Loss of Liberty
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
Documentary Film: Loss of Liberty
The Story of the Attack on The USS Liberty, and then the Cover Up.
Hear it in the words of the captain and crewmen themselves.
34 dead. 171 wounded.
The only unmarked planes in Israel's airforce attack an American war ship, with her oversized flag flying proud.
Machine gunning and strafing cannon shells on the deck.
Dropping napalm.
Machine gunning the life boats.
And then, when the SOS signal goes out,
the captain of the responding carrier is ordered, from the White House, to turn his planes around.
NO HELP TO BE SENT!
"Does the Reichstag count?"
:cool:
The Story of the Attack on The USS Liberty, and then the Cover Up.
Hear it in the words of the captain and crewmen themselves.
34 dead. 171 wounded.
The only unmarked planes in Israel's airforce attack an American war ship, with her oversized flag flying proud.
Machine gunning and strafing cannon shells on the deck.
Dropping napalm.
Machine gunning the life boats.
And then, when the SOS signal goes out,
the captain of the responding carrier is ordered, from the White House, to turn his planes around.
NO HELP TO BE SENT!
"Does the Reichstag count?"
:cool:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Thanks, I'll watch it now.
And thanks for that video link you posted the other day: The Secret Government. That was superb.
thanks drifting. i'll be sure to let you know what i think
Seems like a sure-fire Gulf of Tonkin/Reichstag type incident. I think the only real mistake made by the Israeli pilots after a two hour long prolonged attack using bombs, napalm, and machine gun fire upon lifeboats from submarines - is that they failed to kill everyone on board. On returing to port the survivors were ordered in no uncertain terms to keep their mouths shut, or face serious consequences. Seems that even the lives of America's own aren't worth shit when it comes to supporting Israel.
Many intelligence and military officials dispute Israel's explanation:
* "...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty."- Former CIA Director Richard Helms[14][dubious – discuss]
* "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 "- Former US Secretary of State Dean Rusk[15]
'Some of the survivors claim that this incident stands as the only peacetime attack on a U.S. naval vessel not investigated by Congress, and want a full Congressional hearing[10]. They claim that a proper investigation has never taken place and that all previous reports, including the ones by the U.S. Congress, are incomplete, mention the incident in passing, and either that they are intended to exonerate Israel or that they do not even question the culpability of the attack (instead, they hold, it focuses on other topics, such as American communication problems). In 2002 Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, U.S. Navy, ended his own silence on the work of the court of inquiry, saying its findings were intended to cover up what was a deliberate attack by Israel on a ship it knew to be American. He has prepared and signed an affidavit (pdf) in which he claimed that Admiral Kidd had told him that the government ordered Kidd to falsely report that the attack was a mistake, and that he and Kidd both believed the attack was deliberate. He wrote, in part:
“ The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. Each evening, after hearing testimony all day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as 'murderous bastards.' It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident".
Most recently, on October 2, 2007, The Chicago Tribune published a lengthy special report into the attack. The newspaper's article pointed out that the USS Liberty survivors' "anger has been stoked by the declassification of government documents and the recollections of former military personnel, including some quoted in this article for the first time, which strengthen doubts about the U.S. National Security Agency's position that it never intercepted the communications of the attacking Israeli pilots - communications, according to those who remember seeing them, that showed the Israelis knew they were attacking an American naval vessel. The documents also suggest that the U.S. government, anxious to spare Israel's reputation and preserve its alliance with the U.S., closed the case with what even some of its participants now say was a hasty and seriously flawed investigation."[6]
The Tribune's report is based on the declassified NSA documents as well as interviews with people with first-hand experience of the Israeli attack, ranging from Liberty survivors, to NSA analysts to US and Israeli journalists and politicians. The Tribune article's author, John Crewdson, mentions the Liberty survivors' disbelief that "Israeli pilots [could have] confused the U.S. Navy's most distinctive ship with an Egyptian horse-cavalry transport that was half its size and had a dissimilar profile."
...At least two rescue attempts were launched from U.S. aircraft carriers nearby but were recalled, according to David Lewis, officer of the deck (OOD) during the attack. Lewis wrote and made an audio recording about a meeting 6th Fleet Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis requested in his cabins: "He told me that since I was the senior Liberty survivor on board he wanted to tell me in confidence what had actually transpired. He told me that upon receipt of our SOS, aircraft were launched to come to our assistance and then Washington was notified. He said that the Secretary of Defense (Robert McNamara) had ordered that the aircraft be returned to the carrier which was done. RADM Geis then said that he speculated that Washington may have suspected that the aircraft carried nuclear weapons so he put together another flight of conventional aircraft that had no capability of carrying nuclear weapons. These he launched to assist us and again notified Washington of his actions. Again McNamara ordered the aircraft recalled. He requested confirmation of the order being unable to believe that Washington would let us sink. This time President Johnson ordered the recall with the comment that he did not care if every man drowned and the ship sank, but that he would not embarrass his allies. This is, to the best of my ability, what I recall transpiring 30 years ago."
Hey, Byrnzie.
You pretty much nailed the premise.
Only a few things that would help clarify this a bit better i think.
1. The "point" was apparently for Israel to totally destroy the ship and kill EVERYONE. THEN BLAME IT ON EGYPT! You hear at least 3 of those interviewed suggest this (from crewman to higher ups in the navy). This would then both escalate the war, and also BRING AMERICA IN TO IT!
2. They did NOT kill everyone because of an awareness that American ships had been notified and the possibility that help was on the way. ALSO, and i'm not sure this documentary even mentioned it, from what i understand there was a RUSSIAN ship in the area, and once it had made visual contact, the Israelis were FORCED to call off the attack, since there was now a 3rd party observer.
3. THE UNITED STATES WAS IN ON THIS, FROM THE VERY TOP.
How did LBJ know these unmarked planes were Israeli !?!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
thx
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
"NOBODY" ?
Where ya at?
No comments?
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
THIS IS IMPORTANT.
If you are going to deny the possibility of 911 being an inside job,
you have to rationalize what the hell happened with the USS Liberty!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
And I fail too see just what they would gain from premeditadely attacking that ship. Draw the US into it? Why did they then use easily recognizable Israeli planes? Attacking your major ally is rarely done in military campaigns. Why did they immediately inform the US, send relief and pay reparations if they meant to do it?
Since I have a hard time seeing any gains for Israel here, and there being more than enough factors in play to explain a friendly-fire fuck-up, I find that explanation plausible.
Now the US (and others) have used decoy-attacks on own vessels to justify wars before, both against Mexico and Vietnam. But the primary reason for not believing this was such an attack is that the US did not immediately declare war on someone they blamed for the attack, which they would do if it was premeditated as such.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
You are a World Class Denier.
Watch the freaking movie.
ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE who were there say it was no fucking way it was a mistake.
To sit here and say that based on wikipedia, after this documentary SHATTERS that assertion is just ridiculous.
Someone back me up here, shit.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
FYI Dan,
there is a high ranking ex naval officer in this documentary who claims he has heard the CIA tapes of the incident. [there was an AWAC type plane in the air above the incident the whole time]
He says that Israeli command CLEARLY issues an attack order on the ship.
The israeli fighter pilots CLEARLY articulate, "This is an AMERICAN ship."
and the response comes back "YOU HAVE YOUR ORDERS!"
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I didn't watch the documentary, like I dont watch anything else that are movie clips up to an hour or more in length. Reason: I have a life outside these forums.
I did read up on the sources though, both wikipedi and others, and a friendly fire incident is, as I said, plausible. Maybe it wasn't either, but as I said, what did they gain by attacking that ship? What was the motive?
(edit) And what is it I am "denying" this time? You bring to attention a 6-day war incident which you and a movie you found claim can't have been a mistake. I read a bit about it, and from what I read, I find it plausible that it was an accident. If Israel really wanted to sink that ship to blame others, why were they armed with napalm instead of torpedoes? Napalm is very inefficient in sinking ships, while torpedoes are very efficient. They could even have gotten away, armed with torpedoes. Now they got many survivors and no effect. It doesnt add up. But from the seamen's position, they were under deliberate attack undoubtedly. The question is not whether they were attacked, but whether it was a premeditated plan of the Israelis. Which I highly doubt.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
How is a friendly fire incident with a shipTEN TIMES LARGER than the boat you claimed you were looking for (they said they thought it was some stupid Egyptian freight boat) ... when there IS NO BATTLE GOING ON?
This wasn't in the middle of a fucking heated battle.
This was a lone ship, by itself, with a BIG AMERICAN FLAG ON IT, and lots of radar towers ALL OVER THE SHIP.
And there are DOZENS of surviors who claim it was CLEARLY intentional, and that THE ISRAELI PILOTS did MULTIPLE fly overs to identify the boat.
The Israeli airplanes were THE ONLY UNMARKED PLANES in Israels airforce. WHY WOULD THEY USE UNMARKED PLANES, huh?
HUH?
And what the stood to gain was giving AMERICA a reason to enter the war.
This was coordinated. LBJ knew what was going on.
They were going to sink this ship, kill EVERYONE, and blame it on Egypt.
edit: and Dan, NAPALM IS GOOD AT KILLING PEOPLE, which is something you would need to do to ensure NO SURVIVORS to rat out your stupid little story. And they DID USE A TORPEDO as well.
They also had ISRAELI GUNSHIPS (helicopters) ... why would they send out gunships?
TO KILL PEOPLE.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The ship wasn't in battle, but Israel was and Israel HQ most definitely was. Pilots were exhausted and flying missions non-stop. There were a demolition landside by the Egyptians destroying an ammunition depot, which was (mis)interpreted as a shell being shot from sea, where Israel didn't think there were any. Fuck-ups happen in war.
Unmarked planes aren't that unusual, and planes arent required to have markings. However, the Israeli planes were pretty distinctive as noone else had them in that region. So, if they were planning on survivors or whatnot they might had bothered to get some enemy-looking planes, right? (since they apparently were using unmarked planes in order not to be identified, they must have counted on someone seeing...)
This is the alternative explanation that I think sounds plausible.
In that case they did a fuck-poor job of it. Why not try 2-3 more torpedoes if this was premeditated and important.
And why did LBJ send out planes (that were recalled) first if he knew it would happen? Dont you think they could have sunk the ship and massacred the rest if both were in on it? Which would have been a much better reason/excuse for the US to enter the war?
It doesnt add up, especially not as a combo-effort by Israel/US. If it had been, they would have succeeded, and not failed miserably like this.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
If this was an accident,
why were the Israeli craft machine gunning the life boats?
And i like your premise that the Israelis fucked up and shot the wrong ship,
but you completely dismiss that they could have been operating on a more clandestine agenda that got fucked up.
Like i said,
from what i understand there was a Russia ship that had come within visible range. This could have been part of the problem.
And,
again, from what i understand, LBJ didn't send any support, he simply called off support that had been requested by Liberty directly (they jerry-rig repaired their radio, which was the FIRST thing Israel took out -- with heat seekers!).
Apparently the captain of the ship responsible for sending the support aircraft himself was very upset at LBJs cancellation of support!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Even so, that doesnt mean that it was all pre-planned. And if I am to choose between a regular warfare fuck-up, or a fuck-up of an elaborate scheme, I tend to use Occam's razor and go with the first. But since I weren't there (and indeed not even born at the time), and know what happened, I can't conclusively say that there were no fishy business going on. But friendly fire is a plausible explanation.
But if it had been a concerted effort by US and Israel, there would have been a declaration of war shortly afterwards, and the remaining crewmen would not have been rescued to tell the tale.
So, I find the friendly fire story more plausible than US/Israel governments conspiring to enable the US to enter the war. Neither stories are probably entirely true, but I believe from what I have read that reality is closer to 1 than 2.
Side-question: Does the documentary talk to Israelis? If so, who?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I really hate the abuse of "the Occam's Razor defense".
Here.
Why were the Israelis machine gunning life boats?
That is a war crime.
Inadequacy.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
That fact adds nothing apart from Israeli ruthlessness into the mix. (War crime and terrible though it is) If they thought they were attacking egyptians, well... (this fact about life-boats being fired upon were not mentioned by the captain or any other crew apart from 2 of them) Life-boats fired upon is not evidence of a conspiracy in itself, just ruthlessness, which the Israeli army has a history of.
The boats were fired upon from the liberty. After air-strikes, fair enough, but being fired upon when they approached would lead them to further violent action.
But my question, did the documantary speak to any of the Israelis involved?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Watch the documentary Dan, the flag was flying and they knew it was an American ship.
I really don't get this whole dismissal of accounts of the people who were actually there on the ship, are they lying? They even mention why they kept quiet for so long.
If anything to me it seems as if it was a collaboration between the two countries in question.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
But the incident has many fishy sides to it, I can agree to that. But it is a bit thin to claim the planning and cooperation by the two nations in doing this. That stuff were covered up afterwards can be attributed to maintaining a diplomatic relation. It doesnt imply that they knew beforehand, just that the US government didnt think it would be in the country's interest to go into a conflict with Israel there. Strategic brushing under carpet. Which of course is bloody annoying for the people involved that lost loved ones or were nearly killed themselves.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
So Why did LBJ tell the planes that were on there way to help the boat to stand down?
How did they know it was Israelis attacking when the planes attacking where unmarked?
Honestly just watch the film and then come back and say the guys who were there and experienced it don't know what happened to them that day, It's just a bunch of guys talking about there experience and how they were told to keep quiet about the incident.
If they say the american flag was in plain site and the pilots that were ordered to shot the ship also said it was an American ship why do you doubt it?
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Israel has a distinctive (advanced) airplane that none of the other countries in the region had. Thus, military surveillance people would know what an Israeli plane looked like, markings or not.
And isn't that the point, that the crew onboard dont know what happened, and that's why they are pushing for investigations? They know they were attacked, obviously, but inferring motives they are no better at.
As I said, the cover-up is likely purely strategic/diplomatic in nature, since the US didnt want a conflict with Israel. (But wouldn't had minded one with say, Egypt)
And although I havent watched the clip, I have read up on the details of the incident. There are several unclear points, and several that are contested, even though those being attacked feel fairly certain that someone tried to kill them, of course. (and justifiably, as they were fired upon)
Since drifting doesnt answer it, can you tell me whether this documentary speaks with Israelis?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
they get about 5 minutes at the start of the film.
The rest of the movie is interviews with US servicemen.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Could I ask who of the Israelis they talk to?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I must say this quote makes feel sad for any person serving there county as they truly are disposable to there government even in times of peace. Not that i didn't know this already.
You say this but the only people who could see the attack were the people on board the ship, and you don't trust there testimony anyway, not that they knew that they knew it was Israelis attacking them anyway. As that was not known until an hour and half after the pilots had been told to stand down by LBJ.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
I dont say I disprove their testimony. They were attacked by Israeli military both air and water. The controversy is whether the Israelis had mistaken the identity of the ship, or they attacked it deliberately. Those onboard the ship aren't necessarily in a better condition to say so. They know they're being attacked.
As an illustration though, the Israelis had the day before managed to bomb their own convoy of armoured vehicles, so it doesnt seem unlikely that HQ didnt have total control of the situation and were severely over-worked. A ripe environment for making big mistakes.
That's all I'm saying. And none of the sailors knows what went on in Israel HQ, nor under what orders and impression their attackers had. They were most definitely the victims though.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
When the [then] Lebanese Ambassardor (Dwight Porter) says he WAS HANDED THE TRANSCRIPTS by the CIA Station Chief IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE INCIDENT ... and he claims that the transcripts showed Israeli fighters telling Israeli HQ, "THIS IS AN AMERICAN SHIP", followed by a response telling them "YOU HAVE YOUR ORDERS", and the question and answer were BOTH repeated (same answer given!) ...
and you have the (then) CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, Admiral Thomas Moore, saying that "the attack on the USS Liberty warrants a full fledged investigation by the United States Congress",
i start to think something is up.
Again,
you REALLY might want to actualy watch the movie,
instead of ignoring what others much closer to the incident have already spoken on, and wasting half as much time here arguing pointlessly -- not hearing it from the mouths themselves.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I have conceded that there are fishy details, but a conspiracy beforehand between the US and Israel seems unlikely. The fishy details are entirely on the Israeli side of things. There was a cover-up, but that can be attributed to strategic interests where the US wanted to remain on good terms with the Israeli, despite the attack or how premeditated it was. Hence it got brushed under the rug.
As for the attack order tape, is that corroborated? Can that part of it be found in any of the many tapes about the incident that have been released?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I also read the wiki entry and a few other things i came across. In the movie, they interview many USS Liberty survivors. It's heartbreaking listening to what they have to say. They were under attack for nearly two hours. Longer than the attack on Pearl Harbour. They were told to forget it ever happened.
Admiral Tom Moorer speaks at about 27 minutes. if nothing else, can you take the time to listen to what he has to say. He is the longest serving active 4 star admiral in american history.
It would be good to get some answers as to what the hell really happened that day. Answers that make sense. Why were the survivors threatened and told to forget it ever happened.