The Liberty incident

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Why was the captain given his medal in some back room at the Navy yards, as opposed to in the White House? Why was the crew ordered to never talk about the incident? Why was covering up the battle damage to the ship more or a priority than actually fixing it?

There was a cover up, and it existed until the crew started retiring and leaving the Navy. It's a little late now to do anything, and frankly no one but the crew gives a shit anymore. And no, there was no Navy website back in 67 so that point is irrelevant.

Maybe because there's a thin line between acknowledging what occured in an incident and exacerbating it with publicity. Read the evidence again and think--your excuses here are rapidly turning into the prototypical excuses of a conspiracy theorist.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Are you conceding this point or are you trying to say something else? A five-torpedo spread scored exactly one hit - and while I noted it was a stern chase, I didn't neccessarily mean directly behind at 6 o'clock. Furthermore, the essay in question noted that the torpedo attack ocurred before the FACs overtook and strafed the ship.

To add to this:

One might add that a torpedo's course does not have to be straight--a spread can be adjusted by a certain number of degrees by adjusting the torpedoes themselves before launch (in old WWII torps) and thus when you fire the torpedo spread you get sufficient dispersion to guarantee at least a single hit. And it would be rather odd if they were directly behind the Liberty when they fired--though widening a horizontal gap would require time it would increase the chances of a hit, particularly if they thought they were engaging a destroyer which had better chance of evading. Regardless, such a manoeuvre on the part of the FACs would not very much increase the visibility of the flag--the smoke by this time would be a huge factor.

Remember that in WWII a common tactic for evading an engagement was laying a smokescreen and the damage on the Liberty would almost or indeed have the same effect for a low-on-the-water FAC, making it very hard simply to aim at the target. Recognition by that time was irrelevant anyway--they'd made up their minds she was an enemy and there was nothing in the situation that could have created an obvious signature of her nationality to dissuade them until it was to late.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Here is some interesting info.....

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/jenn.html

http://www.washington-report.org/backis ... 306019.htm

Here's an espically interesting Highlight...

:"Friendly fire" is a brief, accidental attack. This was a prolonged, carefully coordinated attack. It has been called the most carefully planned "accident" in the history of warfare. The Israeli account of the attack is untrue. We flew a flag at all times, and it stood out clearly displayed in a good breeze. Israeli jets circled us thirteen times during the several hours before the attack, and during that period we heard their pilots informing their headquarters by radio that we were American.[b/] When the attack started, the attacking jets passed high overhead once, then turned 180 degrees and came down the centerline firing without any attempt to identify us. Long after the attack I was contacted by an Israeli pilot who told me that on his first flight over the ship he saw our American flag and informed his headquarters that we were American but was told to ignore the flag and attack anyway. He refused to do so and returned to base where he was arrested. I was told by an Israeli in the war room that they knew we were American. I have been told by several American intelligence analysts who read or in some cases heard the messages between the pilots and their headquarters that these messages make it very clear that the pilots and their headquarters knew we were American.

[/quote]

[Peregrin Toker]

Long after the attack I was contacted by an Israeli pilot who told me that on his first flight over the ship he saw our American flag and informed his headquarters that we were American but was told to ignore the flag and attack anyway. He refused to do so and returned to base where he was arrested. I was told by an Israeli in the war room that they knew we were American. I have been told by several American intelligence analysts who read or in some cases heard the messages between the pilots and their headquarters that these messages make it very clear that the pilots and their headquarters knew we were American.

You still haven't explained why the Israeli would deliberately attack a ship belonging to their closest ally. (other than an implication that some high-ranking Israeli officers might have a grudge against the USA)

Then again, I'm probably not aware that the Israeli actually are cannibals who kill innocent people whenever they have the possibility merely because they enjoy nothing more than seeing other people suffer.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You know, all of this has pretty much been explained by what's already been posted, and the rest can be discounted as part of the huge amount of rumours that have built up around this story in past years, unless more documentation than "I heard this from that guy" or "I got a phonecall from this super-secret CIA analyst".

Now, in fairness to Mr. Ennes, he rightfully has a lot of anger at Israel that he deserves to have. But anger also produces bias.

[Spoonist]

Sounds good. While we're at it, let's send some Minutemans blazing into Tel Avive in retalitation for the 34 U.S. sailors murdered by the Israelis. Glass them all I say.

I won't even get close to your discussion about what happened to the ship. I will instead point to the stupidity of punishing the wrong people for someone elses crime.
By the same "logic" Canada and Australia should kill american tourists as a revenge for all the FiF in Afghanistan. The Brititsh should nuke Las Vegas for the brits the US forces killed in Iraq etc.
Your suggestion is an emotional response without intelligence behind it.

But of course, I can see where your reasoning comes from, because it is the same logic that insisted that we should avenge 911 by attacking Iraq.

[Wicked Pilot]

I will instead point to the stupidity of punishing the wrong people for someone elses crime.
By the same "logic" Canada and Australia should kill american tourists as a revenge for all the FiF in Afghanistan. The Brititsh should nuke Las Vegas for the brits the US forces killed in Iraq etc.
Your suggestion is an emotional response without intelligence behind it.

It's called sarcasm. Do I need to use some to make that apparant next time?

[Wicked Pilot]

Origionally I said 'Either it was a deliberate act, or Israel's air force and navy are utterly incompetent.' I didn't think anybody would argue the latter, but you all did, and you have brought up very good points. Don't think for a second that I haven't had to reevaluate my position based on what you've brought to the table. I would like to believe that what you are saying is true, but generally I am more skeptical of what I want to believe than what I wish were not so. I will go off, study this more, and get back to you.

[Glocksman]

You still haven't explained why the Israeli would deliberately attack a ship belonging to their closest ally. (other than an implication that some high-ranking Israeli officers might have a grudge against the USA)

That question is answered in this article from Coldwar.org.

Why try to sink a vessel of a benefactor and ally? Most likely because Liberty's intercepts contradicted Israel's claim, made at the war's start on June 5, that Egypt had attacked Israel,and that Israel's air assault on three Arab nations was in retaliation. In fact, Israel began the war by a devastating, Pearl Harbor-style attack that caught the Arabs in bed and destroyed their air forces

Washington had warned Israel not to invade Syria,which had remained inactive while Israel fought Egypt. Bamford says Israel's planned offensive against Syria was abruptly postponed when Liberty appeared off Sinai, then launched once it was knocked out of action. Israel's claim Syria had attacked first could have been disproved by Liberty.

Liberty's intercepts also may have shown Israel seized upon rising Arab-Israeli tensions in May-June, 1967 to launch a long-planned war to invade and annex the West Bank, Jerusalem, Golan and Sinai..


The accuracy of Bamford's book (Body of Secrets) on this issue is under attack however, so use your own judgement when reading his account.

[Sea Skimmer]

That question is answered in this article from Coldwar.org.

Its just another article which fails to offer any explanation of why the ship was not sunk if it was known to be American and that was the objective and why it was attacked with weapons so useless for the purpose.

[phongn]

Long after the attack I was contacted by an Israeli pilot who told me that on his first flight over the ship he saw our American flag and informed his headquarters that we were American but was told to ignore the flag and attack anyway. He refused to do so and returned to base where he was arrested. I was told by an Israeli in the war room that they knew we were American. I have been told by several American intelligence analysts who read or in some cases heard the messages between the pilots and their headquarters that these messages make it very clear that the pilots and their headquarters knew we were American.

This interview with Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Yiftah Spector says otherwise.

Here's the relevant section:

"It was thought to be an Egyptian vessel. This ship positively did not have any symbol or flag that I could see. What I was concerned with was that it was not one of ours. I looked for the symbol of our navy, which was a large white cross on its deck," he told The Jerusalem Post. "This was not there, so it wasn't one of ours."

The concern of the IAF was that Spector and his wingman, who had been diverted from the Suez Canal, would strike one of the Israel Navy ships in pursuit of the vessel, which was assumed to be Egyptian. IAF archival recordings of the pilots' radio transmission of the actual attack obtained by the Post show that Spector was specifically requested to verify that the ship was a military vessel and not Israeli.

According to the June 8, 1967, radio transmission, Spector said: "I can't identify it but in any case it's a military ship."

Speaking of the event 36 years later may have caused Spector to mix what he remembered with what he may have read and his testimony does not always match archival facts.

"I circled it twice and it did not fire on me. My assumption was that it was likely to open fire at me and nevertheless I slowed down and I looked and there was positively no flag. Just to make sure I photographed it," said Spector, who retired from active duty as a brigadier-general in 1984.

Experts intimately acquainted with the incident said that the only photos Spector took were from his gun-sight camera during his strafing run. Regardless of whether the 455-foot ship bristling with eavesdropping antennas flew a US flag, which it evidently did from its starboard halyard, that banner was shot off in Spector's first strafing pass.

"I was told on the radio that it was an Egyptian ship off the Gaza coast. Hit it. The luck of the ship was that I was armed only with light ammunition [30mm] against aircraft. If I had had a bomb it would be sitting on the bottom today like the Titanic. I promise you," Spector said.

The 30mm rounds were armor piercing, which to this day led Liberty survivors to believe they had been under rocket attack. Spector's first pass ignited a fire which caused the ship to billow black smoke. Ironically, Spector transmitted he suspected the Liberty was putting out smoke to deliberately mask itself.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Here is an article, by the U.S. naval institute, that compares and contrasts the arguements made by the accident/dilberate attack parties. An article that does not favor the "accident" position....

http://www.usni.org/proceedings/Article ... alsh06.htm

[phongn]

This very article is addressed in the same thread that Stuart Slade's essay was posted to, linked to by Marina earlier. Since you have appeared to ignore it, I'll provide the link here

[Peregrin Toker]

Okay, I retract my previous statements and concede that the Israeli might have had a "valid" reason for attacking the Liberty.

[Stormbringer]

This whole thing reminds me of the hoary old saying: Never chalk up to malice what can be adequately explained by incompentence.

The friendly fire fuckup theory explains the facts with out the loose ends of the deliberate attack theory. It ignores the fact that had it been deliberate they could have made it far more effect and in all likelyhood the Liberty would have been on the bottom.

[Sea Skimmer]

The friendly fire fuckup theory explains the facts with out the loose ends of the deliberate attack theory. It ignores the fact that had it been deliberate they could have made it far more effect and in all likelyhood the Liberty would have been on the bottom.

There's no question they would have sunk her if they made a deliberate effort at it. Bombing would have worked, but if there was a day or so of preparation as some people allege, then they could have simply torpedoed the Liberty without warning using a sub. That would have been more effective, and covert since Egypt also had active submarines.