Why was the USS Liberty where it was?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Felch X
In this case the most plausible situation is exactly the same that likely happened in the American bombing of our Canadian allies - somebody was scared of enemy combatants, and acted irrationally and killed friendly people.

Are you telling me that we attacked Canadian positions for over two hours after subjecting them to numerous recon flights in clear daylight with a coordinated air and land assault?

[Felch]

Well, no. But the accidental nature of the attacks seems similar. Frankly I don't know or care about the facts of the case. I was just trying to get a rise out of Floyd. I trust the Israelis wouldn't knowingly attack the only people out there who support them. It just seems preposterous.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by GP


2 Sturgeon class boats. 1 class older than the 688.

Did you ever sail under the arctic ice? I've suddenly got a kick ass Cthulhu/sci-fi RPG adventure idea...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Felch X
Well, no. But the accidental nature of the attacks seems similar.

Out of interest, How many friendly fire incidents last for over two hours?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Jaakko



Did you ever sail under the arctic ice? I've suddenly got a kick ass Cthulhu/sci-fi RPG adventure idea...

I can't say where we went. that sort of thing is classified. The Sturgeon class has special features to make it capable of going under ice (better than LA actually), but tjhey did lots of missions that were not under ice as well as some that were under ice.

[Ecthy]

You're not allowed to talk about what you did in army? Strange, you must have been on many spy missions

[Jaakko]

You have betrayed the proletariat, tovarich Jaakko! I hope you will be useful in the coal mines of Siberia, because the time you wasted gathering information from the supposedly drunken Amerikanski certainly wasn't!

Well darn, I was so hoping for good sea stories...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Felch X
Well, no. But the accidental nature of the attacks seems similar. Frankly I don't know or care about the facts of the case. I was just trying to get a rise out of Floyd. I trust the Israelis wouldn't knowingly attack the only people out there who support them. It just seems preposterous.

Why not? They got away with it...

And for the second time, speaking as a Canadian, the difference is readily apparent. If US forces had done to us what the Israelis did to you then I would have considered it a notification that we weren't friends any more and that it was time to withdraw from our military alliance.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
You're not allowed to talk about what you did in army? Strange, you must have been on many spy missions

A sub, by it's very nature, is always on covert operations, whether they are spy missions or not.

Originally posted by Jaakko
This doesn't look like a ship easily confused with others, especially with those big-ass letters on the bow...

As Jaakko said how can you miss the big number and letter that are located on the side of every single surface ship in the U S Navy. We do not need a flag. I was US Navy. Your little country did a number on us that day and we let it go.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by joseph1944
As Jaakko said how can you miss the big number and letter that are located on the side of every single surface ship in the U S Navy. We do not need a flag. I was US Navy. Your little country did a number on us that day and we let it go.

If anybody actually looks at the picture they can see the flag on the middle mast.

[SpencerH]

Its not the Yuri Gagarin, but you cant miss the satellite dish. Its not impossible that it was a mistake, but its damn unlikely.

Originally posted by GP
Siro,

Are you seriously stating that you think the attack was justified? The ship was in international waters, passively collecting ELINT. YOu are not justified in attacking US ships in this situation. (Beleive me...I saw a Russian AGI (Balzac) every time I left San Diego. It sat right at the 12 mile line...)

If you think the attack was justified, surely a cover up wouldn't bother your conscience much...

Hey my last big ops in Feb of 65 off of Silver Strands a Russian AGI came into where we were anchor and took lot of pictures. He pass so close to my Ship we could see their faces.

[David Floyd]

Warning: If you go to a warzone, do not ***** and moan when people accidentally shoot you.

Really? And how did international waters off of Egypt/Israel become a warzone, especially in a war where neither side had a navy worth speaking of?

[Coracle]

As an intelligence ship it could pick up Israeli war plans for attacking Syria on the Golan Heights.

The Israelis had already beaten Egypt and Jordan and did NOT want international and U.S. pressure to force them to stop before they grabbed off the Golan.

So, their jets repeatedly attacked a clearly marked U.S. ship, and then Israeli warships attacked it murdering many Americans.

Such is what Zionism represents.

Check out the truth:

http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

http://www.ussliberty.org/

[Felch]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Really? And how did international waters off of Egypt/Israel become a warzone, especially in a war where neither side had a navy worth speaking of?

From Siro's early post:

On June 8, 1967, the fourth day of the Six-Day War, the Israeli high command received reports that Israeli troops in El Arish were being fired upon from the sea, presumably by an Egyptian vessel, as they had a day before.

If Egypt and Israel are at war, then the international waters off of Egypt and Israel becomes a de facto warzone.

Both nations have ships, maybe not huge nuclear powered carriers, but certainly vessels capable of operating near to their home countries. If Israel thought they were being fired upon, and the Americans denied having any warships there, why not assume that the ships they find belong to the country they're at war with?

[chequita guevara]

Felch X, only someone deliberately lying or someone closing his eyes will accept that this was an accident. Both Israel and the US have a motive for the official version. Consider when Iraq smacked one of our ships in the Persian Gulf. They were doing our dirty work in fighting Iran. Can you imagine if Iran had accidentally bombed one of our ships. Reagan would have used it as an excuse to go to war with Iran. Israel does our dirty work, so the ship and the lives that we destroyed were sacrificed for good relations.

The waters of Israel and Egypt were not a decalred warzone. The ships look different. The horse carrier was almost 2/3rds the size of the Liberty. It's smoke stack is behind the control tower, not on it. The Liberty had less obvious life boats. The Liberty had a communications dish.

By the way, Siro, horse carriers don't have communications and electronics sections. They are just frieghters. You cannot delberately attack the electronics and communications section on a horse carrier because it doesn't exist.

We are not suckers. We are not fooled. Our government just thinks that the job that Israel performs for us is worth the stuff that Israel does to us and the American lives that are lost because of Israel.

[Felch]

Everybody's posts still smack of paranoia. Why would Israel deliberately attack a US ship? Why would it divert resources needed during a multi-front war, to attack a staunch ally?

Unless a realistic motive is established, I am left with assuming that it was just an accident. It seems more reasonable that this was Israeli incompetence than some conspiracy to kill Americans.

[chequita guevara]

FelchX, your questions have been answered multiple times, explaining two plausible reasons for it. Please read the thread before asking the same question over and over.

[KrazyHorse]

a) IIRC, the US was making noises at that point about not supporting Israel

b) The ship was gathering ELINT data. Somebody in Israel might well have been frightened that the US would (or was) feed(ing) bits of it to the Arabs

c) As has already been pointed out, the ship was clearly part of the USN, not the Egyptian fleet. Saying that it must have been an accident because it doesn't make sense for Israel to attack the US is like saying that a murderer whose actions are caught on tape should get the benefit of the doubt because you can't fathom his motives.

[David Floyd]

On June 8, 1967, the fourth day of the Six-Day War, the Israeli high command received reports that Israeli troops in El Arish were being fired upon from the sea, presumably by an Egyptian vessel, as they had a day before.

Really? And I assume the Egyptians have ships that can shell from at least 12 miles out, not to mention ones that look like US ELINT ships and fly the US flag?

[chequita guevara]

I find horse carriers with no guns have great range, right Floyd.

[Promethus]

I did not know that this class of ship had any armorements at all.

[David Floyd]

Indeed not, that's why it's funny the Israeli's think that either a horse carrier or an ELINT ship could shell them

[Felch]

Ships can move. And instead of accusing me of not reading a thread I started Che, how about you give me a realistic motive for an Israeli attack.

The only one put forth so far was that they didn't want the US interfering in their prosecution of the war. Of course, because every time Israel pokes its head out, America comes around and plays Wack-a-mole.

The staunchest ally part is significant. For Israel to devote the resources needed to intentionally destroy a US vessel they would need a damn good reason. There is simply no reason to believe that the US would have jumped into the war on the side of the Arabs if Israel went into the Golan Heights. In any event, the potential provocation from Israeli land activity being picked up by the USS Liberty is far less than actually attacking the Liberty intentionally.

[Felch]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
a) IIRC, the US was making noises at that point about not supporting Israel

b) The ship was gathering ELINT data. Somebody in Israel might well have been frightened that the US would (or was) feed(ing) bits of it to the Arabs

If the US was going to switch sides anyways, why would we bend over backwards to let the Israelis atack our own ships? Nothing in the scenario fits. America simply would not have tolerated an attack if the relationship was as rocky as you say it was.

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
c) As has already been pointed out, the ship was clearly part of the USN, not the Egyptian fleet. Saying that it must have been an accident because it doesn't make sense for Israel to attack the US is like saying that a murderer whose actions are caught on tape should get the benefit of the doubt because you can't fathom his motives.

You seem to be right about this. But nations rarely act like random murderers. If they do commit crimes, it's usually because they feel they would stand to benefit. In this situation, nobody has yet demonstrated how Israel would stand to benefit, without stooping to outlandish conspiracy theories.

I don't mean to make that personal, I just find the idea that the US would interfere in a Israeli war to be a remote possibility, and the simple fact that we didn't make much fuss about the USS Liberty attack demonstrates how tightly bound the governments are.

You can't have it both ways people. The idea that the US would be a threat to Israeli ambitions in 1967, but would tolerate a direct attack on its own Navy is ridiculously inconsistent.

[Promethus]

Anyone other than DF want to comment on how an unarmed ship

1. "Shelled IDF Possitions"
2. Fired on the IDF Torpedo Boats "causing" them to "return" fire?

[David Floyd]

Ships can move.

True - I guess they can magically fire shells at coastal positions from their magical guns, right?

[Ecthy]

Let's just face it, guys... Israel was and still is trying to take over the world.

The US should make them face the consequences...

[Ecthy]

Could someone point me to the post in this thread where the reason/motive for the attack, if deliberate, are explained? Thank you.