U.S.S. Liberty
 

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 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...?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 ...
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.
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 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...

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.

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

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

Re: U.S.S. Liberty
 

Understandable, it was written from the crews perspective.

It was noted there was a brisk breeze. And again crewmen were also waving a flag.

Now your saying they knew it was American.

Thats why they have smart people drive airplanes.

my fault, deleted.

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

Gimme a break.

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/hilf...dian_ocean.jpg

Re: U.S.S. Liberty
 

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.

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.

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?

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!

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...

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

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

Brad

You got it. (a silly point about deck gun gets a silly response. what else you expect. :roll: )

U.S.S. Liberty
 

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...

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.