phongn wrote:That article says nothing except that there was a cover-up and that Red. Adm. Moore came up with some reasons Israel may have wished to attack.
Come back when you can counter that essay that Mr. Slade wrote, as much as you demanded that I did for Mr. Stinnett's article. Turnabout is fair play, no?
Alright, lets go through it point by point.
Point one:
Today, top former U.S. intelligence officials are saying "Yes."
His Answer:
No. The author is claiming that he has been told that certain top officals believe that to be the case.
This is contradicted by the news I just posted. The head of the board of inquiry on the issue, and a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs qualify as top officials.
Furthermore, the list of individuals, including top ones, who think the attack was dilberate can be found here.
http://ussliberty.org/supporters.htm
Point Two:
The judge is dubious of the nay sayers. They rely on "conjecture, hearsay and plain wishful thinking," flawed or traumatized memories, and "various conspiracy theories," he says.Such characterizations, along with the linking of Liberty veterans with Arab extremists and racist groups, sit poorly with the ship's crew.
His Answer:
If such statements sit poorly with the ship's survivors, then they had better clean up their act. It is an unfortunate fact that the Liberty survivors website is linked with neo-nazi, anti-semetic and pro-terrorist websites. The liberty website is frequently quoted by such groups in their attacks on Israel in particular and Jews in general. Now, I have no doubt that the Liberty survivors do not intend that use and would be appalled to realize how their site is being used by such unsavory elements. However, that doesn't change the fact that it is being so used. Also, it illustrates another common trend in this article. Time after time, arguments are dismissed on grounds that "they make Liberty survivors angry". Thats irrelevent but is used to bully those who disagree with the dismissal into silence.
The fact is, all this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the attack was dilberate. In fact, this entire section is nothing but an appeal to motive. Furthermore, arguements dismissed becase "they make Liberty survivors angry", may in fact be making them angry because they are not facts at all, but rather lies.
Point Three
Later, despite jamming of the ship's distress frequencies, and before all her transmitters were shot away, the Liberty's radio operators managed again to hear the attackers make a positive identification in the clear.Judge Cristol, conceding his newly released Israeli transcripts reveal one correct identification, states that they are confusing and mutually contradictory—typical of the "fog of war."Further, citing Ennes, he states that no Hebrew linguists were on board the spy ship, and that Israeli pilots would not have made unencrypted transmissions. Ennes acknowledges that no "official" Hebrew linguists were on board, but he points out that at least one of the doomed NSA men, Russian/Arabic linguist Allen Blue, understood Hebrew. As for the jamming, Ennes, quoting Chief Radioman Wayne Smith and an article in Proceedings, also notes that the ship could not have been misidentified, because the frequencies jammed were peculiar to the U.S. Navy. Liberty Radioman Richard "Rocky" Sturman also recalls that he and other technicians heard the radio jamming.
His Answer:
This is very typical of the whole "deliberate attack" position. Its assumed that the statements of the survivors are correct without ever pondering the implications of their statements. Here, that trend is reinforced by deliberate distortion. As we have already seen, there was indeed one correct identification of the Liberty by a maritime patrol plane - however Walsh words his comment to make it sound as if thatID was during the attack. The idea that the Liberty's radio systems were jammed into oblivion is totally absurd - the Israelies simply did not have that capability. Even if they had, their efforts would have caused electronic problems all over the Eastern Mediterranean - somebody would have noticed. The truth is there was no jamming and claims that there were seriously impeach the credibility of accounts that claim otherwise.
I'm not aware of how jamming systems work, or what equipment is necessary to jamm a communications systems, or what effect this would have o n the immediate area. I can tell you however, that this is a strawman. Even if it decisevly proven that Isreal did not jam, it does not mean that they did not know the Libery was an American ship.
Point four
Was illustrated—along with the Liberty—in Jane's Fighting Ships, to which Israel had access
His answer:
This is a deliberate lie. I have the edition of Jane's Fighting Ships in question. Althoigh both ships are listed, neither is illustrated (there is a picture of another US AGI of a different class). Walsh appears to be unaware of the extent to which erroneous identifications of ships are made under combat conditions.
Irreleveant, the liberty had a huge commmunications array, it composed the most prominant features on the vessel in fact. These features are not found on a cavalry transport ships.
Point five
Within weeks of the calamity, Kirby, deputy director for operations/production, read U.S. signals intelligence (SigInt)-generated transcripts and "staff reports" at NSA's Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters. They were of Israeli pilots' conversations, recorded during the attack. The intercepts made it "absolutely certain" they knew it was a U.S. ship, he said. Kirby's is the first public disclosure by a top-level NSA senior of deliberate intent based on personal analyses of SigInt material.
His response:
The problem here is that there is not one shred of corroboration for the existance of any of this material. The alleged tape has never been heard or scene, the transcripts have neever been seen. All we have is third and fourth hand accounts of how damning the contents are. In other words "gee a friend of a friend of a friend heard the tape and its really convincing". Thats the stuff of urban legends not of the real world. The opinions of the people quoted are just that opinions - if that. Its quite possible that their opinions are being quoted out of context or fabricated In short, all of this section is of no value whatsoever.
Completely false, there are first hand accounts of "damaging" documents.
One example is
Dwight Porter, former US Ambassador to Lebanon, who saw transcripts of Israeli communications during the attack. "It's an American ship!" the pilot of an Israeli Mirage fighter- bomber radioed Tel Aviv as he sighted the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967. Israeli headquarters ordered the pilot to carry out his mission, he reports. (Syndicated column "Remembering the Liberty" by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, November 6, 1991.)
In summary, Slade's "article" is not a decisive refutation of the deliberate attack theory. He completely ignores the strongest evidence of a deliberate attack and then pretends as if his arguments have dealt with the case when they in fact are all either false, nit-picks, or straw men.
Devolution is quite as natural as evolution, and may be just as pleasing, or even a good deal more pleasing, to God. If the average man is made in God's image, then a man such as Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God, and so God may be jealous of him, and eager to see his superiority perish with his bodily frame.
-H.L. Mencken
Sorry buddy, but the question of Jane's Fighting Ships is just another strawman. A ship equipped with a giagantic satillite antenna does not fit the profile of a ship peforming shore bombarbment. 