USS Liberty Incident What If.

[Acid-Snake]

Originally Posted by Damar

Were most of them on the Liberty itself?

naturally...

ok, case in point....a man swerves to avoid a dog in the road, he hits a tree and dies.

now, a witness tells the police he swerved to miss a dog, but they disregard him....a "professional investigator" takes look, and determines that the driver was drunk, even though the evidence doesn't support it.

who's right...the witness, or the investigator?

[Vendetta]

Originally Posted by Damar

Were most of them on the Liberty itself?

There are statements by those on board to, yes.

[Skyzeta]

Originally Posted by Vendetta

True enough. My mother is a Barrister at law so I've heard all about it.
However in this case we dont have the misfortune of relying on spotty johnny who works in McDonalds and Mary who's only concern is what colour eye shadow she's wearing that day.

Here we have highly trained, highly disciplined men, many of them officers and diplomats who's attention to detail, dotting those I's and crossing those T's is what helped get them where they were.
We're talking some of the most professional people in the world.

Their statements carry a lot of thunder.

The problem in this case, is that for all matters they might as well have been. Naval training if anything is going to make it worse, not better. Look at how easily Red Cell was able to penetrate a US submarine base in the early 80's. Why? Because there is a compulsion to stciking to routine that's been beaten into them. Most modern soldiers, sailors and pilots simply don't think in combat because there just isn't time to.

Read eyewitness accounts of Pearl Harbor and look at just how conflicted, chaotic and outright contradictory they are in some cases. Look at what happens whenever fire fighters or paramedics are interviewed immediatly after an incident, most of the time the men on the ground despite being trained and disciplined, didn't really observe much and we're going almost exclusively on training instict. A civilian by ocntrast, when they see soemthing like that is most likely just going to freeze, which ironically may give law enforcement a better picture of what happened then the paramedic who runs over and starts CPR to keep the victim alive.

Shockvalue can go a long way in terms of screwing up even a proffesisonals memory and the proffessional is gonna be more focused on his job then actually watching what's going on around him.

Edit-This is what also has been known to get many paramedics killed in the line of duty, they respond with their training and not with their head, same with firefighters.

[phongn]

Originally Posted by Vendetta

Disregarding witness' because "witness' are unreliable" is cheap and smacks of desperation.

Witness statements carry a lot of weight in a Court of Law.
People on the internet who werent there and have a history of wanking off excessively to anything Israeli are the ones who's opinions mean little.

Having served on a jury before, I've seen witnesses tell mutually exclusive events. Eyewitnesses, frankly, are unrelaliable, and seeing as the incident in question took place decades ago, I would question their memory of said event. Also, I challenge you to find where I have "a history of wanking off excessively to anything Israeli" - or find if the source I gave has anything similar. The verifiable data given contracts the eyewitness accounts; said data is frankly worth more.

I dont blame all of Israel for this attack on a US ship. This was the action of a few and planned by a few. They committed international crimes and an act of war on a very close ally.They should be brought to book

I'd disagree that it was a deliberate action.

Originally Posted by Acid Snake

yeah, because people who were there really have no idea what they're talking about

Memories fog up, they may have convinced themselves that they saw something. Those persons might hate the idea that many good men died because of sheer incompetence rather than malice and then go looking for the "real answer." Look hard enough and you'll find anything.

at any rate, Israel attacked a positively identified american ship in international waters..that's a fact...whether they did it because liberty had seen or heard something they weren't supposed to is a point of contention, but it seems like a damned good motive, doesn't it?....they attacked with cannon, napalm, and rockets, and then they torpedoed the fucking thing....and if that wasn't enough, they opened fire on lifeboats....

As I've noted earlier in this thread - and have been ignored - positive verification took place, the naval watch changed and wiped the board clear and later positive identification was stuck in the message queue. Incompetence, not malice. And if you're trying to sink a ship while in an MTB, of course you'll be using torpedos - finally, the lifeboat incident may have simply been the ships hosing down the vessel as they overtook the ship.

Also, my source indicates that the firing stopped when one MTB saw the hull markings on the bow.

the claim that they mistook it for the eqyptian ship El Quseir...funny thing about that is that the El Quseir is is not the same size as the liberty, and really looks nothing like it....that, and the liberty had a very unique microwave dish on her(one of only 2 in existance at the time), that was plainly visible...

Ah, but by pilots untrained in naval identification or attack by the IAF? And would those pilots know that those microwave dishes were in fact unique - or the MTB crewers? For all they know the Egyptians might have put some new and funky stuff on their ships.

the whole "oops, we made a boo-boo" line is a total crock of shit....it's IMPOSSIBLE to mistake one for the other...

I suggest you look at the record of naval misidentifications throughout history.

for more info on the subject, check out www.ussliberty.org

Or the essay I posted earlier.

this site is run by members of the liberty's crew...but if we believe Dayton3, they can't possibly have any idea what they're talking about

No, only that eyewitness accounts are often unreliable and thus care must be taken when considering their accounts.

Originally Posted by Acid-Snake

now, a witness tells the police he swerved to miss a dog, but they disregard him....a "professional investigator" takes look, and determines that the driver was drunk, even though the evidence doesn't support it.

How would such investigator determine the person in question was drunk without any evidence? BAL would presumably be taken at autopsy. You seem to be accusing contradictory sources of making stuff up.

For a more infamous example of false memories - a great many people claim to remember watching President Kennedy shot live on TV. Sounds good, doesn't it? We've all seen televised footage. One problem: the only footage we have was filmed by a bystander and later shown on television.

[Acid-Snake]

Originally Posted by phongn

For a more infamous example of false memories - a great many people claim to remember watching President Kennedy shot live on TV. Sounds good, doesn't it? We've all seen televised footage. One problem: the only footage we have was filmed by a bystander and later shown on television.

yes, but anyone with half a brain knows that the event wasn't televised live...that's just a case of people being retarded.

[phongn]

Originally Posted by Acid-Snake

yes, but anyone with half a brain knows that the event wasn't televised live...that's just a case of people being retarded.

You'd be amazed. It still supports my point that our memory is not at all reliable. I don't mean to disparage the men aboard that ship at all but only caution that their testimony may not be accurate - even if they think it is.

[Vendetta]

Originally Posted by phongn

Also, I challenge you to find where I have "a history of wanking off excessively to anything Israeli"

Originally Posted by Skyzeta

The problem in this case, is that for all matters they might as well have been. Naval training if anything is going to make it worse, not better. Look at how easily Red Cell was able to penetrate a US submarine base in the early 80's. Why? Because there is a compulsion to stciking to routine that's been beaten into them. Most modern soldiers, sailors and pilots simply don't think in combat because there just isn't time to.

Read eyewitness accounts of Pearl Harbor and look at just how conflicted, chaotic and outright contradictory they are in some cases. Look at what happens whenever fire fighters or paramedics are interviewed immediatly after an incident, most of the time the men on the ground despite being trained and disciplined, didn't really observe much and we're going almost exclusively on training instict. A civilian by ocntrast, when they see soemthing like that is most likely just going to freeze, which ironically may give law enforcement a better picture of what happened then the paramedic who runs over and starts CPR to keep the victim alive.

Shockvalue can go a long way in terms of screwing up even a proffesisonals memory and the proffessional is gonna be more focused on his job then actually watching what's going on around him.

Edit-This is what also has been known to get many paramedics killed in the line of duty, they respond with their training and not with their head, same with firefighters.

Phongn: It wasnt aimed at you. You and Skyzeta are among a handful of people I take seriously..which is why I'm replying to you and Sky and not the other halfwits.

However, we're not going to agree on this. This is the 3rd time I've punched this bag and it's going the same way as the other two times.
Without a full, impartial public inquiry its always going to be a highly contentious issue with the two sides fighting endlessly.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Vendetta]

Originally Posted by Chris_2xtreme

after checking the Wikipedia and reading this quote on the page



Now if events went as planned and the USS Liberty was sunk with all hands lost, would the events listed next happen? Would the American blame Egypt and then get involved helping Israel.

To finally answer the OP
Now I'm basing my opinion from my own belief of the original events based on the evidence I've seen

I think that Israel were already busted as the attackees before they even fired a bullet. So them sinking the Liberty would probably cause more of an uproar in the USA at a public level.

How this would influence diplomatic relations is really down to how much of an uproar the public kick up.
At the very least (IF! certain powerful elements in the US Govt were involved) it would involve public condemnation of Israel.
If however, the public outcry was severe then a proper inquiry would likely take place with criminal proceedings brought against US Govt officials. Likewise Israel would be forced to weed out the people responsible and make a public spectical of the trial.

Its the only way the two countries could still be seen to be good friends and at the same time appease the American people somewhat.

[Vladimir Rustov]

Originally Posted by Dayton3

As usual my boy you miss the point. Must have some of that lingering Euro Jew hatred.

Retract that comment.

[Dayton3]

Originally Posted by Vladimir Rustov

Retract that comment.

Retracted.

Sorry Vendetta.

But I still believe you are way off base alleging a deliberate Israeli attack lacking motive or any kind of physical evidence it was a deliberate planned act.

The more serious the allegation, the higher the standard for evidence.

[Sea Skimmer]

For those of you claiming it was a deliberate attack, one question. Why was the ship bombed with napalm, a weapon virtually useless for sinking ships, rather then with a couple 1000+ pound iron bombs which would have smashed the thing to pieces?

[Dayton3]

Conspiracy theorists would claim it was to make the attack look accidental.

That is the brillance of conspiracy theories. Both success and failure are used to justify their position.

[Vendetta]

Originally Posted by Sea Skimmer

For those of you claiming it was a deliberate attack, one question. Why was the ship bombed with napalm, a weapon virtually useless for sinking ships, rather then with a couple 1000+ pound iron bombs which would have smashed the thing to pieces?

A guess.

Napalm, cannon and rockets kills the witnesses. Torps sink the ship.

[Sea Skimmer]

Originally Posted by Vendetta

A guess.

Napalm, cannon and rockets kills the witnesses. Torps sink the ship.

That makes no sence what so ever and does not answer the question. A simple iron bombing attack would have accomplished all those objectives at once. Instead the rocket and napalm attacks didn't even silence all of the ships mere four machine guns, certainly didn't kill the whole crew, and the torpedo attack of course also failed.

Now if they wanted to kill witnesses, why exactly was the attack called off with the ship only damaged and men still on deck? Why didn't they just attack with unmarked aircraft with iron bombs?

There is no answer to this except that the Isrealis did not plan the attack, a naval patrol detected an unknown ship, called for the nearest avliabul (and very poorly armed) air support and then the whole thing was called off when the MBTs finnaly got close enough to tell it was an American ship and they'd made a mistake. Since Liberty was sailing into the wind, her flag could not be seen by the MBTs approaching from dead astern and pilots are notorious for having no idea what they are attacking.

[phongn]

Originally Posted by Vendetta

If however, the public outcry was severe then a proper inquiry would likely take place with criminal proceedings brought against US Govt officials. Likewise Israel would be forced to weed out the people responsible and make a public spectical of the trial.

Its the only way the two countries could still be seen to be good friends and at the same time appease the American people somewhat.

Alas, the incident was probably swept under the rug as to not embarress Israel publically and to ensure continuing US support. However, the person in charge of the MTB squadron got his chops busted despite having some rather high connections (granted, it isn't as much as you'd probably like).

[Acid-Snake]

Originally Posted by Dayton3

Conspiracy theorists would claim it was to make the attack look accidental.

That is the brillance of conspiracy theories. Both success and failure are used to justify their position.

Let me ask you something....do you believe there are ANY real conspiracies?


If it wasn't deliberate, how do you explain them jamming communications durring the attack?

how do you explain the IAF pilot who was arrested for NOT attacking what he had positively identified as an american vessel?

additionally, isn't it against some international law to attack a ship in international waters?

furthermore, on the same day they attacked teh liberty, they also killed a bunch of UN Peacekeepers in plainly marked vehicles....another case of mistaken identity?....perhaps they mistook white vehicles with "UN" in big blue letters on them for egyptian tanks?

also, on that same day, they murdered a shitload of POW's....

it looks to me like they were just having a good ol' time taking out goyim left and right....

[OmegaPaladin]

Originally Posted by Vendetta

No they didn’t and the US flag was flying.
The Liberty was identified as a US ship by one of the Israeli pilots. He radioed back to base and they ordered him to attack anyway. He refused, returned to base and was arrested.
The US ambassador to Lebanon, Dwight Porter, confirms as much as they picked the chatter up on the radio.

Israel attacked by air at 14:00 lasting 20 minutes.
They then came back with gunboats at 14:25.
At 14:31 they torpedoed it.
At 15:15 the crew abandoned ship
The Gunboats attacked the men in the water and the life rafts

After all that, the US flag was still flying.

No Alyeska, the people who refuse to believe it merely put there hands over their eyes and whistle Hatikva.
You're blinded by your 100% fandom of Israel; because to consider it would knock heavy chips out of the pillar you have placed Israel upon.

Israel deliberately attacked you and murdered your own men. FACT.
Deal with it.

Vendetta, the Navy report says NOTHING about abandoning ship. They stayed on board, and heroically kept the vessel afloat. (They won the Presidential Unit Citation for that, and the captain got the Medal of Honor) They did not get into the water, they threw life rafts into the water because they were on fire. The survivors, including those who agree with you on the intentional attack, agree that they stayed aboard until the ship sailed to port or they were evacuated to a hospital aboard a ship. The Naval Court of Inquiry took testimony aboard the Liberty, which had sailed to Malta under its own power.

Dwight Porter could not have heard messages from the planes thanks to the horizon. He also has denied that he heard anything from the Liberty's attackers.

As I said earlier about the Syria motive, there are records of the Israelis telling US officials about the upcoming attack. The June 8, 1967 papers carried the story, and it was not hard for embassy personnel to see the Golan.

You cited Ward Boston in your work, which is rather funny. He stated that the court of inquiry, which he certified under oath, was invalid. It's like saying that this check I signed is fraudulent.

Vendetta, please understand that I don't view the Israelis as gods among men. My previous post stated quite clearly that I felt two of the naval officers involved should have been convicted of negligence (they were court-martialed, thought they were found innocent) and punished accordingly. Most of the others made understandable errors that led to a horrible tragedy. The survivor's anger at the Israelis is FULLY justified, but their conclusions are not necessarily valid. Israel is no saint on the world stage, but they are not guilty of every charge leveled against them.

I recommend the following website, maintained by the independent investigator I mentioned earlier, Dr. A. Jay Cristol. A former USN JAG officer and civilian judge, Dr. Cristol earned his Ph.D. based on his studies of the Liberty incident.
http://www.thelibertyincident.com/
He has scanned copies of the investigations referred to by others in this thread, and a library of other documents. The investigation he did was extremely painstaking, and I found his book to be quite good work.

[Sea Skimmer]

Originally Posted by Acid-Snake

Let me ask you something....do you believe there are ANY real conspiracies?


If it wasn't deliberate, how do you explain them jamming communications durring the attack?

There is no proof that communcations where ever jammed, most likely the ship was unable to communcate because repeated strafing attacks had damaged the ships antennas.

how do you explain the IAF pilot who was arrested for NOT attacking what he had positively identified as an american vessel?

That would be the first time I've ever heard of that. But if that is true, there could be many explinations. If a pilot is ordered to attack a target, he is expected to do it, and as I've said, pilots have little ability to ID ships, espically the pilots of single seat fast jets.

additionally, isn't it against some international law to attack a ship in international waters?

No, there is no law barring warfare in international waters.

furthermore, on the same day they attacked teh liberty, they also killed a bunch of UN Peacekeepers in plainly marked vehicles....another case of mistaken identity?....perhaps they mistook white vehicles with "UN" in big blue letters on them for egyptian tanks?

also, on that same day, they murdered a shitload of POW's....

it looks to me like they were just having a good ol' time taking out goyim left and right....

Looks to me like your trying to change the subject. If those events prove anything they prove that the IDF in 1967 was poorly experienced and in many ways poorly led and commanded, all of which would support the attack being a mistake caused by incompetence rather then some pointless deliberate attack that was somehow an utter failure.

[Omega18]

Originally Posted by Acid-Snake

additionally, isn't it against some international law to attack a ship in international waters?

Obviously not if the country is at war with your own. The real question up for debate are whether civillains targets are valid under the circustances.

[Acid-Snake]

Originally Posted by Sea Skimmer

There is no proof that communcations where ever jammed, most likely the ship was unable to communcate because repeated strafing attacks had damaged the ships antennas.

Take a look at this article, it shows not only a detailed account of the attack, but also that the attacking force WAS jamming comms (one of the frequencies being the international distress frequency)

That would be the first time I've ever heard of that. But if that is true, there could be many explinations. If a pilot is ordered to attack a target, he is expected to do it, and as I've said, pilots have little ability to ID ships, espically the pilots of single seat fast jets.

So what, now you're a combat pilot?

This article states that a pilot by the name of Evan Tovni contacted Jim Ennes and told him of what happened

"Shortly after Assault on the Liberty was first published, I was contacted by an Israeli pilot named Evan Tovni who called from New York to say that he flew the first attacking Mirage. On his first pass, he said, he saw the American flag and asked his headquarters for instructions. “Attack,” he was told. He refused to do so and returned to headquarters, where he was arrested. His wingmen followed orders and continued the attack"

No, there is no law barring warfare in international waters.

even if the vessel you're attacking is neutral?

Looks to me like your trying to change the subject. If those events prove anything they prove that the IDF in 1967 was poorly experienced and in many ways poorly led and commanded, all of which would support the attack being a mistake caused by incompetence rather then some pointless deliberate attack that was somehow an utter failure.

Naah, just showing a trend for that day...

total disregard for human life, and for the conventions of warfare, and international law.....


and for anyone who thinks cristol is so fucking great, i suggest you read this article http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/com...uecristol.html

the man doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground....

[Omega18]

Originally Posted by Acid-Snake

Take a look at this article, it shows not only a detailed account of the attack, but also that the attacking force WAS jamming comms (one of the frequencies being the international distress frequency)

Other articles have noted that not only did Israel lack the jamming equipment to pull that off at the time, but battle damage could have approximately the same effect as jamming would have.

[Omega18]

Originally Posted by Acid-Snake

This article states that a pilot by the name of Evan Tovni contacted Jim Ennes and told him of what happened

"Shortly after Assault on the Liberty was first published, I was contacted by an Israeli pilot named Evan Tovni who called from New York to say that he flew the first attacking Mirage. On his first pass, he said, he saw the American flag and asked his headquarters for instructions. “Attack,” he was told. He refused to do so and returned to headquarters, where he was arrested. His wingmen followed orders and continued the attack.

Not exactly creditable, especially because US intercepts recently released essentially contradict a version of events that occured in that manner.

It doesn't explain why Israeli aircraft would have expressed surprise at suddenly recognizing a US flat at the end of the attack.

There is also the fundimental issue of a lack of a plausible motive for a deliberate attack in the manner in which it occured.

[Acid-Snake]

how about actually providing links to these phantom sources of yours..

and how about replying in single posts, as opposed to seperate ones for each issue....post-whoring isn't cool..

[Dayton3]

Originally Posted by Acid-Snake

furthermore, on the same day they attacked teh liberty, they also killed a bunch of UN Peacekeepers in plainly marked vehicles....another case of mistaken identity?....perhaps they mistook white vehicles with "UN" in big blue letters on them for egyptian tanks?
.

Proof?

That would be some trick given that UN Secretary General U Thant ordered all UN Peacekeeping personnel from the Sinai BEFORE the Six Day War even began.

[Acid-Snake]

Originally Posted by Dayton3

Proof?

That would be some trick given that UN Secretary General U Thant ordered all UN Peacekeeping personnel from the Sinai BEFORE the Six Day War even began.

i don't have a source on that particular attack, it was in a newspaper called the toronto globe and mail, there was also mention of it in an issue of time magazine, in an article about the liberty....

i do have this...

take a look at number 91

also, there's this


Killing of Indian UNEF Members (June 1967)
"The Indian Government handed an aide memoire to the Israel Consul General in Delhi .... The aide memoire says 'An Israeli tank in Gaza deliberately fired on an Indian UNEF [UN Emergency Force] vehicle from five yards, and then deliberately squashed the driver to death knowing that he was a member of the United Nations. The Israeli forces,' the aide memoire adds, 'on five occasions deliberately attacked Indian UNEF staff killing eleven and wounding twenty-four.'"
Source: Who Are the Terrorists?, p. 49-50 (citing The Times (London), August 2, 1967).

The last reference sounds closest to the incident described by Bamford in "Body of Secrets".