USS Liberty: Accidental or Deliberate?

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Friday, August 18, 2006 03:16
VIEWED: 5591
PAGE 4 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, August 14, 2006 11:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And I don’t think you are anti-Semitic;

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It’s not my fault your position on the Israelis appears to be bigoted.

Quote:
Instead of accusing me of making statements about your character that I never made, and trying to convince me that Israelis have a preference to kill innocent people because they are psychologically damaged,. . .

How about you don't mention anti-semitism, bigotism, or racism in our discussions about anything Israeli anymore. You know I am none of those things. It is a distraction from the real issues at hand. Thank you.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 14, 2006 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
It's like this, Finn. We are at an impasse. You refuse to answer my questions. I have no way to improve on my answer for yours until you answer mine first.

So here are my questions again. I have reworded some and deleted others to simplify them and hopefully make them clearer.

I think I have quite clearly already answered your questions, so I can only believe that you’re issue here is that you simply don’t like my answers, but I’ll try one more time.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
1. What do the soldiers have to GAIN by lying? (If you read enough eyewitness testimony by enough survivors, you will find many details you cannot explain by calling it "embellishment" or "confusion" or "mistakes." Their stories are in such stark contrast to that of the Israelis that either they are lying or the Israeli govt is lying.)

I have never accused these sailors of lying. You’re the one who is assuming that someone must be lying, not me. The question is moot.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
2. Assuming they are lying, do you think it would be reasonable for someone to conclude, "Unless you can give me a motive for them to lie, it is difficult to argue that they lied."

If you assume they are lying, then the conclusion is drawn, and there is little reason to consider a motive.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
3. The cardinal feature of a hypothesis is that it is falsifiable, that it sets criterion by which it can be proven wrong. Since you call yourself a rational person, is your position falsifiable? Do you have criterion by which you can be proven wrong?

Sure, I do. Do you? The Israelis could have declared war following their attack, like every other country does when they attack and intend to attack. That would have proved me wrong. More pertinent, some motive for the attack, to distinction it from the likelihood of friendly-fire, could surface. I’ve said that all along.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
4. What are your objective standards for distinguishing motives that make sense, and motives that don't make sense? Because without objective standards, you could just be subjectively deciding that NO motives could ever make sense.

I don’t have any official standards for evaluating motives. I use common sense, like everyone else.

So let’s see if you can answer questions, you’ve already ignored this question once, choosing instead to hide behind accusations of anti-Semitic (despite that you can demonstrate no place where I called you anti-Semitic):

You believe that the Israelis prefer killing civilians because, for one, they receive defense money from the US. Yet the US’s stated position (and its foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel is consistent with that position) is that the US doesn’t want Israel killing civilians. So therefore how do you explain why you believe that Israelis prefer killing civilians because they will receive defense money from the US?

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
How about you don't mention anti-semitism, bigotism, or racism in our discussions about anything Israeli anymore. You know I am none of those things. It is a distraction from the real issues at hand. Thank you.

No, of course not, I’m not going to censor certain words. And I believe that you are none of those things, but that's not the same thing as knowing it. I have always viewed you as a rational person, that’s true, but many of your recent argument have shocked me, particularly your position on Israelis. As I’ve told you, I’m not comfortable with some of them. I don’t think you are anti-Semitic or racist, but your arguments on Israelis killing civilians do appear to be bigoted, by definition. I don’t know why. Maybe I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, or more probably you just don’t understand the Arab-Israeli conflict and in the vacuum created by that lack of understanding, Arab propaganda has seated. I think

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, August 14, 2006 2:34 PM

You are still refusing to answer the question. So forget about the sailors. You're hung up with content, while I keep insisting you answer for the logic. So let me try to rephrase the question again.

Answer this: Do you have to prove WHY someone would lie in order to prove THAT he lied?

It goes to the LOGIC (not content) of your demand for a motive before determining whether X happened. (X could be mistaken identity, a lie, etc.) It goes to my point that motive and occurrence are two separate issues and are not dependent on each other.

I have nothing more to say until you address this issue of LOGIC.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 14, 2006 2:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
You are still refusing to answer the question: Is it reasonable, or rational to make this statement?

"Unless you can give me a motive for them to lie, it is difficult to argue that they lied."

It goes to the LOGIC (not content) of your demand for a motive before determining whether X happened. (X could be mistaken identity, a lie, etc.) It goes to my point that motive and occurrence are two separate issues and are not dependent on each other.

I have nothing more to say until you address this issue of LOGIC.

I’ve answered the question three times already. There is nothing logical about ignoring an answer three times in a row, but it’s unfortunately, consistent with the attitudes of people who refuse to listen to anything that doesn’t support what they want to hear. But I’ll answer the question again, and this will likely make the fourth time you will ignore it.

If you assume that they are lying then there is little reason to consider a motive. This is the bases of your misunderstanding. You assume that the Israelis are guilty; therefore, you have no interest in considering a motive. If you assume guilt, a motive becomes irrelevant. You assume the Israelis are guilty because in your eyes, there can be no other conclusion. From your point of view, Israelis are a psychologically damaged people; they prefer killing civilians.

I’ve never demanded that motive and occurrence weren’t two separate things. Motive and occurrence are two separate things. I’ve never denied the occurrence, so your question is moot even in that regard. Motive goes to intent, not occurrence. The question is not whether the event occurred, it most definitely occurred. The question concerns the intent of the Israelis. You’re preconceptions about the Israelis leaves you with little concern for the Israelis intent; that's not terribly logical, I think. I however would like to see a motive, and that is, I believe, a logical request.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, August 14, 2006 3:00 PM

You must have replied while I was editing my post to take the entire question of the the context of the Israelis vs. Liberty survivors.

It is a simple yes or no answer. You still haven't answered.

Yes. Or. No.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Monday, August 14, 2006 3:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
What could possibly be Israels rationale for deliberatly attacking their greatest ally?
I've been thinking a lot about this demand for a motive before being willing to say an action was intentional and deliberate.
Or you could point out that France not the US was Israel's biggest ally at the time, and prior to 1968 the US consistently refused military aid and equipment and even opposed and threatened Israel during some previous actions.

So unless USS Liberty was a French ship you don't need to come up with a rationale for the Israelis deliberately attacking their greatest ally.

From the Wikipedia article referenced by canttakesky:

Quote:

Proponents of the accident explanation add that mistakes were inevitable in the tense atmosphere of the Six-Day War, and that no concrete motive existed for Israel to initiate a surprise attack against a country that was quickly becoming its most powerful and important ally.

Just wanted to clarify my statement since you called it into question. Thanks for keeping me honest, I forgot just how detail oriented some people are in this forum.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 14, 2006 3:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
You must have replied while I was editing my post to take the entire question of the the context of the Israelis vs. Liberty survivors.

It is a simple yes or no answer. You still haven't answered.

Yes. Or. No.

I think I've played this game enough. I've answered your questions, even your trick question about motive, and I've answered them consistently and continuously; you've still refuse to answer my questions or even address my opinion. You run off in a huff when you find yourself unable to respond, after dolling out all kinds of vicious comments towards Israelis. And now you want me to answer a question over and over again, until you get the answer you want to hear. You need to respond to the points I’ve made, and then if we have time, we’ll get back to repeatedly answering your trick question.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Monday, August 14, 2006 3:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
From the Wikipedia article referenced by canttakesky:
Quote:
Proponents of the accident explanation add that mistakes were inevitable in the tense atmosphere of the Six-Day War, and that no concrete motive existed for Israel to initiate a surprise attack against a country that was quickly becoming its most powerful and important ally.
Just wanted to clarify my statement since you called it into question. Thanks for keeping me honest, I forgot just how detail oriented some people are in this forum.

A triumph for post modern analysis...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Monday, August 14, 2006 3:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
What could possibly be Israels rationale for deliberatly attacking their greatest ally?
If you really want to know, read the links I posted. If you have a critique of posited reasons, we can discuss them here.

Okay, let's try to get back on topic here. All quotes have been lifted from the Wikipedia article.

Quote:

Several books and the BBC documentary USS Liberty: Dead in the Water tried to prove Liberty was attacked on purpose. They claim that the ship was attacked to prevent the U.S. from knowing about the forthcoming attack in the Golan Heights, which apparently would violate a cease-fire to which Israel's government had agreed.

If the Americans were not there to witness this attack in the Golan Heights, Who do you think would have been blamed? Besides, the article goes on to disprove this point anyways.

Quote:

Critics claim many of the books and documentaries include incorrect assumptions and use fuzzy reasoning. For example, critics note that a document declassified in 1997 indicated that the U.S. Ambassador at the time had reported on the day of the Liberty attack that he "would not be surprised" by an Israeli attack on Syria, and that the IDF Intelligence chief had told a White House aide then in Israel that "there still remained the Syria problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow," which, the critics argue, indicate that Israel was not trying to conceal the planned invasion of Syria from the U.S.

Quote:

"to cover up a massacre of 1,000 Egyptian prisoners of war" that was supposedly taking place at the same time in the nearby town of El-Arish.

Not to sure how the USS Liberty was going to find out about this considering their distance from the incident and their documented radio problems. Once again, the article mentions this.

Quote:

In any event, the possibility of a ship at sea discovering such a crime on land, at or beyond the limit of its visual range, is questionable (according to U.S. accounts, the ship was 14 nautical miles (26 km) from shore at the time of the attack, and did not get much closer to it previously).

Quote:

In 2003, journalist Peter Hounam wrote Operation Cyanide: How the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III, which proposes a completely different theory regarding the incident. In an attempt to explain why there was no support by U.S. forces as backup, Hounam claims that Israel and U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson had secretly agreed on day four of the Six Day War that Liberty would be sunk with complete loss of life. The attack would be blamed on Egypt, allowing the U.S. in turn to attack Egypt, thus helping out Israel. However, according to Hounam's theory, because the Liberty did not sink after two hours, the plan was quickly reversed, Israel apologized for the case of mistaken identity, and a cover-up put into place.

That's the great thing about conspiracy theories, the lack of concrete proof. That this 'lack of proof' fact is argued away by stating that all notable sources are 'in on it' let's the theorists come up with any story they want.
Wasn't the U.S. already up to their necks in Vietnam? Why would they want another conflict brewing in Egypt? Once again, the article also sets up a conflicting position.

Quote:

The 1981 book Weapons by Russell Warren Howe asserts that Liberty was accompanied by the Polaris submarine USS Andrew Jackson, which filmed the entire episode through its periscope but was unable to provide assistance. According to Howe: "Two hundred feet below the ship, on a parallel course, was its 'shadow'- the Polaris strategic submarine Andrew Jackson, whose job was to take out all the Israeli long-range missile sites in the Negev if Tel Aviv decided to attack Cairo, Damascus or Baghdad. This was in order that Moscow would not have to perform this task itself and thus trigger World War Three."

Now I have put forth three possible motives for a deliberate

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Monday, August 14, 2006 4:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:

First, pattern. See, this wasn't like most friendly fire: Bomb, Oops! This was bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, torpedo, torpedo, machine-gun, machine-gun, ooops. The extended nature and relatively close range of the attack makes the Ooops at the end a little less believable. The Ooops should have come sooner, a lot sooner. The pattern is inconsistent with other friendly fire scenarios.

Second, severity. If they made a mistake in identifying the ship, it means they did not conclusively confirm the flag or the markings of Liberty before firing. Without conclusive confirmation, did it warrant 821 holes in the ship, over 100 of which were rocket-sized? Did it warrant napalm canisters, aircraft cannons, rockets, and 5 torpedos? Did it warrant drive-by machine gun shootings on Liberty's firefighters, stretcher-bearers, and life rafts? If it was a mistake, the severity of the attack was unwarranted and someone should be accountable. The severity was inconsistent with the inconclusive information on which the attack was based.

According to the Wikipedia article, The most loss of life/damage occured from the Israeli torpedo boats. The same ones which were fired upon by the USS Liberty. Not to say that what occured before was not bad, just not as bad.

Quote:

About twenty minutes after the aircraft attack, the ship was approached by three torpedo boats bearing Israeli flags and identification signs. Initially, McGonagle, who perceived that the torpedo boats "were approaching the ship in a torpedo launch attitude,"[1] ordered a machine gun to engage the boats. After recognizing the Israeli standard and seeing apparent Morse code signalling attempts by one of the boats (but being unable to see what was being sent, due to the smoke of the fire started by the earlier aircraft attack), McGonagle gave the order to cease fire. This order was apparently misunderstood in the confusion, and two heavy machine guns opened fire. Subsequently, the Israeli boats responded with fire and launched at least two torpedoes at Liberty (five according to the 1982 IDF History Department report). One hit Liberty on the starboard side forward of the superstructure, creating a large hole in what had been a former cargo hold converted to the ships research spaces, causing the majority of the casualties in the incident.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE