PDA

View Full Version : USS Liberty - thread split out



Chevan
08-10-2007, 04:34 AM
<note by pdf27 - split out of the Vietnam thread to prevent it going too off-topic>


I have to tell you about something that isn’t at all well known.

If you examine some very select documents in a little known and carefully guarded section of the American national archives you'll find that the Zionist conspiracy goes far deeper than you think.

In 1960, in probably its only accurate prediction about anything important, the CIA predicted the 1967 Six Day War in Israel, although it thought it would be a Sixty Day War, give or take a week.

Mossad actually got hold of this CIA assessment but, due to the inferior quality of photostat machines at the time, when the copies were received in Tel Aviv a fault in copying made it seem that America's superior intelligence and military assessment was working on a Six Day War.

Tel Aviv duly altered its plans to make it a Six Day War, to fit in with the American support they expected.

However, contrary to Tel Aviv's hopes, the CIA assessment provoked panic in both Democratic and Republican circles as neither wanted America to be put into a position where it had to put its forces onto the ground and water and into the air beside the Israelis.

The predominantly Protestant and Catholic Republican and Democratic voters in that era would not support American boys dying for belligerent and ungrateful Jews in another far away land only a couple of decades after saving them the last time, and putting Americans' access to Arab oil at risk just when they were really starting to enjoy the gasoline guzzling joys of huge cars as they approached the peak of post-war prosperity.

Not to mention the problems which could be expected from the large number of influential and rabidly anti-Semitic Nazi rocket scientists, physicists, and so on who had by then become the darlings of the American political and military/industrial establishments and who had the ears of American military and political leaders.

Yet neither the Democrats or Republicans could afford not to put American forces in beside Israel when the predicted 1967 war occurred, as both were dependent upon the domestic Jewish lobby for their political survival.

After turbulent and lengthy secret meetings held deep in Cheyenne Mountain 1960 - 63, many attended by the President and his military chiefs, both parties agreed that the solution to their mutual problem was to put America into a military position where it could not possibly be expected to divert forces to Israel in 1967.

Vietnam conveniently poked its head up, and the rest is history.

The CIA had in fact been infiltrated by Mossad by the mid-1950's by the Hoffmans and other fifth columnists who were conspiring to bring America into the Zionists' planned 1967 war.

Hoffman's involvement is clear from his attempts to avoid responsibility for his carelessly exultant 1967 polemic "**** the System" which used allegorical language about bleeding America dry to satisfy a Jew’s inexhaustible desires to conceal his, and the Zionists', joy at getting America to come to Israel's aid at, as usual, no cost to the exploitative Jews. http://www.totse.com/en/politics/anarchism/****thesystem172243.html

After being reprimanded by Tel Aviv for this careless action, Hoffman attempted to put the CIA etc off the scent by publishing "More than you ever wanted to know about nuclear waste transports", http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=89818259 a none too subtle warning to any nation that chose to resist the Zionists and, as they thought, their powerful American friends who in fact were bogging America down in Vietnam to avoid exactly that nuclear confrontation with the Arabs, most of whom didn't even have bows and arrows and, if they did, didn‘t know which way to point them.

By 1963 Mossad had successfully persuaded the CIA of America's problems when the planned 1967 war occurred and, unintentionally, had encouraged America to get involved in Vietnam to avoid what Mossad wanted, being direct involvement in the Six Day War.

Paradoxically, by unintentionally diverting America from Israel to Vietnam, Mossad also unwittingly enlisted America to support the Zionist leadership’s secret long term alternative plan to reshape Israel to enable it to survive.

The desire to reshape Israel was based on the fact that Israel is a bit of desert in a more or less geometric shape while Vietnam is a lot of fertile land in a rather more rounded shape, reminiscent of the pregnant Jewish earth mother which ensures the survival of the Jews whatever their travails.

Mossad was backing both horses. If America fought beside Israel in the inevitable war in 1967, Israel had to win and the wandering Jews could stop wandering. If America won in Vietnam after expelling the Catholics and Buddhists, then the more fertile and better shaped land would be open to the Jews who could wander over there from Israel.

So, even if it was exactly the opposite of what it was trying to achieve, Mossad persuaded the Democrats and the Republicans that it was in America's interests to commit all its forces to Vietnam, to bleed itself dry under the draft, so that nothing would be left to go to Israel.

America fell for it.

Which is how the Jews were responsible for the American defeat in Vietnam.



Caveat emptor.

Thank you very much Rising Sun.
It seem you,ve really understood what i mean;)
I knew about the zionist attempts to involve the USA into the Arab's war in the 1967.
But it were not only the political intrigues but and the open military strikes;)
Did you ever hear about attack of american USS ship "Liberty" in 8 june of 1967 that was unfair fired on by the Israel fighters and ships?
The James Ennes on of the officer of Liberty has published the book (Ennes, J. (1979). Assault On The Liberty. New York: Random House.) in 1979 where he clearly proved that this provocations attack was PLANNED and jews knew - this is american ship.
The resault of this dastard attack - the 22 killed american sailors and many were wondered.
The political motive of Israel - represent this attack as the "Egyptian attack". In this case the USA immediatelly joining the war beside Israel.
However this ship survived and the commander was later awarded with the medal of Congress honnor.
And one moment.
When the Liberty call for the help by radio - the group of US fighter take off to help them, however by the ORDER of the US president (Lincoln)- were turned backward!!!!
Did you ever hear ot this cynical political provocation?
This is quite interesting situation -
While the one Hoffman try to stop the "unfair Vietnam war" meanwhile his friends in Isreal and Washington involved the USA in new war. That's nice tactic.

Cheers.

Rising Sun*
08-10-2007, 05:21 AM
Did you ever hear about attack of american USS ship "Liberty" in 8 june of 1967 that was unfair fired on by the Israel fighters and ships?


Yes. I found out about it a couple of years ago from a newspaper article, and looked into it. Never heard of it before that.

There's a lot of good stuff on the internet about it, especially this site
http://www.ussliberty.org/

From what I've read, the times and events just aren't consistent with anything but a deliberate attack by Israel.

America has chosen not to make an issue of it for whatever reason. I have a terrible feeling you're going to offer some reasons which go to the perfidious Jews, in which case you'd better start another thread.

As for the Liberty crew, a lot of them remain rightly pissed off by America's inaction.

Nickdfresh
08-10-2007, 10:07 AM
Thank you very much Rising Sun.
It seem you,ve really understood what i mean;)
I knew about the zionist attempts to involve the USA into the Arab's war in the 1967.
But it were not only the political intrigues but and the open military strikes;)
Did you ever hear about attack of american USS ship "Liberty" in 8 june of 1967 that was unfair fired on by the Israel fighters and ships?
The James Ennes on of the officer of Liberty has published the book (Ennes, J. (1979). Assault On The Liberty. New York: Random House.) in 1979 where he clearly proved that this provocations attack was PLANNED and jews knew - this is american ship.
The resault of this dastard attack - the 22 killed american sailors and many were wondered.
The political motive of Israel - represent this attack as the "Egyptian attack". In this case the USA immediatelly joining the war beside Israel.
However this ship survived and the commander was later awarded with the medal of Congress honnor.
And one moment.
When the Liberty call for the help by radio - the group of US fighter take off to help them, however by the ORDER of the US president (Lincoln)- were turned backward!!!!
Did you ever hear ot this cynical political provocation?
This is quite interesting situation -
While the one Hoffman try to stop the "unfair Vietnam war" meanwhile his friends in Isreal and Washington involved the USA in new war. That's nice tactic.

Cheers.

Yes. The attack on the USS Liberty was nothing but shear aggression, and a cynical and ruthless effort by the IDF to blind US intelligence to its intentions in the Six-Day War. The Israelis claim that they thought it was an Egyptian frigate, which beLIEs the fact that the Liberty was flying an over-sized 'Old Glory' (US colors) and that it would have been obviously apparent to any Israeli air force pilots that this ship had little in the way of any armament.

By the way, it's claimed by the survivors that Israeli gunboats came by after the ship was effectively sunk, and started shooting at the survivors, and their complete slaughter was only prevented by the arrival of US carrier aircraft...

But, it has absolutely nothing to do with Vietnam, the US peace movement, nor Hoffman - who was an American, not an Israeli.

And it should be noted that one of the victims in the incident, and ex-sailor now turned spokesman for the US Liberty crewmen, is himself Jewish, and wears his Star of David prominently every time he denounces the attack and the Israeli gov't...

Chevan
08-13-2007, 02:50 AM
Yes. The attack on the USS Liberty was nothing but shear aggression, and a cynical and ruthless effort by the IDF to blind US intelligence to its intentions in the Six-Day War. The Israelis claim that they thought it was an Egyptian frigate, which beLIEs the fact that the Liberty was flying an over-sized 'Old Glory' (US colors) and that it would have been obviously apparent to any Israeli air force pilots that this ship had little in the way of any armament.

By the way, it's claimed by the survivors that Israeli gunboats came by after the ship was effectively sunk, and started shooting at the survivors, and their complete slaughter was only prevented by the arrival of US carrier aircraft...

This was not ONLY the pure agression Nicki.
This was the PROVOCATION with obvious political aims - to involve the USA to the war.
And the fact that the pro-jewish mass media COULD COVER IT FOR A LONG TIME ( or keep the silence) - just prove the fact that in the USA the press is not do liberal as could to assert some of domestic patriots;)
Besides you should noticed : If the zionists were able to cynically shoted the american crew( as i read they shoted even the wounded peoples , and who try to help the wounded)
They forget about the any rules of the war.
So if the zionist were able to plann and realised ( just the could not sunk the Liberty) the cynical provocation in 1968 - What for they able nowadays.


But, it has absolutely nothing to do with Vietnam, the US peace movement, nor Hoffman - who was an American, not an Israeli.

It's obviously Nick you do not understand the sence of Zionist. Zionism is an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism).
According this rule the any zionists must support the any actions that could help the Israel.
According to the Naum Goldman ( the president of Jewish congress) "The any jew - is the FIRSTLY jew, and only then he is the American,British, Germans, Russian and ets."
So if you do not see the thin connection between the Hoffman and other - this does mean this is not exsisted.


And it should be noted that one of the victims in the incident, and ex-sailor now turned spokesman for the US Liberty crewmen, is himself Jewish, and wears his Star of David prominently every time he denounces the attack and the Israeli gov't...
Has the possible death of one jews- men of crew Liberty - stop the zionists fanatics who ready to do everything "to save the israel". Do not be the naive my friend.

Cheers.

pdf27
08-13-2007, 02:57 AM
Yes. The attack on the USS Liberty was nothing but shear aggression, and a cynical and ruthless effort by the IDF to blind US intelligence to its intentions in the Six-Day War. The Israelis claim that they thought it was an Egyptian frigate, which beLIEs the fact that the Liberty was flying an over-sized 'Old Glory' (US colors) and that it would have been obviously apparent to any Israeli air force pilots that this ship had little in the way of any armament.
Ummm... personally, I don't think it was. The problem all of you are having is that you can't conceive that any competent military force would have made such an attack by accident, and so are assuming that the Israelis must have been doing it deliberately.
The problem with this is that the Israeli forces of the time were really, really incompetent - even on land. Had they been fighting anyone but the Arabs Israel would have been wiped out decades ago, and even today they really aren't as good as they're cracked up to be.

A particularly good essay on the incident can be found here (http://p076.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm2.showMes sage?topicID=47.topic). A couple of telling quotes from the essay:


At eleven o'clock in the morning, the watch at Israeli naval headquarters changed. The new officers, following procedures for removing old information and assuming the Liberty had sailed away, cleaned the board. For Israeli forces, the Liberty had ceased to exist. Glitch number five and a biggie. This is the one that was the proximate cause of the disaster. The Israeli officers here were culpably negligent in that they should have made sure a known US warship was out of the conflict area, not just assumed it was so. Unfortunately, the Israelis back then made a big thing out of their contempt for the routines, practices and doctrines employed by more established armed forces. In fact, they derided such practices as being typical of hidebound reactionaries; the Israeli Military Forces didn't need all that nonsense about correct procedure. That attitude doomed Liberty.


I must make it quite clear that I do not condone the Israeli conduct in this affair; their performance was lacking even the earliest signs of competence and their professional negligence was profoundly culpable. They screwed up royally and deserve all the blame that can be ladled over their brainless heads. But they didn't do it deliberately. 13 bad mistakes, errors of judgement and horrible coincidences. Its right to be enraged with the Israelis for their sloppy staffwork, lax procedures and inattention to detail caused them to launch an attack against a neutral ship. It is indeed with them that the ultimate blame lies for it is the Israeli disregard for careful procedure and their deliberate neglect of proper administration that caused the disaster. Their arrogant assumption that they alone had the secret of how to run a modern war and nobody else knew any part of it was largely to blame for the tragedy. Martin Van Creveld describes the Israeli attitude to proper procedure and to administrative advice as being arrogant bordering on boorish and frequently deliberately bullying, rude and offensive.

And most telling of all...

Six years after the Liberty incident, another Israeli Navy warship, the Miznak went into action. She was on her way to assist Hanit that had run aground on a sandbar off the Sinai coast. The captain (Captain Barkai) gave orders for the Miznak to keep out of a 45 kilometer circle around Port Said due to the danger of missile attack. He then went to his cabin and slept. The second in command (Udi Erell) was duty officer in the CIC. He was dozing in the CIC Ops Chair when he was struck by the silence in room. The Ops crew were asleep. Worse, the Miznak was heading on a straight line for Port said and was already well within the 45 kilometer danger zone. EW was off, the radar watch was asleep, helm was asleep. And the instruments were telling the crew that Egyptian missile craft were coming out of port. Commander Erell literally kicked the CIC crew into wakefulness as Captain Moshe Tabak, the group commander sent an in-clear radio warning of an impending attack (in clear because Miznak had not responded to coded radio signals - cypher room was asleep as well). Udi Erell slammed the throttles forward personally and swung the boat through 180 degrees. As he did so he saw the launch signature of P-15 missiles on the horizon. Four P-15s had been fired by two Project 183R (Komar) FAC-M and were already on their way. One went into the sea when its gyros tumbled, a second went into the sea far astern, the third overshot and landed in the sea three miles ahead of Miznak and the fourth exploded in the sea 100 meters aft of Miznak.
It should be noted here that Udi Erell had been the commander of the squadron of 3 MTBs which had attacked the Liberty, and was also the son of the chief of staff of the Israel navy. In the six years since the incident, he had been demoted quite a long way. There's more to it than that though - the fact that the whole crew were asleep at sea close to the enemy coast in the middle of a war is not indicative of a competent navy. As a matter of fact it isn't something you would expect a navy in a third world sh*thole to be dumb enough to do either - yet here is the Israeli navy doing it. They really aren't anywhere near as good as they're cracked up to be, which in turn makes the theory that it was sheer incompetence which caused the attack plausible.

Chevan
08-13-2007, 04:03 AM
The problem with this is that the Israeli forces of the time were really, really incompetent - even on land.
Incompetent...?!
pdf they need to be the FULL IDIOTS to attack for a whole HOUR the Ship with the BIG AMERICAN FLAG on board and recieving the radio-call in English form Liberty.

The Israeli government, the AntiDefamation League, and
certain notorious apologists for Israel insist that the attack was
a tragic accident and that the US government accepts that assertion.
Not so. Virtually every knowledgeable American official with
the lone exception of Robert McNamara is on public record
calling the attack deliberate and the Israeli story untrue.
Here are a few of those American leaders.


"I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous "
-- US Secretary of State Dean Rusk



"...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty."
-- CIA Director Richard Helms



"To me, the picture thus far presents the distinct possibility that the Israelis knew that the Liberty might be their target and attacked anyway, either through confusion in Command and Control or through deliberate disregard of instructions on the part of subordinates."
-- CIA Deputy Director Admiral Rufus Taylor



"I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship."
-- NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby



". . . the commander of the Sixth Fleet was informed by the Washington Intelligence Apparatus that it had evidence that the Liberty was going to be attacked and to provide protection for it. That message was never really acted upon, and the ship was dead in the water when it was hit. So the end result was no accident."
-- Raymond Tate, Deputy Assistant SecNav and Deputy Director, NSA, "Worldwide C3I and Telecommunications" (1980, pp. 25-47)

Chevan
08-13-2007, 04:18 AM
There's more to it than that though - the fact that the whole crew were asleep at sea close to the enemy coast in the middle of a war is not indicative of a competent navy. .
Oh sure pdf now the picture is clear..
Just imagine the Isreal did not noticed the Amrivcan flag on Liberty coz ... they all were sleeping.
However this fact did not BOTHER them to drop the napalm bombs with the great precision and shoted the wounded sailors from the firghter gun.
Also the Isrealy Torpedo ships crew were sleepping and from THIRD torpedos ONLY one has reached the Liberty.
Thanks for god they all were sleeping- just imagine what could be if they were suddenly wake up:)
I doubt the Liberty could come back to the base in this way:)

Gen. Sandworm
08-13-2007, 04:35 AM
Incompetent...?!
pdf they need to be the FULL IDIOTS to attack for a whole HOUR the Ship with the BIG AMERICAN FLAG on board and recieving the radio-call in English form Liberty.

Dumber things have happened during wartime. Typical case of "shoot first ask questions later!"

Weather is was intentional or not is hard to say for sure. However if it was intentional then I dont see the rewards of the attack.

Chevan
08-13-2007, 04:52 AM
However if it was intentional then I dont see the rewards of the attack.
Rewards fo what Gen?
Rewards must be USA joining the war - and they has reached it finaly;)
However losed the attack - they was not capable to sink the Liberty. The ship survived and caused the problems for Israel;)
No rewards for "losers":D

pdf27
08-13-2007, 04:59 AM
Incompetent...?!
pdf they need to be the FULL IDIOTS to attack for a whole HOUR the Ship with the BIG AMERICAN FLAG on board and recieving the radio-call in English form Liberty.
Yep, agreed. They were, and that essay I posted the link to does a good job of demonstrating it.
Incidentally, the hour of the attack should really be treated as two much shorter attacks. In another demonstration of Israeli incompetence at the time, when the attacking aircraft finally realised they were attacking Americans the torpedo boats still hadn't attacked yet. However, the Israeli pilots could only talk to their own air force base not to the torpedo boats - and the system for passing messages on was so slow that the torpedo boats didn't get the message until after they had attacked and worked it out for themselves.
The Israelis were essentially trying to fight a modern war with a WW2-surplus communications system minus the training and procedures that made that communications system work during WW2. Unsurprisingly it was a fiasco and only the fact that the Arabs were even more incompetent saved the Israelis.


Just imagine the Isreal did not noticed the Amrivcan flag on Liberty coz ... they all were sleeping.
However this fact did not BOTHER them to drop the napalm bombs with the great precision and shoted the wounded sailors from the firghter gun.
You're missing the point. Falling asleep on duty is unforgivable - until quite recently most armies considered it a death-penalty offence, and rightly so. I would be very, very angry at any of the recruits in my Battalion were they to do so on their first weekend in the field - yet here is the ENTIRE CREW of an Israeli fast attack craft doing so in wartime. If they can't get what has to be about the most basic concept of all in military life right, what makes you think that they are competent at ship recognition (much, much harder).

Rising Sun*
08-13-2007, 06:07 AM
Dumber things have happened during wartime. Typical case of "shoot first ask questions later!"

Weather is was intentional or not is hard to say for sure. However if it was intentional then I dont see the rewards of the attack.

Liberty was an electronic eavesdropper, close to the Israeli coast as a result of stuff ups with radio messages ordering it to withdraw.

At the time the Israelis attacked it they were about to go into the Golan Heights while they were also massacring Egyptian POW's at Al (or El) Arish. One view is that they didn't want their activities on one or both of these fronts discovered.

They sure as hell knew it wasn't the Egyptian horse carrier they later claimed to have mistaken it for.

I don't have any doubt it was a deliberate attack or, more accurately, series of attacks.

We'll probably never know the reasons because the Israelis have lied about it, with transparently stupid lies, since the event and America has covered it up.

Rising Sun*
08-13-2007, 06:11 AM
It's obviously Nick you do not understand the sence of Zionist. Zionism is an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism).
According this rule the any zionists must support the any actions that could help the Israel.


That's about as accurate as saying that communism is the same everywhere.

There were different varieties of Zionism, not all of which necessarily focused on Israel as a homeland.

One version in the 1930's, which came reasonably close to success, was for a Jewish homeland to be established in north-west Australia.

Chevan
08-13-2007, 06:19 AM
That's about as accurate as saying that communism is the same everywhere.

There were different varieties of Zionism, not all of which necessarily focused on Israel as a homeland.

One version in the 1930's, which came reasonably close to success, was for a Jewish homeland to be established in north-west Australia.
Exactly.
And did you ever know Rising Sun that ALL the first bolshevics were at the same time fierced Zionists?
But they just planned to invide not the Australia- but the Birobidgan - the area in the Russian far East

Rising Sun*
08-13-2007, 07:29 AM
Exactly.
And did you ever know Rising Sun that ALL the first bolshevics were at the same time fierced Zionists?
But they just planned to invide not the Australia- but the Birobidgan - the area in the Russian far East

They weren't going to invade.

The plan was to come in as migrants. There was a lot of enthusiasim in Australia for the idea.

You'll be pleased to know that the leader of the group was a Bolshevik, Isaac Steinberg, the first People's Commissar for Justice after the Russian Revolution. ;)

http://workers.labor.net.au/136/c_historicalfeature_kimberleys.html

http://abc.net.au/rn/ark/stories/2006/1534158.htm

Chevan
08-13-2007, 11:38 PM
Back to the topic guys.:)
If the Attack of Liberty was the "mistaken" - had the somebody in the Israel army carry the crime punishments for the death of the 34 american soldiers?
And was the responsible Isreal military staff judged for this crime?
What was the sentence?

pdf27
08-14-2007, 01:46 AM
Negligence is treated as incompetence rather than punished criminally in most armies. Certainly the career of the commander of the Israeli torpedo boats came to a screeching halt - despite his father being the head of the Israeli navy, six years later he was about three ranks lower than he had been when attacking the Liberty.

Chevan
08-14-2007, 02:04 AM
Certainly the career of the commander of the Israeli torpedo boats came to a screeching halt - despite his father being the head of the Israeli navy, six years later he was about three ranks lower than he had been when attacking the Liberty.

Oh what for so severe punishment?
The whole three ranks lower for lives of the 21 of pitfull american sailors( who died from the torpedo explosion);)
Sure the we all know that the Isreali justice is the MOST human jastice in the world.
Especially when the jews killed no-jews;)
So and what was with the pilots of Isral's fighter who droped the napalms and shoted the sailors from the mashinguns?
Bet through the six yars they were awarded bytthe three ranks higher;)For the precision accuracy to hit the US crew:)

pdf27
08-14-2007, 03:11 AM
Don't know. If you're going to pick them up on that one though I would like to know how much the Russians who killed half the hostages in that theatre in Moscow by pumping it full of knockout gas have been punished since for their incompetence. I'll bet they haven't been demoted as badly...

Chevan
08-14-2007, 04:08 AM
Don't know. If you're going to pick them up on that one though I would like to know how much the Russians who killed half the hostages in that theatre in Moscow by pumping it full of knockout gas have been punished since for their incompetence. I'll bet they haven't been demoted as badly...
Not Half of hostages pdf.
If you do not know - better don't touch.
From over 800+ of hostages were killed 128 and at least half of them perished from the hands of terrorists( they raped and shoted a lot of womans and even children).
However the comparition the US sailors and terrorist BY you is bother me;)

Nickdfresh
08-14-2007, 10:16 AM
Oh what for so severe punishment?
The whole three ranks lower for lives of the 21 of pitfull american sailors( who died from the torpedo explosion);)
Sure the we all know that the Isreali justice is the MOST human jastice in the world.
Especially when the jews killed no-jews;)
So and what was with the pilots of Isral's fighter who droped the napalms and shoted the sailors from the mashinguns?
Bet through the six yars they were awarded bytthe three ranks higher;)For the precision accuracy to hit the US crew:)


After reading the article, I do accept that it is at least possible that the Israel strike on the USS Liberty may have been a tragic blunder. The article is reasonably effective and addressing most of the points that conspiracists have stated, and it is hard to convey any serious motivation that the Israelis would have in attacking the ship of a major benefactor, and tank supplier. But there are some serious questions, such as why did the Mirage pilots not notice what was a very large ensign? There are also some details in the article that appear to be internal contradictions. I believe it's stated that the Israeli Mirage fighters had no air to ground ordinance left after returning from air strikes on Egyptian troops, only AAMs and their 30mm cannons. But I think the article relates, as did the crewman of the Liberty, the there were air to ground rockets that were fired (I'm presuming they were probably American 2.75"/66mm unguided rockets or something similar) which I think would be the probable weapon for pilots to use, who unaccustomed to attacking ships. I think it's pretty difficult to hit a vessel with iron-bombs unless one has been specifically trained to do so...

And Chevan, as for "punishment," most armed services rarely meet out judicial sentences for what are presumed to be acts negligence. And accidents do happen, as was the case of the USS Stark which was struck by an Iraqi Exocet killing 37 in the 1980s. And of course there's the "Roboship," the USS Vincennes in which the gungho captain shot down an Iranian airliner, thinking it was an F-14 Tomcat, killing hundreds of innocent civilians. I doubt anyone was arrested or tried in any of those cases, but they were forced to retire in disgrace...

Nickdfresh
08-14-2007, 10:21 AM
Ummm... personally, I don't think it was. The problem all of you are having is that you can't conceive that any competent military force would have made such an attack by accident, and so are assuming that the Israelis must have been doing it deliberately.
The problem with this is that the Israeli forces of the time were really, really incompetent - even on land. Had they been fighting anyone but the Arabs Israel would have been wiped out decades ago, and even today they really aren't as good as they're cracked up to be.



Of course the Israelis are overrated. One needs to only see what happened in Lebanon to see that...

pdf27
08-14-2007, 10:48 AM
Not Half of hostages pdf.
If you do not know - better don't touch.
From over 800+ of hostages were killed 128 and at least half of them perished from the hands of terrorists( they raped and shoted a lot of womans and even children).
That's still around 60 killed by Russian military incompetence, as compared to 21 killed by Israeli military incompetence. And you've still not answered the question as to whether the Russian who made that mistake has been punished for it.


However the comparition the US sailors and terrorist BY you is bother me;)
I'm not - I'm comparing Russian and Israeli military incompetence and the way it is punished. If you want to make any further comparisons, that's up to you.


But there are some serious questions, such as why did the Mirage pilots not notice what was a very large ensign?
Pilots miss things like that all the time. For a good example of this, see the A-10 pilots who attacked the Household Cavalry during the Iraq invasion. They managed to convince themselves that a Scimitar armoured recce vehicle with standard coalition bright orange recognition panels on the roof was in fact a soviet-made lorry with orange rockets on the back. If mistakes like that can be made by US pilots nowadays (who are one hell of a lot better trained than the Israelis of the time, and who are doing a specialised job - remember the Mirage pilots weren't trained in anti-shipping work), then why assume the Israelis would spot something like a flag? I'm not excusing their lack of competence here, just pointing out that I'm not exactly surprised...


I believe it's stated that the Israeli Mirage fighters had no air to ground ordinance left after returning from air strikes on Egyptian troops, only AAMs and their 30mm cannons. But I think the article relates, as did the crewman of the Liberty, the there were air to ground rockets that were fired (I'm presuming they were probably American 2.75"/66mm unguided rockets or something similar) which I think would be the probable weapon for pilots to use, who unaccustomed to attacking ships. I think it's pretty difficult to hit a vessel with iron-bombs unless one has been specifically trained to do so...
You're misreading it slightly - there were two seperate air attacks. The first strike (Mirage pilots) identified it as a Hunt class destroyer (! - again, demonstrating a clear lack of a clue what it was beyond being grey and floating) and assumed it was hostile as it didn't display an Israeli recognition symbol. They strafed it with 30mm cannon only.
The second attack was by Super-Mysteres diverted while airbourne from a strike against Egyptian infantry. That article states they were armed with Napalm, although air to ground rockets would be plausible.


Of course the Israelis are overrated. One needs to only see what happened in Lebanon to see that...
The Israeli army didn't do all that badly in Lebanon considering they're a conscript army with all that entails (although it's worth noting that they took almost as many casualties to take a few miles against a terrorist as the US/UK took to capture the whole of Iraq). The naval contribution to the Israeli campaign however seems to have been something of a fiasco.

Chevan
08-14-2007, 11:02 AM
...there's the "Roboship," the USS Vincennes in which the gungho captain shot down an Iranian airliner, thinking it was an F-14 Tomcat, killing hundreds of innocent civilians. I doubt anyone was arrested or tried in any of those cases, but they were forced to retire in disgrace...
And i doubt that captain Will Rogers who shoted down the Iranian A-300 in 1988 were forced to retire in disgrace Nick.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of human life but never admitted wrongdoing, accepted responsibility, nor apologised for the incident. Officially, it continues to blame Iranian hostile actions for the incident. The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons. Lustig, the air-warfare co-ordinator, won the navy’s Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement," noting his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" that enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure" The Legion of Merit was presented to Rogers and Lustig on 3 July 1988, according to a 23 April 1990 article in The Washington Post. The citations did not mention the Iran Air flight. It should be noted that the Legion of Merit is often awarded to high-ranking officers upon successful completion of especially difficult duty assignments and/or last tours of duty before retirement.


So my friend will Rogers was AWARDED for the A-300;)
BTW i think you right - this was fatal
incident of negligence.
The interesting the other - the reaction of the USA gov and its "version" of incident: this was self-defence.
For the comparition when in the 1sep 1983 the leutennt Osipovich on the Su-15 shot down the Soutern-Korean Boing-747 over the SOVIET territory , he had a REAL PROBLEMS with the carier.Nobody AWARDED HIM or the any soviet stuff who was responsible for this incident

Chevan
08-14-2007, 11:16 AM
That's still around 60 killed by Russian military incompetence, as compared to 21 killed by Israeli military incompetence. And you've still not answered the question as to whether the Russian who made that mistake has been punished for it.

And Who did you say it was incompitence?
The terrorist were ALL the shahids - thay were wanted to explode the whole building- in this case the victims could e MUCH MORE.( probably 500-600).
So they acted right, althought i think thay were need to attack more quikly - throught two-three hours.


I'm not - I'm comparing Russian and Israeli military incompetence and the way it is punished. If you want to make any further comparisons, that's up to you.

You firstly stop to lead a buls..t about incompetence;)
The Attack of the Liberty was the planned PROVOCATION.
If you doubt and refuse the tesimonies of survival sailors - i could not help you.
True the zionists were incompetent - thay were not ably to sink Liberty finaly:)


Pilots miss things like that all the time. For a good example of this, see the A-10 pilots who attacked the Household Cavalry during the Iraq invasion. They managed to convince themselves that a Scimitar armoured recce vehicle with standard coalition bright orange recognition panels on the roof was in fact a soviet-made lorry with orange rockets on the back. If mistakes like that can be made by US pilots nowadays (who are one hell of a lot better trained than the Israelis of the time, and who are doing a specialised job - remember the Mirage pilots weren't trained in anti-shipping work), then why assume the Israelis would spot something like a flag? I'm not excusing their lack of competence here, just pointing out that I'm not exactly surprised...

This is wrong example pdf.
This was individual mistake of ONE pilot. The Groups attack of the Liberty where were a BIG american flag for a long time - could not be mistaken whatever you want to say;)

Nickdfresh
08-14-2007, 06:10 PM
And i doubt that captain Will Rogers who shoted down the Iranian A-300 in 1988 were forced to retire in disgrace Nick.


So my friend will Rogers was AWARDED for the A-300;)
BTW i think you right - this was fatal
incident of negligence.
The interesting the other - the reaction of the USA gov and its "version" of incident: this was self-defence.
For the comparition when in the 1sep 1983 the leutennt Osipovich on the Su-15 shot down the Soutern-Korean Boing-747 over the SOVIET territory , he had a REAL PROBLEMS with the carier.Nobody AWARDED HIM or the any soviet stuff who was responsible for this incident

Well, Rogers should have. My mistake results from reading several condemnations of his actions written by military analyst Rick Atkinson I believe, in which he termed harshly criticized the Rambo-like actions of Rogers, and his seeming spoiling for a fight with the Iranian RG naval arm...

Nickdfresh
08-14-2007, 06:20 PM
That's still around 60 killed by Russian military incompetence, as compared to 21 killed by Israeli military incompetence. And you've still not answered the question as to whether the Russian who made that mistake has been punished for it.

I'm not - I'm comparing Russian and Israeli military incompetence and the way it is punished. If you want to make any further comparisons, that's up to you.


That was a pretty horrifying incident.

I think people died for want of the proper antidote in the hospitals, but the Army wanted to keep the gas used secret, until it was too late...

And I think the Belsan school "rescue" was also botched by jittery security forces...


Pilots miss things like that all the time. For a good example of this, see the A-10 pilots who attacked the Household Cavalry during the Iraq invasion. They managed to convince themselves that a Scimitar armoured recce vehicle with standard coalition bright orange recognition panels on the roof was in fact a soviet-made lorry with orange rockets on the back. If mistakes like that can be made by US pilots nowadays (who are one hell of a lot better trained than the Israelis of the time, and who are doing a specialised job - remember the Mirage pilots weren't trained in anti-shipping work), then why assume the Israelis would spot something like a flag? I'm not excusing their lack of competence here, just pointing out that I'm not exactly surprised...


The Amercian pilots may have been on speed...


You're misreading it slightly - there were two seperate air attacks. The first strike (Mirage pilots) identified it as a Hunt class destroyer (! - again, demonstrating a clear lack of a clue what it was beyond being grey and floating) and assumed it was hostile as it didn't display an Israeli recognition symbol. They strafed it with 30mm cannon only.
The second attack was by Super-Mysteres diverted while airbourne from a strike against Egyptian infantry. That article states they were armed with Napalm, although air to ground rockets would be plausible.

No:


After two low sweeps by the lead plane, at 1:58 p.m., the Mirages were cleared to attack. For want of anything more potent, they strafed the ship they saw. (by the way, its pure luck - good or ill - that they didn't shoot up the Israeli FAC - they just hit the first ship they saw). The first salvos caught the Liberty's crew in "stand-down" mode; several officers were sunning themselves on the deck, unaware of the Israeli jets bearing down on them. Before they could take shelter, rockets and 30-mm cannon shells stitched the ship from bow to stern, severing the antennas and setting oil drums on fire. Nine men were killed in the initial assault, and several times that number wounded, among them McGonagle.


He mentions rockets after, while failing to list them as part of the planes armament initially...


The Israeli army didn't do all that badly in Lebanon considering they're a conscript army with all that entails (although it's worth noting that they took almost as many casualties to take a few miles against a terrorist as the US/UK took to capture the whole of Iraq). The naval contribution to the Israeli campaign however seems to have been something of a fiasco.

A lot of Israeli Reservists were very bitter, saying that the logistics were very poor. They lacked basics such as water, ammo, and food. They were also sent into a battle that was determined by the enemy...

Rising Sun*
08-14-2007, 08:40 PM
I think people died for want of the proper antidote in the hospitals, but the Army wanted to keep the gas used secret, until it was too late...

And I think the Belsan school "rescue" was also botched by jittery security forces...

I don't think there's any comparison between hostage incidents and the Liberty.

The Russian hostage incidents presented Russia with situations that had to be resolved. They were both likely to turn out badly, just a question of how many hostages got hurt. There's no guaranteed way to get into either situation and save all the hostages and kill all the kidnappers, who were dispersed and wired to explode. That's precisely why the kidnappers picked those situations. Gassing the theatre was probably the best of a lot of bad options. Beslan was a disorganised shambles from the Russian side from start to finish and shows a complete lack of preparedness and training.

Liberty was either a case of repeated misidentifications of an alleged Egyptian horse carrier which bore no resemblance to Liberty, or a series of intentional attacks on a US ship by Israeli sea and air forces.

Generally I go for a stuff up over a conspiracy, but in Liberty's case I read the evidence as inconsistent with a stuff up and consistent only with determined attacks on what was clearly a US ship. I'm rusty on it now but I read a lot about it a couple of years ago and couldn't come to any other conclusion.

I don't accept the "Israelis were incompetent" argument.

They should be judged by their own standards. They presented themselves at the time as very proficient in all services. Proficient airmen and sailors could never make so many mistakes. Even poor ones would be struggling to do it, e.g. being in sight of Liberty crew while machine gunning them on deck and not picking up that they were US sailors.

Chevan
08-15-2007, 12:26 AM
I don't think there's any comparison between hostage incidents and the Liberty.

The Russian hostage incidents presented Russia with situations that had to be resolved. They were both likely to turn out badly, just a question of how many hostages got hurt. There's no guaranteed way to get into either situation and save all the hostages and kill all the kidnappers, who were dispersed and wired to explode. That's precisely why the kidnappers picked those situations. Gassing the theatre was probably the best of a lot of bad options. Beslan was a disorganised shambles from the Russian side from start to finish and shows a complete lack of preparedness and training.

BTW the school in Beslan was fully mined too.
The most of victims was in sport-room where the bandits exploded the mine that was suspend.
Well i have to add that in Beslan the assault has bagin right after the terrorists-shahids bagn to kill the hostages.
I/ve read the story of one officer who participated in attack.Terrorist indeed did not want to liberate the anybody - they was not so stoopid to think the sombody could admit their sencless political demands.
The terrorist attack was planned as the great political show-slaugtering where the main target was the mass killing of Innocent peoples.But not immediatelly but when the russian special units should began the assault.
The terrorists has learned the lack in Moscow thearte - when the gass prevent them to explode the entire building. However in Beslan they could not to detonate the all of charges.Therefore the 333 was killed ( mostly who was in the sport-room) from 1120 hostage at all.


Cheers.

pdf27
08-15-2007, 01:35 AM
He mentions rockets after, while failing to list them as part of the planes armament initially...
Good spot - I'll have a word with him about that later today to clarify.

pdf27
08-15-2007, 02:53 AM
Thinking about it, a number of the early air-to-air rockets (which the Mirages are stated as being armed with) were unguided so could plausibly (if ineffectively) be used against a surface target. I'll check with him on this one.

pdf27
08-15-2007, 10:07 AM
I'll check with him on this one.

Got a reply back...


The reference to rockets comes from the statements of Liberty crewmen and is a little bit of a mystery. The Mirages certainly didn't carry them so there are two possibilities.

1) What were reported as "rockets" were 30mm tracer rounds. The 30mm cannon was a lot larger than anything the USN aircraft carried and was a lot slower-firing so its easy to see a seamen looking at a fighter approaching with heavy red streaks leaving it and approaching said seamen for him to asusme they were rockets. By way of example, I was watching German tanks doing gunnery practice at Castlemartin in Wales once and the red streaks from their tracer shots looked exactly like rockets. So, the simplest explanation is that the "rockets" were misidentified 30mm tracers. Also, the 30mm was a pretty punchy gun so its terminal effects may well have been confused as well.

2) The Mirages fired their Sidewinders as unguided air-to-surface rockets. That's not unprecedented; in Vietnam AIM-4 Falcons were used as anti-truck rockets. It's even possible the Mirage pilots got a tone, the Liberty was in the sun, its metal may have been warm and that might have been enough to cause a tone. I doubt it very much, although early model Sidewinders were notorious for wandering off after random heat sources.

Personally, I would jump to explanation (1); a simple mistake by the Liberty crew under severe threat. That's very common indeed, its why eye-witness evidence is usually the least reliable.

Oh, by the way, the remaining documents on the Liberty incident have now been declassified includinga ll of the intercept tapes etc. They very effectively debunk the accusations made by the "deliberate attack" school (although I have no doubt they'll carry on claiming that there are other "concealed" bit of evidenbce that would prove their case however the onus is now on them to prove that such evidence exists). One interesting thing that did come out was that the "large flag" turned out to be a 7x13 foot ensign flown from an extemporized yardarm. 7x13 is not a large flag.

Another interesting revelation is that the Liberty wasn't the only US intelligence asset in the area; there were also US Navy EC-121 and USAF EC-130 aircraft in the area - and the EC-121s were much closer to Israel than the Liberty. If there had been a deliberate attempt to eliminate US recon elements in the area, those aircraft in particular would have gone first.

The declassified reports and supporting evidence are on the National Security Agency website. They unambiguously conclude that the attack was an unfortunate error.

Interesting one on the flag. When the Mirages made their pass to try and ID the Liberty they were at about 3,000ft. 7ft x 13ft is about the size of a car, and from 3,000ft you can spot cars and tell what colour they are but that's about it - IDing make isn't practical. I'll try and dig out some old air photos I've got kicking about from 3,000ft or so later on tonight if I get the time.

Chevan
08-16-2007, 12:18 AM
Got a reply back...



Interesting one on the flag. When the Mirages made their pass to try and ID the Liberty they were at about 3,000ft. 7ft x 13ft is about the size of a car, and from 3,000ft you can spot cars and tell what colour they are but that's about it - IDing make isn't practical. I'll try and dig out some old air photos I've got kicking about from 3,000ft or so later on tonight if I get the time.

Sorry pdf this is a fulll buls....t.
Here is the the great contraduction with the testimoties of Veteran of Liberty.
1. The attack was PRECISION - the first aim was the radio-tower, that was damageg hited at the firsts moments of attack.So the Mirages could attacket from the distance 3000ft ( about 1 kilometer) with so precisions.
Thus the altitude of attack was much LOWER.
2.The Napalms bombs that as told the veterans WERE dropped also with Great precisions to the desk of Liberty , killing the peoples.They aslo could not drop it from th 1 killometre;)
3. The Israel torpedo boats open PRECISION MashinGun fire for the Peoples on the desk. The aimed to everybody moved- even for the whom want to help the wounded peoples.
So the distanse of attack was FAR LESS then 1 kilometer.
4. The Israels opened precision fire even for the lifeboats with survived sailors- thus the Israel has violated the Genava convention;)
5.ANd finally the Liberty call for the help on RADIO.
And Isreal certainly intercepted this radio-calls. ( Coz Liberty used the all avialible frequencis on the international SOS radio-frequency)

All those contraductional facts make ridiculous the version about "Tradic incident".

Cheers.

Chevan
08-16-2007, 12:32 AM
Here is the good stuff that explains what the Vetrans of Liberty think about the "Tradical Incident"

http://www.ussliberty.org/thebiglie.htm
The Big Lie
Ahron Jay Cristol, the author of dense and nearly unreadable screed published in 2002 as The Liberty Incident, persists in repeating at every opportunity the false report that the Liberty attack has been repeatedly investigated and found to be a tragic accident. The Liberty Incident, now out of print, was first published as a doctoral thesis and eventually in hard and soft cover by Brassey's. Cristol's web site proclaims in its second paragraph:
"After ten official US investigations (including five congressional investigations), there was never any evidence that the attack was made with knowledge that the target was a US ship. There is substantial evidence the attack was a tragic mistake caused by blunders of both the US and Israel. Eight US presidents, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, and Bush (43), have each accepted the conclusion that the attack was a tragic case of mistaken identity."

We have found no evidence that any of those assertions are true. Mr. Cristol has not responded to our repeated requests for proof or documentation of those claims. Moreover, the Liberty Veterans Association has long offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who can show that these statements are true.
See www.ussliberty.org/challenge.htm. No one has ever applied for the reward. There has never been a Congressional investigation. We are unaware that any American president has accepted the position that the attack was a tragic accident. The only American government investigation of any kind was the U.S.Navy Court of Inquiry in 1967. That inquiry examined only the performance of the crew and the adequacy of communications and avoided entirely the question of whether the attack was deliberate, accepting "at face value" the Israeli claim that the attack was an accident. That inquiry has been dismissed by its own legal counsel, legal counsel to the convening authority and numerous other key figures as fraudulent.
Yet Mr. Cristol persists in his false reports. Unfortunately, the big lie has been repeated so often that it is widely repeated even by Members of Congress as if it were established fact. Moreover, we have a letter from the Librarian of Congress verifying that there has never been such an investigation which is reproduced below.

We have repeatedly requested that Mr. Cristol explain, justify, remove or stop repeating his false claim. He declines to do so or to respond -- although his failure to keep the book in print is a statement in itself.

Meanwhile, Cristol ignores our specific request for comment.

So guys as you could see the Zionists even today succesfully coveres the provocation with Liberty.
The their explanation as "tradical incident" is FULLY FALSIFIED.
And as liers ( very professional liers BTW) they SIMPLY ignored the public discussion with the survivals witness - this is no amazing- they have NOTHING to say.
This lie simply insults the survived peoples.


Cheers.

Chevan
08-16-2007, 12:51 AM
During the Six Day War between Israel and the Arab States, the American intelligence ship USS Liberty was attacked for 75 minutes in international waters by Israeli aircraft and motor torpedo boats.
http://www.ussliberty.org/g/lg/lg0033.jpg
The damaged Liberty after arriving to the port - the BIG AMERICAN FALG IS CLEARLY VISIBLE from the distance over 500 metres( the most probable distance of attack but mashingun fire)

Cheers.

pdf27
08-16-2007, 02:59 AM
Sorry pdf this is a fulll buls....t.
Here is the the great contraduction with the testimoties of Veteran of Liberty.
1. The attack was PRECISION - the first aim was the radio-tower, that was damageg hited at the firsts moments of attack.So the Mirages could attacket from the distance 3000ft ( about 1 kilometer) with so precisions.
Thus the altitude of attack was much LOWER.
Without guided weapons and a LOT of training, there is no such thing as a precision attack. If the Mirages hit the radio aerials, it was purely by luck.
Incidentally, I didn't say that the attack took place from a height of 1km - the aircraft overflew the Liberty at a height of 1km to try and identify it. When they decided it was hostile, they dropped to a lower height to attack but given that they had already decided it was hostile didn't bother to continue checking that assumption. This is a very common attitude among pilots.


2.The Napalms bombs that as told the veterans WERE dropped also with Great precisions to the desk of Liberty , killing the peoples.They aslo could not drop it from th 1 killometre;)
1) I never said they were dropped from 1km.
2) Just beause one or more hit the Liberty does not mean they were dropped with great precision - how many missed and landed in the sea?


3. The Israel torpedo boats open PRECISION MashinGun fire for the Peoples on the desk. The aimed to everybody moved- even for the whom want to help the wounded peoples.
So the distanse of attack was FAR LESS then 1 kilometer.
There is no such thing as precision machine gun fire. All machine guns operate on the beaten zone principle - they are designed to be inaccurate so as to spread the bullets they fire over a wide zone, as this is considered more effective than all the bullets hitting the same target. Furthermore, the Israeli attackers were in small torpedo boats in a very rough sea - they will have been pitching up and down with the waves. I'm not sure how much (if any) shooting you've done, but hitting individual people beyond 100m takes a fair bit of skill when lying still on land.
What almost certainly happened is that the Liberty survivors experienced machine gun fire coming in on them while trying to help the injured. This would certainly feel to them like they were being targeted, but in reality the Israelis were lucky to hit the ship.


4. The Israels opened precision fire even for the lifeboats with survived sailors- thus the Israel has violated the Genava convention;)
No lifeboats were ever launched by the Liberty - and any Geneva convention violation would only kick in had they been firing on lifeboats in the water with survivors in board. And as mentioned above, I'd be surprised if the Israelis could even reliably hit a lifeboat.


5.ANd finally the Liberty call for the help on RADIO.
And Isreal certainly intercepted this radio-calls. ( Coz Liberty used the all avialible frequencis on the international SOS radio-frequency)
The Liberty was a specialised electronic-intelligence ship with massively powerful radios and radio intercept gear. It isn't possible to "intercept" a radio message - the only way to stop it is to blanket out the signal with electronic noise, and this is very obvious to everyone else that you are doing it.
A signal powerful enough to jam out the Liberty would have caused major electronic problems all over the eastern half of the Mediterranean, and there are a hell of a lot of people out there who would have noticed. Including a whole US carrier battle group.
Nobody noticed any such jamming, so it is reasonable to conclude it didn't exist. The most likely reason that the Liberty was unable to transmit is simply that the radio aerials were damaged in the attack and unable to transmit. After all, didn't you claim at the top of this post that the first attack was a "precision" attack on the radio mast?


All those contraductional facts make ridiculous the version about "Tradic incident".
Ummm... you didn't read that article I linked to, did you? That covered all of these points in detail.


The damaged Liberty after arriving to the port - the BIG AMERICAN FALG IS CLEARLY VISIBLE from the distance over 500 metres( the most probable distance of attack but mashingun fire)
Is it? Doesn't look very clear to me. The Roman lettering on the bow is clear, but the flag is small and flopping down. Remember also that at the time the torpedo boats attacked the Liberty was on fire from the napalm attack. Thus there will have been a lot of dense, black smoke in the air likely to obscure the flag and generally make identification difficult.

Rising Sun*
08-16-2007, 07:55 AM
There is no such thing as precision machine gun fire. All machine guns operate on the beaten zone principle - they are designed to be inaccurate so as to spread the bullets they fire over a wide zone, as this is considered more effective than all the bullets hitting the same target. My bold

As a former machine gunner, I disagree.

Most post-WWII MG's are designed not to put each round into the same place as the last one, a la the Bren.

They are not designed to blow rounds randomly “over a wide zone“.

In the hands of a competent gunner they will still put a lot of rounds into a small area very effectively and hit anyone in it.

If they couldn’t, they’d be useless weapons and not worth the trouble of lugging them and their heavy ammo around.


Furthermore, the Israeli attackers were in small torpedo boats in a very rough sea - they will have been pitching up and down with the waves. My bold

No, they weren't. A torpedo boat isn't small. It was a calm sea. One of the issues that has been debated is whether the Liberty's flag was visible because of the light wind.

http://hnn.us/articles/195.html

Wind is the primary cause of waves.


I'm not sure how much (if any) shooting you've done, but hitting individual people beyond 100m takes a fair bit of skill when lying still on land.

Nobody said they were aiming at individual people. They were firing at crew whenever they appeared on deck.

A naval machine gunner ought to be able to compensate for his gun platform‘s movement, in the same way the helicopter gunners do.

I never had any trouble keeping fire on cars and other range targets at considerably more than 100 yards with vehicle mounted .30 and .50 cal, the latter being what the Israeli navy were using against Liberty.

As for lying down on land with a 7.62mm M60 or L2, ‘cos it’s not something you’d do with a .50, it’s a doddle.

FFS, we could hit sheep out past 500 metres with long tracer bursts.


What almost certainly happened is that the Liberty survivors experienced machine gun fire coming in on them while trying to help the injured. This would certainly feel to them like they were being targeted, but in reality the Israelis were lucky to hit the ship.

Then they were lucky thousands of times.

Do you seriously think that a naval machine gunner can’t hit a ship when his boat is cruising up and down its sides?

Please familiarise yourself with the event before making such silly statements.


In Malta, crewmen were later assigned the task of counting all of the holes in the ship that were the size of a man’s hand or larger. They found a total of 861 such holes, in addition to “thousands” of .50 caliber machine gun holes.

http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.pdf p.6



No lifeboats were ever launched by the Liberty

The people who were actually on the Liberty say they launched lifeboats. What better source do you have to contradict them?


Survivors also report that the torpedo boat crews fired on the inflated life boats launched by the crew after the captain gave the order “prepare to abandon ship.”24 This order had to be rescinded because the crew was unable to stand on the main deck without being fired upon and the life rafts were destroyed as they were launched. http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.pdf p.7



And as mentioned above, I'd be surprised if the Israelis could even reliably hit a lifeboat.

Are you serious? If so, that is either a ridiculously ill-informed comment or a disingenuous attempt to relieve the Israelis of responsibility by portraying them as woefully incompetent, which has been an unsustainable theme in earlier posts.


The Liberty was a specialised electronic-intelligence ship with massively powerful radios and radio intercept gear. It isn't possible to "intercept" a radio message - the only way to stop it is to blanket out the signal with electronic noise, and this is very obvious to everyone else that you are doing it.

A signal powerful enough to jam out the Liberty would have caused major electronic problems all over the eastern half of the Mediterranean, and there are a hell of a lot of people out there who would have noticed. Including a whole US carrier battle group.
Nobody noticed any such jamming, so it is reasonable to conclude it didn't exist.

Why is that a reasonable conclusion?

Frequencies are jammed, not the whole radio spectrum.

What frequencies were shared by the Liberty and other ships?

Where was the rest of the US Fleet?

How much time did the Israelis have to monitor the Liberty’s transmissions to identify the frequencies to be jammed?

Your blanket dismissal requires a lot more detail to stand up.

Check out how many frequencies and nets the Liberty operated on. It’s remarkable that none of them were available.


Doesn't look very clear to me. The Roman lettering on the bow is clear, but the flag is small and flopping down.

When checked by the Israeli aircraft, the five by eight foot flag had twelve knots across it. It was unfurled and clear.

Rising Sun*
08-16-2007, 07:59 AM
A bigger issue is that the Israelis had been tracking the ship long before the attack and knew exactly what it was and where it was. This knowledge destroys all Israeli attempts to pretend that the subsequent attacks were an accident.


At approximately 0600 hours (all times local) on the morning of June 8, 1967 an Israeli maritime reconnaissance aircraft observer reported seeing “a US Navy cargo type ship,” just outside the coverage of the Israeli coastal radar defense net, bearing the hull markings “GTR-5”.11 This report, made to Israeli naval HQ, was also forwarded immediately to the Israeli navy intelligence directorate.12

7 Attack on a SIGINT Collector, Exhibit 4-64
“. . . Liberty was decommissioned on 28 June 1968. In 1970 the ship was turned over to the Maritime Administration
and sold for scrap for $101,666.66.”
8 Ram Ron Report, p. 3, Exhibit 8-3
“After identifying the ship on Janes’ (The Fleet’s manual – Exhibit 1) and based on detailed investigation by
the pilot – the identification of the ship was determined to be the US Navy ship “Liberty” (formerly supply
ship) of an 18 knot speed.”
9 IDF History Report, Exhibit 2-14. This document is a map, prepared by the IDF, that shows the territorial limits of
Egypt and Israel, as well as USS Liberty’s track (well outside all claimed territorial seas) on the day of June 8, 1967.
Exhibit 2-14
10 Attack on a SIGINT Collector, quoting the charges filed by the Israeli Chief Military Prosecutor, specifically,
Charges 4 and 5 Exhibit 4-39:
“4. Charge: That the Naval Department's order not to attack the ship (the Liberty), "for fear of error and out
of uncertainty with regard to the true identity of the ship," was not delivered to the torpedo boat division.
5. Charge: That it was negligence to give the order to attack a warship without previously establishing, beyond
doubt, its national identity and without taking into account the presence of the American Ship, Liberty,
in the vicinity of the coast of Israel.”
11 IDF History Report, Exhibit 2-678:
“The [Israeli maritime reconnaissance aircraft] patrol’s mission was to detect ship movements before vessels
could enter coastal radar detection range.
4
Throughout the remainder of the day prior to the attack, Israeli reconnaissance aircraft regularly flew out to USS Liberty’s position and orbited the ship before returning to their bases in Israel. A total of no fewer than eight (8) such flights were made.13 At approximately 1050 hours, the naval observer from the early morning reconnaissance flight arrived at Israeli air force HQ and sat down with the air-naval liaison officer there. The two officers consulted Janes’ Fighting Ships and learned that the ship reported earlier in the day was USS Liberty, a United States Navy technical research ship.14

From 0900 hours on June 8, 1967, until the time of the attack five hours later, USS Liberty maintained a speed of approximately five knots and a generally westerlynorthwesterly
course.15
. . .
Meanwhile, the “Nord” plane which had been patrolling the sea had landed and [at 1050 hours local time]
the observer was debriefed by Lt. Commander Pinchasi, a navy representative at Air Command. The observer
reported spotting the marking GTR-5 on the ship’s side. Lt. Commander Pinchasi checked the marking
in a “Janes” manual and learned that the reference was to an intelligence ship named “Liberty.”
12 IDF History Report, Exhibit 2-8:
“He [Pinchasi] reported the information to Naval Operations Section/3 and since the reference was to an intelligence
ship he likewise reported to Naval Operations Section/4 (intelligence).
13 Memorandum from Carl F. Salans, Department of State Legal Advisor to the Undersecretary of State, dated September
21, 1967 and titled: The Liberty -- Discrepancies Between Israeli Inquiry and U.S. Navy Inquiry (the “Salans
Report”), Exhibit 9:
:
“II. Aircraft Surveillance
The Israeli report indicates that a ship was reported in the area by
reconnaissance aircraft at 0600 and that another report was received of
a contact between an Israeli aircraft and a surface vessel about 0900.
The Navy Court finding of facts, plus testimony of various members of
the crew indicate reconnaissance overflights of the Liberty at 0515,
0850, 1030, 1056, 1126, 1145, 1220, and 1245.” [all times local]
14 IDF History Report, Exhibit 2-8:
“Lt. Commander Pinchasi checked the marking in a “Janes” manual and learned that the reference was to
an intelligence ship named “Liberty.”
15 IDF History Report, (map), Exhibit 2-14:
5
At 1400 hours, while approximately 17 miles off the Gaza coast, USS Liberty’s crew observed three surface radar contacts closing with their position at high speed. A few moments later, the bridge radar crew observed high speed aircraft passing over the surface returns on the same heading.16

http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.pdf pp 2-4

Rising Sun*
08-16-2007, 08:02 AM
Another factor that destroys Israeli attempts to present it as an accident is the reaction after the US launched carrier borne fighters with orders to engage the Liberty’s attackers.


By patching together different systems, the ship’s radio operators had ultimately been able to send a brief distress message that was received and acknowledged by United States Sixth Fleet forces present in the Mediterranean.26 Upon receipt of that
23 Statement of survivor James M. Ennes, Jr., Exhibit 12.
“Almost every man on that ship recalls -- as I personally recall very clearly from my position outside the
wardroom -- that the torpedo boats then circled the ship for a long time firing at close range at anything that
moved. Men trying to aid their wounded shipmates on deck were fired upon. Men fighting fires were fired
upon and recall seeing their fire hoses punctured by machinegun fire. This went on for several minutes. At
one point the boatmen concentrated their fire near the waterline amidships, presumably hoping to blow up
the boilers to hasten our demise. Finally they pulled a distance back from the ship.”
24 Statement of survivor Glenn Oliphant: Exhibit 11.
“Shortly after the torpedo hit, the order was received to abandon ship.”
25 See statement of Lloyd Painter, Exhibit 10 and statement of Glenn Oliphant, Exhibit 11.
Statement of survivor James M. Ennes, Jr., Exhibit 12.
26 Exhibit 13:
081235Z
FM NJRS
TO CINCNAEUR
INFO BGOC
8
message the aircraft carriers USS Saratoga and USS America each launched aircraft to come to the aid of USS Liberty.27 The reported attacking aircraft were declared hostile and the rescue aircraft were authorized to destroy them upon arrival.28 The rules of e ngagement, authorizing destruction of the attackers, were transmitted to the rescue aircraft “in the clear” (i.e., they were not encrypted).
Shortly after the Sixth Fleet transmission of the rules of engagement to its dispatched rescue aircraft, the Israeli torpedo boats suddenly broke off their attack and transmitted messages asking if USS Liberty required assistance.29 At the same time, an
FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM ROCKSTAR AM UNDER ATTACK MY POSIT 31-23N 33-25E HAVE
BEEN HIT REQUEST IMMED ASSISTANCE
27 Exhibit 14:
081250Z JUN 67
FM COMSIXTHFLT
TO USS SARATOGA
USS AMERICA
INFO CTF SIX ZERO
CTG SIX ZERO PT TWO
BT
C O N F I D E N T I A L
1. AMERICA LAUNCH FOUR ARMED A4’S TO PROCEED TO 31-23N 33-25E TO
DEFEND USS LIBERTY WHO IS NOW UNDER ATTACK BY GUN BOATS. PROVIDE
FIGHTER COVER AND TANKERS. RELIEVE ON STATION. SARATOGA LAUNCH
FOUR ARMED A-1’S ASAP SAME MISSION.
GP-4
BT
28 Exhibit 15:
081339Z. USS Liberty Incident.
1. IAW CINCUSNAVEUR inst P03611#SB forces attacking Liberty are declared hostile.
2. You are authorized to use force including destruction as necessary to control the situation. Do not use
more force than required, do not pursue any unit towards land for reprisal purposes. Purpose of counterattack
is to protect Liberty only.
3. Brief all pilots contents this msg.
4. In addition brief pilots that Egyptian territorial limit only 12 miles and Liberty right on edge. Do not fly between
Liberty and shoreline except as required to carry out provisions para 2 above. Brief fighter cover that
any attacks on attack aircraft, Liberty or they themselves is hostile act and para two above applies.
29 Attack on a SIGINT Collector, Exhibit 4-30
“One of the boats signaled by flashing light, in English, "Do you require assistance?" Not being able to signal
by light, Commander McGonagle ordered a signalman to hoist the international flag signal for "not under
command," meaning that the ship was maneuvering with difficulty and that they should keep clear.”
9
Israeli naval officer notified the US Naval Attaché at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv that Israeli forces had mistakenly attacked a United States Navy ship and apologized. The Naval Attaché notified the United States Sixth Fleet30 and the rescue aircraft were recalled before they arrived at the scene of the attack.31

At about the same time as the cessation of the torpedo boat attack, Israeli attack
helicopters arrived over the ship.32 Survivors report that the helicopters were packed with men in combat battle dress. The Captain of USS Liberty gave the order to “prepare to repel boarders”33 but the helicopters departed without attempting to land their troops.34
30 Exhibit 16
Tel Aviv, June 8, 1967, 1414Z.
“0825. ALUSNA called to FLO to receive report. Israeli aircraft and MTB's erroneously attacked U.S. ship at
081200Z position 3125Z 33-33E. May be navy ship. IDF helicopters in rescue operations. No other info. Israelis
send abject apologies and request info of other US ships near war zone coasts.”
31 Exhibit 17
081440Z JUN 67
FM COMSIXTHFLT
TO AMERICA/SARATOGA /CTF60/CTG60.2
CONFIDENTIAL
1. RECALL ALL STRIKES REPEAT RECALL ALL STRIKES
32 Statement of survivor Richard Carlson, Exhibit 18
“An officer comes in from outside. We can’t go out there. They are shooting at anyone on deck and have
shot up the life rafts. I hear the whirl of a helicopter. It passes by the porthole. Did I just see armed troops?
Word is passed. “Prepare to repel boarders!’”
33 Statement of survivor James Kavanagh, Exhibit 19
“13. A few minutes later we were told to stand by to repel boarders. We received a few guns and
waited patiently for the battle.”
Statement of survivor Richard Carlson, Exhibit 18
“An officer comes in from outside. We can’t go out there. They are shooting at anyone on deck and have
shot up the life rafts. I hear the whirl of a helicopter. It passes by the porthole. Did I just see armed troops?
Word is passed. “Prepare to repel boarders!”
34 Attack on a SIGINT Collector, Exhibit 4-30
“At about 1515 hours, two helicopters approached the Liberty and circled around the ship at a distance of
about 100 yards. The Star of David insignia was clearly visible. One of the helicopters was numbered 04 or
D4, the other 08 or DB. The helicopters departed, returned, and departed again.”

http://www.ussliberty.org/report/report.pdf pp. 7 -9



Remember also that at the time the torpedo boats attacked the Liberty was on fire from the napalm attack. Thus there will have been a lot of dense, black smoke in the air likely to obscure the flag and generally make identification difficult.

Isn’t the whole problem of a supposedly mistaken attack more to do with the attacks initiated by the aircraft?

When was the last time you heard of napalm being used against a ship?

If you want to sink a ship from the air, you don’t use cannon (on your version as you say there were no rockets) and napalm.

However, if you’ve suddenly decided to divert aircraft armed for land attack because, say, you’re worried that the Liberty has picked up signals about you massacring Egyptian prisoners, then you get them to slow the ship down with land armaments until you can get torpedo boats out there to sink it and or helicopter borne troops to capture it, or kill the rest of the crew before sinking it.

If you’re sure it’s an Egyptian ship hostile to you (despite already identifying it as the USS Liberty), even though it’s armed only with four .50 cal MG’s for self defence which your dopey Israeli pilots couldn’t see because they can’s even see a five foot by eight foot flag, why not just launch aircraft equipped with naval armament as well as your torpedo boats?

Why break off the action and apologise for it when you realise that you’re about to be hit by American aircraft launched with orders to destroy you?

Any reasonable reading of what actually happened, and such information as is available from both sides, can’t lead to any conclusion other than that it was a deliberate and sustained attack by the Israelis.

pdf27
08-16-2007, 12:54 PM
As a former machine gunner, I disagree.
In the hands of a competent gunner they will still put a lot of rounds into a small area very effectively and hit anyone in it.
As you've got relevant experience on this one I'll defer to you on it. I'm aware they're designed to create a beaten zone but I don't know how big this zone is.
Incidentally, I was wrong to state that it was Machine Gun fire - the boats were apparently armed with 1 x 40mm and 2 x 20mm cannon. These would be rather a lot heavier than a GPMG and I don't think stabilised mounts had yet worked their way down to such small weapons.


No, they weren't. A torpedo boat isn't small. It was a calm sea. One of the issues that has been debated is whether the Liberty's flag was visible because of the light wind.
These were - they're 70 feet long and 60 tonnes, built in France in the early 1950s. Think of them as basically WW2 MTBs. Going by Stuart's article, the sea state was enough to knock their top speed down from 36 to 24 kts. That would be enough I suspect to inhibit accurate shooting. I would also note that what appears to be a calm sea from a 8,000 tonne freighter may not appear to be so from a 60 tonne speedboat.
**Caveat** The 24 kts figure is calculated from the Israeli statement that they misidentified the Liberty because they calculated from it's movement relative to them that it was doing 30 kts. If they are lying about their reasons for attacking the Liberty, it is possible that the seas were calm enough for accurate shooting.


A naval machine gunner ought to be able to compensate for his gun platform‘s movement, in the same way the helicopter gunners do.
See above - the weapon were actually cannon so a great deal heavier. I'm not sure how this affects things.


I never had any trouble keeping fire on cars and other range targets at considerably more than 100 yards with vehicle mounted .30 and .50 cal, the latter being what the Israeli navy were using against Liberty.
Were you moving at the time, or stationary?


Are you serious? If so, that is either a ridiculously ill-informed comment or a disingenuous attempt to relieve the Israelis of responsibility by portraying them as woefully incompetent, which has been an unsustainable theme in earlier posts.
The reasons I'm portraying them as woefully incompetent is that I think they make Elmer Fudd look like a tactical genius in many cases, and particularly at sea. Note also that I do not consider that gross negligence relieves them of responsibility, merely of malice.


Your blanket dismissal requires a lot more detail to stand up.
Check out how many frequencies and nets the Liberty operated on. It’s remarkable that none of them were available.
It comes down to Occam's razor here. The options are that either the Israelis were jamming every frequency that the Liberty tried yet somehow wasn't noticed by any other US shipping in the region, or her antennae had suffered battle damage and were inoperable. Given that IIRC there are accounts from the crew of repairing battle damage to the radio systems after the attack, I would tend to suspect the latter as the more plausible.


When checked by the Israeli aircraft, the five by eight foot flag had twelve knots across it. It was unfurled and clear.
Quite possible. I would refer you again to the incident on Telic 1 where L/CoH Matty Hull was killed and Tpr Chris Finney got the GC when they were attacked by A-10s. The video is out there and clearly shows allegedly highly trained US ground attack pilots talking themselves into believing that the flourescent orange recognition panels on their Scimitar armoured recce vehicles were in fact "orange rockets". If current day US pilots can screw up that badly, why should Israeli pilots from the 1960s be any better?

Rising Sun*
08-16-2007, 04:35 PM
These were - they're 70 feet long and 60 tonnes, built in France in the early 1950s. Think of them as basically WW2 MTBs. Going by Stuart's article, the sea state was enough to knock their top speed down from 36 to 24 kts. That would be enough I suspect to inhibit accurate shooting. I would also note that what appears to be a calm sea from a 8,000 tonne freighter may not appear to be so from a 60 tonne speedboat.

I know what they were. It doesn’t alter my point. I think the problem is that the discussion is being conducted by people with no knowledge of boats and ships, and being on the water.

My old 12 foot dinghy and my current 15 foot runabout are small boats. A 70 foot boat is a big boat.

There was a 7 knot wind blowing when Liberty was attacked.

That’s Beaufort 2 to 3, with waves between 1 to 2 feet. My 15’ half tonne boat handles that easily, but can move around a fair bit, depending on angle to waves. A 70’ 60 tonne boat will be pretty stable in it.

Beaufort number 2 - Light Breeze
Wind speeds: 4-6 knots (4-7 mph; 6-11 kph; 1.6-3.3 mps)
At sea: Small wavelets, still short but more pronounced; crests have a glassy appearance and do not break
Sea disturbance number: 1
Probable wave height: 10-15 cm (4-6 in); (0-1 ft; 0-0.3 m)
On land: Wind felt on face; leaves rustle; ordinary vane moved by wind
Notes: Wind fills sails of yacht, which then may move at 1-2 knots



Beaufort number 3 - Gentle Breeze
Wind speeds: 7-10 knots (8-12 mph; 12-19 kph; 3.4-5.4 mps)
At sea: Large wavelets; crests begin to break; foam of glassy appearance; perhaps scattered white horses
Sea disturbance number: 2
Probable wave height: 60 cm (2 ft); (1-2 ft; 0.3-0.6 m)
On land: Leaves and small twigs in constant motion; wind extends light flag
Notes: Yachts start to careen and travel at 3-4 knots




**Caveat** The 24 kts figure is calculated from the Israeli statement that they misidentified the Liberty because they calculated from it's movement relative to them that it was doing 30 kts. If they are lying about their reasons for attacking the Liberty …. .

Anything based on the Liberty’s alleged speed of 30kts demonstrates nothing but a ridiculous argument, except for the Israeli claim which is a patent lie.

The Liberty had a top speed of 18 kts. The Egyptan transport El Kasir, which the torpedo boats claimed to have identified, had a top speed of 14 knots. Any sailor with more than five minutes experience would look at either of those ships and know its top speed was under 20 kts, and no more than 15 for the El Kasir. 30 kts is destroyer speed. This is regardless of the fact that the Israelis had accurately identified the USS Liberty hours earlier and were tracking it to the point of attack.

There’s also the problem that the Liberty was doing only 5 kts.

http://www.ussliberty.org/salans.htm

The gross speed discrepancy doesn’t point to Israeli incompetence, because any sailor can tell the difference between 5 kts and even, say, 15 kts, let alone 30 kts. At 30 kts there’ll be a real big bow wave and wake, and ships of that generation will really heel over on turns. At 5kts you don’t get any of this. It’ll also be quite visible from the air.

The Israeli claim is a patent, and extraordinarily clumsy, lie. Anybody who bases any argument on this lie is, wittingly or unwittingly, putting forward nonsense.


Were you moving at the time, or stationary?

Stationary. I was responding to your point that it’s supposedly hard for a prone machine gunner to hit a man sized target at more than 100 metres.

Sustained fire with automatic weapons isn’t rocket science if you’re using tracer and or can see fall of shot. Apart from controlling recoil and stopping climbing with hand held weapons, (the first of which isn’t and the second of which isn’t much of an issue for mounted weapons), it’s about as instinctive as using a trigger nozzle on a garden hose to put the water where you want it.


it is possible that the seas were calm enough for accurate shooting

The sea was plenty calm enough for very accurate shooting with any man controlled (i.e not gun turret etc) weapon. Bear in mind that boats and ships can fire accurately in heavy weather. That’s what they’re trained to do.


It comes down to Occam's razor here. The options are that either the Israelis were jamming every frequency that the Liberty tried yet somehow wasn't noticed by any other US shipping in the region, or her antennae had suffered battle damage and were inoperable. Given that IIRC there are accounts from the crew of repairing battle damage to the radio systems after the attack, I would tend to suspect the latter as the more plausible.

Isn’t radio range a function of transmitter power? Couldn’t the Israelis jam locally?



Quite possible. I would refer you again to the incident on Telic 1 where L/CoH Matty Hull was killed and Tpr Chris Finney got the GC when they were attacked by A-10s. The video is out there and clearly shows allegedly highly trained US ground attack pilots talking themselves into believing that the flourescent orange recognition panels on their Scimitar armoured recce vehicles were in fact "orange rockets". If current day US pilots can screw up that badly, why should Israeli pilots from the 1960s be any better?

Did the US incident involve a target which had been accurately identified by the attacker’s force and tracked for hours beforehand, with co-ordinated attacks in international waters by two separate forces, i.e. air force and navy, under separate commands?

I accept that mistakes happen all the time in war. I don’t accept that the USS Liberty was one of them, because all the evidence points to a deliberate and sustained attack.

Rising Sun*
08-16-2007, 04:38 PM
Incidentally, I was wrong to state that it was Machine Gun fire - the boats were apparently armed with 1 x 40mm and 2 x 20mm cannon. These would be rather a lot heavier than a GPMG and I don't think stabilised mounts had yet worked their way down to such small weapons.

Do you have a source for the armament?

I'd have thought that MTB's would carry something in the .30 to .50 cal range.

Rising Sun*
08-16-2007, 06:23 PM
Here's what a ship of similar size to the Liberty with a top speed of 12.5 kts doing an unknown speed, maybe 5 to 10 knots, looks like


http://home.earthlink.net/~rms952/USSKermitRoosevelt.jpg
http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://home.earthlink.net/~rms952/USSKermitRoosevelt.jpg&imgrefurl=http://home.earthlink.net/~rms952/History.html&h=350&w=520&sz=55&hl=en&start=70&tbnid=KP2HSCQRhWQNwM:&tbnh=88&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dship%2B5%2Bknots%26start%3D60%26gbv%3 D2%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN


Here's what a ship doing around 30 kts looks like.

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/images/arunta-1.jpg
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/arunta1.html

Rising Sun*
08-16-2007, 07:03 PM
On the question of motive, here's a theory which fits all the facts.

Facts

With the exception of a torpedo, all the air and naval armaments used weren't capable of sinking the Liberty.

All the armaments used were capable of slowing the ship down, either by damaging it or preventing the crew running the ship properly.

Ships that aren't carrying munitions rarely sink immediately after one torpedo hit, especially if all watertight compartments are closed up, which would be the first thing that happened when the attacks started, if they weren't already closed up.

Just before the Israelis decided to break off the assault after learning that the Americans had flown off planes to destroy them, an Israeli helo with combat troops arrived over the Liberty.

The Israelis had identified the Liberty hours before the attack and knew that she was an electronic eavesdropper.


Theory

The Israelis were in the middle of a war where they were committing war crimes they wanted covered up; where they didn't want anyone else to know what their military operations and intentions were; and where, as in all wars, they'd love to have intelligence about the enemy's operations and intentions.

The Liberty was a risk on the first and second aspects and a source on the third.

The only reason for having combat troops arrive in a helo was to take the ship and the intelligence on it, for whatever reason the Israelis wanted it.

Otherwise, why did they do everything possible to ready the Liberty for a helo boarding party instead of just sinking it when there was ample capacity to do it?

Rising Sun*
08-16-2007, 07:54 PM
Another slight problem with the Israeli rubbish that the Liberty was doing 30 kts.


The Israelis claimed to have estimated the Liberty's speed at 30 knots, although the U.S. Navy says the ship was only traveling at five knots. At 30 knots, the Israeli report said, the Israeli torpedo boats would not have been able to catch up with the ship before it reached Port Said.
http://cryptome.org/uss-liberty.htm

Check out the shadow of the Egyptian ship superimposed on Liberty here http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/arguments/american/elquseir.html Could anyone possibly have confused them? Remember that the Israelis claim to have made a positive identification of the Liberty as the Egyptian ship before opening fire.

As for the arguments by the Israelis and their supporters that even if the flag was present it couldn't be seen because it was limp, that's not so in even the Beaufort 2 to 3 breeze that was blowing without adding the Liberty's 5 kts.
http://www.redwitch.com/extras/flag_wind_speed.aspx

As for my previously posted theory


And in a CIA report received by that agency on July 27, 1967, a CIA official quotes one of his sources, who seems to be an Israeli government official:

[Regarding the] attack on USS LIBERTY by Israeli airplanes and torpedo boats . . . He said that, "You've got to remember that in this campaign there is neither time nor room for mistakes," which was intended as an obtuse reference that Israel's forces knew what flag the LIBERTY was flying and exactly what the vessel was doing off the coast. [Deletion] implied that the ship's identity was known six hours before the attack but that Israeli headquarters was not sure as to how many people might have access to the information the LIBERTY was intercepting. He also implied that [deletion] was no certainty on controls as to where the intercepted information was going and again reiterated that Israeli forces did not make mistakes in their campaign. He was emphatic in stating to me that they knew what kind of ship the USS LIBERTY was and what it was doing offshore.
http://www.geocities.com/attackliberty/

pdf27
08-17-2007, 01:52 AM
No time to go into the rest now, but the 30 kts claim is consistent with Israeli incompetence. They calculated the Liberty's speed relative to them, then assumed they were going at their maximum flat water speed. This gave them a speed of about 30 kts.
Oh, and yes, I do find it perfectly plausible that you would be a great deal more competent as a seaman than the crews of these Israeli MTBs. That's how low my opinion of the Israeli navy is.

Chevan
08-17-2007, 03:49 AM
That's how low my opinion of the Israeli navy is.
Why have you so low oppinion.
The Isreal navy were near to SINK the Liberty. At leas the one torpedo that could sink the any Eguptian USS has reached the aim;)
Not bad for the "Incompetent " Isreal Navy, right.
BTW the Isreal aviation was not such incopentent during the siwx day war.
It so strange ESPECIALLYwhen the were full fools attacking the Liberty;)

Rising Sun*
08-17-2007, 04:24 AM
Why have you so low oppinion.
The Isreal navy were near to SINK the Liberty. At leas the one torpedo that could sink the any Eguptian USS has reached the aim;)

Maybe not.

Here's an analysis that shows that the torpedo was set for the Liberty's draught, not the Egyptian ship that the torpedo boats supposedly identified.
http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/essay4

Another problem is why the Israelis would set it for the Liberty's depth when they were supposedly relying on their identification books which showed it to be the Egyptian ship. http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/essay3

That site http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/ is worth a good look. The author takes an objective but highly analytical look at the event. He's not for either side, although he does catch the IDF history section out in yet another Israeli lie in 1982 trying to justify Israeli actions. http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/essay11

Chevan
08-17-2007, 04:51 AM
I have to agree Rising Sun.
They certainly knew it was USS Liberty.
Its amzing for me how could you search the a lot of detailed infor about Isreal provocations?
Did you really study it carefully befor?

Rising Sun*
08-17-2007, 05:38 AM
No time to go into the rest now, but the 30 kts claim is consistent with Israeli incompetence.

It's more consistent with the dominant elements in Israel lying, as they have about this and other inconvenient events which contradict their arrogant self-centred and self-deluding view of themselves as the eternal bloody victim and the noble David forever defending itself against the evil anti-Jewish Goliaths ringing their borders which authorises them to take any steps necessary to preserve themselves, while wilfully blind to the harm they have inflicted and still inflict on others who want to assert better rights to the land the Zionists muscled into and from which they drove the legitimate inhabitants. An unfortunate position which has long been supported by the West, notably the US, which is why the poor bastards on the Liberty will never get any justice from their own government.

On a narrower focus, I think the main reason we're in dispute, at least on the naval aspects, is that we're starting from opposing positions which influence our analyses of the event. You believe the Israelis to be woefully incompetent. I can't believe that any navy remotely like Israel's at the time could even hope to achieve the levels of incompetence required to support the wholly implausible Israeli positions on the Liberty event.

My understanding is that the Israeli navy, like its air force, from its inception in the 1940's had a lot of well-qualified people who had served in WWII in various capacities and who would have formed the basis of a solid force, which would have developed strongly as did the other IDF services. MTB torpedo operations in particular weren't any different in their basics in 1967 to WWII.

I don't know anything about IDF naval development from the 1940's except that they had various fighting ships and several submarines in 1967. A navy that can operate a submarine fleet is not a joke navy.

We're not talking about some moron like Idi Amin here. The IDF has flogged bigger forces in a number of wars over a long period. I can't accept that they're the fools you believe them to be.

What is the basis for your belief that they were such a bunch of clowns, apart from your interpretation of the Liberty event?


They calculated the Liberty's speed relative to them, then assumed they were going at their maximum flat water speed. This gave them a speed of about 30 kts.

That is just plain bloody stupid. (The Israeli argument, not you.) When I'm on the water flat out in my runabout at 30 knots or anchored or at any speed in between, I can see boats and ships a few miles away and know whether they're going fast or slow. Relativity has nothing to do with it. They throw up a wake and move quickly when they're going fast. Even Blind Freddie could work it out.

I know that 5 kts Liberty plus 24 kts MTB is close enough to 30 kts, but, really! Closing speed or relative speed means nothing when you've got other clear indicators on the water. As illustrated by the pictures I posted earlier.

If the Israelis really made such a mistake (which I don't - can't - accept), all I can suggest is that there really is something in the old warning about pulling yourself too much making you go blind. Because the Israelis have really been jerkin' their gherkins to come up the rubbish they've put forward.


Oh, and yes, I do find it perfectly plausible that you would be a great deal more competent as a seaman than the crews of these Israeli MTBs. That's how low my opinion of the Israeli navy is.

That's a nice backhander. :D

I don't know who should be more insulted. The Israeli navy, or me. :D

Rising Sun*
08-17-2007, 06:14 AM
I have to agree Rising Sun.
They certainly knew it was USS Liberty.
Its amzing for me how could you search the a lot of detailed infor about Isreal provocations?
Did you really study it carefully befor?

Yeah, like I said earlier I got interested in it after reading a newspaper article about it and found a lot of stuff on it. The more I got into it the more I realised that the Liberty crew were just another lot of victims of political considerations that sacrifice noble fighting men to disgusting national interests. Still, that's what all wars are about, on one or both sides

My posts in this thread reflect a mix of my recollections from the last time I looked into it, which have been growing as I've been trying to backtrack to find the stuff I found previously, not always with success. For example, I wasted about half an hour yesterday trying to find that video of the flag to illustrate what it looked like in a Beaufort 2 to 3, with no success. I remembered another site today from my first interest and when I got there found the link to the flag video in a few seconds.

Most of the links I've posted go back to my original interest, but I've found some new ones too.

Nothing changes my original view that the Israelis deliberately attacked the Liberty.

One argument often raised against a deliberate Israeli attack is: Why would they risk losing their biggest supporter, the US?

Who knows? The Israelis aren't always rational at the best of times. Why do they consistently lose every opportunity for peace (Arafat didn't have a monopoly on that) and start provocative settlements in occupied areas? Anyway, the Israelis haven't exactly co-operated with the US or anyone else when it didn't suit what they wanted. Despite the usual blame levelled at America, it's not America's fault that the Israelis haven't given the ground, literally and metaphorically, to give peace a chance around Israel.

I've offered one theory for the attack on the Liberty.

Another is that, bearing in mind that it is alleged by some that the Israelis used unmarked planes, they wanted to sink the Liberty to blame it on the Egyptians to draw the Americans into their war.

I don't think that stands up because they didn't use anything that could sink the ship. Or maybe that just supports pdf 27's view that they were a bunch of idiots who couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery.

As it happened, the Americans thought that the attack on the Liberty was by the Soviets and were gearing up for a conflict with your lot. Maybe that would have suited the Israelis, although I doubt they intended that result.

Who knows?

All I know is that the Israeli versions concerning attacking the Liberty are bullshit.

pdf27
08-17-2007, 08:06 AM
It's more consistent with the dominant elements in Israel lying, as they have about this and other inconvenient events which contradict their arrogant self-centred and self-deluding view of themselves as the eternal bloody victim and the noble David forever defending itself against the evil anti-Jewish Goliaths ringing their borders which authorises them to take any steps necessary to preserve themselves, while wilfully blind to the harm they have inflicted and still inflict on others who want to assert better rights to the land the Zionists muscled into and from which they drove the legitimate inhabitants. An unfortunate position which has long been supported by the West, notably the US, which is why the poor bastards on the Liberty will never get any justice from their own government.
Very little arguament on that one, except to point out that a substantial number of Jews were also living in Palestine before zionism kicked off. It's also worth noting that a fraction (unclear how many) of the Palestinian refugees in 1948 moved at the urging of Arab governments to create one big free-fire zone, and that just because Israel is behaving badly does NOT mean that the countries around it are the good guys. In general I'd say most of them are even worse.


On a narrower focus, I think the main reason we're in dispute, at least on the naval aspects, is that we're starting from opposing positions which influence our analyses of the event. You believe the Israelis to be woefully incompetent. I can't believe that any navy remotely like Israel's at the time could even hope to achieve the levels of incompetence required to support the wholly implausible Israeli positions on the Liberty event.
My understanding is that the Israeli navy, like its air force, from its inception in the 1940's had a lot of well-qualified people who had served in WWII in various capacities and who would have formed the basis of a solid force, which would have developed strongly as did the other IDF services. MTB torpedo operations in particular weren't any different in their basics in 1967 to WWII.
I don't know anything about IDF naval development from the 1940's except that they had various fighting ships and several submarines in 1967. A navy that can operate a submarine fleet is not a joke navy.
That was more or less my initial position as well - the chain of cock-ups to create an attack like that on the Liberty is way beyond what any halfway competent military force should do on their worst day. However, the more I read about the Israeli military - and specifically their navy - the more I start to wonder. The examples cited in Stuart's essay had a big part to play here - the entire crew of a fast attack craft going to sleep while on watch at sea in wartime being a good example (the ops officer on that particular craft was none other than the guy in charge of the seabourne attack on the Liberty - clearly a demonstration of his professional competence!).
As for submarines, AIUI the first submarines the Israelis bought were three ex-WW2 British T-class submarines. Of these, one (INS Dakar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Dakar)) was lost in a catastrophic accident on it's delivery voyage to Israel. Incidentally, these didn't arrive until about 6 months after the attack on the Liberty.


We're not talking about some moron like Idi Amin here. The IDF has flogged bigger forces in a number of wars over a long period. I can't accept that they're the fools you believe them to be.
Bigger does not mean competent. Note for instance the comparative performance of Israel in their recent fight with Hezbollah and the performance of US and UK troops in the invasion of Iraq. Coalition forces advanced one hell of a lot further against stronger forces in less time than the Israelis did, and took a much lower rate of casualties in the process.
In naval terms, the fiasco of the INS Hanit is also worth looking at. This dates from the Lebanon war as well. The corvette was basically sitting off the coast and the crew/commanders decided that nobody was likely to shoot at them so they simply turned all of their defensive systems off. At which point Hezbollah prompty hit them with an anti-ship missile.
There is IMHO a pattern at work of the Israelis only seeming good because their opponents are a great deal worse - but people see facts on the ground rather than competence.
I would also point out at this point that the Israeli navy is very much the ginger stepchild when it comes to the Israeli armed forces, so getting the conscripts nobody else wants by and large. If the army loses, Israel ceases to exist. The air force and navy exist to support the army, but the air force can do so a great deal more effectively so does better than the navy. Note that this may have changed recently if the Israeli SSKs have been equipped with nuclear cruise missiles.


That is just plain bloody stupid. (The Israeli argument, not you.) When I'm on the water flat out in my runabout at 30 knots or anchored or at any speed in between, I can see boats and ships a few miles away and know whether they're going fast or slow. Relativity has nothing to do with it. They throw up a wake and move quickly when they're going fast. Even Blind Freddie could work it out.
Could, not necessarily will. People see what they expect to see - if they were at full throttle they would expect to be going at full speed, no matter what speed they were actually at. Wakes, etc. are certainly a giveaway, but would they know enough about large merchant ships to know the difference between a 15 knot wake and a 30 knot wake? I've only ever been to sea on ferries, so don't have a clue.


That's a nice backhander. :D
I don't know who should be more insulted. The Israeli navy, or me. :D
They should. That I'm confident that some random I've run into on the internet who owns a boat is a more confident seaman than the Israeli navy of 1967 does NOT reflect well on the Israeli navy.


The more I got into it the more I realised that the Liberty crew were just another lot of victims of political considerations that sacrifice noble fighting men to disgusting national interests.
I think that is correct no matter which version of events we take to be the truth.

pdf27
08-17-2007, 08:18 AM
Here's an analysis that shows that the torpedo was set for the Liberty's draught, not the Egyptian ship that the torpedo boats supposedly identified.
Good analytical work and I agree it almost certainly identifies the depth at which the torpedo hit the Liberty accurately. However, it isn't conclusive as it needs to address two other issues:
1) Was the torpedo equipped with a magnetic exploder in addition to a contact one? The optimum depth for a torpedo to explode is actually under the keel, and that analysis also suggests that the torpedo depth setting was optimum for just running under the keel of the El Quseir. If so, the torpedo running depth could actually be evidence of misidentification.
2) How accurate was the depth control on the torpedo which hit? The torpedoes used were Italian WW2-surplus 17.7" ones (details here (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTIT_WWII.htm)) so were probably over 20 years old. It's worth noting at this point that of the five fired only one actually hit - further evidence of incompetence?


Another problem is why the Israelis would set it for the Liberty's depth when they were supposedly relying on their identification books which showed it to be the Egyptian ship.
Unclear - Stuart's essay states that they were relying on a particular copy of Jane's Fighting Ships (AKA Jane's Frightening Slips). That particular edition (he owns a copy - he's a professional naval analyst for forecast international) does not show photos of either vessel. If they were relying on a pamphlet published by the Israeli navy, it would be very unlikely to contain a photo of the Liberty simply because it would not have been a regular visitor to the region.

Rising Sun*
08-17-2007, 09:38 AM
Very little arguament on that one, except to point out that a substantial number of Jews were also living in Palestine before zionism kicked off.

True.

And there was harmony there between the Arabs and Jews before the Zionist Jews started to muscle in. Which was a consequence of European exploitation, oppression and persecution of the Jews for centuries.

I don’t want to drag this off into the interminable Palestinian / Zionist debate, but it has to be remembered that the Jews / Zionists (there’s a debate just in that oblique) weren’t too nice in the 1920’s and especially in the 1929 events in Palestine, long before Hitler got stuck into them in Europe to express long held European prejudice against the poor bloody Jews with enthusiastic support from the French, Poles, Hungarians etc.

No wonder the poor bloody Jews wanted their own country.

One of the nastiest aspects of 1929, not unlike more recent Kosovo and Rwanda etc and so many other pieces of mad butchery before and since in various parts of the planet, is how neighbour turned on neighbour where before they had lived in apparent harmony. Yet there were also, in 1929, inspiring examples of Jewish and Arab neighbours protecting their opposing neighbours, at risk to themselves. Just like countless other horrible events in history where, alas, goodness is only a fraction of the badness that descends on a land.


just because Israel is behaving badly does NOT mean that the countries around it are the good guys. In general I'd say most of them are even worse.

Mate, I couldn’t agree more.

They’re all arseholes, Israel included.

Although Israel is usually perceived in the West as a less obnoxious arsehole than, say, Syria or Iran. If I was born and lived in Syria or Iran I would probably have a different view.

In the end, it’s pretty much: Same shit, different arseholes.

The biggest problem I have is why my, and your, country and America bother to support any of them.

Israel in particular.

It’s not like Israel has any oil or makes any indispensable contribution to the world economy, and it certainly doesn't make any contribution to world harmony, while the West supporting Israel just makes it a lot more expensive to fuel the hugely thirsty antique outboard on my boat.


That was more or less my initial position as well - the chain of cock-ups to create an attack like that on the Liberty is way beyond what any halfway competent military force should do on their worst day. However, the more I read about the Israeli military - and specifically their navy - the more I start to wonder.

I think this is where we have to agree to disagree.

We each interpret incomprehensible actions by the IDF as evidence of incompetence or malice.

Either way, the Israelis come out of it badly, while USS Liberty is a victim of that incompetence or malice.


Bigger does not mean competent. Note for instance the comparative performance of Israel in their recent fight with Hezbollah and the performance of US and UK troops in the invasion of Iraq. Coalition forces advanced one hell of a lot further against stronger forces in less time than the Israelis did, and took a much lower rate of casualties in the process.

There’s a million things to debate in that, but I suspect that we might agree that Israel’s incursion into Lebanon was a woeful exercise which did nothing to impress the Arab world (or advanced children with air rifles and strategic brains in the West) with Israeli military might.

Down here in plain speaking Australia, we’d just say the Israelis ****ed up on just about everything they did, although taking out the UN observer post with supposedly unregistered artillery fire does lend support to your argument that they’re a military force which couldn’t find their own arse with both hands behind them. Or, so far as hitting the UN post goes, in my view just another example of Israeli arrogance and aggression which will go on until they’re cut free by the West, notably the US, and left to fight their way out of the shit pit they’ve created for themselves.


There is IMHO a pattern at work of the Israelis only seeming good because their opponents are a great deal worse - but people see facts on the ground rather than competence.

I don’t think their opponents are necessarily a great deal worse. But then they just go and do things to show that they are, when they shouldn’t be. I don’t know that that reflects so much upon the inherent abilities of the combatants as upon the shithouse regimes they work under, where a very good suckhole to the big man can be a brigadier. Sort of Vietnam all over again, but without American ground forces backing up useless ****heads.


I would also point out at this point that the Israeli navy is very much the ginger stepchild when it comes to the Israeli armed forces, so getting the conscripts nobody else wants by and large. If the army loses, Israel ceases to exist. The air force and navy exist to support the army, but the air force can do so a great deal more effectively so does better than the navy. Note that this may have changed recently if the Israeli SSKs have been equipped with nuclear cruise missiles.

Probably a lot in that.

A state which sees its existence as being preserved by building a big wall might tend to ignore the wet back door.



Could, not necessarily will. People see what they expect to see - if they were at full throttle they would expect to be going at full speed, no matter what speed they were actually at. Wakes, etc. are certainly a giveaway, but would they know enough about large merchant ships to know the difference between a 15 knot wake and a 30 knot wake? I've only ever been to sea on ferries, so don't have a clue.

As my son says in mixed metaphors, it’s not rocket surgery, or brain science.

Assume you’re sitting in a caf near a freeway (motorway) looking at the apron and road. Can you tell whether the cars and trucks going past are going very fast, or the cars and trucks pulling onto the apron are going very slowly?

Switch positions. Now you’re in a car or truck going past the caf. Can you tell which vehicles are going fast on your side of the road and the other side of the road, and which are going slow into the caf and which are stopped?

It’s no different on the water.



I think that is correct no matter which version of events we take to be the truth.

Maybe we’re closer than we think.

A bit like the circle where extreme positions meet at the top.

Rising Sun*
08-17-2007, 10:07 AM
Good analytical work and I agree it almost certainly identifies the depth at which the torpedo hit the Liberty accurately.

It's not bad work, is it?


However, it isn't conclusive as it needs to address two other issues:
1) Was the torpedo equipped with a magnetic exploder in addition to a contact one? The optimum depth for a torpedo to explode is actually under the keel,

Is that the case for the WWII torpedo you say was used, or for the more modern approach?


It's worth noting at this point that of the five fired only one actually hit - further evidence of incompetence?

Not in the least.

The Japanese worked their naval battle plans on a welter of torpedoes from surface ships at a rate and spread several times that of their enemies.

Research the strike rate for surface fired torpedoes in WWII and see if a 20% strike rate is bad.


Unclear - Stuart's essay states that they were relying on a particular copy of Jane's Fighting Ships (AKA Jane's Frightening Slips). That particular edition (he owns a copy - he's a professional naval analyst for forecast international) does not show photos of either vessel. If they were relying on a pamphlet published by the Israeli navy, it would be very unlikely to contain a photo of the Liberty simply because it would not have been a regular visitor to the region.

Nobody who knows anything about it is arguing that the MTB's had a photo of the Liberty.

Here's what the IDF say they identified as the Egyptian ship Al Kaiser (various English spellings)
http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/essay3

Anything that doesn't look like that ship shouldn't have been a target.

The ship they attacked looked nothing like it. So many differences:


As you can see, the pictures of El Quseir were fairly large and relatively clear. The pictures show clearly that El Quseir had:

- two rows of portholes running along the sides of her hull,

- two tall and angled pole-masts (forward and aft),

- a small vertical pole-mast on top of middle superstructure,

- a small (two-level) superstructure,

- an angled stack behind the superstructure, and

- a 90 degree bow point.

In all respects, El Quseir appeared like a classic "tramp steamer" -- a relatively common sight in the Mediterranean Sea region, before and during 1967.

Other than both ships having general hull lines of cargo-type ships, the two ships had little in common (as highlighted below). The USS Liberty had:

- no portholes in her hull,

- two tall and vertical pole-masts (forward and aft),

- a large tower-mast on top of forward superstructure,

- a large (four-level) superstructure,

- a vertical stack in the middle of the superstructure,

- an angled (78 degree) bow point,

- a very large radio antenna reflector dish aft the superstructure,

- a large radio antenna reflector dish at the forecastle level, and

- many other type radio antennas visible on her decks and masts.

Additionally, USS Liberty had her US Navy ID number "GTR5" painted in very large letters on both sides of her bow and stern. http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/essay3


The Israeli version is bullshit.

pdf27
08-17-2007, 12:15 PM
Is that the case for the WWII torpedo you say was used, or for the more modern approach?
It was 1942 or so before magnetic exploders became reliable, although I think they're a prewar design. For instance, the first Swordfish attack launched against the Bismarck used torpedoes equipped with magnetic exploders. Fortunately they malfunctioned, because the poor little Swordfish had got a tad confused and attacked HMS Sheffield instead. For the subsequent attacks, contact exploders were used.


Research the strike rate for surface fired torpedoes in WWII and see if a 20% strike rate is bad.
Against an effectively unarmed merchant ship in broad daylight? That has to change the hit probability somewhat!

Rising Sun*
08-18-2007, 04:15 AM
Against an effectively unarmed merchant ship in broad daylight? That has to change the hit probability somewhat!

A fair point.

I was thinking generally.

It'd still be interesting to know what the success rate was for MTB / PT torpedoes in similar situations, although the figures won't translate too well because of problems with the US torpedoes in the earlier part of the war.

Nickdfresh
08-20-2007, 04:20 AM
The reference to rockets comes from the statements of Liberty crewmen and is a little bit of a mystery. The Mirages certainly didn't carry them so thereby are two possibilities.


Armament

* 2&#215; 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA 552 cannon with 125 rounds each
* One centerline and four underwing pylons for 4,000 kg (8,800 lb) of stores. Initial interceptor armament was one Matra R530 and two AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles (later replaced by Matra Magic R550). Besides general-purpose bombs, a customary typical ground-attack store was the Matra JL-100 drop tank/rocket pack, each containing 19 SNEB 68 mm rockets and 250 liters (66 U.S. gallons) of fuel. Some models equipped to fire AM-39 Exocet anti-ship missile; French AdA IIIEs (through 1991 equipped for AN-52 nuclear bomb).

Well, the aircraft certainly was capable of carrying them. What was his source for stating that the IDF Mirages "certainly didn't carry them," again?

Because it would seem to me that tactical fighter aircraft conducting ground attack missions on enemy infantry and armor would carry just that armament. And rocket attacks on shipping was an effective tactic in WWII..

Nickdfresh
08-20-2007, 04:42 AM
It's not bad work, is it?


....

The Israeli version is bullshit.

Especially when their supposed primary motivation is for getting this mystery Egyptian ship that was supposedly shelling Israeli coastal town(s). I don't see how a freighter can be seen to have conducted such actions, especially when the Egyptian Navy, for all it's supposed feebleness, had better ships to carry out such a mission...


And indeed, if the Liberty was repeatedly surveilled by successive IDF recon flights, that is very telling....

Rising Sun*
08-20-2007, 06:18 AM
Especially when their supposed primary motivation is for getting this mystery Egyptian ship that was supposedly shelling Israeli coastal town(s). I don't see how a freighter can be seen to have conducted such actions, especially when the Egyptian Navy, for all it's supposed feebleness, had better ships to carry out such a mission...


Well, if you're going to introduce logic into the discussion, I don't think we'll have much more to talk about.

Obviously the Israelis were correct in identifying the Liberty with a couple of MG's as the much smaller Egyptian ship transporting troops (or horses, as originally designed) as shelling the beach with a new type of MG round which emulated artillery.

Because the Yanks had this special MG round, which they test fired on the Israelis on the beach from the Egyptian ship which was fighting the Israelis supported by the Yanks so the Yanks have covered up their support for the Egyptians in the Six Day War so that they wouldn't have their special MG artillery round revealed and have the Israelis upset with them for being its guinea pigs.

That makes sense, doesn't it? :D

Nickdfresh
08-20-2007, 10:55 AM
Rising Sun, do you have any links regarding the execution of Egyptian EPOWs by the IDF?

I'd Google, but I'm afraid I'll just find a bunch of knee-jerk anti-Israeli sites....

I've heard this accusation before...

Also, YouTube has may video snippets of BBC ("Dead in the Water") and History Channel documentaries on this...

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=uss+liberty&search=Search

I think the silly overriding presumption there is that this was to be a "false-flag" operation, designed to draw in the US on the side of the Israelis by blaming the attack on the Arab air forces - however, they failed to sink the ship. I think this is a bit silly, however, if the IDF air force had sunk the Liberty, no doubt they certainly would have denied any involvement...

George Eller
08-20-2007, 02:40 PM
Rising Sun, do you have any links regarding the execution of Egyptian EPOWs by the IDF?

I'd Google, but I'm afraid I'll just find a bunch of knee-jerk anti-Israeli sites....

I've heard this accusation before...

Also, YouTube has may video snippets of BBC ("Dead in the Water") and History Channel documentaries on this...

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=uss+liberty&search=Search

I think the silly overriding presumption there is that this was to be a "false-flag" operation, designed to draw in the US on the side of the Israelis by blaming the attack on the Arab air forces - however, they failed to sink the ship. I think this is a bit silly, however, if the IDF air force had sunk the Liberty, no doubt they certainly would have denied any involvement...
-

I have an old (1995) newspaper article on the massacre. IIRC, it took place in the Gaza Strip and involved about 1,000 prisoners. Mass graves were uncovered decades later. I would have to read the article again. I could scan and post it (probably tomorrow).

-

Rising Sun*
08-20-2007, 03:35 PM
Rising Sun, do you have any links regarding the execution of Egyptian EPOWs by the IDF?

I'd Google, but I'm afraid I'll just find a bunch of knee-jerk anti-Israeli sites....

I've heard this accusation before...

My inclination is that it happened, despite predictable Israeli denials.

The figure is probably in the hundreds for Al Arish.

As you rightly surmise, the websites tend to be partisan one way or the other.

This one, although partisan, at least has some eyewitness testimony (unless it's manufactured) in the link at the bottom. http://egyptianpows.net/1967/al-arish/

It's been a festering sore between Israel and Egypt for quite some time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6419471.stm

pdf27
08-20-2007, 04:32 PM
The mass grave was uncovered decades later. I would have to read the article again.
Unfortunately a mass grave is only evidence that a lot of people died. In wartime, particularly in mobile wars, enemy dead tend to be buried in mass graves simply due to time constraints. For instance, the Paras killed in the attack on Goose Green were initially buried in a single mass grave. They were later reburied with most bodies being repatriated, but it isn't exactly unusual.

Mistreatment of prisoners is usually evidence of one of two things. Either the side doing the mistreating is frankly barbaric with little or no respect for the conventions the west has developed to regulate warfare, or command & control has started to break down as at Abu Ghraib. My low opinion of the Israeli armed forces is well known, and it wouldn't surprise me if C2 had broken down far enough for isolated, small scale mistreatment of prisoners to happen. I do not however believe that there was ever a political decision in Israel to massacre prisoners.

Nickdfresh
08-20-2007, 04:58 PM
For purposes of clarity, I believe the number alleged is around 1000. Including a number of about 250 that may have been killed by a current senior Labor politicians elite commando unit in 1967...

Rising Sun*
08-20-2007, 06:28 PM
I'm not sure that it was the case that every event was an execution of a POW. There's something at the back of my mind about a good number of bottled up Egyptians being killed rather than the IDF accepting their surrender, which I seem to recall was happening at the time Liberty was hit with radio traffic between field commanders exposing what was going on. I'll post if I can track it down.

George Eller
08-20-2007, 11:36 PM
Unfortunately a mass grave is only evidence that a lot of people died. In wartime, particularly in mobile wars, enemy dead tend to be buried in mass graves simply due to time constraints. For instance, the Paras killed in the attack on Goose Green were initially buried in a single mass grave. They were later reburied with most bodies being repatriated, but it isn't exactly unusual.

Mistreatment of prisoners is usually evidence of one of two things. Either the side doing the mistreating is frankly barbaric with little or no respect for the conventions the west has developed to regulate warfare, or command & control has started to break down as at Abu Ghraib. My low opinion of the Israeli armed forces is well known, and it wouldn't surprise me if C2 had broken down far enough for isolated, small scale mistreatment of prisoners to happen. I do not however believe that there was ever a political decision in Israel to massacre prisoners.
-

I re-read the article this evening (got home late). Apparently it involved about 1,000 prisoners in separate incidents in Sinai - not over 10,000 as I originally posted. The article was from The Times-Union, Jacksonville, Florida, August 17, 1995.

I will try to post it tomorrow.

The mass grave part was from a different article that I read somewhere else.

-

Nickdfresh
08-21-2007, 08:53 AM
...My low opinion of the Israeli armed forces is well known, and it wouldn't surprise me if C2 had broken down far enough for isolated, small scale mistreatment of prisoners to happen. I do not however believe that there was ever a political decision in Israel to massacre prisoners.

It may not have been a strategic "political decision" but merely a tactical decision taken by local commanders as one of localized "military expediency." Also, there's a recent article printed in the Jerusalem Post that stated that some of the dead were actually members of an independent Palestinian battalion sized element (about 250 of them), but that they were "killed in combat," not after surrendering.

When I was in the US Army, I recall attending a "Laws of Land Warfare" class given by this beautiful blond JAG lieutenant that had very large breasts. As she went through the standard "no killing of prisoners" spiel, of the officers, a captain, that I worked with stood up (probably trying to impress her and give her a hard time since she was hot) said his grandfather was a Marine in the PTO during WWII who had often given, and received, orders to take Japanese prisoners "out for a five-mile forced march, and (to) be back in five minutes!" This of course was euphemistic code for: kill them out of sight.

The JAG lieutenant looked at him and said, "there's no statue of limitations on war crimes." And he just smiled meekly, and sat back down and shut up for the rest of the class.:D

Rising Sun*
08-21-2007, 03:17 PM
When I was in the US Army, I recall attending a "Laws of Land Warfare" class given by this beautiful blond JAG lieutenant that had very large breasts.


It's a tribute to a good teacher that, years after the event, she's left you with a couple of memorable points. :D

George Eller
08-21-2007, 08:41 PM
-

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/3836/67war01th2.jpg

From: The Times-Union, Jacksonville, Florida, August 17, 1995

-

pdf27
08-22-2007, 01:09 AM
Hmmm... "some of the prisoners opened fire after surrendering" - note that this is a war crime under the Geneva and Hague conventions ("perfidy"). If true, this is enough to almost justify the Israeli actions (not quite). But it's entirely possible the early killings were quite legitimate, if not the later ones.

Rising Sun*
08-22-2007, 02:17 AM
Hmmm... "some of the prisoners opened fire after surrendering" - note that this is a war crime under the Geneva and Hague conventions ("perfidy"). If true, this is enough to almost justify the Israeli actions (not quite). But it's entirely possible the early killings were quite legitimate, if not the later ones.

Prisoners opening fire after surrendering doesn't make sense.

When does a POW retain his arms?

On the most charitable view to the Israelis, perhaps some Egyptian commanders surrendered their unit but some members of the unit continued to fight before becoming prisoners. That could just be down to poor communications.

Given the Israeli history of war crimes before 1967 http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0296/9602017.html , I am sceptical about any justification they offer for the 1967 events.

Chevan
08-22-2007, 02:49 AM
One argument often raised against a deliberate Israeli attack is: Why would they risk losing their biggest supporter, the US?

Who knows? The Israelis aren't always rational at the best of times. Why do they consistently lose every opportunity for peace (Arafat didn't have a monopoly on that) and start provocative settlements in occupied areas? Anyway, the Israelis haven't exactly co-operated with the US or anyone else when it didn't suit what they wanted. Despite the usual blame levelled at America, it's not America's fault that the Israelis haven't given the ground, literally and metaphorically, to give peace a chance around Israel.

I've offered one theory for the attack on the Liberty.

......

All I know is that the Israeli versions concerning attacking the Liberty are bullshit.

I think mate is to understand the why Isreal did it we need to watch the situationon and publis oppinion in the USA in the 1967.
For the first time i 've learned about Liberti was ehn i/ve read the book of former us congressmen David Duke "The jewish supermasism".( resently this book was published in russsian).
So as he read he was in shok when first time knew about "Eguptian" attack of Liberty. He wrote thet the FIRST AMERICAN PUBLIC reaction was the the ANGER for the Egupt. This quite amazing ( and INTERESTING) but when the US mass media firstly told this new - they KEEP THE SILENCE that it was the Isreal attak;)
Thus the americans were sure it was the Egiuptians or may be the Soviets.
Now do you see where the answer?
The zionist SIMPLY had NO TIME to planned it carefully.
Remember the could lost the Isreal for the six days- in this situation they decided to make the PROVOCATION and what should be later - does not matter;)
The first aim of attack was the PURE EMOTIONAL - to inspire the american public oppinion that the Liberty was the victims of the Arabs.
Later as we CLEARLY saw the all pro-Zionist mass mediam MADE ALL POSSIBLE to keep the silence about this provocatoion. And they succesfully did it

Chevan
08-22-2007, 02:57 AM
Hmmm... "some of the prisoners opened fire after surrendering" - note that this is a war crime under the Geneva and Hague conventions ("perfidy"). If true, this is enough to almost justify the Israeli actions (not quite). But it's entirely possible the early killings were quite legitimate, if not the later ones.
And what was the reason of the mass killing the refugees in the camps of Lebanon in 1982 by the isreal army under command of Ariel Sharon?
were those peoples perfidious too?

Rising Sun*
08-22-2007, 05:22 AM
I think mate is to understand the why Isreal did it we need to watch the situationon and publis oppinion in the USA in the 1967.
For the first time i 've learned about Liberti was ehn i/ve read the book of former us congressmen David Duke "The jewish supermasism".( resently this book was published in russsian).


Maybe some of our American members can flesh this out, but I don't think Duke was ever a member of the US Congress, only the Louisiana house.

He's a total racist arsehole of the worst kind, with KKK, white supremacist, and neo-Nazi affiliations.

He makes David Irving look like a saint. At least Irving was a bloody good historian who also made complex issues accessible to the wider public through some very readable books, before he went nuts.

I don't know the book you're referring to, but if this is the same DD, he's a turd.

Rising Sun*
08-22-2007, 07:55 AM
Nope, they were war criminals. Although I would note that Sharon wasn't specifically in trouble for the killings, but from failing to prevent his allies (the "Christian" Phlangist militias, who share a great deal politically with Francisco Franco, the victor in the Spanish Civil War) from carrying out the massacre. Either way, I regard him as bearing command responsibility for the massacre.

This is drifting the topic to something that should be a topic in its own right if a separate section on Arab-Israeli wars is started, but it'd be interesting to contrast the established and alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity by Israel with other Western nations sharing the same "moral" views during the same period.

Lt Calley in Vietnam was a bit of an unavoidable "hand caught in the naughty cookie jar" public relations exercise when other US,SV and allied troops did similar things, although usually under closer control for, sometimes, better defined military purposes, but on a per capita basis I'd be inclined to say that Israel did a lot more damage than America and some other much larger countries and, worse, from a purportedly higher moral ground from the end of WWII until now.

Bombing the King David Hotel in 1946 was, after all, the Twin Towers of its day and had a similar effect on the world.

It pretty much set the tone for what I regard as the arrogant self-justification of many bad Israeli actions since then.

Nickdfresh
08-22-2007, 11:52 AM
I think mate is to understand the why Isreal did it we need to watch the situationon and publis oppinion in the USA in the 1967.
For the first time i 've learned about Liberti was ehn i/ve read the book of former us congressmen David Duke "The jewish supermasism".( resently this book was published in russsian).
So as he read he was in shok when first time knew about "Eguptian" attack of Liberty. He wrote thet the FIRST AMERICAN PUBLIC reaction was the the ANGER for the Egupt. This quite amazing ( and INTERESTING) but when the US mass media firstly told this new - they KEEP THE SILENCE that it was the Isreal attak;)
Thus the americans were sure it was the Egiuptians or may be the Soviets.
Now do you see where the answer?
The zionist SIMPLY had NO TIME to planned it carefully.
Remember the could lost the Isreal for the six days- in this situation they decided to make the PROVOCATION and what should be later - does not matter;)
The first aim of attack was the PURE EMOTIONAL - to inspire the american public oppinion that the Liberty was the victims of the Arabs.
Later as we CLEARLY saw the all pro-Zionist mass mediam MADE ALL POSSIBLE to keep the silence about this provocatoion. And they succesfully did it

I'm not sure the Americans would have ever believed the Egyptian pre-war Air Force capable of attacking US shipping, much less it's wartime air force that was mostly smoldering on the ground...:D

As it was, the Israelis were barely capable...

Nickdfresh
08-22-2007, 06:26 PM
Sure sorry Duke was only the member of Louisiana house
However i do not think he is quite nuts mate.
Certainly he is a biased - however he wroet the things that the OTHER keep silence about;)
His book was very popular in Russia (although officially forbidden) - coz we saw the Other oppinion in America.
Sure he looks like nuts ( especially i the mass media) however i doubt he is the NEo-Nazy or fierce rascist.

Really?

He was in the terrorist group the Klu Klux Klan:

George Eller
08-22-2007, 10:16 PM
-

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=107472&postcount=70


Hmmm... "some of the prisoners opened fire after surrendering" - note that this is a war crime under the Geneva and Hague conventions ("perfidy"). If true, this is enough to almost justify the Israeli actions (not quite). But it's entirely possible the early killings were quite legitimate, if not the later ones.

-


Prisoners opening fire after surrendering doesn't make sense.

When does a POW retain his arms?

On the most charitable view to the Israelis, perhaps some Egyptian commanders surrendered their unit but some members of the unit continued to fight before becoming prisoners. That could just be down to poor communications.

Given the Israeli history of war crimes before 1967 http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0296/9602017.html , I am sceptical about any justification they offer for the 1967 events.

-

I am not trying to defend or justify the killing of POW's, but the exact conditions were not described when the prisoners allegedly opened fire after surrendering. Also, I am not denying the possibility that some or most of the killings might have been unprovoked.

I recall seeing a documentary on the History Channel or Military Channel a couple weeks ago in which a US Marine veteran of WWII described an incident where a Japanese prisoner had a grenade hidden in his jacket sleeve. The prisoner blew himself up along with some Marines as they approached him. They had a policy after that for Japanese POW's to strip their uniforms off after capture to prevent them from hiding weapons in their clothing (I guess this would explain why I've seen photographs of Japanese prisoners stripped down to their loincloths). And sometimes they just didn't take prisoners.

I also seem to remember seeing a photograph taken in Europe where a group of German soldiers were emerging from a doorway under a white flag. The caption said something to the effect that moments later the group hit the dirt and a soldier behind them opened fire - killing several Americans, including the photographer.

George Duncan's Massacres and Atrocities of WWII lists many incidents where soldiers (axis and allied) killed enemy prisoners.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_east.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_axis.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_pacific.html

Also some quotes from HOW TO MAKE WAR: A Comprehensive Guide To Modern Warfare, First Revised Edition, by James F. Dunnigan, William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1988, pp 33, 472


Surrender is always a possibility, assuming the battered attacker is in a compassionate mood. Given the fact that 70 percent of attacking troops in destroyed APC's are killed or injured, however, the enemy might be bloody minded. Although it is not often written about, prisoners are usually not taken during opposed attacks, especially if individuals or small groups are trying to give up. The attacker doesn't want to spare any troops to guard prisoners, particularly since he needs all the help he can get to complete the attack successfully. And then we have all those troops that are wounded and are in more need of attention than enemy prisoners. This is why defeated defenders attempt to hide or sneak away rather than test the questionable mercies of attacker through surrender. Veteran troops know this, otherwise they wouldn't be veterans. ( p 33 )

Prisoners And Deserters
Losses are not always the result of death or injury. Soldiers are taken prisoner and others decide to pursue more peaceful endeavors. The number of prisoners and deserters varies considerably depending on how badly you are losing. Even a victorious force lists a few percent of its total losses as MIA (Missing In Action). About 50 percent of MIA's are KIA (Killed In Action) or badly wounded and die before they can be identified. Many of the rest turn out to be deserters or prisoners who die in captivity. Historically, all men who surrender are not captured alive by the enemy. As many as 50 percent of those who surrender do not survive the process. They are either killed on the spot or die in captivity. Troops in combat quickly learn this, which explains why surrender is not more common. When survivable surrenders do occur, they tend to be in large numbers or by negotiation. ( p 472 )

James F. Dunnigan
http://www.jimdunnigan.com/
http://jimdunnigan.com/bio.htm#top
http://www.strategypage.com/aboutus/default.asp

HOW TO MAKE WAR: A Comprehensive Guide To Modern Warfare
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0688121578/thehundredyearsw
http://www.amazon.com/How-Make-War-Fourth-Comprehensive/dp/006009012X/ref=pd_sim_b_img/104-5297739-7055917

-

pdf27
08-23-2007, 01:31 AM
FWIW, I've "killed" a prisoner on exercise. I was covering them while someone else searched them, the searcher had already pulled several weapons out from their pockets (12 inch knife, etc.). When the searcher got down to the boot tops the prisoner suddenly turned around and started trying to strangle him. I had about a second to decide if my searcher was in danger, decided he was (at the time I thought the prisoner still had a weapon) so shot him.

Unfortunately it turned out the guy was unarmed, so I got my head ripped off somewhat by the directing staff. Still, that's why you do it in training - had I done it in Iraq, I'd have been facing a murder charge.

Chevan
08-23-2007, 03:57 AM
I'm not sure the Americans would have ever believed the Egyptian pre-war Air Force capable of attacking US shipping, much less it's wartime air force that was mostly smoldering on the ground...:D

As it was, the Israelis were barely capable...
Nick may be you say that the Soviets in 1967 were baraly capable to attack the USA almost unarmed ship?Especially in the soviet Mig's with the Egyptians sighns?( The soviet flyes on MIG-25 above the Isreal was a tupical matter during the Arad-Israel conflicts).
So really the Americans could not able to believe in 1967 - it was the Egypts attack ( i.e. the soviets) as you tell?
I doubt it.

Nickdfresh
08-23-2007, 05:20 AM
Nick may be you say that the Soviets in 1967 were baraly capable to attack the USA almost unarmed ship?Especially in the soviet Mig's with the Egyptians sighns?( The soviet flyes on MIG-25 above the Isreal was a tupical matter during the Arad-Israel conflicts).
So really the Americans could not able to believe in 1967 - it was the Egypts attack ( i.e. the soviets) as you tell?
I doubt it.

The Soviets were...

But the MIG-25s were flying reconnaissance sorties and did not have ground attack nor anti-shipping capabilities...

Where would they have attacked from?

What would have been their motivations for such a provocation?

And why would the Israelis want to spark a war between the USSR and USA when neither was directly involved in the conflict?

And to my knowledge, the Red Air Forces never flew French or British made fighters...

Rising Sun*
08-23-2007, 07:31 AM
However i could not believe it.

You don't.

I do.

I'll just leave this as an area where discussion between us pointless as it isn't going to change the other's mind.

Chevan
08-23-2007, 07:47 AM
OK may be i/m too biased.
May be you right.

Cheers.

Rising Sun*
08-23-2007, 08:00 AM
May be you right.


Mate, that's something we can always agree on. :D

Rising Sun*
08-23-2007, 10:04 AM
FWIW, I've "killed" a prisoner on exercise.

FWIW, I could've really killed one.

Village cordon and sweep during Vietnam era.

Usual stuff, with some of our blokes being the VC baddies and dressed in black pyjamas and coolie hats etc captured during a sweep of a village nicely constructed by some engineer or construction unit in record time the day before.

I'm MG guarding prisoners and in position to pour fire into village if our blokes have problems, and waste prisoners if it comes to that under attack.

For some reason I've got L2 with blank firing attachment instead of my usual GPMG M60 (probably because M60 blank firing attachment was even less reliable than the useless ones we had on L1's - SLR 7.62mm - and LMG L2's)

Some ****head enemy, who was a mate of mine, decides to escape, so I confront him and we're struggling for my weapon.

Officer observers are shouting helpful advice along the lines of 'Don't let him get your weapon.'

Thank you, Sir, think I, 'cos I couldn't have worked that out for myself. It's easy to see why you're officers and I'm not.

I tell my idiot mate to give it up but he wants to keep trying to get my weapon.

There's a point where he has the muzzle under his chin and I give serious thought to letting him have it, because at that range a blank can still make a mess.

The stupid ***** still wants to be a hero.

I'm sick of trying to save him from himself and I'm sick of officers yelling stupid instructions on what I should do when if he was a real enemy he'd have been dead long ago, but the officer bastards with their swagger sticks are still offering helpful advice to which I'd like to reply

'Come down here, you fat useless bastard, and see if you can do any better.'

I've still got the muzzle under his chin because I still control my weapon and I'm seriously thinking about letting one go, but it's the wrong thing to do to a mate, no matter how stupid he is.

So I butt stroke the stupid bastard who's been trying pointlessly to disarm me, and he loses interest in events.

Then the frigging officers want to make an issue of me knocking out one of my mates when it's just an exercise.

Like it's my fault!

pdf27
08-23-2007, 04:15 PM
Right. This thread is going too far off-topic and turning into a slagging match. Locked until further notice while people calm down.

Panzerknacker
08-24-2007, 10:52 PM
And what is strange that the Gas Chambers were never existed?
Did you see itin Auswitz or somehwere else?

I want to make one thing clear here.

This is not ww2Ihatejews.net or ww2Iseezionimsineverything.com

Man I am very tired of you derailing absolutely all the topics in a holocaust denial conversation, first you did in the Tiger tanks, then in the british School topic and now you have kidnapped the topic here.

No more. NO MORE.

I am giving you 15 days of banning to reconsider you attitude. For your sake I hope it will change.

Topic reopened.

All the holocaust related post will be erased.

Nickdfresh
08-25-2007, 05:20 PM
LOL He sent me an e-mail. He's rather perplexed and doesn't understand the concept of being banned from a message board...

I explained it was only temporary and he's somewhat relieved...

Rising Sun*
08-26-2007, 06:42 AM
LOL He sent me an e-mail. He's rather perplexed and doesn't understand the concept of being banned from a message board...

I explained it was only temporary and he's somewhat relieved...

Tell him it's like a short sentence in an internet gulag. He'll understand that concept. :D

Now, back to the Liberty.

I still think the most telling aspect of the event was the arrival of a helicopter with Israeli combat troops over the Liberty at the end of attacks which, apart from the torpedo, had no prospect of doing anything but slowing it down or disabling it.

This indicates that the intention was to board the Liberty and, presumably, inspect or capture the intelligence material on it.

Otherwise, why not sink it at the start?

There was no benefit, and every prospect of disadavantage, to Israel by trying to manufacture a war between the US and USSR.

As for trying to persuade the US that its ship had been attacked by the Egyptians, that is completely contradicted by Israeli claims that they thought they were attacking an Egyptian ship. Admittedly, those claims were after the event and could be an attempt to present a different picture to the original Israeli intention, but if such a clever plan existed you'd think they'd be attacking the Liberty in Egyptian livery even if they couldn't get Egyptian planes and MTB's.

Panzerknacker
08-26-2007, 04:33 PM
He's rather perplexed and doesn't understand the concept of being banned from a message board...

Oh, no worry, we will make him understand.

Some images of the ship and its crew.

http://www.portierramaryaire.com/imagenes/uss_liberty.jpg

http://www.currentissues.tv/liberty1.jpg

http://www.heartbone.com/nine11/attacked.jpg

Nickdfresh
08-26-2007, 09:32 PM
Tell him it's like a short sentence in an internet gulag. He'll understand that concept. :D

...

He might mistakenly think he's getting his guard job back...;)