I'm new here and from a few threads I've read, it looks like some of you believe Israel deliberately attacked an American ship back in '67. I would like those people to explain themselves. There's no basis for Israel deliberately attacking an American ship simply because there's no logical motive for it, and nobody can come up with a reasonable explanation for Israel to deliberately attack an ally when it's already at war with 3 nations.

I , also , would like answers .

Does any one have info on the three sailors that were forcibly placed in a psychiatric hospital , threatened and were almost given ECT , because they wouldn't lie under oath to match the official story ?

Hi Silkie and welcome

It is very good that have questions to be answered, it is even better if you would attempt to answer these questions yourself with the possbilities at your disposal. I do want to mention certain things :

1) Not having found a motive, or even the complete lack of any motive, does not make the event go away. There are plenty of analysis available that conclude deliberacy, argumentation for such lies in these analysis not in lack of motives.

2) Yes there were motives, because I am in a good mood :D I will point you out a few possibilities, on which you can base your further research if you have interest in information about the subject :

* covering of the massacre of Egyptian POW at El-Arish
* covering of the attack on Syria
* attempt to create conflict between Egypt and USA.
* covering the Israeli initiation of the war with Egypt.

Abnak

2 survivors (Jim Ennes and Joe Meadors) put up a website, I wouldnt know if these are the ones you speak of ....

http://www.ussliberty.org/

#1 - The IDF committed a massacre of Egyptian troops in the Sinai Peninsula and was worried the Liberty picked it up.

The only problem is no evidence has ever been uncovered of this massacre, and obviously the Egyptian government has never claimed there was a massacre in the Sinai at that time. In addition, this wouldn't be a serious enough crime to deliberately attack an American ship with clearly marked boats in the middle of a war for the country's survival.

#2 - Israel didn't want the United States to know they were invading the Golan Heights.

This is James Ennes' current theory, one which has been completely debunked already. The Israeli government informed the United States of its intentions to take the Golan hours before the Liberty was attacked.

On June 8th at 11:30 AM, before the Liberty was attacked, Israel’s Chief of Military Intelligence briefed the US Ambassador to Israel, Walworth Barbour, and President Johnson’s close aide, Harry McPherson. According to Ambassador Barbour’s now- declassified cable summarizing that briefing, the Israelis told the Americans that:

... the principal task of the IDF now was to exploit its success. There still remained the Syrian problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow to get more quote elbow room unquote.
http://camera.org/index.asp?x_conte...1&x_article=161

Israel had 3 neighboring armies mobilize on its borders. What could Israel possibly do that they would risk incurring the wrath of a superpower when they're already fighting 3 other countries?

I could understand if they had tried to conceal their identity, but the fact that Israel used vessels clearly marked as Israeli completely defeats the purpose of deliberately attacking an American ship.

Israel didn't have to conceal its identity to attack Egyptian targets: they were at war with Egypt.

Considering Israel was at war with every country in the region and the ship was in a war zone sailing away from the coast, is it any wonder that Israel assumed it to be an enemy target?

An explosion occurs off the coast.

A ship is spotted sailing away from the area.

Every neighbor in the region is at war with you.

You identify the ship as not one of your's.

Using this logic, it makes perfect sense that the ship was identified as an enemy target: there weren't supposed to be neutral ships in the vicinity.

The Israeli pilot that initially flew over the Liberty took photos, none of which showed a flag (which was on the starboard side), and thus evidence supports his claim that he could only identify the ship as not Israeli.

All investigations have supported the claim that the attack was an accident. All declassified information has supported the claim that the attack was an accident. In fact, all sensible logic supports the claim that the attack was an accident.

Thus, the only people who consistently argue that Israel deliberately attacked the ship are doing so without any hard evidence of a deliberate attack.

In otherwords, these people are those who have a grudge or bias against Israel.

10 American investigations and 3 Israeli investigations have all concluded that the attack was a mistake.

10 American investigations and 3 Israeli investigations have all concluded that the attack was a mistake.

i don´t trust ONE of their investigations , why should i trust 13 ?

Originally posted by sweet Pentax
i don´t trust ONE of their investigations , why should i trust 13 ? Well isn't that special?

Do you have any logical reason for this to be a purposeful attack against the US?

^
In other words, if you hate anything Israel or the US has ever done, they willl always be wrong and lying about anything they are involved in.

Very reasonable and objective point of view.:rolleyes:

Yes that was to be expected, trolling. You could have been honest and perhaps gained a more respectable position, nevertheless I would enjoy debating other and perhaps even this zionist subject with you some time, but for now I have other things to do, Slih'a Silkie . . . :D

persol


Well isn't that special?

no , it isn´t - if i don´t trust one investigation , why should i trust 13 :confused:

Do you have any logical reason for this to be a purposeful attack against the US?

no , i haven´t ; probably because i´m not interested in this event ( ussliberty )



ps : just because you and me can´t see the reason doesn´t mean there is no reason ( lol , i´m sure you already knew that ;) )

Originally posted by sweet Pentax

no , it isn´t - if i don´t trust one investigation , why should i trust 13
Not only do you need a reason of why Isreal attacked... you also need a reason of why the US didn't mind and would lie about the determined reason.

ps : just because you and me can´t see the reason doesn´t mean there is no reason ( lol , i´m sure you already knew that ;) )
Right, but granting that, it is silly to think that the attack was on purpose when there is no reason to think that. I have to agree with the previous comment ofThus, the only people who consistently argue that Israel deliberately attacked the ship are doing so without any hard evidence of a deliberate attack.
In otherwords, these people are those who have a grudge or bias against Israel.Otherwise, there is no reason to even go this route.

Not only do you need a reason of why Isreal attacked... you also need a reason of why the US didn't mind and would lie about the determined reason.


just a thought :

if your best friend piddles you intentionally on the foot - will you tell it the people who aren´t really your friends ?

i wouldn´t do that !
i would talk with my "friend" , and i would tell him he should never bring me in this situation again ;)

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Yes that was to be expected, trolling. You could have been honest and perhaps gained a more respectable position,

Maybe you took my first thread the wrong way. I wasn't seeking information about the subject. I wanted to see if anyone here had some legitimate reasons for believing it was deliberately attacked. I'm just prepared to debate the subject. It's not my intention to argue for argue's sake. However, these political subjects usually turn into some kind of argument. At that point, I just agree to disagree with the person and move on. At no point would I name call.

I don't care about motive or other things, those things we will not know until Israel fess's up to the crime. The mere attack was a violation, the ship was in international waters, and thus was not subject to the war, also the ship wasn't doing anything hostile, but to me this is the most damning evidence:

Israel claims they mistook our ship for the out-of-service Egyptian horse carrier El Quseir
and that we brought the attack upon ourselves by operating in a war zone without displaying a flag. Not so.
We were in international waters, far from any fighting, and flew a bright, clean, new American flag.

http://www.ussliberty.org/g/libflag.gif

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

http://www.ussliberty.org/g/lg/lg0044.jpg

A Israeli DC-3, neither Egypt nor Syria had the craft.

http://www.ussliberty.org/g/lg/lg0078.jpg

Israeli Mystere jet during the attack.
This picture was taken by Captain McGonagle using the 35MM camera kept on the bridge

If you don't believe that is a mystere:

Israeli Mystere (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/images/smystere.jpg)

As long as that flag was up, and there was a recon flight before the attack... there is no justification for that attack:

http://www.ussliberty.org/

silkie:
welcome to the board.
very good post. although this has already been said before... people here still choose to believe the attack was deliberate.

ghassan:
nevertheless I would enjoy debating other and perhaps even this zionist subject with you some time, but for now I have other things to do
:eek:
you have nothing to say? this is a historic event :D

undecided:
you didn't really refute any of the points made by silkie.
yes, it was an Israeli attack. nobody even tried to cover that up.
and the supposed Israeli recon plane, over the supposed USS liberty on that supposedly authentic picture did not find it to be an American ship.

your argument (if you call that an argument) sort of falls apart

Originally posted by Silkie
Maybe you took my first thread the wrong way. I wasn't seeking information about the subject. I wanted to see if anyone here had some legitimate reasons for believing it was deliberately attacked.

I would say that I took it exactly as you presented it, however it seems that you have edited already in the first post making it irrelevant for me to refer to it. It doesn't matter, it doesn't increase credibility either. I am however happy that you are clear on the issue now.

I'm just prepared to debate the subject. It's not my intention to argue for argue's sake. However, these political subjects usually turn into some kind of argument. At that point, I just agree to disagree with the person and move on. At no point would I name call.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by otheadp
you have nothing to say? this is a historic event

Shalom Neshome, I have plenty things to say but this particular subject doesn't interest me that much, and at this moment. Let Amerikans and Israeli's argue this one out between themselves.

Im on your side on this one, you can attack Amerikan military ships anyday if you ask me :D

Why would you want to believe the crew of the Liberty who testified that the attack continued even after they had abandoned the ship for lifeboats? That ridiculous "enemy combatant" argument "sort of falls apart" as well.

Hey, some people will go to their graves convinced that Oswald was the lone gunman. Those of us who have a clue will always snicker at them, but if that is what they need to believe to sleep at night, then I guess it's ok. I just hate it when they completely ignore the obvious to avoid having to deal with empirical evidence. So annoying.:confused:

None were really made...

and the supposed Israeli recon plane, over the supposed USS liberty on that supposedly authentic picture did not find it to be an American ship.


Why would the organization dealing with the Liberty attack doctor a picture? Also remember that the USS Liberty was a recon ship who had accute listening devices and could easily listen to those transmissions. Why do you only question the DC-3 picture? Why not the rest? Looking at the picutre the plane and the rest of the lighting are prefectly aligned. Nice try, but it's a no go. Unless you are wiling to say that the USS liberty crew lied?

Originally posted by Undecided
I don't care about motive or other things, those things we will not know until Israel fess's up to the crime.
I both agree and disagree here. For Israel to do somehting of this magnitude they would need a motive. However, it is secondary to asking whether they new the ship was American.

The mere attack was a violation, the ship was in international waters, and thus was not subject to the war, also the ship wasn't doing anything hostile
If they truely thought it was an armed unflagged ship, they would have attacked it... just as if an unflagged armed ship was headed to the Us during war time.

As long as that flag was up, and there was a recon flight before the attack... there is no justification for that attack:
A recon flight does not mean that they actually saw the flag. Your post could have been shortened to one very important lineThe pilot was heard reporting to HQ that he saw an American flag and men sunning themselves on deckProving this is the ONLY way to make the claims have any substance. Even then however, this is no proof of anything except incompetence. The step to proving a purposeful attack requires some kind of motive, while at the same time still allowing for gross negligence in the way this was carried out.

Originally posted by 15ofthe19
Hey, some people will go to their graves convinced that Oswald was the lone gunman. Those of us who have a clue will always snicker at them, but if that is what they need to believe to sleep at night, then I guess it's ok.Nobody has pointed out a valid hole in the Oswald theory, while just about all conspiracy theories have huge holes in them.

That said, it would be an entertaining topic. If you want, create a new thread so as we don't derail this one.

Im on your side on this one, you can attack Amerikan military ships anyday if you ask me :D
habibi, you're my favorite comedian

Why would the organization dealing with the Liberty attack doctor a picture?
to prove their point.

Also remember that the USS Liberty was a recon ship who had accute listening devices and could easily listen to those transmissions.
and?
did they hear and record Israeli transmissions confirming it was an American ship before the attack? even if they did (which i highly doubt), have these transmission been veriefied?

Why do you only question the DC-3 picture? Why not the rest? Looking at the picutre the plane and the rest of the lighting are prefectly aligned
ok, let's examine why this picture can't be used.
it could've been
1) a different ship
2) a different plane (i don't see any IAF signs on that little shaddow of a plane
3) a different time and place
4) such a pic is very easy to forge, with the lighting and everything. (it doesn't mean this one is. i'm just saying anyone with a little experience with photoshop could do it.)

Nice try, but it's a no go. Unless you are wiling to say that the USS liberty crew lied?
as i said before - please pay attention this time - even if this pic is authentic, and that really is an Israeli recon plane over USS Liberty, that does not mean the Israelis recognized that ship as an American ship.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pilot was heard reporting to HQ that he saw an American flag and men sunning themselves on deck
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proving this is the ONLY way to make the claims have any substance. Even then however, this is no proof of anything except incompetence. The step to proving a purposeful attack requires some kind of motive, while at the same time still allowing for gross negligence in the way this was carried out

you just summed up the whole topic there.

Ok , so who at HQ was the one incompotent to neglect the pilots report ? Did anybody take the fall for this imcompetence ?

you just summed up the whole topic there.

As I have said earlier the motive is non sequitur if the Israeli's knew it was a American ship, motive can only be derived properly if you nab the guilty, and obviously we don't expect this is to be brought to any real justice.

1) a different ship
2) a different plane (i don't see any IAF signs on that little shaddow of a plane
3) a different time and place
4) such a pic is very easy to forge, with the lighting and everything. (it doesn't mean this one is. i'm just saying anyone with a little experience with photoshop could do it.)


1) Unlikely, the ship was wearing military standard paint job, to reduce likely hood of glare. Also mercantile ships usually don't have those masts.
2) If you look very closely you can just make out the white roundel of the Israeli air force, on the right wing.
3) Well unless the Israeli's have bases near Singapore... a different time, surely before the attack.
4) So you are saying that this is an actual photo, and thus the assertion made by the crew is correct, all I needed thank you.

Look, you can not expect an dominant abstract feeler with a pro-israel stance expect to change his mind based upon facts and clues....They "feel" they are defending a just cause so plz don't bother with facts mmkay??? it won't change anything in their mindset because they relie on their heart rather than their mind.

But a poor performer , that must be the 40 % rule

1) Unlikely, the ship was wearing military standard paint job, to reduce likely hood of glare. Also mercantile ships usually don't have those masts.
2) If you look very closely you can just make out the white roundel of the Israeli air force, on the right wing.
3) Well unless the Israeli's have bases near Singapore... a different time, surely before the attack.
4) So you are saying that this is an actual photo, and thus the assertion made by the crew is correct, all I needed thank you.


1) is there anything in the pic identifying the ship as specifically USS Liberty?
2) what is a roundell? all i see is that half of the wing is white. how does that implicate Israel, or cancel the possibility that other planes have wings half painted white?
3) a different place, a different time (i mean 10 years ago for example, not "20 minutes before"), different circumstances, with different players. very likely.
4) i say it is possible it's an actual photo - not forged, but not necessarily as it is presented. and there's also the possibility that it's exactly what it is presented as. me stating that doesn't really have any relevance to what the crew saw, thought they saw, or concluded what the pilot saw. don't you agree?

Originally posted by Vortexx
Look, you can not expect an dominant abstract feeler with a pro-israel stance expect to change his mind based upon facts and clues....They "feel" they are defending a just cause so plz don't bother with facts mmkay??? it won't change anything in their mindset because they relie on their heart rather than their mind.


hey, if there actually were any facts..

I agree completely it's like talking to a child who insists on the existance of Santa.


1) is there anything in the pic identifying the ship as specifically USS Liberty?


Why are you not asking the same question for the second picture?

2) what is a roundell?

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/israel/isrrdl1.gif

That on the right wing...

Really the rest of your argument is in la-la land, what I see is this. It's called the sequence of events. The DC-3 which is in the picture with the Israeli roundel is circling the ship, the ship says for about one hour or so, the ship reports the DC-3 as seen in the picture reported that a American flag was being flown, before the attack. Thus the question must be posed; even if the DC-3 wasn't there, the flag was, and the ships who attack and the fighter aircraft must have seen it... do you actually deny that?

Originally posted by Undecided
As I have said earlier the motive is non sequitur if the Israeli's knew it was a American ship, motive can only be derived properly if you nab the guilty, and obviously we don't expect this is to be brought to any real justice. Almost ever nation has had incidents were they were stupid enough to attack their own forces. Suggesting a communications break down is not a very large leap. It still comes down to if they reported to HQ if it was a US ship. You said The pilot was heard reporting to HQ that he saw an American flag and men sunning themselves on deck From both the US and Israel transcripts this has not been substantiated... along with reports by people who have listened to the original tapes.

do me a favour, ok?
if you have any photo editing software, just circle that roundell on that picture for me, ok?
all i see is nothing.

this is getting repetitive and quite annoying but i'll repeat (last time)
even if this pic is showing what you say it's showing, it's completely irrelevant to the fact that the Israeli pilots did not see the flag.

i see you're starting to resort to name calling.
good job! :cool:

why don't you adress what persol had said?

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
I would say that I took it exactly as you presented it, however it seems that you have edited already in the first post making it irrelevant for me to refer to it.

If you check the time of my edit, you will see it was made some 5 hours before you or anyone had posted a reply to me. I was just fixing it up. That's the post you read. Seems like you're just trolling here :p

The USS Liberty was in the region to monitor the war's events. The USS Liberty was told to stay 20 miles off the coast, then later steam to 100 miles off coast. The orders never got through, thus the Liberty was in a war zone.

One sailor (Lloyd Painter) has claimed the planes were unmarked, but his sworn testimony contradicted his claims.

Quote:
... looking through the porthole at the gun mounts. I was looking through the porthole when I was trying to contact these two kids, and I saw them both; well, I didn't exactly see them as such. They were blown apart, but I saw the whole area go up in smoke and shattered metal. And, at about the same time the aircraft strafed the bridge area itself. The quartermaster, quartermaster third class Pollard was standing right next to me, and he was hit, evidently with flying glass from the porthole... we both hit the deck, as well as Mr. O'Malley, who was my JOOD at the time. As soon as the first strafing raid had been made, we sounded general quarters alarm. The captain was on the bridge. He was in the pilot house at this time. I don't know whether he was hit then or not, I can't remember. It was so smokey. I took off for my general quarters station, which as I said before, was repair three on the mess decks. On the way down I was running as fast as I could. (Testimony of LTJG Lloyd C. Painter, June 14, 1967)

So the guy was looking at the gun mounts, hit the deck, then ran below deck, but was able to notice that the planes were unmarked?

This guy's sworn testimony never indicates that he looked at the planes or caught a good glance. McGonagle's testimony was that, using binoculars, he was able to clearly see Israeli markings on the boats and concluded that the attack had been conducted in error.


The ship's crew didn't have access to the intelligence records that the American intelligence committees and Israeli intel committees had. Just a few months ago, the National Security Agency released a tape taken by a U2 plane of conversation between the IAF that proved Israel didn't identify the ship as American and deliberately attack it.

So, instead of believing all the evidence, some of you want to believe a few members of the ship's crew that are trying to advance theories that have no evidence backing their claims, and you buy it simply because they were on the USS Liberty?

I'm still waiting for Ennes, or Painter, or anyone here to come up with evidence that supports the suggestion that the IDF was massacring Egyptians in the Sinai, or that the Israelis were trying to conceal their intentions to invade the Golan Heights.

All I'm asking is for one single piece of evidence that supports one of these theories.

The attack on the USS Liberty was intentionally committed by the government of Israel. The evidence is indisputable. I was on active duty station on board the USS Mountrail at NOB Norfolk when the Liberty was hauled into NAB Little Creek. A couple of buddies and I went over to it and saw the thing from a distance at it amazed me it could actually float. the notion that a military force could do that kind of damage to a vessel and then claim they didn't know what it was is ludicrous. The entire affair was covered up by the Johnson administration. In retrospect it is one of the most disgraceful incidents in the history of our country, not only the actions of Israel but the cover up and dismissal by our own governement.

Here is a memorandum written by then CNO and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas Moorer on this subject. It says it all:

MEMORANDUM:

From: Admiral Thomas H. Moorer

Subject: Attack on the USS Liberty June 8, 1967

Date: June 8, 1997

I have never believed that the attack on the USS Liberty was
a case of mistaken identity. That is ridiculous. I have
flown over the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, thousands of
hours, searching for ships and identifying all types of
ships at sea. The Liberty was the ugliest, strangest looking
ship in the U.S. Navy. As a communications intelligence
ship, it was sprouting every kind of antenna. It looked like
a lobster with all those projections moving every which way.

Israel knew perfectly well that the ship was American. After
all, the Liberty's American flag and markings were in full
view in perfect visibility for the Israeli aircraft that
overflew the ship eight times over a period of nearly eight
hours prior to the attack. I am confident that Israel knew
the Liberty could intercept radio messages from all parties
and potential parties to the ongoing war, then in its fourth
day, and that Israel was preparing to seize the Golan
Heights from Syria despite President Johnson's known
opposition to such a move. I think they realized that if we
learned in advance of their plan, there would be a
tremendous amount of negotiating between Tel Aviv and
Washington.

And I believe Moshe Dayan concluded that he could prevent
Washington from becoming aware of what Israel was up to by
destroying the primary source of acquiring that information
the USS Liberty. The result was a wanton sneak attack that
left 34 American sailors dead and 171 seriously injured.
What is so chilling and cold-blooded, of course, is that
they could kill as many Americans as they did in confidence
that Washington would cooperate in quelling any public
outcry.

I have to conclude that it was Israel's intent to sink the
Liberty and leave as few survivors as possible. Up to the
point where the torpedo boats were sent in, you could
speculate on that point. You have to remember that the
Liberty was an intelligence ship, not a fighting ship, and
its only defensive weapons were a pair of 50-caliber machine
guns both aft and on the forecastle. There was little the
men could do to fight off the air assault from Israeli jets
that pounded the Liberty with bombs, rockets, napalm and
machine gun fire for 25 minutes.

With the Liberty riddled with holes, fires burning, and
scores of casualties, three Israeli torpedo boats closed in
for the kill. The second of three torpedoes ripped through a
compartment at amidships, drowning 25 of the men in that
section. Then the torpedo boats closed to within 100 feet of
the Liberty to continue the attack with cannons and machine
guns, resulting in further casualties. It is telling, with
respect to whether total annihilation was the intent, that
the Liberty crew has reported that the torpedo boats'
machine guns also were turned on life rafts that were
deployed into the Mediterranean as well as those few on deck
that had escaped damage.

As we know now, if the rescue aircraft from U.S. carriers
had not been recalled, they would have arrived at the
Liberty before the torpedo attack, reducing the death toll
by 25. The torpedo boat commanders could not be certain that
Sixth Fleet aircraft were not on the way and this might have
led to their breaking off the attack after 40 minutes rather
than remaining to send the Liberty and its crew of 294 to
the bottom. Congress to this day has failed to hold formal
hearings for the record on the Liberty affair. This is
unprecedented and a national disgrace. I spent hours on the
Hill giving testimony after the USS Pueblo, a sister ship to
the Liberty, was seized by North Korea. I was asked every
imaginable question, including why a carrier in the area
failed to dispatch aircraft to aid the Pueblo. In the
Liberty case, fighters were put in the air not once, but
twice. They were ordered to stand down by Secretary of
Defense McNamara and President Johnson for reasons the
American public deserves to know.

The captain and crew of the Liberty, rather than being
widely acclaimed as the heroes they most certainly are, have
been silenced, ignored, honored belatedly and away from the
cameras, and denied a history that accurately reflects their
ordeal. I was appalled that six of the dead from the Liberty
lay under a tombstone at Arlington Cemetery that described
them as having "died in the eastern Mediterranean," as if
disease rather than Israeli intent had caused their deaths.
The Naval Academy failed to record the name of Lt. Stephen
Toth in Memorial Hall on the grounds that he had not been
killed in battle. I intervened and was able to reverse the
apparent idea that dying in a cowardly, one-sided attack
by a supposed ally is somehow not the same as being killed
by an avowed enemy.

Commander McGonagle's story is the stuff of naval tradition.
Badly wounded in the first air attack, lying on the deck and
losing blood, he refused any treatment that would take him
from his battle station on the bridge. He continued to
direct the ship's defense, the control of flooding and fire,
and by his own example inspired the survivors to heroic
efforts to save the ship. He did not relinquish his post
until hours later, after having directed the crippled ship's
navigation to a rendezvous with a U.S. destroyer and final
arrival in Malta.

I must have gone to the White House 15 times or more to
watch the President personally award the Congressional Medal
of Honor to Americans of special valor. So it irked the hell
out of me when McGonagle's ceremony was relegated to the
obscurity of the Washington Navy Yard and the medal was
presented by the Secretary of the Navy. This was a
back-handed slap. Everyone else received their medal at the
White House. President Johnson must have been concerned
about the reaction of the Israeli lobby.

The Liberty Veterans Association deserves the encouragement
of everyone who wants the facts of the Liberty incident
revealed and proper homage paid to the men who lost their
lives, to their families, and to the survivors. I have
attended many of their reunions and am always impressed with
the cohesion of the Liberty family. They arrive in town with
their whole entourage grandmas, grandpas, grandchildren.
They promote the memory of the boys who were killed and I
respect them for that. They are mostly from small country
towns, probably a lot like Eufaula, Alabama, where I grew
up, and they represent the basic core of America that has
enabled us to be a superpower for so long. These are the
kind of people who will make certain that our liberty and
freedom survive if fighting is what it takes.


http://www.ussliberty.org/moorer3.txt

For further reading go to the website authored by two Liberty survivors and all your questions will be ansered including the motive which someone was asking about:

http://www.ussliberty.org/

This is a sad attempt, and can be summed up quite nicely as...

Originally posted by clark04
The attack on the USS Liberty was intentionally committed by the government of Israel. The evidence is indisputable. (However, I will present none of this evidence.)

For further reading go to the website authored by two Liberty survivors and all your questions will be ansered including the motive which someone was asking about:
http://www.ussliberty.org/
Very simply, that site is chuck full of unsupported assertions. The most important of which being
"low-level pre-attack reconnaissance in which the recon pilots were heard telling their HQ that we were American"
Neither the US or Isreal tapes show contain the communication.

"If they didn't know we were American, why did they jam American radio frequencies?"
There is no evidence that this was actually done.

"These transcripts are the reason so many top intelligence officials are certain that this attack was no accident"
'These transcripts' say nothing of the sort, and have been released to the public.


Your entire post is simple the emotional reaction to the deaths and injuries sustained. Most of it basically says 'these were senseless deaths', but does nothing to prove they were due to a premeditated attack on a US ship.

Originally posted by Persol

Your entire post is simple the emotional reaction to the deaths and injuries sustained. Most of it basically says 'these were senseless deaths', but does nothing to prove they were due to a premeditated attack on a US ship.

If you do not accep the word of the then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (that is the highest ranking military man in the US who reports directly to the Secreatary of Defense). Along with the testimony of officers and men that served on the ship, then there is nothing that I can add that will convice you.

Since you mind is already made up, I'm sorry for confusing you with the facts.

I am sorry if cannot accept even the possiblity of that transmission, there is a overt picture of a Israeli DC-3 (the only nation in the region to have the DC-3), with an Israeli roundel flying over the ship, the transmission is more likely then not. Then with a US flag flying, there is no excuse, and the clark article showed it. What we do know is that a recon flight was done, there is evidence to support this. A DC-3 carried no armaments, and was circling the ship? Care to explain to me what that DC-3 was doing then? Re you going to go into erronous claims like oth? And try to deny the evidence itself? Then your a lost cause.

Oh can care to answer these please?

The torpedo boats came within 50 feet of the ship, couldn't see the American flag on the mast, couldn't see the words "USS LIBERTY" on the stern, couldn't see "GTR-5" in 6 1/2 foot letters on the bow. The boats shot at American sailors on the deck of the Liberty as the sailors tried to help one another. As life rafts were put in the water by Liberty sailors in preparation for abandoning the ship, the boats shot them up. One boat pulled one out of the water and took it on board. Didn't see the words "U. S. NAVY" stenciled on it. The boats left the scene, apparently when they got erroneous word that the carriers had sent fighters to help the Liberty.

There has NEVER been a congressional investigation. There HAS been a NAVY-controlled white-washed investigation of the crew's actions during the attack, but Israel's participation was NOT covered. Even in this, evidence was changed, and officers and crew who knew the answers were not asked the right questions and were told to shut up when they offered information.

Two Israeli officers have come forward to admit that the attack was no accident. Yet the Israeli government and its supporters insist it was a "tragic case of misidentification" and charge that survivors and their eyewitness supporters are lying.


http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

clark04

Some ppl will not listen to reason and fact, guess used to it here.

I just thought it was interesting to add that the 'misidentification' lasted for at least 75 minutes, as that was how long the attack persisted.

Thanks for the additional info . I wasn't there , so I can only attempt to digest what is presented - by both sides .

At this point it would seem that trying to determine Israel's motivation for the attack , by persons not directly involved - would be pure speculation .

Two Israeli officers have come forward to admit that the attack was no accident.
who are they? what are their names? what was their involvement? how are they at all connected?

If you do not accep the word of the then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (that is the highest ranking military man in the US who reports directly to the Secreatary of Defense). Along with the testimony of officers and men that served on the ship, then there is nothing that I can add that will convice you.
You forgot to include 'except actual evidence'. You pick up any contraversial topic, and you have people who were there claiming very different things. You should realize that the chairman probably never actually heard the tapes or read the transcripts himself. You should also realize that his statements about the transcripts are in direct contradiction to what they actually say. The plain and simple is that none of the tapes actually contain this message. That, along with the chairman's other unsupported claims that I listed.

I could care less who made the claims on either side. Emotionally charged claims are not evidence.

A DC-3 carried no armaments, and was circling the ship? Care to explain to me what that DC-3 was doing then?
Obviously recon. That doesn't mean that this information was handled properly, if it was transmitted at all.

The torpedo boats came within 50 feet of the ship, couldn't see the American flag on the mast, couldn't see the words "USS LIBERTY" on the stern, couldn't see "GTR-5" in 6 1/2 foot letters on the bow.
This isn't an Isreal problem. This is a military problem. You tell a bunch of sailors 'attack this ship'. They are trained not to question.

Then you have more unsupported assertions such as
The boats left the scene, apparently when they got erroneous word that the carriers had sent fighters to help the Liberty.

Your whole argument is based on unsupported assumptions, not on demonstrated facts. Sure, it is always possible that they attack on puropse for some unknown reason... but you haven't provided any compeling proof to point in that direction.

If it was obviously a recon mission you’re telling me in all logic they wouldn't tell anyone about the ships identity? Which was overtly an American ship? With American insignia? As I have said before motive is irrelevant, there are cases in which motive doesn't have to be proven... this is one of them. The Israeli's must have known that the ship was American, thus they attacked it? Your not speaking from a logical viewpoint, you’re just rejecting things because they don't fit with your non-existent position on this. Let alone the ship was in international waters, outside the war zone. Using your logic Persol, the DC-3 circled the ship for an hour or so, and transmitted nothing, in that hour they didn't see the USS or the flag? I am asking you to logically explain this to me. Motive in this case is irrelevant, that is for conspiracy theorists to discover. Explain to me before the attack the Israeli's didn't know it was a US ship?

An example of why your argumentation makes no sense:

On 08 June 1967 Israel attacked the American intelligence-gathering ship USS Liberty, killing 34 and wounding 171 others. The US 6th Fleet twice launched jets to aid the Liberty but they never appeared at the site of the ship. The ship was in international waters the entire time, and had done nothing to provoke any incident. Israel quickly apologized for the tragedy. The US State Department accepted the apology but not Israel's explanation of faulty identification and inadequate ship markings.


Care to logically explain to me the sequence of events then?

Originally posted by Undecided
The Israeli's must have known that the ship was American, thus they attacked it?
I am saying that those who ordered the attack may not have known it was an American ship. Nothing else is needed, and this is easily imagined.

because they don't fit with your non-existent position on this
Lol. That's just funny. I suppose that nothing on either side would fit with a non-existent position.

Let alone the ship was in international waters, outside the war zone.
As pointed out earlier, this doesn't really matter. What would the US do if a large unidentified ship was 12 miles off the coast during war time following a beach attack?

Explain to me before the attack the Israeli's didn't know it was a US ship?
If you look at the transcripts, it was obvious that aircraft in the area were having difficulties communicating with land (for whatever reason).
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/liberty.html

Care to logically explain to me the sequence of events then?
I could always go the easy route and just state that whoever ordered the attack did not know the ship was American, and that the attackers just followed orders.

Woudl you care to logically explain the sequence to me?

The more I read, the more accusations I see that point to this not being an accident. HOWEVER, none of these accusations actually have any proof backing them.

I am saying that those who ordered the attack may not have known it was an American ship. Nothing else is needed, and this is easily imagined.


Of course it is easily imagined, because that is the only way it could happen in you're imagination. A military who sends out a recon plane, on a recon mission does so for a reason. The ones who ordered the attack whomever they may be, logically should have also ordered the recon mission. The only thing that I could logically come up with is a neglegant or malacious attack. And neglegance is no excuse.

Lol. That's just funny. I suppose that nothing on either side would fit with a non-existent position.


You have asserted nothing as of yet...

What would the US do if a large unidentified ship was 12 miles off the coast during war time following a beach attack?

Hopefully identify the ship as enemy or friendly, then decide the course of action. When anything is outside the war zone it must be identified.

If you look at the transcripts, it was obvious that aircraft in the area were having difficulties communicating with land (for whatever reason).


Oh so this is the defence? LOL! having difficulities is not unable...

I could always go the easy route and just state that whoever ordered the attack did not know the ship was American, and that the attackers just followed orders.


The attackers may indeed have been following orders, but those who ordered the attack, in essence attacked a un-identified ship in international waters? I am not sure if that is against any laws, but I will see. Again how is it possible that they were told it was the Egyptian ship when they seen USS and the US flag? Their mission obviously was to destroy a Egyptian ship was it not? Since the Americans had their flag up et al. they combantants were going against orders...oh my. How do you find out it is a Egyptian ship... by her code, that code was American. Mind explaining? None of these were accusations, just simple to answer question using your logic.

Originally posted by Undecided
The ones who ordered the attack whomever they may be, logically should have also ordered the recon mission.
Well that would have been the HW in Haifi who ordered the boats to look for an egyptian ship. They are also the ones who ordered the boats to attack when they had a contact. I am not sure if the plane was air force or navy... but it doesn't really matter because they both attacked.

The only thing that I could logically come up with is a neglegant or malacious attack. And neglegance is no excuse.
No, negligence isn't an excuse... but it means it wasn't premeditated. There IS a difference there. Misidentification is by no means a stretch of the imagination. The Israels even bombed thier own troops the day before. On top of that, the US (and forseably Israel) thought the ship was 100 miles off the coast.

Hopefully identify the ship as enemy or friendly, then decide the course of action. When anything is outside the war zone it must be identified.
Do you realize just how close 12 miles is. It is nice to believe that time would be taken to be 100% sure of the identity, but this isn't always the case (as is seen by numerous other friendly fire incidents).

Oh so this is the defence? LOL! having difficulities is not unable...
No, it was just pointing out another fact. The idea of a communication identifying the ship as American was started by the Beruit US Ambassador who claimed to see a transcript of communications intercepted by Beruit. This makes very little sense due to the distances involved. It is also telling that this mystery transcript has never been verified. There are recording of the time, of which I previosuly provided links. First they thought it was Egyptian, then Russian, then later American. The Israeli who claimed to have heard the comms (Seth Mintz wasn't even at a location where he'd be able to hear any such thing).

The attackers may indeed have been following orders, but those who ordered the attack, in essence attacked a un-identified ship in international waters? I am not sure if that is against any laws, but I will see.
Yes they did, and yes it is against laws. It IS arguable as to whether it was misidentified on unidentified. I'd go for the latter, which is most certainly illegal.

Again how is it possible that they were told it was the Egyptian ship when they seen USS and the US flag?
You have yet to demonstrate that they saw this. They were going 5mph, and it was a calm sea. The comm transcripts even state that all they saw was red on the flag, and then knew it wasn't egyptian (but thought it was russian).

Well that would have been the HW in Haifi who ordered the boats to look for an egyptian ship.

then

They are also the ones who ordered the boats to attack when they had a contact.

So the boats, seen the ship with its American markings, then decided to attack it? The ships were not going at such a speed that made it impossible to see the Flag, or the USS which were in big lettering:

http://www.ussliberty.org/g/lg/elquseir.jpg

That is the Egyptian ship they were supposed to be attacking, notice no lettering... in stark comparison too:

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

After the attack, notice the big white lettering and the satellite communications dish, i doubt that the Egyptians had military communications satellites in 1967 do you? Care to explain?


They and others familiar with the ship say that it was flying a large American flag, which was replaced by an even larger flag when it was destroyed by the attackers

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
They also point out that the claim the ship was mistaken for an old Egyptian freighter is absurd. As an intelligence ship it was loaded with antennas and carried a large satellite dish on an elevated structure near the stern. It was four times as large as an old Egyptian freighter, and its identification numbers were painted on the bow in white letters 10 feet high.


Misidentification is by no means a stretch of the imagination.

According to you there was confusion on the ships identity three times...yet there was a attack? That is beyond negligence then, its pure maliciousness, just to attack a ship.

On top of that, the US (and forseably Israel) thought the ship was 100 miles off the coast.


How far was the ship exactly then?

Do you realize just how close 12 miles is.

Irrelevant, it is in international waters. If they couldn't handle that simple distinction then they shouldn't have been flying.

It is nice to believe that time would be taken to be 100% sure of the identity, but this isn't always the case (as is seen by numerous other friendly fire incidents).


Friendly fires in combat zones is to be expect you are presenting a fallacious argument because there is no comparison. Secondly the ship was static and wasn't in any measure taking defensive or offence actions in international waters. That would be a excuse if the Liberty were in Israeli or Egyptian territorial waters.

The Israeli who claimed to have heard the comms (Seth Mintz wasn't even at a location where he'd be able to hear any such thing).


lol...right.:rolleyes: talk about cover up. Let's see some more:

The most stunning revelation was a statement by Capt. Ward Boston, the senior legal counsel for the Navy's Court of Inquiry into the attack on the Liberty. His statement was read by Rear Adm. Merlin Staring, a former judge advocate general of the Navy. Following are portions of what he read.


The late Admiral Isaac Kidd and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the Navy's official investigation. Despite the short amount of time we were given, we gathered a vast amount of evidence, including hours of heartbreaking testimony from the young survivors.
The evidence was clear. Both Adm. Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. I am certain that the Israeli pilots that undertook the attack, as well as their superiors who had ordered the attack, were aware that the ship was American.

I saw our flag, which had visibly identified the ship as American, riddled with bullet holes, and heard testimony that made it clear that the Israelis intended that there be no survivors. Not only did the Israelis attack the ship for over two hours with napalm, gunfire and hundreds of rockets and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned three life boats that had been launched in an attempt to save the crew – a war crime.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I have firsthand knowledge from many personal conversations with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara personally ordered him to cover up the true facts and conclude the attack was a case of mistaken identity despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

It IS arguable as to whether it was misidentified on unidentified. I'd go for the latter, which is most certainly illegal.


Or just plain a attack against a American ship...there is ample evidence to show that the Israeli's knew it was American. Some spotty and possibly incomplete radio contacts prove nothing.

You have yet to demonstrate that they saw this. They were going 5mph, and it was a calm sea. The comm transcripts even state that all they saw was red on the flag, and then knew it wasn't egyptian (but thought it was russian).

The day was clear, and sunny. Even let's say for the sake of an argument that the attackers thought it was Russian, were they or were they not going against HQ's orders? Explain? I find it rather odd that they couldn't see a huge American flag, obvious Americans on deck with standard blue garb, and Americans on board they don't look Egyptian. Also too add to that the different infrastructure from the Egyptian ship, you have to prove to me how they didn't see this?

fuck the israelis. those little bastards still think god has his hat still tipped to them. they think they can get away with anything.

anybody that thinks israel didn't attack the uss liberty should go pick up a history book.

Originally posted by Eng Grez

anybody that thinks israel didn't attack the uss liberty should go pick up a history book. True, they did sink the Lusitania and attacked Pearl Harbor. Damn troublemakers.

The question is whether or not the attack was deliberate. I guess if you want to argue that the attack was a completely innocent mistake by the Israelis than you must also agree that all of the Israeli forces involved in the attack were blind asshats who could somehow fly planes and drive boats while being selectively blind, deaf and dumb.

Originally posted by 15ofthe19
I guess if you want to argue that the attack was a completely innocent mistake by the Israelis than you must also agree that all of the Israeli forces involved in the attack were blind asshats who could somehow fly planes and drive boats while being selectively blind, deaf and dumb.
10 American investigations and 3 Israeli investigations have all concluded that the attack was a mistake. You must then believe that all of the members of those investigations were smart enough to be chosen to investigate this, but were too dumb to come up with your line of reasoning?

Clearly, they thought of it, they investigated it, and they were satisfied. We certainly don't have all the details they have. Even so, we can come up with reasonable scenarios based on what we do know.

America had told Israel that there were no American ships in the area. Even if the flag was identifiable and flapping in the wind (which in itself is still a point of contention), it wouldn't have been beyond belief if an Egyptian ship had flown a neutral (US) flag. There had been shelling from the Sea hours before the attack on the Liberty.

Israeli boats were approaching the USS Liberty. The Liberty's Captain (William McGonagle) identified the ships as Israeli, and ordered his men to hold fire. One of his gunners didn't heed the order and fired at the approaching vessels. The vessels then fired back. I think under those circumstances, it wouldn't have mattered if the Israelis had identified Golda Meier waving at them from the deck of the Liberty. She is getting shot.

So please forward the link Silkie that you refer to regarding the Liberty firing first. If you don't mind.

Originally posted by Eng Grez
fuck the israelis. those little bastards still think god has his hat still tipped to them. they think they can get away with anything.

anybody that thinks israel didn't attack the uss liberty should go pick up a history book.


hahah damn maggets. btw they are gods chosen peeps for gods punishment not for anything else. romans, christians, hitler and now moslims they are always been victim of something. poor peeps. there must be something wrong they have done............does crucifying jesus rings a bell? Jesus is taking revenge from jews they pissed of god and they are paying back. You should become good christians ( all my jewish friends here ) only way for your salvation.

Originally posted by Silkie
10 American investigations and 3 Israeli investigations have all concluded that the attack was a mistake. You must then believe that all of the members of those investigations were smart enough to be chosen to investigate this, but were too dumb to come up with your line of reasoning?
Good point, and I agree with the rest of your post except for a few details.

There had been shelling from the Sea hours before the attack on the Liberty.
There had been 'believed' shelling. It was actually land based explosions which, at the time, the navy thought was due to shelling.

One of his gunners didn't heed the order and fired at the approaching vessels.
Yes, this happened... but from everything I can find it was after the ship had already been fired on by the air force. Israel's Air Force fired first, the ship fired first at the Israeli Navy.

10 American investigations and 3 Israeli investigations have all concluded that the attack was a mistake. You must then believe that all of the members of those investigations were smart enough to be chosen to investigate this, but were too dumb to come up with your line of reasoning?


So you appeal to popularity and authority to make up your mind? What are you a robot, who just needs a program to be installed? Please, that is the saddest excuse for a argument I have seen in two days.

Even if the flag was identifiable and flapping in the wind (which in itself is still a point of contention), it wouldn't have been beyond belief if an Egyptian ship had flown a neutral (US) flag.

It would have been beyond all logic that the American ship which had a totally different superstructure from the Egyptian ship be confused. Again who do you explain the fact that this ship was not mercantile like the Egyptian ship, and had antenna, and even a satellite dish. If there was an American flag that was attacked y the Israeli's that is not confusion. Also I find it laughable, that the Israeli's send a DC-3 to go see what the ship was...which is what a nation is to do when it has a ship in international waters, circling it for one hour, and didn't say dick all about the ships nationality!?! If you don't want to listen to reason, then live in bliss. But stop appealing to ppl you never even met, and get a brain and use it.

Originally posted by Undecided
10 American investigations and 3 Israeli investigations have all concluded that the attack was a mistake. You must then believe that all of the members of those investigations were smart enough to be chosen to investigate this, but were too dumb to come up with your line of reasoning?
So you appeal to popularity and authority to make up your mind?
This is an appeal to people who know more about the miltary and have more information about the event then you do. Assuming they are both intelligent and honest, their report is much more likely to be true then anything you come up with.

It would have been beyond all logic that the American ship which had a totally different superstructure from the Egyptian ship be confused.
Many friendly fire incidents must be a conspiracy then, as many of them involve craft/soilders shaped/dressed nothing like the target is supposed to be. We have no idea how the Israeli identification books actually looked. It may have just been a rough outline. Whatever the case, you have presented no concrete infromation to convince anyone that this is due to anything besides the fog of war.

But stop appealing to ppl you never even met, and get a brain and use it.
You'd rather appeal to what? You haven't presented nothing to show that it was actually identified as a US ship. We have presented logs and records from both sides showing that it was misidentified... twice. Your entire argument is "but they don't look the same", and we agree that in those pictures they don't... but that is really besides the point as to whether anyone knew it was American when the attack was ordered.

Originally posted by Undecided
It would have been beyond all logic that the American ship which had a totally different superstructure from the Egyptian ship be confused. Again how do you explain the fact that this ship was not mercantile like the Egyptian ship, and had antenna, and even a satellite dish.
All the pilots were trying to do was identify it as Israeli. Unable to do that, they regarded it as hostile, since no other ships but Israeli or hostile ships should have been in the area. They even identified it as Russian at one point, no doubt because of the fancy radar dish and stuff. It was just so far from the pilot's minds that that could be a friendly ship without them knowing about it beforehand, that it didn't even cross their minds.

I've been in situations like that before and I know one can miss signs to the contrary once you've made up your mind about something.

Hey...just like you're doing.

Read some truth about this for a change: http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=51&x_article=161

Originally posted by Silkie
They even identified it as Russian at one point, no doubt because of the fancy radar dish and stuff. The report says they saw red in the flag, and assumed that meant Russian.

All the pilots were trying to do was identify it as Israeli. Unable to do that, they regarded it as hostile, since no other ships but Israeli or hostile ships should have been in the area.

Irrelevant, and not proper procedure, the ship was non-combatant in international waters, and it was taking NO offensive maneuvers against the Israeli’s. That is no excuse for what transpired, how can you not identify a ship with a slow flying, low flying recon plane like the DC-3 circling for about one hour? Can you please explain the logic? Which pilots, the fighter pilots or the recon pilots? This was not some combat zone, they had to positively identify the ship before attacking it, no matter if it was Egyptian, Soviet, American. You aren't sufficiently explaining this to me.

They even identified it as Russian at one point, no doubt because of the fancy radar dish and stuff.

Yet they continued to attack? Then this goes beyond Egyptian lies, they had a reason to do it then.

It was just so far from the pilot's minds that that could be a friendly ship without them knowing about it beforehand, that it didn't even cross their minds.

LMFAO! Do you expect me to believe that? The Israeli AF is not known for such stupidity, and I feel sorry for you for actually believing that load of crap. It's quite simple, a US flag, a different superstructure, a USS, and a satellite dish? Explain, please otherwise stop the trolling.

I've been in situations like that before and I know one can miss signs to the contrary once you've made up your mind about something.


This is a fallacious argument, I don't care wtf you did or do, it doesn't negate the facts. You have presented nothing but circumstantials. Please present something worth reading.

Read some truth about this for a change

That is just a critique of a program that I didn't watch, it is in no way an argument about the actual attack. Learn some reading comprehension and logic and come back.

Originally posted by Undecided

That is just a critique of a program that I didn't watch, it is in no way an argument about the actual attack. Learn some reading comprehension and logic and come back.
Yeah, it just describes the whole attack and goes over the relevant controversial points, and you see that as only a critique of a program. You're being too silly now. Let me guess, you believe Israel stole their land from the Palestinians, right?

Yeah, it just describes the whole attack and goes over the relevant controversial points, and you see that as only a critique of a program. You're being too silly now.

Can you not present a argument for yourself? Why must you always appeal is this because you cannot? I mean your not looking very cognitive here... answer my questions. YOU answer my questions big boy.

Let me guess, you believe Israel stole their land from the Palestinians, right?

They did...;)

Originally posted by Undecided
Can you not present a argument for yourself? Why must you always appeal is this because you cannot? I mean your not looking very cognitive here... answer my questions. YOU answer my questions big boy. So you don't really care about figuring out why it happened, only arguing with people? Nobody arguing the conspiracy line has presented anything that explains the problems with their story that the site points out.

Originally posted by Undecided

[b]Let me guess, you believe Israel stole their land from the Palestinians, right?

They did...;) Yeah, I thought so. Explains your blindness on this subjext.

"Why must you always appeal is this because you cannot?" No, I just like to use facts to support my arguments, not just rely on personal dislike to determine what I believe or don't.

And you seem to be the one trolling with your "big boy" and remarks about reading comprehension. That's a common ploy to use when one starts feeling insecure in their position.

I won't waste my time in this thread any longer. Those who know, know; those who don't, are definitely not undecided.

Nobody arguing the conspiracy line has presented anything that explains the problems with their story that the site points out.

So you're another one eh? You have to believe a source? Sad... there is evidence that there was a cover up but the US administration. Thus it would be in the best interests of those "investigations" to essentially say nothing of value. What really bugs me is the fact that a DC-3 was around the ship for a hour... and didn't know it was American... can you explain to me the logics of that? or do you sadly have to depend on others to think for you?

Ok, then child, I behoove you to start a new thread.

And you seem to be the one trolling with your "big boy" and remarks about reading comprehension. That's a common ploy to use when one starts feeling insecure in their position

No that's when I use when there is no argument presented to me, just a person who seemingly cannot think for oneself.

I won't waste my time in this thread any longer. Those who know, know; those who don't, are definitely not undecided.

Sad, and how do you know anything if there is doubt? You do realize that truth is innate?

Originally posted by Undecided
What really bugs me is the fact that a DC-3 was around the ship for a hour... and didn't know it was American...Great, why not just say that a few more time. I still don't understand what you don't get about 'misidentification' and/or 'miscommunications'. It's not like the DC-3 pilot got out, hoped in a fighter, and then strafed the ship. Are you saying every other wart time death due to misidentification is also a conspiracy?

Nobody who has/is/or will claim that this is a conspiracy actually has any facts on the subject. The 1 israeli who did come forward is very easily shown to be lying due to holes in his story (such as his job, where he was, and where the person he was with was).

Your intire theory is STILL based on a disbelief that the military doesn't make mistakes.

I find it extremely funny how some people are even saying that they attacked the ship (a ship which was efficively unarmed) while killing very few people... and then knowing it was a US ship, they suddenly changed their minds and decided "nah, we killed 'enuff of 'em"? Your position make absolutely NO sense.

Because your premises are somehow different then mine? You are doing the exact same thing I am doing, but with no proof. The "misidentification" happened when the planes were attacking the ship... correct. So then the DC-3 at a low level, on a clear sunny day, did not see the American markings, do you actually believe what you are saying? Then the boats didn't see it was a US ship at all? Again on a clear sunny day? Funny they could see the ship to attack it yet, not see the flag or the USS, or the 10ft high white numbering or the satellite dish ,etc. Your "analysis" if I dare call it that, is based on illogical assumptions. How tell me is it possible even during the attack or immediately prior that the boats or even the jets did not see any American markings? Why aren't you answering my questions? The reason I am repeating them is because no one has answered them. The DC-3 pilot was supposed to do one thing, identify the ship. He must have known there is NO way in hell he did not know it was a American ship. There is no way that could have happened. It's like me telling you to go see if there is a pear on the grass out in my backyard, you circle for a hour and you don't see a pear? Please...spare me your illogic’s.

Your intire theory is STILL based on a disbelief that the military doesn't make mistakes.

Your different because? :confused: