Remember the USS Liberty? The US and Israel wish you didn't

[Falcon29]

You claim that Israel deliberately attacked US ship and then forced US to shut up.

But if Israel could force US to shut up, what was the point to attack that ship on first place?

Show us where I claimed the second part. As for the first part, I think I just proved it.

From your link:



Ok, they changed stories, now Israel decided to sink an American ship to bring the US into a war that Israel had already won hours previously. Let me guess, they also think Israel was behind 9/11.

In all seriousness, is there any proof of these claims? Everyone claims there is indisputable evidence. Where is this smoking gun? If it's so easy to prove, then prove it. The radio transcripts prove the exact opposite.

I personally stand behind my alien embryo conspiracy theory, and I have indisputable evidence to prove it. I'm just not going to show you.

Here, I'll make it easier for you:

CNN.com - USS Liberty attack tapes released - Jul. 10, 2003

On the tape, after the rescue helicopter pilot tells ground control he sees an American flag on the ship, he receives an order in return.

"They request that you make another pass and check once again whether it is really an American flag," ground control says.

The order suggests the Israelis were surprised at word of a U.S. flag, but it also runs counter to what Israeli fighter pilots and torpedo boat crews have always insisted: That they could not see an American flag.

"Clearly the flag was there," Bamford said, "because the intercepts show that the helicopter pilots saw it immediately, before they ever even got up to the ship."

The ship's flag now hangs in the National Cryptologic Museum in Fort Meade, Maryland, adjacent to NSA headquarters.

"I think this is probably the most important link in the evidence that ought to bring closure to this matter," Cristol said.

....................

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Show us where I claimed the second part. As for the first part, I think I just proved it.



Here, I'll make it easier for you:

CNN.com - USS Liberty attack tapes released - Jul. 10, 2003

On the tape, after the rescue helicopter pilot tells ground control he sees an American flag on the ship, he receives an order in return.

"They request that you make another pass and check once again whether it is really an American flag," ground control says.

The order suggests the Israelis were surprised at word of a U.S. flag, but it also runs counter to what Israeli fighter pilots and torpedo boat crews have always insisted: That they could not see an American flag.

"Clearly the flag was there," Bamford said, "because the intercepts show that the helicopter pilots saw it immediately, before they ever even got up to the ship."

The ship's flag now hangs in the National Cryptologic Museum in Fort Meade, Maryland, adjacent to NSA headquarters.

"I think this is probably the most important link in the evidence that ought to bring closure to this matter," Cristol said.

....................

This is why it's important to go to the primary documents, to get a clear understanding of the chronology. The "journalists" in this article don't challenge or explain anything. Simply put, that helicopter communication occurred after the attack had already stopped, so it's irrelevant if they identified the ship as American. That they were confused about the nationality at that point indicates by simple logic that the fighter pilots in the earlier attack did not know that the ship was American. It's straightforward, please see the last pages of the CIA report for yourself:

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/liberty0667.pdf

Ok, now I've proven through primary documents that it was an accident. Please prove through primary documents that it was intentional.

 

[Falcon29]

This is why it's important to go to the primary documents, to get a clear understanding of the chronology. The "journalists" in this article don't challenge or explain anything. Simply put, that helicopter communication occurred after the attack had already stopped, so it's irrelevant if they identified the ship as American. That they were confused about the nationality at that point indicates by simple logic that the fighter pilots in the earlier attack did not know that the ship was American. It's straightforward, please see the last pages of the CIA report for yourself:

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/liberty0667.pdf

Ok, now I've proven through primary documents that it was an accident. Please prove through primary documents that it was intentional.

Johnson was less worried about restraining Israel at the time. He even distorted the casualty figures. Go look at the statements by his secretary of state. When your done, tell me what conclusion you came to.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Johnson was less worried about restraining Israel at the time. He even distorted the casualty figures. Go look at the statements by his secretary of state. When your done, tell me what conclusion you came to.

Link, please.

 

[Falcon29]

Link, please.

Since I already know you'd dismiss any other source as irrelevant and unreliable, I made sure it better suited you.

"The USS Liberty: Case Closed" | Jewish Virtual Library

These findings notwithstanding, the case of the assault on the Liberty has never been closed. If anything, the accusations leveled against Israel have grown sharper with time. In recent years, an impressive number of former American officials have gone on record insisting that the Israeli action was, in fact, deliberate. These include Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) at the time of the Liberty incident, who has labeled the episode a "cover-up," adding that he "cannot accept the claim by the Israelis that this was a case of mistaken identity."1 Paul C. Warnke, then Under Secretary of the Navy, has written that

• 
  I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on the part of the Israeli air force units.... I suspect that in the heat of battle they figured that the presence of this American ship was inimical to their interests.... 2
  

Similarly, former Secretary of State Dean Rusk has called the attack "outrageous," adding in a 1990 radio interview that "the Liberty was flying an American flag. It was not all that difficult to identify, and my judgment was that somewhere along the line some fairly senior Israeli official gave the go- ahead for these attacks...."3 David G. Nes, who at the time served as deputy head of the American mission in Cairo, puts it more bluntly: "I don't think that there's any doubt that it was deliberate.... [It is] one of the great cover-ups of our military history."4 And George Ball, then Under Secretary of State, has called the American government's response to the assault an "elaborate charade.... American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of its citizens."5

...................................

 

[500]

Show us where I claimed the second part. As for the first part, I think I just proved it.

So you are saying that Israel can force US to shut up.

But before you said that:

Many people have suggested it was about intelligence the US had on Israeli plans to seize Arab territories.

So what was the point to attack that ship for some "intelligence", if Israel can force US to shut up anyway?

 

[Falcon29]

So you are saying that Israel can force US to shut up.

But before you said that:

So what was the point to attack that ship for some "intelligence", if Israel can force US to shut up anyway?

Again, show us where I said that. If it's a lunatic conspiracy theory then you wouldn't be worried about this thread. If people can find facts and statements that agree with the Israeli narrative, you wouldn't be here.

But, since facts and statements point to a whole other narrative, you're going insane and trying to put words in my mouth. Nevertheless, sources are available for the people who want to read into it.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Since I already know you'd dismiss any other source as irrelevant and unreliable, I made sure it better suited you.

"The USS Liberty: Case Closed" | Jewish Virtual Library

These findings notwithstanding, the case of the assault on the Liberty has never been closed. If anything, the accusations leveled against Israel have grown sharper with time. In recent years, an impressive number of former American officials have gone on record insisting that the Israeli action was, in fact, deliberate. These include Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) at the time of the Liberty incident, who has labeled the episode a "cover-up," adding that he "cannot accept the claim by the Israelis that this was a case of mistaken identity."1 Paul C. Warnke, then Under Secretary of the Navy, has written that

• 
  I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on the part of the Israeli air force units.... I suspect that in the heat of battle they figured that the presence of this American ship was inimical to their interests.... 2

Similarly, former Secretary of State Dean Rusk has called the attack "outrageous," adding in a 1990 radio interview that "the Liberty was flying an American flag. It was not all that difficult to identify, and my judgment was that somewhere along the line some fairly senior Israeli official gave the go- ahead for these attacks...."3 David G. Nes, who at the time served as deputy head of the American mission in Cairo, puts it more bluntly: "I don't think that there's any doubt that it was deliberate.... [It is] one of the great cover-ups of our military history."4 And George Ball, then Under Secretary of State, has called the American government's response to the assault an "elaborate charade.... American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of its citizens."5

...................................

Thank you for the link, I always appreciate learning more. As long as it's from a mainstream source, I'm comfortable reviewing it--I don't know anything about this website, but since the article was written by Michael Oren, it seems reputable enough. Primary sources are best, of course, and his article is well-annotated.

From your link:

Consequently, the IDF Chief of Staff, Gen. Yitzhak Rabin, informed the U.S. Naval Attaché in Tel Aviv, Cmdr. Ernest Carl Castle, that Israel would defend its coast with every means at its disposal. Unidentified vessels would be sunk, Rabin advised; the United States should either acknowledge its ships in the area or remove them.15 Nonetheless, the Americans provided Israel with no information on theLiberty. The United States had also rejected Israel's request for a formal naval liaison. On May 31, Avraham Harman, Israel's ambassador to Washington, had warned Under Secretary of State Eugene V. Rostow that "if war breaks out, we would have no telephone number to call, no code for plane recognition, and no way to get in touch with the U.S. Sixth Fleet."16

Before dawn on June 8, three days into the war, the Liberty finally reached its destination, barely within international waters north of the Sinai coast. Plying at a speed of five knots between Port Said and Gaza, the Liberty entered a lane rarely used by commercial freighters, which Egypt had declared closed to neutral vessels. Anxious about his proximity to the fighting, McGonagle asked the Sixth Fleet commander, Vice-Adm. William Martin, for permission to pull back from the shore, or else to be provided with a destroyer escort. Martin rejected these requests, noting that the Liberty "is a clearly marked United States ship in international waters and not a reasonable subject for attack by any nation."

Unbeknownst to both Martin and McGonagle, however, the JCS had repeatedly cabled the Liberty the previous night with instructions to withdraw to a distance of one hundred miles from the Egyptian and Israeli coasts. The transmission was delayed, however, by the navy's overloaded, overly complex communication system, which routed messages as far east as the Philippines before relaying them to their destinations. The JCS' orders would not be received by the Liberty until the following day, June 9, by which time they would no longer be relevant.17

Look, I mourn the loss of our sailors, but friendly fire (even though it would be incorrect to classify it as such, since Israel and the US were not allied at the time) is a fact of war. A tragic mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. If you have primary documents proving that Israel attacked the US ship intentionally, I would be interested in reading them, but until then, the only "proof" is the insistence of various individuals that they "know" what happened. Any of the following could provide a smoking gun:

1) Communication between Israeli pilots and ground control to shoot Americans, or shoot after identifying the ship as American
2) Communication from the US government to Israel to cease attacking, and Israel attacks anyway
3) Documents showing a secret Israeli plot to harm US interests in 1967

Anything other than that is pure speculation. I don't blame the sailors for being angry over the attack, but I expect better of those who are external to the event. That said, I am open minded if you are able to furnish proof of your claims.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

The guy in the video has a story on this website Ernie Gallo

The last part of his story matches the CNN transcripts

"About that time, Israeli helicopters hovered near the ship and repel boarders were ordered. However, for whatever reason, their attack was called off and all hostilities ceased. I personally risked going topside to ascertain what was happening and saw two Israeli helicopters carrying armed marines."

Obviously they saw the flag.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

The guy in the video has a story on this website Ernie Gallo

The last part of his story matches the CNN transcripts

"About that time, Israeli helicopters hovered near the ship and repel boarders were ordered. However, for whatever reason, their attack was called off and all hostilities ceased. I personally risked going topside to ascertain what was happening and saw two Israeli helicopters carrying armed marines."

Obviously they saw the flag.

Indeed, they saw the flag and stopped the attack once they realized their mistake.

 

[Falcon29]

Thank you for the link, I always appreciate learning more. As long as it's from a mainstream source, I'm comfortable reviewing it--I don't know anything about this website, but since the article was written by Michael Oren, it seems reputable enough. Primary sources are best, of course, and his article is well-annotated.

Sure.

Look, I mourn the loss of our sailors

I realize that.

If you have primary documents proving that Israel attacked the US ship intentionally, I would be interested in reading them, but until then, the only "proof" is the insistence of various individuals that they "know" what happened. Any of the following could provide a smoking gun:

Anything other than that is pure speculation. I don't blame the sailors for being angry over the attack, but I expect better of those who are external to the event. That said, I am open minded if you are able to furnish proof of your claims.

Take a look at this:

New revelations in attack on American spy ship - Page 5 - Chicago Tribune

Perhaps the most persuasive suggestion that such transcripts existed comes from the Israelis themselves, in a pair of diplomatic cables sent by the Israeli ambassador in Washington, Avraham Harman, to Foreign Minister Abba Eban in Tel Aviv.

Five days after the Liberty attack, Harman cabled Eban that a source the Israelis code-named "Hamlet" was reporting that the Americans had "clear proof that from a certain stage the pilot discovered the identity of the ship and continued the attack anyway."

Harman repeated the warning three days later, advising Eban, who is now dead, that the White House was "very angry," and that "the reason for this is that the Americans probably have findings showing that our pilots indeed knew that the ship was American."

According to a memoir by then-CIA director Richard Helms, President Johnson's personal anger was manifest when he discovered the story of the Liberty attack on an inside page of the next day's New York Times. Johnson barked that "it should have been on the front page!"

Israeli historian Tom Segev, who mentioned the cables in his recent book "1967," said other cables showed that Harman's source for the second cable was Arthur Goldberg, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

The cables, which have been declassified by the Israelis, were obtained from the Israeli State Archive and translated from Hebrew by the Tribune.

..................

Why doesn't the NSA gave us recordings preceding the attack?

On its Web site, the NSA has posted three recordings of Israeli communications made on June 8, 1967. But none of the recordings is of the attack itself.

Indeed, the declassified documents state that no recordings of the "actual attack" exist, raising questions about the source of the transcripts recalled by Forslund, Gotcher, Block, Porter, Lang and Kirby.

The three recordings reflect what the NSA describes as "the aftermath" of the attack -- Israeli communications with two Israeli helicopters dispatched to rescue any survivors who may have jumped into the water.

.................

^^^^

Same source from Chicago Tribune.

........
Israeli declassified transcripts:

That transcript, made by a Post reporter who was allowed to listen to what the Israeli Air Force said were tapes of the attacking pilots' communications, contained only two references to "American" or "Americans," one at the beginning and the other at the end of the attack.

The first reference occurred at 1:54 p.m. local time, two minutes before the Israeli jets began their first strafing run.

In the Post transcript, a weapons system officer on the ground suddenly blurted out, "What is this? Americans?"

"Where are Americans?" replied one of the air controllers.

The question went unanswered, and it was not asked again.

Twenty minutes later, after the Liberty had been hit repeatedly by machine guns, 30 mm cannon and napalm from the Israelis' French-built Mirage and Mystere fighter-bombers, the controller directing the attack asked his chief in Tel Aviv to which country the target vessel belonged.

"Apparently American," the chief controller replied.

Fourteen minutes later the Liberty was struck amidships by a torpedo from an Israeli boat, killing 26 of the 100 or so NSA technicians and specialists in Russian and Arabic who were working in restricted compartments below the ship's waterline.

.....................................

The guy in the video has a story on this website Ernie Gallo

The last part of his story matches the CNN transcripts

"About that time, Israeli helicopters hovered near the ship and repel boarders were ordered. However, for whatever reason, their attack was called off and all hostilities ceased. I personally risked going topside to ascertain what was happening and saw two Israeli helicopters carrying armed marines."

Obviously they saw the flag.

Check post #41, don't come quick to conclusions. From your own link also...he also said this:

The Navy told the Liberty survivors never to talk about the attack to anyone including our families or face a $10,000 fine and/or 10 years imprisonment. With a cold and matter of fact authoritarian counsel, they meant business. The Navy would handle the press. In other words, the crew was given a gag order. At the same time, the crew had to be made to feel that everything was OK and being done by the book. So, the brave were honored and appropriate medals issued. Everything appeared on the up and up.

Indeed, they saw the flag and stopped the attack once they realized their mistake.

You said you were open to understanding but are insisting that it was a tragic mistake. I don't know what to make out of it yet.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

The Navy told the Liberty survivors never to talk about the attack to anyone including our families or face a $10,000 fine and/or 10 years imprisonment.

That's ridiculous. What are they going to charge them in court with....not lying?

Law 200243.b123
"The charge for not lying is $10,000 fine or 10 years in jail."

oh ok.

 

[Falcon29]

That's ridiculous. What are they going to charge them in court with....not lying?

Law 200243.b123
"The charge for not lying is $10,000 fine or 10 years in jail."

oh ok.

That's his claim, so you only believe a portion of his story is true(The part that suits your narrative) but not the rest. Okay.

Look at my post though, check the link out.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

That's his claim, so you only believe a portion of his story is true(The part that suits your narrative) but not the rest. Okay.

Look at my post though, check the link out.

Its like the people who see UFO's and say they can't say anything because they face 10 years in prison and/or a fine. I'd like to see the law on the books that deals with UFO fines/charges.
I'd like to be a juror in that case. Like he would be found guilty.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Sure.



I realize that.




Take a look at this:

New revelations in attack on American spy ship - Page 5 - Chicago Tribune

Perhaps the most persuasive suggestion that such transcripts existed comes from the Israelis themselves, in a pair of diplomatic cables sent by the Israeli ambassador in Washington, Avraham Harman, to Foreign Minister Abba Eban in Tel Aviv.

Five days after the Liberty attack, Harman cabled Eban that a source the Israelis code-named "Hamlet" was reporting that the Americans had "clear proof that from a certain stage the pilot discovered the identity of the ship and continued the attack anyway."

Harman repeated the warning three days later, advising Eban, who is now dead, that the White House was "very angry," and that "the reason for this is that the Americans probably have findings showing that our pilots indeed knew that the ship was American."

According to a memoir by then-CIA director Richard Helms, President Johnson's personal anger was manifest when he discovered the story of the Liberty attack on an inside page of the next day's New York Times. Johnson barked that "it should have been on the front page!"

Israeli historian Tom Segev, who mentioned the cables in his recent book "1967," said other cables showed that Harman's source for the second cable was Arthur Goldberg, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

The cables, which have been declassified by the Israelis, were obtained from the Israeli State Archive and translated from Hebrew by the Tribune.

..................

Why doesn't the NSA gave us recordings preceding the attack?

On its Web site, the NSA has posted three recordings of Israeli communications made on June 8, 1967. But none of the recordings is of the attack itself.

Indeed, the declassified documents state that no recordings of the "actual attack" exist, raising questions about the source of the transcripts recalled by Forslund, Gotcher, Block, Porter, Lang and Kirby.

The three recordings reflect what the NSA describes as "the aftermath" of the attack -- Israeli communications with two Israeli helicopters dispatched to rescue any survivors who may have jumped into the water.

.................

^^^^

Same source from Chicago Tribune.

........
Israeli declassified transcripts:

That transcript, made by a Post reporter who was allowed to listen to what the Israeli Air Force said were tapes of the attacking pilots' communications, contained only two references to "American" or "Americans," one at the beginning and the other at the end of the attack.

The first reference occurred at 1:54 p.m. local time, two minutes before the Israeli jets began their first strafing run.

In the Post transcript, a weapons system officer on the ground suddenly blurted out, "What is this? Americans?"

"Where are Americans?" replied one of the air controllers.

The question went unanswered, and it was not asked again.

Twenty minutes later, after the Liberty had been hit repeatedly by machine guns, 30 mm cannon and napalm from the Israelis' French-built Mirage and Mystere fighter-bombers, the controller directing the attack asked his chief in Tel Aviv to which country the target vessel belonged.

"Apparently American," the chief controller replied.

Fourteen minutes later the Liberty was struck amidships by a torpedo from an Israeli boat, killing 26 of the 100 or so NSA technicians and specialists in Russian and Arabic who were working in restricted compartments below the ship's waterline.

.....................................



Check post #41, don't come quick to conclusions.



You said you were open to understanding but are insisting that it was a tragic mistake. I don't know what to make out of it yet.

From your link:

2:14 p.m. The chief Israeli air controller in Tel Aviv tells the controller who is directing the attack on the Liberty that the ship is "apparently American."

2:20 p.m. The Israeli naval commander orders the commander of the Torpedo Boat Division to attack the Liberty. At almost the same time, the Naval Operations Branch orders: "Do not attack. It is possible that the aircraft have not identified correctly." The commander of the Torpedo Boat Division says he never got any order to cease the attack, although the deputy commander says he passed the message to the commander.

This would indicate continued confusion. The US had trouble with its own communications--is it possible the Israelis did as well?

I will admit that I am troubled by all of the claims made in that Chicago Tribune article. If true, they are disturbing, and it would be good to know what the purpose of such an attack was. That said, the tapes are missing, and mysteriously, so are the transcripts. The interviewees in this article are trying to recall events that happened 40 years prior. I'm not saying they are lying, but between the NSA, the CIA, and diplomatic cables, why hasn't any hard evidence come to light? From your article:

Indeed, the declassified documents state that no recordings of the "actual attack" exist, raising questions about the source of the transcripts recalled by Forslund, Gotcher, Block, Porter, Lang and Kirby.

My inclination in all of these kinds of cases is to give the benefit of the doubt--i.e. believe that it was a mistake. Friendly fire happens often enough that it's difficult to dismiss this claim out of hand, and most friendly fire incidents are of an army firing on its own soldiers. For Israel to fire mistakenly on an undeclared third party (especially after that third party refused to declare its ships ahead of time) in the middle of war is certainly believable.

Without hard proof, it's hard for me to change my position on this. Think of it as the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent." At the moment, I think Israel was "not guilty," but hardly innocent.

By the way, good find with the article.