Vanunu released after 18 years

[Rogue 9]

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).

Okay, now the site works. The hell... I'm going to find what's hijacking my browser and eliminate it right the hell now.

[Rogue 9]

As for the Liberty, there's one thing conspicuously missing from all this pile. The motive. Why in the bloody hell would Israel intentionally attack the United States Navy? Deliberately attacking the U.S. Navy on the high seas is tantamount to suicide. Everybody knows that. It makes no sense at all.

[Plekhanov]

And on the subjet of Vanunu, he lives in a villa,

Well I no longer feel any sympathy for the man then, he may have been kidnapped and been imprisoned for, 12 in solitary, but now he lives in a nice villa so everything’s ok.

has vowed retaliation after the women who brought him in.

Can you provide any evidence for this smear? And what if you can? Does it matter if he feels a little bitter at the women who pretended to be in love with him, lured him to Rome and into a Mossad trap?

I don’t care if the guy is a misogynistic prick who now lives in a palace and is cruel to puppies what happened to him was wrong.

[Plekhanov]

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.

In what ways was the Pueblo incident worse, more embarrassing certainly with premeditation on behalf of the aggressors but worse? The casualty figures suggest otherwise.

You seem to be mainly interested in the military aspects of the incidents that’s not really what I was getting at. I wasn’t suggesting that the US would have attacked most other countries in similar incidents (especially not during the cold war) but that there would be a good deal of diplomatic heat put on them and that the unfortunate sailors who by all accounts fought and died bravely on the Liberty would be more adequately and widely honoured.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

As for the Liberty, there's one thing conspicuously missing from all this pile. The motive. Why in the bloody hell would Israel intentionally attack the United States Navy? Deliberately attacking the U.S. Navy on the high seas is tantamount to suicide. Everybody knows that. It makes no sense at all.

Look up the pervious threads on the issue, multiple motives have been listed, some more plausible then others.

[BoredShirtless]

Vanunu urges nuclear truth. The following is a quote from his uncle:

He's family, but I want to slash his throat and drink his blood. He is a fascist. Nuclear weapons are our insurance. The Arabs need to know that we have them. Without them we'd be in the sea."

Oh so now you WANT them to know? Do you know your nephew was locked up for 18 years for telling them? Probably not; it's hard to think straight with your dick full of blood over the idea of cutting your nephews throat, you fucking barbarian.

"We should string him up here or just dump him in Gaza where he belongs," said Arik Geldar. "We should do what is good for us and not what is good for the world. If we gave up our weapons there would be a second holocaust."

Didn't Israel manage to repeal the awesome Arab armies in the 1967 war without using its nukes? Paranoid dumbass.

[phongn]

In what ways was the Pueblo incident worse, more embarrassing certainly with premeditation on behalf of the aggressors but worse? The casualty figures suggest otherwise.

Well, that incident involved an outright capture of a US ship and imprisonment of the crew.

You seem to be mainly interested in the military aspects of the incidents that’s not really what I was getting at. I wasn’t suggesting that the US would have attacked most other countries in similar incidents (especially not during the cold war) but that there would be a good deal of diplomatic heat put on them and that the unfortunate sailors who by all accounts fought and died bravely on the Liberty would be more adequately and widely honoured.

Ahh. Well, that indeed is curious -- perhaps LBJ did not want to publically humiliate or embarrass Israel on the world stage for that. Why, I do not know.

[Ma Deuce]

Didn't Israel manage to repeal the awesome Arab armies in the 1967 war without using its nukes? Paranoid dumbass.

Actually Israel (beleiving the Arab countries were about to attack) struck premtively, catching the Arabs completely off guard. The IAF bypassed Egypt's EW radar network and destroyed the Egyptian air force on the ground in less than 3 hours (the attack was timed to catch them at their most vulnerable time of the day, when the higher air force officers was stuck in the early-morning traffic). They later repeated this stunt on the Jordanian Air Force. After the Israelis had established air supremacy, the Arab countries (who were also militarily incompetant) did not thave a chance.

But you are forgetting about 1973, when the Syrians almost overran the Golan Heights and for a breif time the Israelis thought they would have to use nukes to stop them. The Israelis knew the Egyptans and Syrian were preparing to attack in 1973, as they had known in '67, but did not want to strike premtively again, given the flak they had received for doing so in 1967. Also, the smashing success of the Six Day War had made Israel drunk with overconfidence. On the start of the October War, the Golan Heights was garrisoned with only two armored brigades, the fortified line on the Suez was thinly manned, and many IAF personnel were on leave because of Yom Kippur.

[Ace Pace]

But you are forgetting about 1973, when the Syrians almost overran the Golan Heights and for a breif time the Israelis thought they would have to use nukes to stop them. The Israelis knew the Egyptans and Syrian were preparing to attack in 1973, as they had known in '67, but did not want to strike premtively again, given the flak they had received for doing so in 1967. Also, the smashing success of the Six Day War had made Israel drunk with overconfidence. On the start of the October War, the Golan Heights was garrisoned with only two armored brigades, the fortified line on the Suez was thinly manned, and many IAF personnel were on leave because of Yom Kippur.

Wrong. Israel did not decide not to have a premtitive attack, becuase the information they were attacking was lost in the beuractic shuffle, and after the war there was a inquiry what happened, and the PM allmost lost her job. There WAS overconfidence, and after the suprise, it was mostly earned, since the commanders managed with limited resources to keep the syrians at bay.

On the eve of Yom kippur war, every single fricking Israeli was either in church, or at home, on BOTH fronts (sinai and Golan), people were sent back home.