USS Liberty - Israel's "War of Self Defense"

[senojekips]

Please don't try accusing me of not answering your every point. If you care to read back through the thread, you will find that they have probably already been covered, or are regarded as frivolous.

I can go back and find as many of my points that you have not answered or provided logical explanations for like the quote repeated here for the third time.

Moorer, who as top legal council to the official investigation is in a position to know, agrees that Israel intended to sink the USS Liberty and blame Egypt for it, thus dragging the United States into a war on Israel's behalf. This seems to be a common trick of Israel. Starting with the Lavon affair, through the USS Liberty, to the fake radio transmitter that tricked Reagan into attacking Libya , to potentially 9-11 itself , Israel's game is to frame Arabs and set them up as targets for the United States.

I know you have no excuse to cover this and I have just counted it as a point that I won and moved on. So let's just get over it.

As I said several posts ago, I have stated my opinion and noted the opinions of all other posters here, it certainly seems that my opinion is in agreement with the majority of US posters, so that's where I'll throw my lot on this subject. No one else has said anything that would cause me to doubt my decision.

But we are still left with the question of why.

There are no doubt only a very small number of persons who actually know the answer,... and they are not talking, so the best I can do in view of the available evidence is to side with the thoughts of the US Senior Legal Council, as stated in the quote above..

 

[LeMask]

So, what are the possible scenarios?

I dont think there is many.

The official version is of course a joke. We are not told the truth. They always feed us with the most stupid stories available...

They would be easier to believe if they told me that Aliens came up with flying saucers disguised as Israeli jets and bombed the ship with lasers... I could believe that.

Truth is like liberty. No body will give you liberty. You will have to take it.

Anyway, this event looks like the Gulf of Tonkin incident. A fake attack on an US warship to pull the American people into a war.

You are all here focused on the Israelis. But it's the Americans you should care about.

Following what I've heard, the American ship called for help and begged for support. And it didnt receive any. They even called off aircrafts rushing for help...

I think that the attack was planned from both sides. The Israelis are just the ones who were supposed to kill the human sacrifice.

Maybe the US wanted an excuse to set a foothold in the area?

And they dont say much about the Russian intelligence ship. The attack stopped when this Russian ship arrived. They even asked the USS Liberty if they needed help...

I think that if the Russians werent there, the Americans would have blamed the attack on Egyptians and sent forces to take control of the whole area...

 

[Chukpike]

The most probable reason for Israel to attack the ship was to keep it from doing its job. Which was gathering real time information about the progress of the war and what Israel was accomplishing. Israel only wanted the US to know what it was willing to tell them.

This ship was not a freighter.

It was probably not to drag the US into the war. That probably would have happened if the Israelis were losing, which they were not.

 

[LeMask]

Well, you may be right. but I wouldnt bet money on that.

I would rather bet on the US government trying to start a war.

War are good for business. And a war against an Arab nation with their low tech armies is child's play for a super power like the US.

Once you have air superiority, all they can do is a eat lead and bombs... You send troops later to secure ground and finish off the disorganised troops. :drink:

And even if the Israelis were actually dominating on the battlefield, having a an ally superpower setting foot in the area was still welcome.

Just my opinion. I've heard many scenarios, and I think that it's the best one.

I think that call it false flag operations. You ask some of your units to destroy other of your units and then you blame it on the desired enemy.

 

[EladBell]

and as I said before,there are so many things that we do not know,and each country has its own reason for doing things,that may sound stupid for its citizens,but that is Politics,that is the world now.
"בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה"
this one is from the Bible and it means that a war could be waged by tricks and deceptions.
so lets agree not to agree.
if some of you say that Israel caused all the wars in the world,and that is what senojekips said or belive in his quotes.
and if some of you think that it is the US who wanted a foothold in the area after seeing all the Oil which could be at it's dissposle.
let it be then,only few know the truth and these few dont talk for a REASON.

Elad

 

[Chukpike]

Well, you may be right. but I wouldn't bet money on that.

I would rather bet on the US government trying to start a war.

War are good for business. And a war against an Arab nation with their low tech armies is child's play for a super power like the US.

Once you have air superiority, all they can do is a eat lead and bombs... You send troops later to secure ground and finish off the disorganised troops. :drink:

And even if the Israelis were actually dominating on the battlefield, having a an ally superpower setting foot in the area was still welcome.

Just my opinion. I've heard many scenarios, and I think that it's the best one.

I think that call it false flag operations. You ask some of your units to destroy other of your units and then you blame it on the desired enemy.

Pretty much, does not make sense at all.

The US did not need to start a war. The US was already in one, Vietnam. The liberty was attacked June 1967. We could just say Israel needed our help. We did not need to sink a asset that would have been very valuable in an actual conflict. It would have been used to monitor actions by both friendly and enemy forces. Does it make sense to cut off your ears and blind your eyes when going into battle?

Does it not make more sense for Israel to blind the US government to what it was doing? Leaving the US to get information the Israelis wanted the US to have.

I believe that a valid answer to the question why is: The Israelis did not want the US monitoring its military actions. Sometimes the obvious can be the answer.

 

[MontyB]

Pretty much, does not make sense at all.

The US did not need to start a war. The US was already in one, Vietnam. The liberty was attacked June 1967. We could just say Israel needed our help. We did not need to sink a asset that would have been very valuable in an actual conflict. It would have been used to monitor actions by both friendly and enemy forces. Does it make sense to cut off your ears and blind your eyes when going into battle?

Does it not make more sense for Israel to blind the US government to what it was doing? Leaving the US to get information the Israelis wanted the US to have.

I believe that a valid answer to the question why is: The Israelis did not want the US monitoring its military actions. Sometimes the obvious can be the answer.

I would say that I lean toward this answer myself but it still has one sticking point, the USA and Israel were allies if Israel had said we have sensitive operations going on in this area and don't want your ship there chances are that the USA would not have put it there.

Attacking the one country that is pretty much funding and supplying your operations when surrounded by countries that want to destroy you does not sound like a rational action.

It is this point alone that leads me to believe this was an escalation in order to cover up a mistake rather than a deliberate assault.

It is very clear that in the eyes of the crew they were not meant to have survived the attack, the sinking of life rafts and the munitions used clearly indicate this and I find it odd that some of them believe that the only reason the attack stopped was the appearance of a Russian ship.

 

[SHERMAN]

Actually in 1967 Israel used very little US funding for security needs. The IDF had almsot no american hardware apart for one bettalion of M48 tanks. Only after 1967 because of the French refusal to sell Israel aircraft did the military relations really start to gear up.

The whole story is very wierd. You have to understand the people involved in the decision making at the time were not exactly the type to take radical decisions such as attackin a friendly superpower.

If anything I am with MontyB I think someone made a mistake at the first attack than panicked and ordered the IAF and Israeli Navy to sink her and kill the crew. Not that its any better, but it seems more likely...

 

[senojekips]

if some of you say that Israel caused all the wars in the world,and that is what senojekips said or belive in his quotes..
Elad

Now I know the true value of your reasoning, "You are a liar and an underhanded trouble maker, plain and simple".

Please find where I have said that and post your answer. I know you can't because I've never said it nor indicated anything like it, because it is simply not true. Stop behaving like a spoilt child who has been told the truth for the first time in his life.

You have no idea what I think, and you are merely trying to discredit me for telling you what you didn't want to hear, you'd better get used to it Buster as you're going to see a lot more of it. I tell the truth as I see it, whether it be about Israel, the USA or Australia, it makes no difference to me.

You'd be far better advised to read my signature, and take heed of it.

If anything I am with MontyB I think someone made a mistake at the first attack than panicked and ordered the IAF and Israeli Navy to sink her and kill the crew. Not that its any better, but it seems more likely...

This is the only other story so far, that I feel is possible. It is very very "weird", but it is credible. My only doubt being that I thought the Israelis were far better organised than that.

 

[MontyB]

This is the only other story so far, that I feel is possible. It is very very "weird", but it is credible. My only doubt being that I thought the Israelis were far better organised than that.

This answer also has a flaw that I haven't explored because it starts to move more toward conspiracy theory and I hate conspiracies, but the flaw is this.

Why didn't the 6th Fleet respond to the attack?

 

[senojekips]

This answer also has a flaw that I haven't explored because it starts to move more toward conspiracy theory and I hate conspiracies, but the flaw is this.

Why didn't the 6th Fleet respond to the attack?

Yes, this is part, and only a small part of the very weirdness which leads my thinking back towards the theory I have espoused all along. An attempt at framing the Egyptians and gaining more support from the US.

Whatever the real reason there are still many unanswered questions on both sides. Politics and diplomacy sometimes leads to strange bedfellows, often, for even stranger reasons.

 

[Chukpike]

This answer also has a flaw that I haven't explored because it starts to move more toward conspiracy theory and I hate conspiracies, but the flaw is this.

Why didn't the 6th Fleet respond to the attack?

And what response could the US make? By the time the US could respond they knew the attack came from Israel. Obviously with two carriers in the Med near Crete they could have eliminated the Israeli Air Force and Navy, but would that have served US interests?

Both the US and Israel decided that it was a accident. They are sticking to it and have closed the book on it. The crew says it wasn't and they are sticking to that.

If you believe either government you might look at what the US Navy classified the ship as, a "technical research vessel". (Operated for the NSA). If you believe this I happen to have a bridge in New York I might sell you.

The answer is no one can prove anything now. One thing that makes it look like a cover-up is the speed in which both countries investigated and found no fault.

 

[MontyB]

Yes, this is part, and only a small part of the very weirdness which leads my thinking back towards the theory I have espoused all along. An attempt at framing the Egyptians and gaining more support from the US.

Whatever the real reason there are still many unanswered questions on both sides. Politics and diplomacy sometimes leads to strange bedfellows, often, for even stranger reasons.

But that assumes that the US government was party to the plan from the start and as I have said previously I do not like conspiracies.

And what response could the US make? By the time the US could respond they knew the attack came from Israel. Obviously with two carriers in the Med near Crete they could have eliminated the Israeli Air Force and Navy, but would that have served US interests?

Clearly the crew of the Liberty felt that help was less than 15 minutes away so what response would you take to rescue your own countrymen over that short a distance?
I would also suggest that the 6th Fleet would not have had information to say that the attack was an "accident" especially when it was a coordinated air/sea attack that lasted around 2 hours.

I hardly imagine that the Israeli government rapidly rang the Whitehouse to say "hey we just accidentally attacked one of your ships so we are just going to go ahead and sink it along with the crew. Don't bother sending any assistance as it is just a mistake."

 

[senojekips]

But that assumes that the US government was party to the plan from the start and as I have said previously I do not like conspiracies.

Not necessarily, the outcome could have been arranged very quickly after this all went pear shaped.

As for the US government being complicit in a cover up afterwards, I have no difficulty in believing that whatsoever. Plenty of governments, including that of Australia, have been willing to overlook the deaths of their servicemen to achieve the outcome that they desired. As they say, "In the interests of National security" or "In the interests of the greater good".

As for the Sixth Fleet not reacting immediately, I feel that they were there although not on a war footing nor expecting or prepared for this action especially when it became known that it was initiated by their supposed Allies. This would have led to an initial belief that it was a Blue on Blue error, and by the time that it became apparent that it was more than that the delays had resulted in a state of ultimate confusion between all sides. One does not normally expect to be turned upon, by one's allies. At the same time no doubt the government would have been in touch with the Israelis and because of this the sixth fleet were kept waiting for orders while the US/Israeli negotiations were going on, as everyone still would have been thinking this was some sort of mistake.

Even once orders would have been issued, it is surprising how long it takes to bring a ship to war readiness and mount a retaliatory attack. Everything would have had to be checked and rechecked in an attempt not to further cause a massive f*ckup. This would have given time for a "diplomatic" solution to have been reached.

Confusion would have been the order of the day.

 

[Chukpike]

Even once orders would have been issued, it is surprising how long it takes to bring a ship to war readiness and mount a retaliatory attack.

Confusion would have been the order of the day.

US ships underway, take under 3 minutes.

With no confusion.

 

[senojekips]

US ships underway, take under 3 minutes.

With no confusion.

I'm not talking about closing up to defensive Action Stations at Deck level, I'm talking about planning and mounting a retaliatory air raid, against a force of unknown size, previously thought to be an Ally, from normal Steaming stations. I think you'll find your three minutes would go right out the window.

 

[MontyB]

If indeed they were within 15-20 minutes of a warzone you would expect that they would at much higher level of readiness and have contingencies in place.

 

[senojekips]

We used to sail through the Sunda Straits on the Sydney, a clapped out old aircraft carrier full of troops and equipment on the way to Vietnam at the height of the Indonesian confrontation at condition 2 Yankee. Basically peacetime steaming with the added precaution of having main watertight doors below the waterline lightly clipped, ready use ammo available and gun crews working near their stations.

I strongly doubt that they would have had their aircraft all fuelled and bombed up on deck, and flightdeck crew at flying stations. I dunno about the yanks, but we don't store aircraft in the hangers fueled up, weapons have to be got up from the bomb rooms and magazines, armed and loaded onto the auircraft once they are on deck, Not to mention gettig up a plan of attack and breifing the crews etc., there's lots to do.

 

[Tac1]

Top US officials told the Israeli's to attack the USS Liberty so that they could blame the attack on Syria and have an excuse to enter the Arab-Israeli war. Since Americans typically will only support a war unless we're attacked in some way, so that was the plan. Unfortunately for them that plan was foiled when a Russian ship, I believe a sub, spotted the entire incident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRZSzdQuOqM

President Johnson - "I want that ship going down"

Doesn't get much more clearer than that.

 

[senojekips]

^^^"Cue the theme from the X Files and don your tinfoil hats boys and girls"^^^