he retired from the military). The only thing he said about the Liberty was that the Israelis knew it was a US vessel.
Read the facts of the incident here-

http://www.ussliberty.com/

Yours, Mike

IYAAYAS!

Kapitan

09-19-05, 01:27 AM

its nunanamus its definatly attack as vote by the people