Loss of Liberty

spiral out wrote:

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.

There is often a difference between what those onboard the ship would perceive, and what other people on other vessels would perceive, especially if they were in "attack the enemy" frame of mind.

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

spiral out wrote:

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?

Because they found that they were being attacked by Israeli vessels, with whom they did not wish to make war.

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

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

they get about 5 minutes at the start of the film.

The rest of the movie is interviews with US servicemen.

OK thanks.

Could I ask who of the Israelis they talk to?

Peace
Dan

spiral out wrote:

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.

Big politics is not a nice game.

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.

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

My point is that the cover-up that undoubtedly happen doesnt necessarily mean that the two countries were cooperating from the get-go. I was also saying that the sailors weren't in the best position to know what really went on (apart from them being attacked).

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