The Liberty incident

[Wicked Pilot]

How about we just send a C-17 over the West Bank and drop a MOAB onto Arafat's HQ, along with dropping some LGBs from the Sixth Fleet onto pretty much every terror cell in retalitation for our Diplomats being attacked a few days back?

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.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Wicked Pilot.
Are you equating an IFF accident, in the heat of war, with a deliberate act?
Or do you not believe the 3 inquiries the US government has had on this subject? And the official apology from Israel.
Perhaps Austrailia should lob a missile at the Pentagon in retaliation for killing some of their soldiers in the infamous friendly fire incedent.

[Wicked Pilot]

Wicked Pilot.
Are you equating an IFF accident, in the heat of war, with a deliberate act?

Either it was a deliberate act, or Israel's air force and navy are utterly incompetent. A clearly marked U.S. survelliance ship flying a bright American flag does not look like an armed Egyptian horse trader a quarter of its size.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Pilot.
How big a flag, and how far away could it be seen? The reports I've read of the incedent, using standard formulas for road signs, and their size to readabilty range, concluded the flag on the American ship was nowhere near big enough to be visible from the engagement range.
In short, it was physicaly impossible for the IDF pilots to know it was an American ship, without radio contact.
Also, what was the Israeli's motivation, for firing on an allied ship? They had everything to lose, and NOTHING to gain.
Why do you atribute to malice, what human error covers so well?
Are all friendly fire incidents conspirosies?
Or just this one?

[Alyeska]

Wicked Pilot.
Are you equating an IFF accident, in the heat of war, with a deliberate act?

Either it was a deliberate act, or Israel's air force and navy are utterly incompetent. A clearly marked U.S. survelliance ship flying a bright American flag does not look like an armed Egyptian horse trader a quarter of its size.

Might want to read up on the Liberty incident Wicked. The incompentence part has to do with the command level, not those who were fighting.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Read please, and comment.
http://www.thelibertyincident.com/nowicki-evidence.htm

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Wicked Pilot.
Are you equating an IFF accident, in the heat of war, with a deliberate act?

Either it was a deliberate act, or Israel's air force and navy are utterly incompetent. A clearly marked U.S. survelliance ship flying a bright American flag does not look like an armed Egyptian horse trader a quarter of its size.

Stuart Slade article on the Liberty Incident.

[Wicked Pilot]

How big a flag, and how far away could it be seen? The reports I've read of the incedent, using standard formulas for road signs, and their size to readabilty range, concluded the flag on the American ship was nowhere near big enough to be visible from the engagement range.

It's not just the flag, but the huge standard hull markings, the huge radio and communication equipment, and the lack of the huge cannons necessary to shell Israeli forces on land. Take a look for yourself.

http://www.ussliberty.org/g/lg/lg0054.jpg

Do you see the hull marking up front? How about the radio towers? How about that big thing on the back that looks like a satellite dish pointed up? I would concede that it is entirely possible that the IAF fired on the ship by mistake on only the first pass because the nature of air power would allow for that mistake. But when the Israeli torpedo boats get close enough to MACHINE GUN THE SAILORS ON THE DECK WHO ARE ATTENDING THE WOUNDED, then there is something terribly wrong.

Also, what was the Israeli's motivation, for firing on an allied ship?

Good question, I know the crew would sure as hell like to know. One theory being tossed around would have to do with an alleged breaking of a cease fire agreement with Syria.

Are all friendly fire incidents conspirosies?

When just the attacking nation covers up their actions then no. When the nation that was attacked goes to great lengths to ensure that no one knows that the attack took place, then yes. I didn't see Canada covering up their friendly fire loses in Afganistan.

[Wicked Pilot]

Actually, now on second thought, this topic needs a new thread. Somebody wanna split it?

[Sea Skimmer]

But when the Israeli torpedo boats get close enough to MACHINE GUN THE SAILORS ON THE DECK WHO ARE ATTENDING THE WOUNDED, then there is something terribly wrong.

Yeah, and when they got that close, they promptly stopped attack because for once they could see the markings

Good question, I know the crew would sure as hell like to know. One theory being tossed around would have to do with an alleged breaking of a cease fire agreement with Syria.

Read the link the Duchess posted. The attack was clearly a mistake with no signs prior planning. You do not plan to sink a ship using rockets and napalm, but clearly that was the objective as they fired torpedoes at it. So all the bullshit thrown around about them merely wanting to drive it off is just that.

[Colonel Olrik]

thread split

[Wicked Pilot]

Yeah, and when they got that close, they promptly stopped attack because for once they could see the markings

You mean after they torpedod the ship, machined gunned the crew, and sunk the life rafts...

They fled because they thought USN aircraft were on their way. If they stopped becuase they knew it was a mistake, then they would have offered aid.

Read the link the Duchess posted. The attack was clearly a mistake with no signs prior planning. You do not plan to sink a ship using rockets and napalm, but clearly that was the objective as they fired torpedoes at it. So all the bullshit thrown around about them merely wanting to drive it off is just that.

I presented my arguements on the board. I do not expect you to do my homework, I will not do yours.

[Peregrin Toker]

Exactly why would the Israeli deliberately attack an American ship??

BTW - to me, it appears that the "Liberty Incident" is what I currently think: A friendly fire accident which certain conspiracy-theorist crackpots interpretate as "proof" that the Israeli are bloodthirsty murderers who kill because they enjoy seeing other people suffer.

[phongn]

Yeah, and when they got that close, they promptly stopped attack because for once they could see the markings

You mean after they torpedod the ship, machined gunned the crew, and sunk the life rafts...

They were in a tail-chase and would not have been able to read the markings until they got up front. A quote from Stuart Slade's essay on the matter:

The torpedo boats then closed in and from 3:00 onwards circled the ship, from the stern spraying it with 20 millimeter and 40 millimeter gunfire. When they reached the bows, the captain of one boat saw "GTR-5" on the hull. He immediately halted fire, extended help to the Liberty, and called for rescue helicopters. For the first time in the whole stupid story somebody did something right. Two Israeli Helicopters reached the Liberty and offered assistance. Erell, shouting through a bullhorn, also tried to communicate with the ship but Captain McGonagle refused to respond. Realizing, finally, that his assailants had been Israeli, he flagged the torpedo boats away and made a gesture that the Israelies describe as "obscene, but under the circumstances, understandable". By 5:05 p.m., the Israelis had broken off contact, and the Liberty, navigating virtually without systems, with 34 dead and 171 wounded aboard, staggered out to sea.

They fled because they thought USN aircraft were on their way. If they stopped becuase they knew it was a mistake, then they would have offered aid.

Except that they did offer aid, though CPT McGonagle refused to respond.

[phongn]

Wicked Pilot.
Are you equating an IFF accident, in the heat of war, with a deliberate act?

Either it was a deliberate act, or Israel's air force and navy are utterly incompetent. A clearly marked U.S. survelliance ship flying a bright American flag does not look like an armed Egyptian horse trader a quarter of its size.

The IDF's command structure was incompetent. Their naval procedure was extremely poor and their C3I network was so primitive that they had a severe backlog of communications I/O. At the change of the watch, the track plot (manual, not computerized) was erased - along with the marker for the USS Liberty.

For IAF pilots not trained in antiship operations, it is unlikely that they would be able to properly identify the ship. Nor could they see the flag.

For the Israeli FACs, they were in a stern chass and probably bouncing all around (they were old FACs going flat out) - and any flag that was raised would have it's plane parallel to the motion of a ship. Explain how that could be easily visible?

[phongn]

BTW - to me, it appears that the "Liberty Incident" is what I currently think: A friendly fire accident which certain conspiracy-theorist crackpots interpretate as "proof" that the Israeli are bloodthirsty murderers who kill because they enjoy seeing other people suffer.

The incident in question was a horrid mess that shows many institutional problems with the Israeli command structure. However, it is extraordinarily unlikely that it was a deliberate attack - if it were, the Israeli fighters likely would have had been loaded out with antiship-fused iron bombs rather than napalm and cannon and the Israeli FACs would have kept shooting for as long as possible.

[Andrew J.]

When just the attacking nation covers up their actions then no. When the nation that was attacked goes to great lengths to ensure that no one knows that the attack took place, then yes.

How do you figure? The way I see it,the fact that the US hushed it up confirms it was only an accident. If it had been deliberate we would have made a huge mess of the whole thing, roused up public anger towards Israel, and gone to war. But since it was an accident, the government didn't want people to find out and potentially cause a breach between the two countries.

[Wicked Pilot]

Exactly why would the Israeli deliberately attack an American ship??

I already answered that question, try to read.

BTW - to me, it appears that the "Liberty Incident" is what I currently think: A friendly fire accident which certain conspiracy-theorist crackpots interpretate as "proof" that the Israeli are bloodthirsty murderers who kill because they enjoy seeing other people suffer.

Gee wow, you got it all figured out.

They were in a tail-chase and would not have been able to read the markings until they got up front. A quote from Stuart Slade's essay on the matter:

That clearly explains the torpedo hole in the starboard side of the ship, near the front.

Except that they did offer aid, though CPT McGonagle refused to respond.

The crew says differently. This is an issue of one's word over another.

However, it is extraordinarily unlikely that it was a deliberate attack - if it were, the Israeli fighters likely would have had been loaded out with antiship- fused iron bombs rather than napalm and cannon and the Israeli FACs would have kept shooting for as long as possible.

You forgot about the rockets. Just because the IAF was not capable of sinking the vessel on their own, it doesn't mean they could not have intended to disable it for the gunboats to finish off. Their torpedo attacks and sinking of life rafts indicate they were trying to bring down the ship will all hands. Who do you think the American's would have blamed if there were no survivors to tell what happened?

[phongn]

That clearly explains the torpedo hole in the starboard side of the ship, near the front.

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.

The crew says differently. This is an issue of one's word over another.

His sources are the National Archives - which includes track charts, statements by crew and captain, signal logs and SIGINT - as well as The Sword and the Olive by Martin van Crevald, Boats of Cherbourg by Abraham Rabinovitch, Janes Fighting Ships 1966, Bagnasco Submarines of WW2 and Israeli testimony at the inquiries.

You forgot about the rockets. Just because the IAF was not capable of sinking the vessel on their own, it doesn't mean they could not have intended to disable it for the gunboats to finish off.

The IAF was very capable of sinking the vessel on its own, it would have been a matter of having a different loadout. Furthermore, unguided rockets of that type do not make an effective antiship loadout either.

Their torpedo attacks and sinking of life rafts indicate they were trying to bring down the ship will all hands.

Obviously they were trying to sink it, but considering the speed that the FACs were going at and the stability of a FAC, it's a big assumption to make that the strafing of the lifeboats was wholly deliberate.

Furthermore, if they did want to ensure there were no survivors, it would have been much simpler to have the IAF bomb the ship and then have the FACs kill anyone remaining in the water.

Who do you think the American's would have blamed if there were no survivors to tell what happened?

No idea, but this conspiracy theory has thoroughly been debunked by Mr. Slade's article. Certainly, the Israelis were culpable, but it's certain that they did not mean to sink a US vessel.

[Gil Hamilton]

I like Stuart Slade's article on the matter. Very detailed and well referenced. I also like how it wasn't nearly as apologist for the Israelis at all, like most essays on the issue are.

Still, I question something. If an Arab country had made the same fiery shitstorm of arrogance, incompetance, faulty equipment, et cetera upon an American ship, would we be nearly as forgiving?

For that matter, what would have happened if an Arab country did it on an Israeli ship? Would the Israelis accept the truth and apology, or would the Israelis use it as an excuse to counteract whoever did it?

[Peregrin Toker]

Exactly why would the Israeli deliberately attack an American ship??

I already answered that question, try to read.

Well, you didn't answer it in this thread, apparently. All you seem to say in this one is that the Israeli deliberately attacked the Liberty, not explaning why.

What thread was this one split from??

[CelesKnight]

How about we just send a C-17 over the West Bank and drop a MOAB onto Arafat's HQ, along with dropping some LGBs from the Sixth Fleet onto pretty much every terror cell in retalitation for our Diplomats being attacked a few days back?

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.

And then we'll nuke Britian and Canada for burning Washington in the war of 1812.

[Wicked Pilot]

Look people, I am prefectly willing to believe that it was an accident. In fact, I'd love to believe that it was. With more evidence I could change my view; I've certainly been wrong on things before.
If the U.S. government had come out at the onset and said what happened, had aggressively investigated the event, and had then concluded that it was a terrible accident, then this whole thing would be even a smaller footnote in the history of 1967, and I probably never would have heard of it. Of course the U.S. government did not do that, they covered it up. Generally speaking, when 34 servicemen are killed and the government denies what happens, something is wrong.

[phongn]

Look people, I am prefectly willing to believe that it was an accident. In fact, I'd love to believe that it was. With more evidence I could change my view; I've certainly been wrong on things before.

The evidence seems rather clear that it was a huge fuckup on the part of the Israelis (and perhaps on the part of the NSA guys onboard as well) but not a deliberate attack.

If the U.S. government had come out at the onset and said what happened, had aggressively investigated the event, and had then concluded that it was a terrible accident, then this whole thing would be even a smaller footnote in the history of 1967, and I probably never would have heard of it. Of course the U.S. government did not do that, they covered it up. Generally speaking, when 34 servicemen are killed and the government denies what happens, something is wrong.

The US government
But the incident was investigated and the conclusion was that it was a horrid accident. If everything was covered up, why award CPT McGonagal the MOH? Why note on the Navy's historical website that the Israelis attacked the ship?

You don't hear much about the attack on the USS Stark anymore either, do you? Yes, we retaliated for that deliberate attack, but it doesn't seem like people are crowing about that anywhere near as much as the attack on the USS Liberty.

[Wicked Pilot]

If everything was covered up, why award CPT McGonagal the MOH? Why note on the Navy's historical website that the Israelis attacked the ship?

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.