USS Liberty Remembered At Navy Memorial

Like I've wrote, I believe that the decision to attack the Liberty was a quick, improvised decision. The fighters had for objective to strafe the ship before the fast attack crafts sink it.

Well, it's not for lack of trying. IMO, at this point the Israelis knew that the Liberty made contact with US command.

I also believe that the eavesdropping that the Liberty did bothered the Israeli - their objective was not to draw Yanks in the war, but rather to eliminate this thorn in their side while putting in on the Egyptians. They have tried this before, remember?

Israel also sold US military secrets to China. Yanks like to beleive that Israel supports them as un-conditionally as they do themselves - they are wrong. As soon as it is in Israel's advantage, they will turn on the US instantly. Israelis danced even more than Arabs on 9-11.

 

The source is the BBC and the content is the controversy over the attempted sinking of the USS Liberty. "Watch the video" is a sincere suggestion for finding out what your media hasn't told you-and the documentary film includes interviews with crew members, Israeli intelligence, Israeli military, Robert McNamara and others involved at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52U-uXmhJ_M

 

So.

WHY do they claim that the Liberty was attacked by Israel?

Personally, given McNamara's known history of staggering incompetence and general idiocy, I wouldn't believe him if he said water was wet.

 

stop derailing the thread with your anti-Israel rants.

 

This was an argumentation that was in tune with the rest of the post, the post it was an answer to, as well as with the OP.

What's happening there, Ronstar? Are you trying to censure me? I tought we became good pals, you and I.

 

^Prove your claim about about Israelis "dancing" due to the attacks on the U.S. on 9-11.

And by Israelis I'm specifying JEWISH Israelis and not Islamic ones.

 

please, don't feed it.

 

It has and its beenc ompletely debunked and this is why you are quoting it. At this point only people interested in presenting a wedge between the US and Israel and trying to exploit this tragic incident would go back and try rely on the crap you try pass off as credible.

 

Don't you remember that Israel initially denied the attack?

 

Sure, Here. Jewish enough for you?

And this is not some un-official, random street guy - it's a nation leader.

 

Debunked by whom? No, let me guess, pro-Israelis; the US and Israeli 'official' investigations? In addition I suggest you try to tell the survivors that what they experienced was crap.
Only a Hasbara apparatchik would ignore the video (I'll bet you didn't even bother watching it) and the testimony of those featured in it.

 

This isn't remotely what people were referring to about the Palestinians "dancing in the streets".

The Palestinians were dancing in the streets because they were happy that America had been hurt.

Netanyahu was referring to the fact it was a good thing for Americans to get reengaged in the Middle East in the aftermath of the attack.

Not remotely the same and you well know it.

Unless you are an Israel hater of epic proportions.

 

I now respond directly to the supposed BBC documentary Snake would have us use as the smoking gun to prove his theories.

Interestingly thew BBC press release says it produced startling new evidence. It did not. In fact the evidence it produced was already rebutted directly by Cristol.

In fact it was not new evidence at all. The alleged quotes from Johnson and MacNamara were not new and the theories it presented are in fact recycled ones.

Israel's position as backed by 10 US investigations stated it first thought the boat was Egyptian, then Soviet or American.

The creator of the documentary and Snake would have you believe Dead In The Water reveals, those at the very top never believed the Israeli version -" and for good reasons".

This is nothing new. Admiral Moorer, Dean Rusk, many other Americans both on the ship and otherwise believe it was not a case of mistaken identity. That is their right to have such an opinion but all this documentary showed is that this was there opinion IN SPITE of evidence given to them to the contrary,

Whether their opinion is based on "good reasons" or their strong faith belief that you can't engage in friendly fire is another issue.

The BBC press release says the documentary shows a " daring ploy by Israel to fake an Egyptian attack on the American spy ship, and thereby provide America with a reason to officially enter the war against Egypt."

This theory was completely and utterly debunked and so if you buy it, you must necessarily believe LBJ and all the subsequent Presidents lied, all 10 US investigations were deliberate lies, all the government documents released are all fake. You must blindly reject all the evidence-totally ignore it, assume its all a lie, suspend all logic and simply take on face value the above.

Even if you dismiss all the evidence to the contrary as false Zionist info, then you are asked to buy into an idiot theory.

You are to believe Israel would send Mirage jets, with their distinct profiles, to sink a US ship and would not be identified as Mirage jets. Egypt did not have the Mysteres Israel had at the time of the attack.

You are also to believe Israel sent hets to sink the ship without bombs and would only use machine guns and napalm instead of a 500 pound bomb.

Also Israel was so stupid when sinking the ship to blame Egypt it would not have thought the Liberty was already being monitored and would have broadcast who hit it.

To take out the ship you would have to literally obliterate it with no chance of anyone saying anything.

What makes this theory absolutely retarded though is that when it fell apart the first time, the same idiots who came up with the theory said, oh I guess the tapes from the pilot we never counted on being released sort of blow that theory out of the air, so say, I know, let's say the Pilot upon realizing he could not blow up the ship, panicked told the Israelis who then back pedalled. That is what you have to believe because in this idiot theory, Israel notified the US as soon as they realized the ship was American and the idiots who came up with this theory did a Michael Jackson back pedal and said, uh yah they did that only after they realized they could not blow up the ship.

What an idiot thing to say. You blow up this ship in a false flag you don't use visible Israeli marked Mysteres and topedo boats, you use a friggin submarine which Israel had.


This documentary claims it shows intercepted recordings revealing how America was convinced the attack was intentional. Of course the crew did. They saw the Israeli jet markings. Of course they would think that.

They would not have known what the Israelis were in fact thinking at the time of the attack or new for example that the Americans had given the wrong coordinates to Israel as to where the ship was and placed it in an area Israel warned was a conflict zone. They would not have known the speed they were travelling at under international was convention between the US and Israel was a speed they had agreed never to engage in if they were not a warship because the speed would be assumed to mean its a warship.

The documentary never looked at that.

The documentary never considered of course the US would have many of its brass angry at Israel-what you want them to admit they made a mistake like Israel. They both screwed up. The American top brass covering their asses did not want people to know they phacked up and forgot to tell the ship to get out of the waters they were in. They phacked up for one of two reasons-one clear line of evidence shows their messages to get the ship out of the area it was in came in too late and only after the attack which is the most probable one, a command error that placed them in friendly fire way.

The other theory which I don't buy but is possible is the US lied to Israel on purpose about the Liberty's true location because it wanted to stay in close and did nto trust Israel because it feared Israel could trigger a war with te Soviets.

The second theory I do not like because the US and Israel were on constant exchange of info because Israel feared a Soviet nuclear attack and it did not want US involvement.

This brings us to the next idiot part of this theory. At the time of this incident, the Egyptian Air Force was finished. So were its ground forces. They were in full retreat. They had a few navy vessels left. Egypt had in the past armed its freighters with machine guns as well.

The last thing Israel needed was US intervention. I was clearly defeating its enemy. If the US intervened necessarily the Soviets would have stepped in.

We also know the Soviets had already made it clear they were planning to invade Israel to save face for Egypt and Syria and it was the Americans who talked them out of it.

The last thing Israel would have done is attack the US who it needed to stay out of the ground war and deflect off the Soviets through back channels.

This idiot documentary that claims the attack was intentional repeats another idiotic statement. Of course at the time of the attack it was intentional. If it was not intended it would not have been carried out. The intent was to take out that ship. What the documentary never showed was ANY proof from ANYONE they have evidence an Israeli sat there and went, lets sink the US ship so they come into the war.

Its a theory with no basis.

Interesting the BBC hype on the documentary says the veterans are still calling for a full investigation by Congress into the incident. It remains the only case of an attack on a US ship without a full Congressional enquiry.

That is utter bull crap. There were 10 full investigations including a Senate inquirt at which time the Pilot who led the attack apologized to the American people.

What an idiot thing to say.

Now the vets who are calling for yet another inquiry are a group I already discussed being egged on by a lobby group that makes its business representing anti Israeli interests on capitol hill.

This is an advertising tool they use to market for business. Look at the bad Israelis we exposed and they beat this dead horse every time they need a new anti Israel client.

Interestingly the hype from the BBC said Dead in the Water puts forward evidence that Israel deliberately attacked a ship belonging to its ally, intending to sink it as quickly as possible. Duh. Anything is possible. UFO's from outerspace could have staged the whole thing for the lizard shape shifters from Syrius. Again what an idiotic thing to say.

Saying something is "possible" is called speculation. It doesn't prove anything. The very reason the hype says it shows its "possible" is precisely because the documentary failed to prove it as a fact. It can't. There is no evidence it presented that provides objective evidence to prove the intent of the Israelis as anything but accidental.

Another idiotic thing the BBC hype on the documentary said is the film also revealed how the Liberty incident provoked the launch of nuclear-armed planes targeted against Cairo from a US aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean.

Its painful the idiocy of this hype. Of course it would have provoked the above. If the US thought it was under attack, it was standard convention for it to respond as to the above and it could very well have thought it was under fire not just from Egypt but the Russians.

Oh but wait. Israel wanted that. It wanted the US dropping nuclear bombs in Cairo after it had already defeated Egypt on the ground and in the air. Yah those idiot Zionists were sitting around saying, use nuclear weapons, Russia won't use their own. Tey'll be no fall out from that.

What makes that theory even more painfully stupid is the fact than in 1967 Israel already had nuclear bombs of their own. If they had wanted to nuke anyone they could have done it.

This idiot statement that the US was called back only just in time, when it was clear the Liberty had not sunk with all hands, and that Israel was responsible saving the world from a nuclear war is hype, melodrama, pathetic at that to get people to watch.

Virtually every incident in the world in the Middle East during the cold war, triggered nuclear alerts between Russia, the US, China, Britain, France. How could they not?

Only an idiot would think through-out the cold war we were not facing nuclear brinksmanship not just in the Middle East but Europe, in Korea, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, on and on.

Not one new piece of evidence in this documentary.

As for LBJ being furious at Israel of course he was. He openly swore at them on the phone. He also phoned them back when he found out his own brass failed to move the ship out of the zone it said it was not in and both sides realized a mutual friendly fire phack up.

This attempt to say LBJ hated Israel is hilarious. He was one of its strongest supporters in the Senate. In fact it was Dean Rusk who was anti Israel. MacNamara and LBJ as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA openly admitted both sides screwed up as did the Israelis.

The Israeli PM, Chief of Military (Yithak Rabin), Abba Eban (foreign Minister) all contacted their counter parts with full disclosure).

Hell even the Captain of the Liberty said he was so mad at Israel when this happened, he ordered his ship to shoot at the Israeli torpedo ships asking it if it wanted help.

There is no conspiracy. It was classic friendly fire.

The US personnal aboard the Liberty suffered and no Israeli covered it up or wanted it to happen.

Cover up? What cover up? Obviously in friendly fire, there are people who back pedal and after the fact speculate on why they phacked up.

People see what they want to see when people make mistakes. In this case the anti Israelis see an opportunity t exploit the anger of US personnal caught in friendly fire.

Its politics. Your enemy is my enemy.

Not all fo the crew of the US Liberty bought into the conspiracy and anger. Many reject the use of their incident to engage in political diatribes against their own government and Israel calling them both liars.

Israel and the US have proud militaries that have relied on each other. Some on this board would love that not to be true.

Stop using the trgedy to exploit your hatred of Israel Snake/Trout. Its stale.

 

You were posting here after I asked you to ID the two ships and even commented on it to avoid doing this so it certainly appears so.

 

More childish comments. Hasbara apparatchik. OOOH you told me.

Again you show you have zero credibility. You come on here and tell me I did not watch that documentary when you have come on this board and told everyone you will not consider any opinion on this matter other than your own.

You think you have a smoking gun with the testimony of witnesses but you ignore the witness statements other than the ones you think prove your anti Israel conspiracy.

You also are unable to come on this board and explain why Israel would intentionally involve the US and engage in a false flag operation when your eye witnesses saw Israeli markings. Yah that was some false flag using Israeli colours.

Genius.

 

The eyewitnesses saw no markings on the aircraft. If you had watched the film you would have known this, and in their own words. And tell me, what other witnesses were there in the middle of the ocean other than the Liberty crew and the attackers?

Genius...

 

wrong. They told the US ambassador immediately they had attacked it by mistake.

 

Goes to show how wrong they actually were as we all know now the aircraft were well marked. and these witnesses somehow were privy to everything going on in Washington and Tel Aviv while being attacked - amazing. Were they clairvoyant as well.

And what possible reasons did Israel have to declare war on the US and risk being destroyed?

 

Yeah - sure! Palestinans rejoiced without any other reason than good old hatred of the 'states (who yet loves and help them so much), while the Israelis had plenty of excellent reasons for their joy. Not opportunism at all, no sir![/sarcasm]

 

You would have also known genius that others on the ship saw the markings and testified they saw the markings and that two witnesses who claim they did not see the markings also stated they had no time to see the markings as things happened so fast they hit the deck and it was only after their initial testimony under oath they then changed their statements after the fact to say otherwise.

But then you knew that because you have read the entire body of evidence of ALL the witnesses.

One of your major problems is you look at simply the first thing you THINK backs up your preconceived opinion and you are too lazy to look at the rest so you then come on this forum and in a ridiculous manner pretend that the documentary you quote investigated the testimony of ALL witnesses. It did not.

Like I said, genius,

 

In fact a crewmember who testified under oath recalled watching a Jewish officer cry on seeing the blue Star of David on thei fuselages of the attack craft. (source: John Crewdson (2 October 2007). "New revelations in attack on American spy ship". Chicago Tribune.


As well the torpedo boats that attacked Liberty did fly the flag of Israel. Eye witnesses were clear on that.

 

I will again focus on the eye witness testimony because Snake thinks the British documentary provides sufficient eye witness evidence for him to conclude what he doies.

A crewmember Lloyd Painter claimed in a previously shown History Channel documentary that he saw “unmarked jets, no markings whatsoever” fly over the Liebrty.

That is interesting because in his sworn testimony before the U.S. Navy’s Court of Inquiry, made before that statement in Lt. Painter testified, under oath, that as the Israeli jets first strafed the ship (which would be before they passed over the ship) he was and I quote from his testimony:

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

The above testimony of LTJG Lloyd C. Painter, was given on June 14, 1967.

Therefore according to Lt. Painter he was looking at the Liberty’s gun mounts as the jets attacked, and then “hit the deck.”

He then claims when that first strafing run attack ended, he ran as fast as he could to his station below deck.

So one must ask could he would he have been in any physical position to determine whether the attacking jets were marked or unmarked.

The other question to ask is why during his testimony did he not mention that the jets were unmarked or even that he was in a position to look at them?

This is why I say someone like Snake has no credibility. He has not researched the issue and read the testimong. He thinks he can bluff his way through a discussion on this matter relying on one documentary.

In fact Signalman Russell David another eye witness did testify that he saw Israeli insignia on the attacking jets and reported this to the Captain.

If Snake as he states believes the eye witnesses, why not this person?

Probably because he has no idea what his testimony is.

As well the USS Liberty Captain Captain McGonagle provided sworn testimony that the attacking torpedo boats were flying Israeli flags, here's his statement:

"When the boats reached an approximate range of 2,000 yards, the center boat of the formation was signaling to us. Also, at this range, it appeared that they were flying an Israeli flag. This was later verified. It was not possible to read the signals from the center torpedo boat because of the intermittent blocking of view by smoke and flames. At this time I yelled to machine gun 51 to tell him to hold fire. I realized that there was a possibility of the aircraft having been Israeli and the attack had been conducted in error."

This testimony was provided under oath by Cdr. William L. McGonagle, on June 14, 1967.

So do we believe that Russel David is a Zionist spy liar. How about McGonagle. Is he a liar, or would you believe Israel would send unmarked fighter jets but not unmarked torpedo ships.

Inerestingly the same Lt. Painter made the allegation that Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned Liberty life rafts that had been placed in the water.

He stated and I quote:

"I climbed the ladder and opened the hatch and looked out to the sea, and what I saw was the Israeli torpedo boats machine gunning our life rafts in the water as they floated behind our ship."

This statement is also in direct contradiction to what he stated under ooath beforeBut once again Mr. Painter contradicts before the Court of Inquiry, and also contradicts the testimony of his Captain.

In fact the Court’s opening question to Lt. Painter, after name, rank and organization, was:

"On 8 June 1967, at about 1400 hours, an incident occurred aboard the USS Liberty in which the vessel was attacked. Would you please relate to this Court of Inquiry what you recall concerning that incident?"

Interestingly in his response to that question Lt. Painter NEVER made mention of anyt Israeli attacks on life rafts in the water. What did say was that most of the life rafts had been damaged and set on fire during the earlier jet attacks on the ship, and because they were burning the Liberty crew pushed many of these burning life rafts overboard:

He in fact stated:

"At this time [after the torpedo attack], the DC central passed the word to prepare to abandon ship. We then filed out to our life rafts which were no longer with us because they had been strafed and most of them were burned, so we knocked most of them over the side... All during this time in Repair Three, my men were fighting fires and knocking burning life rafts, etc."

So why if Israeli boats attacked would Lt. Painter have not mentioned this in his testimony and how is it Israel attacked the Liberty’s life boats after they were on fire and thrown overboard? Why in his later claim did he now omit that in fact he and his crew pushed the burning life rafts overboard?

Captain McGonagle in his testiomong never mentioned any attack on life boats. In fact, he testified that after the torpedo attack a few crewmen mistakenly put life boats in the water, and that he ordered them to stop because the ship was in no danger of sinking:

As well undisputed evidence shows NO bodies were noted in the vicinity of the ship following the explosion but several life rafts, however, were released and placed into the water by various crew members. They would have been empty.

Capt, McConagle in fact said:

"When the messenger was sent to tell them to leave the lifeboats alone, that the ship was in no danger of sinking at that time, but that the lifeboats might be needed at a later time, no additional lifeboats were placed in the water. "

Never did he testify any USS crew were shot at in their life boats.

Interesting the anti Israelis who now quote Mr. Painter, will NOT point out his contradictions between his previous testimonty and then what he later said.

Then we have alleged crew stating that the Israeli jets and torpedo boats could not have missed the Liberty’s US flag, and therefore must have attacked knowing the ship was American. This was first advanced by James Ennes, Jr., a Lieutenant on the Liberty, and one of the leading conspiracy proponents, makes that point in his book Assault on the Liberty.

Yet the same Mr. Ennes contraduicted himself because he also argued in the same book it would have been impossible for Cdr. McGonagle to recognize the flags and markings on the Israeli boats. In fact he stated:

"McGonagle must have been mistaken about sighting the Israeli flag at this point in the attack. For one thing, it would have been practically impossible to identify a tiny and wildly fluttering Star of David a mile away, particularly since any flags displayed by the torpedo boats would have streamed back, away from McGonagle and out of his line of sight. (Assault on the Liberty, p 149 )"

Oops. In fact Cdr. McGonagle, had binoculars.

Mr. Ennes also made the allegation claim that Israeli jammed the Liberty communication signals whilt it was under attack. He stated:

"While we were trying to send our message for help there was some sort of obvious jamming, there was a buzz saw sound that blocked all of the frequencies. The jamming seemed to cover everything at all times unless [sic] the very few seconds that missiles were in the air, and then it stopped, and during those times they got out our message."

Now that's interesting because also according to Ennes and the anti Israelis the Liberty was attacked to prevent it from intercepting sensitive Israeli radio messages.

So why would the Israelis then bother to attack the ship if as Ennes claims they were able to jam all the Liberty’s frequencies? Why not just jam the frequencies and avoid the risk of attacking a US ship?

The more you read these theories the more you realize they make no sense.

More to the point Enne's claim that the Liberty’s outgoing signals were jammed was not physically impossible. The Liberty would still have been able to send its distress calls no matter what jamming the Israelis might have attempted. (had Ennes done his homework he would have realized incoherent radiation sources cannot interfere with each other ).

Then again the conspiracy theorists claimed that the Israeli torpedo boats fired first, and only then did the Liberty fire back. while Cdr. McGonagle stated in his sworn testimony that the Liberty fired first. He stated:

"In the latter moments of the air attack, it was noted that three high speed boats were approaching the ship from the northeast on a relative bearing of approximately 135 at a distance of about 15 miles. The ship at the time was still on course 263 true, speed unknown, but believed to be in excess of five knots. At no time did the ship stop during the air attack. It is believed that the time of initial sighting of the torpedo boats, the time was about 1420. The boats appeared to be in a wedge type formation with the center boat the lead point of the wedge. Estimated speed of the boats was about 27 to 30 knots. They appeared to be about 150 to 200 yards apart. It appeared that they were approaching the ship in a torpedo launch attitude, and since I did not have direct communication with gun control or the gun mounts, I told a man from the bridge, whose identity I do not recall, to proceed to mount 51 and take the boats under fire. The boats continued to approach the ship at high speed and on a constant bearing with decreasing range. About this time I noticed that our Ensign had been shot away during the air attack and ordered DAVID, signalman, to hoist a second Ensign from the yardarm. During the air attack, our normal Ensign was flying. Before the torpedo attack, a holiday size Ensign was hoisted. [Unreadable] standby for torpedo attack from starboard. I did not have an accurate ship's position at this time, but I knew that to the left of the ship's course at that time lie shoal waters and by turning to the left I would be approaching land closer than had been given me in directives which I held in that instant in time. I realized that if I attempted to turn to starboard, I would expose a larger target to the torpedo boats. I elected to maintain a heading of 283 at maximum speed. When the boats reached an approximate range of 2,000 yards, the center boat of the formation was signalling to us. Also, at this range, it appeared that they were flying an Israli (sic) flag. This was later verified. It was not possible to read the signals from the center torpedo boat because of the intermittent blocking of view by smoke and flames. At this time, I yelled to machine gun 51 to tell him to hold fire. I realized that there was a possibility of the aircraft having been Israli and the attack had been conducted in error. I wanted to hold fire to see if we could read the signal from the torpedo boat and perhaps avoid additional damage and personnel injuries.

The man on machine gun 51 fired a short burst at the boats before he was able to understand what I was attempting to have him do. Instantly, on machine gun 51 opening fire machine gun 53 began firing at the center boat. From the starboard wing of the bridge, 03 level, I observed that the fire from machine gun 53 was extremely effective and blanketed the area and the center torpedo boat. It was not possible to get to mount 53 from the starboard wing of the bridge. I sent Mr. LUCAS around the port-side of the bridge, around to the skylights, to see if he could tell QUINTERO, whom I believed to be the gunner on machine gun 53, to hold fire until we were able to clarify the situation. He reported back in a few minutes in effect that he saw no one at mount 53. As far as the torpedo boats were concerned, I am sure that they felt they were under fire from the USS LIBERTY. At this time they opened fire with their gun mounts and in a matter of seconds one torpedo was noted crossing astern of the ship at about 25 yards."

The same Ennes stated:

"They (Israeli torpedo ships) claim that they came alongside and immediately offered help. Well, that is the purest of baloney. Instead of offering help, they circled us several times, machine gunning anything that moved. Pulled out, came in, machine gunned the life rafts in the water. "

Captain McGonagle stated:

"Immediately after the ship was struck by the torpedo, the torpedo boats stopped dead in the water and milled around astern of the ship at a range of approximately 500 to 800 yards. One of the boats signalled by flashing light, in English, “Do you require assistance”?"

The above testimony was also confirmed, under oath, by Chief Communications Technician Harold J. Thompson whp stated:


"... I was asked to report to the bridge, which I did. When I got up there, Signalman David was attempting to rig a hand light. I assisted him. We went to the starboard wing of the bridge and one torpedo boat was making a run straight at us off the starboard beam while the other two stood off. At the Captain’s direction, David sent, “US Naval Ship” “US Naval Ship.” When they were about 500 yards off, the torpedo boat turned astern and came up on the stern on the starboard side and flashed, “do you need help.” ... The Captain ... said “no, thank you.” We sent this back to the boat ... and saw on the last part of that message ... “Do you want us to standby?” I passed this word to the Captain. He said, “no, thank you.” We sent this to the patrol boat. They came up along the port side, I say roughly 100 yards off, flashed “good luck” ... and disappeared. That was the last we saw of them. "

Now Snake repeats this British documentary and presents it as the gospel. The problem is it simply recycles the old claim by conspiracy theorists that Israel attacked the Liberty to prevent the US from learning about Israel’s plans to attack Syria. That is past idiotic to the point of just down right stupid for two simple reasons:

1. At its location off El-Arish, the Liberty would have been in no position to eavesdrop on any Israeli plans concerning Syria, because such plans would not have been discussed over the Israeli communications net too far to the south to be detected.

2. In fact on June 8th at 11:30 AM, before the Liberty was attacked, the head of Military Intelligence for Israel had briefed the US Ambassador to Israel, Walworth Barbour, and President Johnson’s close aide, Harry McPherson the following:


"... the principal task of the IDF now was to exploit its success. There still remained the Syrian problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow to get more quote elbow room."

Why would the Israelis have attacked an American ship to hide their intentions to retaliate against Syria, if they had already revealed those intentions to senior American representatives and in fact US intelligence reports revealed they were told and already knew BEFORE the attack.

Intrerestingly the anti Israeli conspiracy theorists claimThe Israeli jets that attacked the Liberty were to sink the ship and it was deliberate just like Pearl Habour.

Uh yah. In fact the original Mirage 3's were diverted from other targets, and so were only armed with napalm rather than iron bombs Is that what you send in a premeditated and deliberate attack to sink a ship?

We are to believe the IAF sent jets with napalm to sink a ship?.

What the IAF was so stupid they did not know like the Japanese in Pearl Harbour they needed 500 pound iron bombs?

If this was friendly fire between the US and anyone else would you think the anti Israel conspirators would bother to make such a fuss?

It is a well known fact that 9 British soldiers were as the result of a mistaken US attack. ( see AP, August 28, 1992)

In that particular friendly fire US air attack on British armored personnel carriers in broad daylight those British soldiers
were killed on a clear day well behind the allied front line while awaiting instructions and relaxing inside their vehicles.

The pilots of the A-10 “tankbuster” warplanes thta blew them up contend they never received the coordinates and relied instead on information passed on by a fellow American F-16 jet fighter pilot as he left the area for refueling. Take a look at that Washington Post, May 18, 1992 story and tell me when Britain did not pursue the matter whether it was some sinister conspiracy.

When a US air pilot mowed down a troop unit of Canadian soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan hyped on amphetamines
Canada didn't mount a continuous series of sinister conspiracy theories.

Mistakes happen. Bad ones. In this case Israel made several mistakes, the most glaring was not following up to make sure to have kept on their board the last known coordinates of the Liberty. As well they did not properly brief the pilots who had come back from the first run most probably because they had flown 4 days without sleep.

The US screwed up as well. They failed to inform Israel of the proper coordinates, and worse, failed to get the message to the Liberty to move itself out of the waters it was in.

As well and of course Snake has no clue, the USS Liberty was not alone. It was being accompanied by a US attack submarine that did not intervene. Why not if it was not friendly fire?

A scenario I think most plausible is the Israelis and Americans miscommunicated to one another and internally to themselves.

I believe the US was rightfully monitoring the war to assure the Soviets did not come in. The Soviets had told the US they would invade Israel if it shot missiles into Cairo or invaded Damascus.

Israel had nuclear weapons at the time as well.

It now appears when you read the long list of communications back and forth the Israelis thought they were dealing with an Egyptian Hunt class destroyer or freighter then Soviet ship and then when they confirmed it was in fact a US ship they stopped but by then it was too late.

As I stated, its understandable USS Liberty crew would be upset and feel it was deliberate. It was. You attack a ship its not unintended. The real question is why did they not that they did.

The Israelis said it was a mistake. They openly apologized and never denied it was them....yet the continuous attempt to try suggest they lied about what happened. Its public domain. Kind of hard to lie about what happened when its all public domain.

But hey no problem-Snake knows the truth and its that Israel is a Zionist evil empire and they are bad very bad bad bad.

They had nothing better to do then attack their most loyal ally and the only one capable of keeping the Soviets from nuking them or better still they used their own jets and not a captured Egyptian jet fighter to sink a ship and blame Egypt and better still they sent along Israeli torpedo boats, something Egypt did not have not to mention the Mirage 3's with their napalm to do the job of sinking a ship one 500 pound bomb would have done.

Oh but wait, when you sink a ship there would be no way of knowing it who sunk it from the submarine following it and watching it by periscope.

 

Snake and the conspiracy ilk ask you to believe two things that are completely at odds:

1) The IDF was so super competent that it is impossible they could've made a mistake and attacked in error.

2) The IDF was then so INCOMPETENT that they

A) Attacked with the wrong weapons.
B) Failed to finish the job, leaving a severely damaged ship and 100 witnesses alive and well.

You can't have it both ways.

 

And viewed declaring war on a nation that would destroy them in a heartbeat worthy of only using aircraft that were returning from a mission with the pilots battle fatigued from a full day and night of fighting to do the job as it wasn't worth it to use fresh pilots for such a high profile mission.

And, let's not forget that Israel was the only nation within range to have the power to attack with air power so they had to make it appear that it was done by another ship even though there would be no other ships within the immediate area who could have done this.

Yep, incompetence at it's worst! And for what possible reason?

 

Israel apologized for the attack, saying that the USS Liberty had been attacked in error after being mistaken for an Egyptian ship.[SUP][6][/SUP] Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship's identity...
*****
In May 1968, the Israeli government paid US$3,323,500 (US$22.5 million in 2014) as full payment to the families of the 34 men killed in the attack. In March 1969, Israel paid a further $3,566,457 in compensation to the men who had been wounded. On 18 December 1980, it agreed to pay $6 million as settlement for the final U.S. bill of $17,132,709 for material damage to theLiberty herself plus 13 years' interest.[SUP][8]


[/SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

*Why do Leftist drool and work so hard in Hating the good people of Israel...and yet... diligently work hard to support and defend Islamic terrorists who look at the submissive Liberal Leftists as Infidels and are against most things the left stands for...?