Vanunu released after 18 years

Supreme_Warlord · Post by **Supreme_Warlord** » 2004-04-21 06:02am

Staff and agencies
Wednesday April 21, 2004

Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu was freed today after serving an 18-year prison term for revealing secrets that exposed Israel as one of the world's top atomic powers.

Flashing victory signs, Mr Vanunu waved as he walked into the courtyard of the Shikma prison in Ashkelon. Loud cheers rose from a crowd of supporters, while counter-demonstrators booed.

In a statement on his release, Mr Vanunu said he received "cruel and barbaric" treatment during his incarceration, 12 years of which was spent in solitary confinement. He said he was "proud and happy" about his actions, but had no more secrets to reveal and wished Israel no harm. He said he wished to go to the United States to marry and teach history.

In the short term, Mr Vanunu, a Christian, said he planned to go to church.

IMHO, they should be giving this guy medals for what he did.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-04-21 06:33am

IMHO, they should be giving this guy medals for what he did.

actually he got a couple of honors. he got the Right Livelihood Award in 1987. in 2001 he got an honours doctor title from the university of Tromsø/Norway and in 2002 he was awarded the Nuclear-Free Future Award in the category resistance.

Supreme_Warlord · Post by **Supreme_Warlord** » 2004-04-21 06:52am

salm wrote:actually he got a couple of honors. he got the Right Livelihood Award in 1987. in 2001 he got an honours doctor title from the university of Tromsø/Norway and in 2002 he was awarded the Nuclear-Free Future Award in the category resistance.

I just hope he manages to get out of the country some time - I am sure there is a lot more ditry laundry to be cleaned.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-21 07:25am

I saw him giving an ad hoc press conference outdoors somewhere, live, on CNN and BBC. Of course, Fox News Channel wouldn't bother covering such an event- too busy sucking Sharon cock.

Supreme_Warlord · Post by **Supreme_Warlord** » 2004-04-21 07:44am

Vympel wrote:I saw him giving an ad hoc press conference outdoors somewhere, live, on CNN and BBC.

I thought he was restricted from speaking to foreigners, much less the media. He is effectively under house arrest for the next six months, with an option to extend these restrictions for six month periods indefinitely.

Of course, Fox News Channel wouldn't bother covering such an event- too busy sucking Sharon cock.

Judging by this, I thought MKSheppard was currently fulfilling that role.

Supreme_Warlord · Post by **Supreme_Warlord** » 2004-04-21 07:47am

Supreme_Warlord wrote:Judging by this, I thought MKSheppard was currently fulfilling that role.

Unless of course Fox is working the front and MkSheppard is working the back with his lubed Panzer barrel.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-04-21 08:19am

What bullshit. Before this guy blabbed, Israel couldn't have deterred countries from attacking with the threat of nuclear retaliation if the world didn't know Israel had them. The only thing this guy did was ruin a type of surprise. As in, you just invaded us? Well, guess what?! We've got nukes!! Enjoy!

This guy did two things: one, he removed some of Israels ability to draw opponents into invading her. And two, he added to Israel, in that the Arabs are less likely to invade with the possibility of an Israeli nuclear response sitting on the table.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-21 08:20am

BoredShirtless wrote:
This guy did two things: one, he removed some of Israels ability to draw opponents into invading her.

You can imagine how annoyed they were- no more expansionism under a self-defense pretext.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-04-21 08:21am

BoredShirtless wrote:This guy did two things: one, he removed some of Israels ability to draw opponents into invading her. And two, he added to Israel, in that the Arabs are less likely to invade with the possibility of an Israeli nuclear response sitting on the table.

Hmm, that's one thing. But looking from both sides.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-04-21 08:22am

Vympel wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
This guy did two things: one, he removed some of Israels ability to draw opponents into invading her.
You can imagine how annoyed they were- no more expansionism under a self-defense pretext.

I know. Poor Israel.

Supreme_Warlord · Post by **Supreme_Warlord** » 2004-04-21 08:56am

Vympel wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
This guy did two things: one, he removed some of Israels ability to draw opponents into invading her.
You can imagine how annoyed they were- no more expansionism under a self-defense pretext.

You mean the wars Israel fought previously weren't in self-defence?

Surely you jest my good man.

A nuclear armed fundie state needs an equally nuclear armed fundie opponent, so NUKES for Saudi Arabia!

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-04-21 11:06am

Supreme_Warlord wrote:
Vympel wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
This guy did two things: one, he removed some of Israels ability to draw opponents into invading her.
You can imagine how annoyed they were- no more expansionism under a self-defense pretext.
You mean the wars Israel fought previously weren't in self-defence?

Surely you jest my good man.

A nuclear armed fundie state needs an equally nuclear armed fundie opponent, so NUKES for Saudi Arabia!

You're fricken insane, too. Let's see, when was the last time Israel supplied terrorist, or the last time that an Israeli suicide bomber took out a bus...oh, wait, never! Saudi Arabia is notorious for their production of terrorists, Israel is not. Frankly, I'd trust Israel a helluva lot farther than I would the Saudis.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2004-04-21 11:23am

Supreme_Warlord wrote:
Vympel wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
This guy did two things: one, he removed some of Israels ability to draw opponents into invading her.
You can imagine how annoyed they were- no more expansionism under a self-defense pretext.
You mean the wars Israel fought previously weren't in self-defence?

Surely you jest my good man.

A nuclear armed fundie state needs an equally nuclear armed fundie opponent, so NUKES for Saudi Arabia!

I hope, for your sake, that your speaking sarcasm.

Warlord, is this some pet interest for you, because every news peice you bring up, is related to this.

And on the subjet of Vanunu, he lives in a villa, has vowed retaliation after the women who brought him in.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-04-21 09:39pm

Nathan F wrote:
Supreme_Warlord wrote:You mean the wars Israel fought previously weren't in self-defence?

Surely you jest my good man.

A nuclear armed fundie state needs an equally nuclear armed fundie opponent, so NUKES for Saudi Arabia!
You're fricken insane, too.

If he meant it he’s insane but I’ve got a hunch he was being ironic.

Let's see, when was the last time Israel supplied terrorist

The Israeli armed and supported Lebanese militia under Sharon’s direct control, which carried out the Sabra and Chatila massacres in 1982, would probably qualify. As in my opinion do many of the “settlers” who habitually brutalise and terrorise Palestinians and regularly kill them see this link for an example of this.

or the last time that an Israeli suicide bomber took out a bus...oh, wait, never!

If you’d asked when was the last time an Israeli used explosives to kill civilians, be they in a taxi, a market place or a block of flats, but didn’t die in the attack, that happens all the time that happens all the time. High profile, recent examples of this being the extrajudicial killings of the leaders of Hammas, I’m not saying the Hammas guys were civilians but the bystanders who inevitably die when you use explosives in an extremely densely populated urban setting are.

Why does it matter so much if the terrorist dies in the attack? To paraphrase a leader of freedom fighters “give us some of your tanks and planes and we’ll stop blowing our selves up”.

Saudi Arabia is notorious for their production of terrorists, Israel is not.

No Israel is merely systematic perpetrator of state terrorism, and the principle recruiting sergeant for Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups.

Frankly, I'd trust Israel a helluva lot farther than I would the Saudis.

I suppose I kind of agree with you there, I don’t trust Israel but I trust the Saudis even less in that they are less predictable.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-04-21 10:41pm

Frankly, I'd trust Israel a helluva lot farther than I would the Saudis.

If I ever need to remind myself why Israel (more specifically, the government of Israel) can't be trusted, I simply think of one name: USS Liberty.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-21 11:00pm

Oh boy, it's a USS Liberty debate ...

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-04-21 11:02pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
Frankly, I'd trust Israel a helluva lot farther than I would the Saudis.
If I ever need to remind myself why Israel (more specifically, the government of Israel) can't be trusted, I simply think of one name: USS Liberty.

The USS Liberty incident appeared to be a monumental fuckup on the part of the Israeli military rather than a deliberate attack as that site seems to postulate.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-04-21 11:09pm

phongn wrote:The USS Liberty incident appeared to be a monumental fuckup on the part of the Israeli military rather than a deliberate attack as that site seems to postulate.

Then what about this? It was written by former chairman of the Joint Chiefs (1970-1974) Adm. Thomas Moorer.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-04-21 11:29pm

phongn wrote: incident appeared to be a monumental fuckup on the part of the Israeli military rather than a deliberate attack as that site seems to postulate.

I must confess it’s the first time I've ever heard of this incident and from the little evidence I've seen cockup seems by far the most likely explanation. Principally because I’m aware of no motive for Israel or even a small faction within its armed forces to deliberately attack its principle benefactor and protector.

The extreme lack of concern shown by the US Gov that one of its ships had been attacked and so many of its service men killed is interesting though. If practically any other nation had subjected a US anything to sustained attack its hard to imagine the US Gov being so understanding and so eager to brush everything under the carpet.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-21 11:29pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
Frankly, I'd trust Israel a helluva lot farther than I would the Saudis.
If I ever need to remind myself why Israel (more specifically, the government of Israel) can't be trusted, I simply think of one name: USS Liberty.

That site doesn't seem to exist. Either that, or somebody's hijacking my browser.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-04-21 11:31pm

Moorer wrote:U.S. military rescue aircraft were recalled -- not once, but twice -- through direct intervention by the Johnson administration. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's cancellation of the Navy's attempt to rescue the Liberty, which I confirmed from the commanders of the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga, was the most disgraceful act I witnessed in my entire military career.

Disgraceful, perhaps but fitting the diplomatic tone of the time? The incident a year later against USS Pueblo in 1968 did not cause a huge counterattack, either. And, frankly, this is the man who personally approved target lists for the Vietnam War from the White House -- military capability was not one of LBJ's strengths.

Israeli reconnaissance aircraft closely studied the Liberty during an eight-hour period prior to the attack, one flying within 200 feet of the ship. Weather reports confirm the day was clear with unlimited visibility. The Liberty was a clearly marked American ship in international waters, flying an American flag and carrying large U.S. Navy hull letters and numbers on its bow.

All true. However, the Israelis had some very flawed procedures. They used a manual plot to show the situation (unlike computerized systems used by more advanced militaries such as the United States). These plots quickly became overloaded and at the end of each watch the Israelis wiped the board clean without confirming that a contact was indeed gone.

Despite claims by Israeli intelligence that they confused the Liberty with a small Egyptian transport, the Liberty was conspicuously different from any vessel in the Egyptian navy. It was the most sophisticated intelligence ship in the world in 1967. With its massive radio antennae, including a large satellite dish, it looked like a large lobster and was one of the most easily identifiable ships afloat.

All true. However, target misidentification occurs quite frequently in war even on highly dissimilar objects -- it is not a leap at all to think that the Israelis thought she was an Egyptian ship.

Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty's radio operators from sending a call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels.

I find it unlikely that Israel had the technical ability to jam US signals at the time.

Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most-seriously wounded.

The Israelis could not have known that and by the time they reached the bow and could read the lettering they ceased fire.

As for my references:
Stuart Slade has written an essay on the incident, sources listed on the bottom
An interview with the pilot who attacked the ship

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-04-21 11:31pm

Rogue 9 wrote: That site doesn't seem to exist. Either that, or somebody's hijacking my browser.

Works fine when I click on the URL...

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-04-21 11:35pm

I find it unlikely that Israel had the technical ability to jam US signals at the time.

It said attempted. Obviously they did not succeed, as the Liberty's destress call was received by other American units.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-21 11:36pm

Well for some reason I get this. Confuses the hell out of me. Done it to a couple of other sites too (ones that had worked fine before and worked again afterwards).

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-04-21 11:38pm

Plekhanov wrote:I must confess it’s the first time I've ever heard of this incident and from the little evidence I've seen cockup seems by far the most likely explanation. Principally because I’m aware of no motive for Israel or even a small faction within its armed forces to deliberately attack its principle benefactor and protector.

Indeed. If they were going to do it they probably would have done it the right way. Submarines would be a better tool; at the least they could have sent out aircraft armed with antiship-fused bombs. A bunch of old MTBs and some gun-armed fighters? And they were trying to keep it on the low? That doesn't really add up.

The extreme lack of concern shown by the US Gov that one of its ships had been attacked and so many of its service men killed is interesting though. If practically any other nation had subjected a US anything to sustained attack its hard to imagine the US Gov being so understanding and so eager to brush everything under the carpet.

As I noted in my preceding post, the North Koreans did something worse a year later.

Ma Deuce wrote:
I find it unlikely that Israel had the technical ability to jam US signals at the time.
It said attempted. Obviously they did not succeed, as the Liberty's destress call was received by other American units.

Even so...what MTB has electronic warfare equipment on it? In the first link I posted above, it is possible that the crew of USS Liberty misinterpreted battle damage to their antenna and waveguides as jamming.