USS Liberty: Accidental or Deliberate?

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Friday, August 18, 2006 03:16
VIEWED: 5591
PAGE 3 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, August 14, 2006 3:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No one compared you to the Nazis, so climb down off your cross. It’s not my fault your position on the Israelis appears to be bigoted.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal to CTS on the "Get Real" thread:
First of all, your assertion that Israel as a people holds a policy of targeting civilians to satiate their collective hatred seems to close to an ethnic slur for me to be comfortable with. It sounds too much like the “baby-killing Jew” popularized by the Nazis. . .
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=22875&m=358212#358212

Incidentally, here is my response again: I never asserted any such thing. I never said Israel as a people. I never said that they had a policy of targeting civilians. In fact I made it a point to clarify that they didn't have a policy, and the motives I was speaking of were that of their LEADERS.

-------
"Maybe she's a lazy hooker. They can't all have hearts of gold and good work ethics." -- Jaye in Wonderfalls

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, August 14, 2006 3:20 AM

Quote:
It’s unclear that Israeli jamming occurred. Contrary to common myth, this is not a resolved issue, and remains controversial with some problematic discontinuities in the evidence.

Upon review, this is a flat lie, and furthermore, I suspect you knew this was the case when you typed it.

All FIVE of the Liberties normal operating frequencies were jammed, as well as BOTH international distress frequencies, those being 500kHz and 2182kHz, fyi.

The only time said jamming let up was during missle targeting runs by the attacking planes, presumably as to not hose their own targeting equipment via signal bleedover.

Finding of Fact #48 on the NCOI transcripts is that said jamming did occur, and this is also the position of Oliver Kirby, the NSA Sigint/Elint guy technically in charge of the USS Liberty's mission.

That means the Court of Inquiry concluded also, that said jamming did occur.

The only contrary account is by, once again, the same and only source of contrary accounts, this Cristol guy, who has a terrible reputation, little to no credibility, and what appears to be a personal axe to grind over this.

So, you have tons of easily-researchable evidence, that anyone with the slightest interest could find in about one minute with a common search engine, all of it confirming the jamming did occur, and a single wholly-discredited source that's one step short of a laughingstock, that says it didn't.

I think you lied to us Finn, and knowingly so - and I would like to know why.
Care to explain ?

-Frem

SOUPCATCHER

Monday, August 14, 2006 4:11 AM

Just an observation. The US has gone to war with countries for incidents that were a lot less provocative.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 14, 2006 4:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Please do not segue into details of the testimonies or possible motives--I am not looking for whether you think they are lies or what you think the motive is. I am looking for logical consistency to your assertion that motive must be known before arguing whether an event occurred. I want you to put yourself in the shoes you have placed me, and tell me if you think it is reasonable. I believe we need to get this motive hangup out of the way before we can talk about the other issues clearly.

Well, I’m not sure why you think you are entitled to a response that you refused to give me in the previous thread. 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, maybe you should have just admitted up front that you don’t really understand the Arab-Israeli conflict. A lot of people don’t.

I don’t understand everything about the Liberty incident, and neither do people who are experts on it. I don’t understand the timeline of events or certain testimonies. Now I suspect, that if you have dehumanized the Israelis into a bunch of psychopaths with preferences for innocent blood, it’s probably easy for you to dismiss some of the inconsistencies here, like the lack of an Israeli motive or the failed communication with Liberty prior to the incident. I’ve met Israelis, talked with them. I’ve never come across with the impression they would ever prefer killing civilians or Americans. Some of them were pretty nice, others were dicks, but that’s pretty much how I’ve seen everyone.

I don’t think former crewmen Hrankowski is lying. I think he probably did hear the Israelis identify the Liberty. Just because one Israeli sortie identified the Liberty doesn’t mean others did. And we know that one did. That wasn’t necessarily one that attacked the Liberty. Ideally, the presents of an American vessel off the coast of Egypt should have been taken into considered by the Israeli central command in target selection, but in the real world that kind of real time Command and Control is difficult even for Modern militaries. Back in 1967, it was a glass map of the theater of operations and some little pawns, or maybe just a dry-erase marker. There are plenty of ways that mistakes could have happened without assuming that the crewman of the Liberty were lying, and I certainly don’t make that assumption.

But if you do assume they are lying then one likely motive is that they are very bitter at having been attacked by an ally and perhaps even more bitter that their government appears, at times, to have ignored them. The US government definitely underplayed the whole event publicly, because they didn’t want the incident to attract attention of the American public. That bitterness might lead them to embellish or overstate their confidence in the events they remember. Furthermore, events in combat are frequently confused and one need not even assume that a crewman is lying to suspect his response might differ from the actual events. Eyewitness testimony is not always conclusive. If it were, then the Loch Ness Monster would be a fact. But as I said, I don’t assume the crewmen of the Liberty are lying about anything. They have their perspective, most of which has been pivotal in reconstructing the event, but too many questions remain for me to be certain that the incident wasn’t a mistake.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 14, 2006 4:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Just an observation. The US has gone to war with countries for incidents that were a lot less provocative.

The Spanish-American War comes to mind.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 14, 2006 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I think you lied to us Finn, and knowingly so - and I would like to know why.
Care to explain ?

You want me to explain to you why you think I lied? I have no idea why you think I lied.

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 14, 2006 5:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Incidentally, here is my response again: I never asserted any such thing. I never said Israel as a people. I never said that they had a policy of targeting civilians. In fact I made it a point to clarify that they didn't have a policy, and the motives I was speaking of were that of their LEADERS.

I didn’t compare you to the Nazis; I compared a statement you made to Nazi propaganda. And I don’t think you are anti-Semitic; I think that you just don’t understand the Arab-Israeli Conflict. But that’s common. Many people don’t understand it. Some of the same people who insist that Jews “stole” land from the Arabs will turn around and call someone racist for opposing Mexican illegal immigration to the US.

Also an anti-Semitic statement is just as anti-Semitic if it is applied to the population or to the “leaders” or an individual. It doesn’t make any different whom you’re talking about. Just FYI, it still doesn’t mean I’m calling you anti-Semitic.

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 5:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Attacking ones allies happens too often

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_French_Fleet_at_Mers-e
l-Kebir

1297 French sailors were killed and about 350 were wounded.

The British Admiral Somerville was less enthusiastic about the action saying that it was “the biggest political blunder of modern times and will rouse the whole world against us…we all feel thoroughly ashamed…”

A slightly different circumstance I think. The Royal Navy wanted to prevent those ships from falling into enemy hands, the French weren't willing to scuttle them themselves so.

Do you think perhaps it would have been better to let them join the German Navy?

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.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, August 14, 2006 5:49 AM

I agree. That’s not the same thing as friendly fire or declaring war on an ally. The British were, in point of fact, not attacking an ally, because when the French surrendered they became an extension of Germany.

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 11:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Well, I’m not sure why you think you are entitled to a response that you refused to give me in the previous thread.

I said very clearly, I am not asking for a motive. I asked my questions, enumerated clearly in black and white, and even underlined. You refuse to answer.

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.

-------QUESTIONS FOR FINN--------

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.)

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."

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?

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.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE