The Sinking of The U.S.S Liberty
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
What are people's thoughts on this incident?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Libert ... velopments
'The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and motor torpedo boats of the Israeli Navy, on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War.[2] The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two Marines, and one civilian), wounded 170 crew members, and severely damaged the ship.'
Anyone seen the documentary 'Dead In The Water - The Sinking of the USS Liberty'?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 501647311#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Libert ... velopments
'Several books and the BBC documentary USS Liberty: Dead in the Water argued that Liberty was attacked in order to prevent the U.S. from knowing about the forthcoming attack in the Golan Heights, which apparently would violate a cease-fire to which Israel's government had agreed.[5][dead link] Russian author Joseph Daichman, in his book "History of the Mossad" states Israel was justified in attacking the Liberty.[57] Israel knew that American radio signals were intercepted by the Soviet Union, and that the Soviets would certainly inform Egypt of the fact that by moving troops to the Golan Heights, Israel had left the Egyptian border undefended.[58]
Lenczowski notes that while the Israeli decision to “attack and destroy” the ship “may appear puzzling”, the explanation seems to be found in Liberty's nature and its task to monitor communications on both sides in the war zone. He writes, “Israel clearly did not want the U.S. government to know too much about its dispositions for attacking Syria, initially planned for June 8, but postponed for 24 hours. It should be pointed out that the attack on the Liberty occurred on June 8, whereas on June 9 at 3 AM, Syria announced its acceptance of the cease-fire. Despite this, at 7 AM, that is, four hours later, Israel’s minister of defense, Moshe Dayan, “gave the order to go into action against Syria.””[59] He further writes that timely knowledge of this decision and preparatory moves toward it “might have frustrated Israeli designs for the conquest of Syria’s Golan Heights” and, in the sense of Ennes’s accusations, provides “a plausible thesis that Israel deliberately decided to incapacitate the signals-collecting American ship and leave no one alive to tell the story of the attack.”[60]
U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Barbour, had reported on the day of the Liberty attack that he "would not be surprised" by an Israeli attack on Syria, and the IDF Intelligence chief told a White House aide then in Israel that "there still remained the Syria problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow,"[61]
The 1981 book Weapons by Russell Warren Howe asserts that Liberty was accompanied by the Polaris armed Lafayette-class submarine USS Andrew Jackson, which filmed the entire episode through its periscope but was unable to provide assistance. According to Howe: "Two hundred feet below the ship, on a parallel course, was its 'shadow'—the Polaris strategic submarine Andrew Jackson, whose job was to take out all the Israeli long-range missile sites in the Negev if Tel Aviv decided to attack Cairo, Damascus or Baghdad. This was in order that Moscow would not have to perform this task itself and thus trigger World War Three."[62]
James Bamford, a former ABC News producer, in his 2001 book Body of Secrets,[63] proposes a different possible motive for a deliberate attack: to prevent the discovery of a massacre by the IDF of Egyptian prisoners of war that was supposedly taking place at the same time in the nearby town of El-Arish.[64] In 1995, mass graves of Egyptian soldiers were discovered outside of El-Arish, and IDF veterans have admitted that unarmed civilians and prisoners of war were murdered in the 1967 War.[6][7]
The press release for the BBC documentary film Dead in the Water states that new recorded and other evidence suggests the attack was a "daring ploy by Israel to fake an Egyptian attack" to give America a reason to enter the war against Egypt. Convinced that that attack was real, President of the United States Lyndon B. Johnson launched nuclear-armed planes targeted against Cairo from a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. The planes were recalled only just in time, when it was clear the Liberty had not sunk and that Israel had carried out the attack. An information source for the aircraft being nuclear-armed, James Ennes, later stated that he was probably wrong in his original book. According to Ennes, the planes were not nuclear-armed, but most likely armed with Bullpup missiles.[65] The video also provides hearsay evidence of a covert alliance of U.S. and Israel intelligence agencies.[66]
Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a critic of the official United States Government version of events, chaired a non-governmental investigation into the attack on the USS Liberty in 2003. The committee, which included former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia James E. Akins, held Israel to be culpable and suggested several theories for Israel's possible motives, including the desire to blame Egypt and bring the U.S. into the Six Day War.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Libert ... velopments
'The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and motor torpedo boats of the Israeli Navy, on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War.[2] The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two Marines, and one civilian), wounded 170 crew members, and severely damaged the ship.'
Anyone seen the documentary 'Dead In The Water - The Sinking of the USS Liberty'?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 501647311#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Libert ... velopments
'Several books and the BBC documentary USS Liberty: Dead in the Water argued that Liberty was attacked in order to prevent the U.S. from knowing about the forthcoming attack in the Golan Heights, which apparently would violate a cease-fire to which Israel's government had agreed.[5][dead link] Russian author Joseph Daichman, in his book "History of the Mossad" states Israel was justified in attacking the Liberty.[57] Israel knew that American radio signals were intercepted by the Soviet Union, and that the Soviets would certainly inform Egypt of the fact that by moving troops to the Golan Heights, Israel had left the Egyptian border undefended.[58]
Lenczowski notes that while the Israeli decision to “attack and destroy” the ship “may appear puzzling”, the explanation seems to be found in Liberty's nature and its task to monitor communications on both sides in the war zone. He writes, “Israel clearly did not want the U.S. government to know too much about its dispositions for attacking Syria, initially planned for June 8, but postponed for 24 hours. It should be pointed out that the attack on the Liberty occurred on June 8, whereas on June 9 at 3 AM, Syria announced its acceptance of the cease-fire. Despite this, at 7 AM, that is, four hours later, Israel’s minister of defense, Moshe Dayan, “gave the order to go into action against Syria.””[59] He further writes that timely knowledge of this decision and preparatory moves toward it “might have frustrated Israeli designs for the conquest of Syria’s Golan Heights” and, in the sense of Ennes’s accusations, provides “a plausible thesis that Israel deliberately decided to incapacitate the signals-collecting American ship and leave no one alive to tell the story of the attack.”[60]
U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Barbour, had reported on the day of the Liberty attack that he "would not be surprised" by an Israeli attack on Syria, and the IDF Intelligence chief told a White House aide then in Israel that "there still remained the Syria problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow,"[61]
The 1981 book Weapons by Russell Warren Howe asserts that Liberty was accompanied by the Polaris armed Lafayette-class submarine USS Andrew Jackson, which filmed the entire episode through its periscope but was unable to provide assistance. According to Howe: "Two hundred feet below the ship, on a parallel course, was its 'shadow'—the Polaris strategic submarine Andrew Jackson, whose job was to take out all the Israeli long-range missile sites in the Negev if Tel Aviv decided to attack Cairo, Damascus or Baghdad. This was in order that Moscow would not have to perform this task itself and thus trigger World War Three."[62]
James Bamford, a former ABC News producer, in his 2001 book Body of Secrets,[63] proposes a different possible motive for a deliberate attack: to prevent the discovery of a massacre by the IDF of Egyptian prisoners of war that was supposedly taking place at the same time in the nearby town of El-Arish.[64] In 1995, mass graves of Egyptian soldiers were discovered outside of El-Arish, and IDF veterans have admitted that unarmed civilians and prisoners of war were murdered in the 1967 War.[6][7]
The press release for the BBC documentary film Dead in the Water states that new recorded and other evidence suggests the attack was a "daring ploy by Israel to fake an Egyptian attack" to give America a reason to enter the war against Egypt. Convinced that that attack was real, President of the United States Lyndon B. Johnson launched nuclear-armed planes targeted against Cairo from a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. The planes were recalled only just in time, when it was clear the Liberty had not sunk and that Israel had carried out the attack. An information source for the aircraft being nuclear-armed, James Ennes, later stated that he was probably wrong in his original book. According to Ennes, the planes were not nuclear-armed, but most likely armed with Bullpup missiles.[65] The video also provides hearsay evidence of a covert alliance of U.S. and Israel intelligence agencies.[66]
Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a critic of the official United States Government version of events, chaired a non-governmental investigation into the attack on the USS Liberty in 2003. The committee, which included former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia James E. Akins, held Israel to be culpable and suggested several theories for Israel's possible motives, including the desire to blame Egypt and bring the U.S. into the Six Day War.[
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
2010: 9/7/10 - Bilbao
2012: 26-27/6/12 - Amsterdam ~~ 29/6/12 - Werchter ~~ 4-5/7/12 - Berlin
2014: 25/6/14 - Vienna ~~ 26/6/14 - Berlin
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
edit - giving medals for fucked up actions is certainly not limited to just israel, sadly
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
that's fucked up if true.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm sorry, but how exactly do you know that it was a deliberate massacre? Cause all that I've seen posted are a bunch of mutually contradictory crack-pot theories.
I don't think it's even being debated anymore whether Israel deliberately attacked the ship, as it's now widely accepted by anyone who studies the available evidence that it did. The question has now shifted to 'why' Israel attacked the ship, and the quotes I listed above give some of the many theories, most of which point to Israel's wishing to maintain secrecy over it's planned attack on Syria which occured the following day.
The following is a partial list of individuals who support the
position that the attack was deliberate
Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, President of the Navy Court of Inquiry:
According to Kidd's legal counsel, Captain Ward Boston, USN,
Kidd discussed with him his belief that the attackers were aware
they were attacking an American ship. The Court ruled otherwise
because they were so directed by Washington. (Navy Times,
6/26/2002)
Captain Ward Boston, legal counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry.
"I feel the Israelis knew what they were doing. They knew they
were shooting at a U.S. Navy ship." (Navy Times, 6/26/2002)
George Christian, Press Secretary to President Lyndon Johnson.
"No one in the White House believed that the attack was an
accident." Letter to James Ennes, 1978.
Dean Rusk, US Secretary of State. Accidents don't occur through
repeated attacks by surface vessels and aircraft. It obviously
was a decision made pretty high up on the Israeli side, because
it involved combined forces. The ship was flying an American
flag. My judgment was that somewhere along the line some fairly
senior official gave the go ahead. I personally did not accept
the Israeli explanation. (Recorded interview,
http://www.ussliberty.org)
Rear Admiral (then captain) Merlin Staring, Staff Legal Office
for Commander in Chief US Naval Forces Europe and later Chief
Judge Advocate General of the Navy. After reviewing the Court
of Inquiry, he concluded that the evidence did not support the
findings that the attack was an accident and declined to
recommend that his Commander sign and forward it to Washington.
(Statement to Navy Times, 3 June 2002 and elsewhere)
Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and
former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. "I have never believed
that the attack on the USS Liberty was a case of mistaken
identity. That is ridiculous. Israel knew perfectly well that
the ship was America." (Americans for Middle East
Understanding, June 8, 1997)
Richard Helms, former director, Central Intelligence Agency.
"It was no accident." (Navy Times, 6/26/2002) Asked to say
more, Helms remarked that he did not want to spend the rest of
his life testifying in court about the attack. (A Look Over My
Shoulder by Richard Helms)
Rufus Taylor, Admiral, Deputy CIA director, told Helms, "To me,
the picture thus far presents the distinct possibility that the
Israelis knew that Liberty might be their target and attacked
anyway. (A Look Over My Shoulder by Richard Helms)
John Morrison, Major General, US Air Force, Deputy Chief NSA
Operations during the attack and later Chief of NSA Operations.
"....did not buy the Israeli 'mistake' explanations either.
Nobody believes that explanation." When informed by author
Bamford of gruesome war crime (killing of large numbers of POWs)
at nearby El Arish, Morrison saw the connection. "That would be
enough," he said. "They wouldn't want us in on that. You've
got the motive. What a hell of a thing to do." (Body of
Secrets by James Bamford, p233).
Oliver Kirby, former deputy director for operations/production,
National Security Agency. "I can tell you for an absolute
certainty that they knew they were attacking an American ship."
Kirby participated in NSA's investigation of the attack and
reviewed translations of intercepted communications between
pilots and their headquarters which he reports show conclusively
that they knew their target was an American ship. Kirby is
considered the "Godfather" of the USS Liberty and USS Pueblo
intercept programs. (Telephone interviews with James Ennes and
David Walsh for Friendless Fire, Proceedings, June 2003)
William Odom, former director, National Security Agency,
reported that on the strength of intercept transcripts of pilots
conversation during the attack, the question of the attack's
deliberateness "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the agency.
(Interview with David Walsh on March 3, 2003, reported in Naval
Institute Proceedings, June, 2003)
Bobby Ray Inman, Admiral, USN, Director National Security Agency
1977-1981. Inman said he "flatly rejected" the Cristol thesis
that the attack was an accident. "It is just exceedingly
difficult to believe that [USS Liberty] was not correctly
identified" based on his talks with NSA seniors at the time
having direct knowledge of intercepted communications. No NSA
official could be found who dissented from the "deliberate"
conclusion. (Proceedings, June, 2003)
Captain William L. McGonagle, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty.
"USS Liberty is the only US Navy ship attacked by a foreign
nation, involving large loss of life...that has never been
accorded a full Congressional hearing."
George Ball, former under secretary of state. "The Liberty's
presence and function were well known to Israel's leaders.
...Israel's leaders concluded that nothing they might do would
offend the Americans to the point of reprisal. If American
leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the
blatant murder of American citizens, it seemed clear that their
American friends would let them get away with almost anything.
(The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement with Israel,
pages 57-58.
Clark Clifford, Secretary of Defense under Lyndon Johnson.
"Inconceivable that it was an accident � 3 strafing passes, 3
torpedo boats. Set forth facts. Punish Israelis responsible.
(Minutes of NSC Special Committee Meeting, 9 June 1967)
Dr. Louis Tordella, former deputy director, National Security
Agency. Believed that the attack was deliberate and that the
Israeli government attempted to cover it up. Tordella expressed
that view to authors James Ennes and James Bamford and to
Congressman George Mahon (D-Texas), and in an internal
memorandum for the record. He noted "a nice whitewash" in the
margin of the official Israeli excuse for the attack. ("A nice
whitewash" remark was noted in NSA Gerhard report 1982)
Norman Finkelstein, PhD, author, professor of political science,
DePaul University. (In a review of "Six Days of War" by Michael
Oren.) "Oren...frequently descends to vulgar propaganda.
Deeming the Israeli combined air and naval assault on the USS
Liberty ...an accident,' Oren rehashes official Israeli tales
and embellishes them with his own whoppers." (Journal of
Palestine Studies, Spring, 2003, p85)
Marshal Carter, former director, National Security Agency, in a
telephone interview with James Ennes, described the attack as
clearly deliberate.
Lucius Battle, former presidential advisor, as keynote speaker
for 1982 USS Liberty reunion described attack as clearly
deliberate.
FBI Officials. "FBI officials counter that 'friendly' spying
can be as damaging as spying for enemies, they note, as in 1967
when Israeli jets deliberately attacked the electronic
intelligence- gathering ship USS Liberty...." (Washington
Times, November 26, 1998)
James Akins, former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. "How much
better if Congress would....call to account those who were
involved in spreading lies about the tragedy." (Special Report,
The Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty, June 8, 1967, The
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December, 1999)
Victor Ostrovsky, author and former Mossad officer. "The attack
was deliberate and not an accident." (Telephone conversation
with Memo to File, former Congressman Pete McCloskey, October
10, 1991, and several conversations with James Ennes.)
Dwight Porter, former US Ambassador to Lebanon, who saw
transcripts of Israeli communications during the attack. "It's
an American ship!" the pilot of an Israeli Mirage fighter-
bomber radioed Tel Aviv as he sighted the USS Liberty on June 8,
1967. Israeli headquarters ordered the pilot to carry out his
mission, he reports. (Syndicated column "Remembering the
Liberty" by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, November 6, 1991.)
Sergeev Oleg Korneevitch, retired Colonel, Soviet GRU. "The
historical event which took place in June 1967 can hardly be
called enigmatic and mysterious. ...It is difficult to
understand that the Israelis could not identity the USS Liberty,
since the ship had a unique antenna and equipment and especially
since the Israelis had identified the ship with long term
observation." (Translated from a taped interview.)
Walter L. Jacobsen, Lieutenant Commander, US Navy. "The
government of Israel intentionally attacked the ship. ...The
attack was not legally justified. ...(there were) two further
violations of international law...the use of unmarked military
aircraft (and)...the wanton destruction of life rafts." (Naval
Law Review, Vol 36, Winter 1986)
Stephen Green, author. "He indicates that the attack was not an
accident." (Antelope Valley Press, April 5, 1984)
Paul Findley, author and former Member of Congress 1961-1983.
"Certain facts are clear. The attack was no accident. The
Liberty was assaulted in broad daylight by Israeli forces who
knew the ship's identity. ...The public, however, was kept in
the dark. Even before the American public learned of the
attack, U.S. government officials began to promote an account
satisfactory to Israel. The American Israel Public Affairs
Committee worked through Congressmen to keep the story under
control. The President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson,
ordered and led a cover-up so thorough that years after he left
office the episode is still largely unknown...." (They Dare to
Speak Out, by Paul Findley, 1985, page 166)
William F. Buckley, journalist and publisher. "Is the Liberty
episode being erased from history. So it would seem...What has
happened to our prying journalistic corps and our editors,
normally so indignant of attempted suppression of the news?...We
believe that a joint select committee of Congress should
investigate the strange case of the USS Liberty..." (National
Review, June 27, 1967)
Lloyd M. "Pete" Bucher, US Navy, Commanding Officer USS Pueblo
when captured by North Korea in January 1968. "The attack on
the USS Liberty was planned and there is and was a cover-up."
"If the very valuable lessons of the Liberty were known, the
capture of the USS Pueblo could not have happened." (Telephone
conversations with James Ennes and Sepember 6, 2002, with
Richard Schmucker)
Donald Neff, author. "Nearly everyone who is not affiliated
with Israel...and who has seriously looked into the attack
believes that it was deliberate. ...The bare facts of the attack
rule out any other conclusion." (Washington Report on Middle
East Affairs, August, 2002, p29)
Adlai E. Stevenson, former United States Senator. In 1980,
Senator Stevenson announced his interest in holding
Congressional hearings on the attack. He pointed out that the
survivors have been consistent in their accounts of what
happened and that the attack was, in his word, "premeditated."
(William J. Small, United Press International, September 28,
1980)
Ralph Hoppe, Colonel, US Army, retired. Hoppe reports that
dozens of intelligence reports soon after the attack described
the attack as deliberate including a "consensus report" which
summarized the collective view of the US intelligence community.
Soon orders came from Washington to collect and destroy all such
reports. Nothing more in official channels described the attack
as deliberate. (Aerotech News and Review, March 2, 2001, by
John Borne, PhD, and conversations with James Ennes)
Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, authors. "It is clear that the
Israelis knew that they were attacking a vessel of the US Navy,
especially as it was flying a large Stars and Stripes at the
time. The fact that they spent six hours reconnoitering and
executing the attack, which included machine-gunning the
lifeboats, attest to the deadly intent of the operation.
("Dangerous Liaison, the Inside Story of the US-Israeli Covert
Relationship," by Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, p152.)
Professor Hayden Peake, author, former CIA officer and member,
Association of Former Intelligence Officers. "...A. Jay
Cristol's virtual minority of one assessment is not supported by
the detailed non-technical common sense evidence to the contrary
in "Body of Secrets" (by James Bamford). "There is nothing
surprising in Bamford's conclusion that the attack was
deliberate. Liberty survivors have made that case convincingly
for years." (The Intelligencer, Vol. 12, No.1, Summer 2001)
Ahron Bregman, PhD, author. Book reviews transcripts of
communications during the attack which establish that the attack
was deliberate. (Israel's Wars, 1947-1993, by Ahron Bregman)
USS Liberty Survivors. Survivors of the attack are unanimous in
their conviction that the attack was deliberate. Among other
things, their belief is based upon the intense pre-attack
reconnaissance, the fact that the firing continued from close
range long after the attackers examined the ship and its
markings from a few feet away, and because the Israeli version
of events as reported to the United States is grossly untrue.
Carl Salans, State Department Legal Advisor and author of highly
critical detailed analysis of the Israeli excuse. In telephone
interview from his home in France, Mr. Salans described the
attack as deliberate.
Walter Deeley, NSA department head. Conducted still-classified
investigation of the attack. Remarked later in telephone
interview that he regards the attack as deliberate.
Charles Tiffany, Richard Block and Ron Gotcher are among several
Air Force intelligence analysts who have come forward to report
that they saw real-time transcripts of communications from the
attacking forces which show clearly that they were aware they
were attacking an American ship. Others who saw these
transcripts include Dwight Porter and Oliver Kirby, mentioned
above, and several top offiicials of the American intelligece
community.
John Borne, PhD, adjunct professor of history, NY University.
Published doctoral thesis establishing that the attack was
deliberate.
John Stenbit, Assistant Secretary of Defense for C3I. "The
Israeli's told us 24 hours before that ...if we didn't move it,
they would sink it. Unfortunately, the ship was not moved, and
by the time the message arrived the ship was taking on water."
(AFEI/NDAI Conference for Net Centric Operations, Wednesday,
April 16, 2003)
this was a crime committed against US military servicemen.
i've heard of this, never with evidence to this magnitude........Israel wiped out a US naval ship, and they got medals.
unfortunately the evidence from so many reputable sources and people who had access to information proving that it was no mistake, is too hard to ignore.
for some it 3was literally their job to find out the truth/.
Because all of the evidence shows the attacks to have been deliberate. Also, every single person who survived the attack states that the attack was deliberate.
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0693/9306019.htm
Israeli Pilot Speaks Up
'...Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.
Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot's radio report. The attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war room knew that they were attacking an American ship, the major said. He recanted the statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel.
The pilot's protests also were heard by radio monitors in the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter has confirmed this. Porter told his story to syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak and offered to submit to further questioning by authorities. Unfortunately, no one in the U.S. government has any interest in hearing these first-person accounts of Israeli treachery.
Key members of the Lyndon Johnson administration have long agreed that this attack was no accident. Perhaps most outspoken is former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer. "I can never accept the claim that this was a mistaken attack," he insists.
Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk is equally outspoken, calling the attack deliberate in press and radio interviews. Similarly strong language comes from top leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency (some of whose personnel were among the victims), National Security Council, and from presidential advisers such as Clark Clifford, Joseph Califano and Lucius Battle.
A top-secret analysis of Israel's excuse conducted by the Department of State found Israel's story to be untrue. Yet Israel and its defenders continue to stand by their claim that the attack was a "tragic accident" in which Israel mistook the most modern electronic surveillance vessel in the world for a rusted-out 40-year-old Egyptian horse transport.
Despite the evidence, no U.S. administration has ever found the courage to defy the Israeli lobby by publicly demanding a proper accounting from Israel.'
and what of the lavon affair (ie operation susannah), yosi??
according to haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/ne ... ter-1.4385
The Lavon affair - also known locally as esek habish, "the rotten business" - was a plan to discredit Egypt's government, then headed by Gamal Abdel Nasser, by bombing theaters, post offices and U.S. and British institutions, and making it seem as though Egypt was behind the bombings. The thinking in Israel at the time was that if the British were to give up control of the Suez Canal, it would be left in Egypt's hands, putting Cairo in a better position to exert pressure on Israel.
The agents were told "to undermine the West's trust in the [Egyptian] government by causing public insecurity" while concealing Israel's role in the sabotage.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/30/the- ... -1954.html
On July 2, 1954, a firebomb rattled a post office in Alexandria, Egypt. The following week, bombs tore through a British theater and the U.S. Information Agency libraries in Cairo and Alexandria. As it turned out, they were surreptitiously carried out by Israel, which named the plot Operation Susannah. The idea was to blame the attacks on local insurgents, which would make Egypt look too unstable for British troops to withdraw from the Suez Canal inside two years, as planned. But Egyptian authorities traced the bombings back to nine Egyptian Jews who had been recruited by Israeli military intelligence to target sites frequented by Westerners.
eh????
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Depends what you mean by 'involvement'. If by involvement you mean the U.S would stop blocking a peaceful settlement as already agreed upon by the rest of the world then Israel would simply be forced - by international pressue originating from the U.N, and possibly by way of sanctions if it chose to resist - to withdraw from the occupied territories.
Maybe even a U.N peacekeeping could be deployed along the border to keep things from kicking off - like we've seen in Cyprus for the past 45 years.
As for Israel being attacked, I doubt that would happen. Who would attack it? Israel has nuclear weapons. And another thing that could happend if the U.S ended it's involvement is that Israel could be pressured into finally revealing it's nuclear capacity and sign the non-proliferation treaty.
We'd also more than likely see a reduction in terrorism in the world.
Also depends what you mean by 'last'...
I have not seen the documentary you posted, Byrnzie, which is a BBC documentary (meaning I tend to ASSUME that it is more of a whitewash than a full account, anyhow)
but the one in the above link is VERY DAMNING of the Official Story, and has PLENTY OF 4 STAR GENERALS AND THOSE ACTUALLY ABOARD THE USS LIBERTY who give their side of the story and have very disturbing things to say, and all of whom are pissed off and ask for a full investigation of the account (which of course, they will never get)
Staged, faked, deliberate, and false-flagged maritime incidents are nothing new in US history.
The Lusitania, The USS Maine, The Titanic, the entirety of Pearl Harbor, The Gulf of Tonkin, AND the USS Liberty were ALL arguably staged\deliberate events.
The Gulf of Tonkin being THE incident that started ALL OF THE VIETNAM WAR, and being PROVABLY FALSIFIED by the US government at this point in history.
The Lusitania would be right behind The Gulf of Tonkin in terms of provability, although it is not 100% like the Gulf of Tonkin is. Titanic is "questionable", Pearl Harbor has some VERY condemning facts behind it to indicate US complicity in allowing Japan to "sneak attack" us (evidence shows that Roosevelt did indeed know, and his own writings show that he was TRYING TO FIND AN INCIDENT to allow US entrance in to the war) ... anyway. For quick reference, i did little more than skim this webpage but it looks to be right on: Pearl Harbor Deception
Just saying.
We don't have a very good track record in the waters.
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
what Byrnzie said.
just want to also add to Unsung that the bottom line is that Israels actions are appalling, if they started to act like a democracy and a civilized country, adhered to International Law and stop with the constant Human rights violations and cruel and inhuman treatment to an entire population of peoples because of the actions of a few, you wouldn't see criticism of Israel.
it's not rocket science. contrary to what some around here would have you believe, criticism of Israel is as a result of their actions. not mine. not yours. theirs. you can't criticize someone/something unless they are providing you with actions that allow criticism to start with. right? fix that and you won't have the criticism.
Thanks dude, I'm watching it now.
i don't mean to just ask yosi, others can feel free to chime in.....ogre? rafie? electronic delta? where ya guys at???
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Yeah, Pearl Harbor was an inside job :roll:
you loonies crack me up
let me guess... you think the moon landing was faked, too :arrow:
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll
except he wasn't saying or implying it was an inside job :roll:
so, got an opinion on the lavon affair?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Let's just say this.
The widely held notion that the United States was the innocent victim of Japanese agression at Pearl Harbor is straight bunk. Go read the NEGATIVE reviews of the book, Day of Deceit, on Amazon, and you will see that even those who strongly disagree with the contention that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen with foreknowledge by FDR AGREE with the former assertion.
That is to say, even those who vehemently disagree with the notion that the President knew of plans to attack Pearl Harbor and allowed to happen are, at the same time, WELL AWARE that the Roosevelt administration was doing every thing in their power to taunt, inflame, antagonize, and encourage an enemy attack on the United States by either the Germans or the Japanese.
You can back your way out of that and just say, "dude, that's the way the world works."
But i argue this is NOT commonly held knowledge, and it DOES matter.
Those at the top of the American government's administration were DELIBERATELY encouraging aggression by UNDECLARED enemies (and were SUCCESSFUL in doing so) in order to make good on their desired outcome of DECLARED WAR.
If you want to subscribe to the theory of Situational Ethics or the notion that the ends justify the means, then go right ahead and agree with this.
Call me a simple man, and a man of an age passed, but I happen to strongly DISagree with such actions, and it is my PRIMARY disagreement with the larger body of "Illuminst" thought. THE primary driver of ALL illuminist thinking seems to be the direct assumption that moral absolutes can and MUST be set aside in order to achieve the greater good. I find this notion appalling and deserving of contempt. But maybe that is just me.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
no, lavon
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I particularly liked this review:
79 of 98 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars A Classic Example of Flawed and Deceptive "Research"?, January 3, 2004
By Richard E. Young (Denver, Colorado) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (Paperback)
Day of Deceit - The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor.
By Robert B. Stinnett. (New York: The Free Press, 1999. Pp. xiv, 386.
In 1999, Robert B. Stinnett, since 1986 a retired long-time employee of the Oakland Tribune, authored his book, Day of Deceit, based upon years of extensive personal research.
Attempting to personally blame Roosevelt for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is not new. Others have made similar assertions over the years. But Stinnett claims that through personally reviewing hundreds of thousands of documents, many obtained through use of the Freedom of Information Act, he found indisputable "proof" that Roosevelt actually knew of, and deliberately provoked, the Japanese attack.
A number of reviewers of Stinnett's book, perhaps impressed by 65 pages of some 595 footnotes (many quite lengthy) and accepting them carte blanche as valid, praised the book. But, as one would say, the devil is in the details.
Stinnett's conclusions rest on four major allegations. First, that Navy Lieutenant Commander McCollum drafted a memorandum dated October 7, 1940 for his boss, Navy Captain Anderson, entitled "Estimate of the Situation in the Pacific and Recommendations for Action by the United States." In it McCollum set forth eight steps which could be interpreted as provocative to Japan. Stinnett asserts that the President read or knew of this memorandum, and immediately adopted and carried out those eight steps "...to provoke Japan through a series of actions into an overt act: the Pearl Harbor attack."
Stinnett's own research proves otherwise. There were no forwarding endorsements on McCollum's October 7, 1940 memorandum. Stinnett found only a response to McCollum from a Captain Dudley Knox, commenting on its contents. Even though Stinnett admits that "no specific record has been found by the author indicating whether he (Captain Anderson, the addressee) or Roosevelt actually ever saw it," Stinnett goes on to claim that "a series of secret presidential routing logs plus collateral intelligence information in Navy files offer conclusive evidence that they (Roosevelt and Captain Anderson) did see it."
However, if one tries to find the "secret presidential routing logs" cited by Stinnett in his lengthy footnote 8, no secret presidential routing logs are even mentioned, let alone cited. When asked about this, Stinnett replied that the logs he had referenced in footnote 8 (apparently by mistake) "are fully described" in footnote 37 on page 314. But this footnote deals with radio intercepts, not McCollum's memorandum.
It is clear after delving into Stinnett's footnotes that there is no "conclusive evidence," in fact no evidence whatsoever, that Roosevelt saw or even knew of McCollum's memorandum. Stinnett has proved just the opposite of his own oft repeated allegation that Roosevelt adopted McCollum's eight point program. Through Stinnett's own exhaustive research, we now know that there is not one scintilla of documentary evidence that President Roosevelt saw, knew of, or adopted McCollum's proposals.
Stinnett's second major allegation is that Roosevelt prevented Admiral Kimmel from conducting a training exercise that would have uncovered the oncoming Japanese Fleet. Stinnett provides no relevant documents to support his allegation. Stinnett does quote Admiral Turner (at the time of Pearl Harbor, Director of Navy Plans in Washington, D.C.), testifying before Congress after the war, as proof that the Navy had been ordered out of the area where Nagumo's task force was headed:
"We were prepared to divert traffic when we believed that war was imminent. We sent
the traffic down via Torres Strait, so that the track of the Japanese task force would be
clear of any traffic."
What is bothersome is that Turner never made this statement. What Stinnett has done is cobble together phrases of Admiral Turner's testimony from different sentences to arrive at the above quoted statement. The reading of Turner's actual testimony leaves a different meaning
But the mort serious flaw facing Stinnett is that Admiral Kimmel himself, for years fighting to restore his dignity and reversing the belief of many that he was negligent in permitting his Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor to be so surprised, never once stated, suggested or hinted in the hundreds of pages of his testimony before various investigative bodies, in his own book, or in any of his speeches, that he was prevented from finding the Japanese task force. In fact, he did not believe that the Japanese were about to attack Pearl.
Kimmel's own testimony totally disproves Stinnett's second allegation:
"In short, all indications of the movements of Japanese military and naval forces which came to
my attention confirmed the information in the dispatch of 27 November - that the Japanese were
on the move against Thailand or the Kra Peninsula in southeast Asia."
"In brief, in the week immediately prior to Pearl Harbor, I had no evidence that the
Japanese carriers were enroute to Oahu."
Conducting and then concluding a standard annual war game north of Hawaii by some ships of the Pacific Fleet some two weeks before December 7th, is hardly evidence, as Stinnett claims, of Kimmel being prevented from discovering the Japanese attack force.
The remaining two major allegations, one being that the Japanese task force actually sent radio messages while on the way to Pearl, the other that many Japanese secret messages about the planned attack on Pearl Harbor were not only intercepted but were deciphered and translated before the attack, have already been discredited by experts in cryptology and radio communications, as well as by noted historians of Pearl Harbor, such as Gordon W. Prange and John Prados.
An analysis of much of the research done by Stinnett and his quotes raise serious questions about the accuracy and relevance of many of his claims. Any serious student of Pearl Harbor needs to look carefully at Stinnett's research before concluding that he has really uncovered any thing new.
Richard E. Young, RADM, USNR (Ret)
Wash me in the blood of Rock & Roll