Why was the USS Liberty where it was?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Felch X

If the US was going to switch sides anyways, why would we bend over backwards to let the Israelis atack our own ships?

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,

No one said that the US was going to switch sides or interfere with troops on the ground. But the pro-Israeli sentiment was not as strong in 1967 as it was in later years. I have a vague memory that Johnson was actually moderately anti-Israel. It was quite possible that the US would stop supplying arms to the Israeli army. That threat was why the Israelis built up their arms manufacturing (as did the South Africans).

and the simple fact that we didn't make much fuss about the USS Liberty attack demonstrates how tightly bound the governments are.

The fact that theres "no fuss" means nothing. The intelligence community was and probably still are paranoid about their assets. They would not welcome an investigation of what they were doing.

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.

There's nothing inconsistent about it. Read the posts by the Israelis at this site. They're fiercely defensive about their country and they would go to what appear to be extreme lengths to protect it if they thought it threatened. The Israeli government of 1967 may have felt that the had to attack Syria to guarantee their safety. Under those conditions I think they would have attacked the Liberty if they deemed it necessary (and they did). The fact that the Liberty was not sunk gave them "plausible deniability".

[Ecthy]

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

[MOBIUS]

What makes me laugh is that Siro can believe that he can actually get away with claiming the Liberty was attacked accidentally...

This is a completely preposterous claim and merely serves to prove that absolutely nothing that comes from his mouth can be taken seriously - but then we all knew that already...

Give it up Siro, your country is ruled by a bunch of Zionist scum who have sufficient people in the US in their pockets that they can turn a blind eye even when their own countrymen are being murdered mercilessly in a cynical attempt to cover up yet another warmongering action of so kind...

Israel is built on the merciless invasion and ethnic cleansing of another people's land - it is racist to it's very core by espousing a 'Jewish' state!

But then Israel always was friends with South Africa during Apartheid - so it's hardly surprising...

[chequita guevara]

Ecthilion, go to my first post. Also note SpenceH's post.

FelchX, you are reading history backwards. We have not always been Israel's greatest friend. We were the ones who yanked their chain in '56 and made them give up the Sinai. The US only gave Israel a limited amount of arms up until 1967. It was only after the smashing victory that the US decided that we would become their principle supplier of weapons and stand by them no matter what. It's not like the US would want Israel to become a Soviet ally.

Israel has always wanted the Golan, and the 1967 War was primarily about getting the Golan. Everything else was just gravy. The Sinai has been returned, Israel is (sort of) considering freeing the West Bank and Gaza, but the Golan has been annexed and will remain part of Israel. Returning it to Syria isn't even being considered. The headwaters are simply too important to give up.

However, the US was strongly pressuring Israel to halt the war before the attack on the Golan had begun. The UN Security Council had passed a resolution demanding a cease fire. If the US has known that Israel was going to attack the Golan, they might have been able to stop it. That's why the Liberty had to be put out of commission. Once it was over it was a fait accompli. It also very nearly started WWIII, as the Soviets then decided to stop the Israelis by force and sent a task force to the Eastern Mediterranian (another reason the US wanted the war to stop, as it didn't feel like exterminating humanity over Israel).

You also don't realize how politically impossible it would have been to hold Israel to account for the attack on the Liberty. Not only did the Democratic Party depend on Jewish voters, but the incredible victory of the Israelis made Israel the darling of America. For America, it was if the Holocaust had been swept away. America loves an underdog (as long as we're not the one beating up on them). It would have been political suicide to hold Israel accountable. It still is.

[Sirotnikov]

As always, mobius is here and the party starts

What's the matter, ran out of islamic sites to quote?
the guardian didn't ran a story about it?

As always MOBIUS is sure that his mere words are substancial proof of his message.

Obviously no mere mortal is at a position to disagree or prove things otherwise.

And most importantly - with MOBIUS - Fact's Just Don't Matter.

Remember that kids.

of Zionist scum who have sufficient people in the US in their pockets

Yes, as you know the Zionist Elders insisted that all Zionists have big and deep pockets where we can store all our money which we get from controlling the world banks and the world media.

[Sirotnikov]

Israel has always wanted the Golan, and the 1967 War was primarily about getting the Golan. Everything else was just gravy. The Sinai has been returned, Israel is (sort of) considering freeing the West Bank and Gaza, but the Golan has been annexed and will remain part of Israel. Returning it to Syria isn't even being considered. The headwaters are simply too important to give up.

There was a reason we wanted the Golan.

THE SYRIANS WERE ****ING SHELLING OUR CITIES FROM THE GOLAN.

Sorry.

And we're not "sorta" considering. We always intended to. The fact is, that the Barak govt. had a majority until the Intifada.

The fact is that even today polls show some 60% support for the Saudi proposal.

And the fact is, and was, that about 50% of Israelis were ready to return the Golan.



Furthermore, as I've said, your convictions why America chose to stand down are weak. I'm sure that had Americans were let known that Israel did this, they would immediatelly cease support.

[Pythagoras]

Isnt it tradition to blow up an American ship before the beginning of a war between Israel and Arab states?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
There was a reason we wanted the Golan.

Yes, it's the source waters for much of the Jordan valley. If it's in Arab hands, you can't keep it all to yourselves.

And we're not "sorta" considering. We always intended to. The fact is, that the Barak govt. had a majority until the Intifada.

Until I see a serious proposal, and not that insult that Barak waved under the Arabs noses, you're just sorta considering giving it back.

The fact is that even today polls show some 60% support for the Saudi proposal.

And the fact is, and was, that about 50% of Israelis were ready to return the Golan.

Well, if you were a real democracy that might mean something.

[Ned]

Look at the flag in the picture. It is almost entirely obscured from this vantage point. From a plane at a higher angle, it might be totally obscured.

[chequita guevara]

That's really reaching.

Multiple runs from multiple approaches by multiple planes for 45 minutes couldn't have missed that flag. That's not the flag that was flying during the attack, either. After the attack started they pulled out the big flag. No way they coulda missed that flag.

[*End Is Forever*]

I got bored halfway through this thread, but here's my tuppence anyway. And no, I couldn't give a flying **** whether any of this has been said before.

1. A number of the US posters have suggesting that the USS Liberty was "doing nothing wrong" but then have accepted that she was spying. This doesn't add. Suggesting that spying is justified is a fair argument, but if you're spying, and the other side finds out, then you have to accept that you might get shot at. That's reality, people... wherever you happen to be floating at the time
2. If the USS Liberty was spying, then the Israelis had every right to sink her. That doesn't mean that they were right to sink her (assuming it was deliberate) - it would've been an incredibly stupid thing to do.
3. Any diplomatic gain Israel got from concealing information would've been more than lost by attacking an American vessel. Pretty straightforward, really. There really doesn't seem to be any motive for the attack, other than possibly stupidity.
4. Those two ships look nothing like each other. However, I don't know how close the pilots would've got to find this out.

[Felch]

So do Pythagoras, Ned, Che, and EiF get the "Beating a very dead horse even more" award?

[chequita guevara]

*EiF*, ELINT spying is perfectly legal. If you broadcast your communications into space, you have no right to get upset if someone in international waters listens to them.

Israel got what it wanted out of wounding the Liberty, time to attack Syria. Had the US known that Israel was going to attack Syria anyways, they would have yanked their leash.

Israel's attack very nearly started WWIII, btw, as the Soviets sent a fleet to attack Israel. The US sent a fleet to attack the Soviet fleet. If the Israelis hadn't finally stopped their war, it's possible none of us would be here to discuss this.

[*End Is Forever*]

Oh, okay, fair enough. Point taken. I think I'll avoid these threads in future.

[TCO]

EIF, pull your head out. Having a ship or plane intercept electronic signals is perfectly legal. Soviets had AGIs off our coast all the time doing this. Would have been real easy to rack up some peace time tonnage if blowing up AGIs was considered ok.

Israili officials have always said the attack was a mistake. They have never said that it was a deliberate attack on a spy.

[Carver]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Israel's attack very nearly started WWIII, btw, as the Soviets sent a fleet to attack Israel. The US sent a fleet to attack the Soviet fleet. If the Israelis hadn't finally stopped their war, it's possible none of us would be here to discuss this.

And 35 years later here we are with the Isreali land grab being the cause of turmoil throughout dozens of nations and providing legitimacy to terrorists who wish to harm us. The six million people of Isreal occupy too much of our government's foreign policy attention, cause undue complications in our relations throughout the world and cost the US taxpayer billions a year. And no, the US has no strategic interests in Isreal. We have aircraft carriers and have no use for that strip of desert. Its time to cut off the Isreal lobby.

[MOBIUS]

What's the matter, ran out of islamic sites to quote?

B'Tselem Islamic huh? There's a new one!

www.btselem.org

Nothing like getting news straight from the horse's mouth!

As always MOBIUS is sure that his mere words are substancial proof of his message.

Yep! That we all know that if you're happy defending/justifying a lost cause like this, that nothing you say can be trusted...

And most importantly - with MOBIUS - Fact's Just Don't Matter.

Actually you're the one for whom facts don't matter...

1) The ship was reconned numerous times for a number of hours - you claimed the ship was travelling at significant speed therefore the flag must have been flying in such a way as to be clearly visible!!!.

Besides, what about the gigantic antenna??? Back in '67, the would been very few ships indeed to have had that kind of tech (IIRC MtG said so in an earlier thread!), much less a f***ing Horse carrier!!!

Then there's the huge GTR-5 on the ships bows - if the Israeli flyers are that blind, it's a wonder they even hit the ship in the 1st place!

Finally there's the fact that it had no weapons (defenceless target!) and is much smaller than the horse carrier (my, such an important target - worthy of such a huge use of Israeli resources!) in question!

So after (from memory) 6 hours of recon by 13 overflights, you're telling me that these pilots did not relay this info to relevant Israeli Intel operatives?????

With such detailed recon, they could not have helped seeing the US flag fluttering in the ship's own slipstream (even 5 knots does it according to GP, our resident Naval expert!), seeing the huge antenna or seeing the GTR-5, which the Israelis must have been able to cross reference with a Ship ID listing! That's why it's there - to be ID'ed! You're telling me Israeli intelligence doesn't have this kind of info!!???

As for motive, plenty! 1st there's the Egyptian desert atrocity, but I doubt it's that cos frankly Israeli army atrocities are two a penny over the years... Or there's the impending Golan Heights attack, which if the US got wind of perhaps could have stopped - Israel didn't want another country with any 'adverse' power over it's destiny...

As for questioning it's sanity at attacking it's biggest ally, why the hell not. After all, it's giving the US a clear message that any US intelligence gathering is subject to attack!

I bet there weren't any US ELINT ships or any other assets anywhere near Israel during '73...

Remember that kids.

Taking you apart is kid's stuff Siro...

Made all the easier when you support an untenable argument - why is it that you cannot admit it was a deliberate attack when [b]all[/] the evidence suggests that it must be!!? The worrying question is, just how far would you go to justify Israeli actions?

You are blinded by your nationalism.

Yes, as you know the Zionist Elders insisted that all Zionists have big and deep pockets where we can store all our money which we get from controlling the world banks and the world media.

Actually I was alluding to the fact that many of the people in positions of power in DC are Jewish or have Jewish connections - it usually helps when those that make the decisions are on your side!

Why else does America support the Israeli cause when it is an hypocritical policy?

[Ned]

Assuming for the moment that Israel knew the Liberty was American and one of the reasons for the attack was to disable the Liberty from its intel mission, why did they try to sink the vessel with the topedo boats? Intel had little to with this decision as the communications center had been apparently already been attacked and disabled.. This means the primary motivation had to be sending the US a message.

IIRC, the US up until that time had been decidedly cool to Israel's cause. It had embargoed arms shipments to Israel even as the USSR continued to supply the UAR and Syria. It had not vetoed Security Council resolutions calling for a cease fire. It had apparently permitted (perhaps, even encouraged) a direct Soviet threat to invade Isreal by allowing the Soviet fleet to station itself right offshore from Israel while the US Sixth Fleet moved hundreds of miles to the West. Overall, the actions of the US were not the actions one would expect of "ally."

Thus the message.

[TCO]

Ned, strain the cran-ium a little harder.

Originally posted by Ned
Assuming for the moment that Israel knew the Liberty was American and one of the reasons for the attack was to disable the Liberty from its intel mission, why did they try to sink the vessel with the topedo boats? Intel had little to with this decision as the communications center had been apparently already been attacked and disabled.. This means the primary motivation had to be sending the US a message.

Doubtful that such BDA (battle damage assessment would be known in the thick of the fight.

IIRC, the US up until that time had been decidedly cool to Israel's cause. It had embargoed arms shipments to Israel even as the USSR continued to supply the UAR and Syria. It had not vetoed Security Council resolutions calling for a cease fire. It had apparently permitted (perhaps, even encouraged) a direct Soviet threat to invade Isreal by allowing the Soviet fleet to station itself right offshore from Israel while the US Sixth Fleet moved hundreds of miles to the West. Overall, the actions of the US were not the actions one would expect of "ally."

Thus the message.

Kind of ironic than, that Johnson recalled American planes while the attacks were occuring and said, "I don't want us hitting an ally."

[chequita guevara]

If they sank the boat and killed the survivors, then no one would have been left alive to tell the American side of things.

As far as moving the fleet away from the Soviets, the exact opposite happened. The US sailed directly towards the Soviets and had the Soviets hit Israel, we would have hit them, which would very likely have destroyed sparked WWIII, and none of us would be here arguing the point.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Ned
Assuming for the moment that Israel knew the Liberty was American and one of the reasons for the attack was to disable the Liberty from its intel mission, why did they try to sink the vessel with the topedo boats? Intel had little to with this decision as the communications center had been apparently already been attacked and disabled.. This means the primary motivation had to be sending the US a message.

I think that you and I both know that if Israel had really wanted to sink the ship, they would have!

IIRC, the US up until that time had been decidedly cool to Israel's cause. It had embargoed arms shipments to Israel even as the USSR continued to supply the UAR and Syria. It had not vetoed Security Council resolutions calling for a cease fire. It had apparently permitted (perhaps, even encouraged) a direct Soviet threat to invade Isreal by allowing the Soviet fleet to station itself right offshore from Israel while the US Sixth Fleet moved hundreds of miles to the West. Overall, the actions of the US were not the actions one would expect of "ally."

Sounds like you've answered the question on your own...

Has it occurred to you that perhaps the US was trying to stop the Israelis from starting WWIII?

Given your explanation regarding the Soviet fleet offshore from Israel, I have another theory over the numerous Israeli over USS Liberty - They were making sure it wasn't a Soviet ship!

Coz let's face it, the Soviets wouldn't have taken it up the arse and said 'oh that's OK, we don't mind you bombing our ship...'

In the link below are two massive reasons why Israel had a motive to attack the USS Liberty. I for one, in the interests of believing that the Israeli military are human beings, favour the Golan Heights attack. Because if it was to cover up the El Arish massacre, then we're taking complicity in a war crime going all the way up to the highest echelons of power - we're talking the perpetration of another war crime (attacking Liberty) in a desperate attempt to cover up the first!

But then, that is nothing new when the 'higher echelons of power' have included such luminaries as Shamir, Begin and Sharon (to name the worst offenders!)...

*Cough* COVER UP! *cough*

Now I'm not one to use the word 'conspiracy', but GUYS!!!??

Bottom line is that in the light of the recent patriotism, the US has badly let down it's own servicemen...

Specifically, Commander Jacobsen found that
the attack was not legally justified, that it constituted an act of aggression under the United Nations Charter, that the use of unmarked aircraft, the wanton destruction of life rafts in the water, the jamming
of international radio distress frequencies, and the failure of the torpedo boat commanders to render immediate assistance to a disabled and
helpless enemy were all violations of international law.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


I think that you and I both know that if Israel had really wanted to sink the ship, they would have!

How can you say this so blithely? The ship almost did sink. There was a 30 foot hole at the waterline. Do you think this is so easy to dial in?

[Felch]

Jesus Christ, the only reason I started this thread was to antagonize David Floyd. Is it a thread-jacking if you make a flame thread into a legitimate discussion? If so, I want a moderator to delete this, or at least close it.

Also, that would make the retarded and clearly wrong statements I made a thing of the past. People will forget how stupid I am, and will only remember me as the guy who has a really cool name and almost never posts.

[chequita guevara]

Hah!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GP
How can you say this so blithely? The ship almost did sink. There was a 30 foot hole at the waterline. Do you think this is so easy to dial in?

If they had been attempting to sink the ship, they would have used different ordinance. The main target was the intelligence section that was destroyed.

[TCO]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


If they had been attempting to sink the ship, they would have used different ordinance. The main target was the intelligence section that was destroyed.

1. Specifically how so?

2. Given that the attack was mounted repsonsively (wether against Egypt or against US) how can you be so sure that they had time to get optimim ordnance?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GP
1. Specifically how so?

You're the squid. How effective are napalm and 50 caliber machine gun fire in sinking a ship of the type that the USS Liberty was?

2. Given that the attack was mounted repsonsively (wether against Egypt or against US) how can you be so sure that they had time to get optimim ordnance?

They had 13 recon flights to plan a well coordinated assault on the ship. I would assume that a modern army such as the IDF could sink an unarmed ship, either Egyptian or US, with that amount of time to plan.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by GP
How can you say this so blithely? The ship almost did sink. There was a 30 foot hole at the waterline. Do you think this is so easy to dial in?

That's why I emphasised the word 'really'...

Their aim was to attack it, they succeeded. Perhaps they didn't care if they sunk it.

But the point is it remained afloat - I'm sure they could have torpedoed it some more until it sank.

But they didn't.

[TCO]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


You're the squid. How effective are napalm and 50 caliber machine gun fire in sinking a ship of the type that the USS Liberty was?

1. What about the torpedo boats?
2. Maybe the ordnance was judged sufficient for a horse carrier. It almost DID sink the Liberty.
3. Since you made the statement, I just thought you would describe your thinking a little more fully.

They had 13 recon flights to plan a well coordinated assault on the ship. I would assume that a modern army such as the IDF could sink an unarmed ship, either Egyptian or US, with that amount of time to plan.

Well...maybe...but they did have a war going on at the same time. The whole thing happened in a time-now manner. (regardless of the number of reconns, they were only a few hours before the attacks.)

[Felch]

Chegitz bumped this because I actively tick him off all the time, but MOBIUS, GP, and DinoDoc, you guys are just being plain mean.

The horse is very dead. You could keep on beating it, but it's just going to make the mush even mushier. So why don't you all at least go on like nice posters and jack a World Cup thread into this discussion and let my crappy thread die an honorable death.