![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...
Having information, and using the information, are two different issues. IMO Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, and his court, had a better understanding of navy operations in war zone than Congress does. If you diagree then please explain why. [Hillel] You call me names and then ask me questions. Why should not I ask an idiot some questions? It amuses me. Hillel, is that a typical Israeli way of interacting with others? Only when they are as clueless as you. (Not an easy thing to do.) Naval operations are not the issue. Israel's Naval operations are the issue. A rear admiral may have some understanding of how foreign navies work in time of war because he learned that in school and had some first hand experience. Such an admiral may also have some understanding of friendly fire; e.g. the bombing of Grayling by B-17s or losing 25 men in the attack on Kiska, Alaska. It is the question of whether Israel intentionally attacked the American ship, No. The job of the court is to: 1) Establish the facts. 2) Check what "story" fits the facts best. The court can even decide that two stories make sense and it can't decide which one is true. (Something like a dead-lock jury.) Such a case is very rare because the court, unlike a jury, can subpoena more data. whether the GOI withheld evidence of war crime actions by members of the IDF, and whether some in the GOUS were complicit in the withholding of that information. ....and if Saturan has five rings or six. The court had to find the best explanations to the facts and it accpeted most of the Israeli version because it fits well with the facts. There is good evidence the US DOS acted to prevent Adm Kidd from going to Israel to investigate the attack as he wished. Admiral Kidd could submit his report with no "final conclusion" and a comment "I can't submit final conclusions because the following data, that can be accessed, is hidden." If Kidd suspected that somebody hid data from his court then it was his right, and *duty*, to write such a comment. You have well founded confidence in the Admiral. Why would the US DOS, acting presumably without objection by LBJ and McNamara, act to overrule the Admiral's judgement and not allow the NCOI to go to Israel? That's between the admiral and the DoS. It is quite possible that the DoS offered him a "good enough" replacement. E.g. it could suggest that Ernest Castle, the United States Naval Attache at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, will collect the data he needed. The admiral could reject such a suggestion, and insist on running the show himself, but he did not see the benefit in that. The coverup of the coverup continues to this day. And next week we will start with the coverup of the coverup of the coverup. Last year at the DOS sponsored seminar the history of the SDW, DOS historian Marc Susser does not appear to have released any documents regarding DOS involvement in the NCOI proceedings. Even if the DoS will release all its documents, you will still continue to shout "cover up." So why even bother? Anyway, every four years or so the US has a new Secretary of State. Just write to each one when he takes office, explain why those documents are so important, and hope that some secretary, who is not a part of the conspiracy, will release them. Do you really believe that Israel could keep such a secret, involving so many people for 37 years? Heck, Hillel. I am of the opinion that Israel has kept secret the full extent of its planning to take the WB from Jordan as part of the inevitable conflict between Israel and the arab states. ....and therefore suggested Jordan on June 5, 1967 to stay out of the war and promised "no harm" in such a case. ....and therefore the paratroopers who attacked Jerusalem had to unload all their equipment from the airplanes that had been supposed to drop them in Sinai. Eshkol's working assumption was that Jordan would stay out, like in 1956. He was wrong. Israel must have anticipated the marked increase in terror attacks from pratically zero before the occupation to what has occured after. There must have been some in the GOI who did not think that more land for Israel was worth the price of those killed by insurgent attacks. What all of that has to do with the ability of Israel to cover up?! To this day, Israel refuses to release crucial facts of the attack on the American ship. And the source of your information is...? How do you know what deals Israel made with the US? Do you want Congress also to publish other information that the US promised to keep secret? (E.g. the condition to US inspections is Dimona was that the US would keep the information secret. Should the US ignore its promise just because it will serve better your political agenda?) BTW and the source of your information is...? This is one item amoung many where Israel's explanations do not answer legitimate questions about the attack. What did the Israeli coastal radar net see when its operators looked at the Liberty? What "Israel coastal radar net" in 1967?! Where did you get that idea? Don't you know that in 1967 the Israeli "navy" was a collection of WWII quality small ships? Israel had a couple of old naval radars, near its bigget navy bases (Haifa and Ashdod), but it did not have a radar that could look over the horizon. How were the IAF controllers able to direct the Kursa attack jets to the Liberty? Was it Yahweh or radar? Arial radar or observations. Welcome to 1967, when some airplanes had radars! What an *IGNORANT* like you can't get is simple navy fighting facts. If you want to sink a ship using 1967 airplanes then you used half iron bombs, just like the US did in Midway. If you want to sink a ship, and cover your ass, then you use submarines, not torpedo boats that display your flag. Hillel, you can call me all the names you want, I just describe your state. You have no clue about the proper use of airplanes against ships, and so you draw the conclusion that it was a well planed attack. Somebody who knows something about the subject, e.g. an admiral, may reach the opposite conclusion. ( according to Israel Shahak, the Talmud instructs Jews to have all sorts of hostility toward Gentiles ) So Shahak is your source. LOL. First, no one knows for sure what the Israelis intended to do with the Liberty. After 37 years of conspiracy theory you can't even agree about that?! Maybe they just wanted to drive the ship away, Firing accross the bow, or bombing nearby, could achieve that. maybe it was just a local operation by IDF commanders concerned their killing of Egyptian prisoners was being witnessed by the American spy ship. Assuming that the POWs murder was done, Liberty could see through the cloud of dust that the war caused (BTW have you ever been on the dunes near El -Arish? I was), and the US embassy could not listen to their communication back to base asking to bomb liberty to help with the cover up. Seriously, how do you think that the forces in Al-Arish communicated home? There was no phone line and smoke signals have a limited range. It appears no one knows for sure. It is much more interesting to see you build your theory first, and every year release just few documents that blow up your theory. That is why Israel has to release its evidence. The evidence will be released because nothing remains secret forever. But I hope that you will commit to some theory first, so the data will make look pretty silly. ( and why Adm Kidd was justified in wanting to bring the NCOI to Israel ) So why the admiral dropped that? I notice you did not respond to my question the involvement of IDF COS Rabin and IAF CDF Hod. According to Israel friendly SDW historian Michael Oren, those two were in on the conversations with the Kursa jets as they approached the Liberty. Why would two generals talk over radio, knowing that some other country probably records it, if their goal is a cover-up? Your data contradicts your own theory. (No big surprise here.) Yet surely, hours prior, they must have been told of the 0800 identification of the American spy ship. Have you ever managed a war on three fronts? Do you really believe that the general gets *ALL* the data? Hillel, who cares what your opinion is. Why does Jay Cristol, author of the book "their blood in the water", ignore and gloss over the entire subject of how the IAF knew of the presence of the Liberty at 0800 on 8 June but collectively forgot this knowledge 6 hours later at 1400 attack time? Because in war **** happens and when you switch shifts some data is lost. BTW the first pilot to attack the Liberty, Yiftah Spector, moved to the Israeli far left lately. Why don't you try to convince him to change his story? Hillel "When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When you don't have the facts, argue the law. And when you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table." -- L.A. Weekly |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message . com...
(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com... Having information, and using the information, are two different issues. IMO Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, and his court, had a better understanding of navy operations in war zone than Congress does. If you diagree then please explain why. [Hillel] You call me names and then ask me questions. Why should not I ask an idiot some questions? It amuses me. Is that the same attitude of the Jews in pre enlightenment Poland who as the tool of the nobility oppressed the peasants? I am glad you are in Israel Hillel. You and the arabs deserve each other. Praise Allah, praise Yahweh! Death to idolators!! It is the question of whether Israel intentionally attacked the American ship, No. The job of the court is to: 1) Establish the facts. 2) Check what "story" fits the facts best. The court can even decide that two stories make sense and it can't decide which one is true. (Something like a dead-lock jury.) Such a case is very rare because the court, unlike a jury, can subpoena more data. Capt Boston on his and Adm Kidd's impression of the evidence heard by the NCOI: "... Each evening, after hearing testimony all day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as "murderous *******s." It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident. ..." There is good evidence the US DOS acted to prevent Adm Kidd from going to Israel to investigate the attack as he wished. Admiral Kidd could submit his report with no "final conclusion" and a comment "I can't submit final conclusions because the following data, that can be accessed, is hidden." If Kidd suspected that somebody hid data from his court then it was his right, and *duty*, to write such a comment. and officers of the IDF, are they obligated to report criminal acts like the intentional crushing of young American protestors in Gaza? Capt Boston writes that Kidd was ordered by his superiors to suppress the evidence. "...Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. Admiral Kidd telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making arrangements. Admiral Kidd later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter. ..." "...I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of "mistaken identity" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. ..." "...Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the court's findings. ..." "...I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement as I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent off to Washington. ..." "... Finally, the testimony of Lt. Painter concerning the deliberate machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews, which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and included in the original transcript, is now missing and has been excised. ..." You have well founded confidence in the Admiral. Why would the US DOS, acting presumably without objection by LBJ and McNamara, act to overrule the Admiral's judgement and not allow the NCOI to go to Israel? That's between the admiral and the DoS. It is quite possible that the DoS offered him a "good enough" replacement. E.g. it could suggest that Ernest Castle, the United States Naval Attache at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, will collect the data he needed. The admiral could reject such a suggestion, and insist on running the show himself, but he did not see the benefit in that. ( Hillel, you dont have to use a lowercase "o" in DOS. After all, its an abbreviation. LoL! ) and who in Israel did Castle interview? Capt Boston writes "...Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. ..." The coverup of the coverup continues to this day. And next week we will start with the coverup of the coverup of the coverup. hey, your country is the entity that is harmed by its refusal to release information. Do you really believe that Israel could keep such a secret, involving so many people for 37 years? Heck, Hillel. I am of the opinion that Israel has kept secret the full extent of its planning to take the WB from Jordan as part of the inevitable conflict between Israel and the arab states. ...and therefore suggested Jordan on June 5, 1967 to stay out of the war and promised "no harm" in such a case. ...and therefore the paratroopers who attacked Jerusalem had to unload all their equipment from the airplanes that had been supposed to drop them in Sinai. From what I gather reading the Oren book on the SDW, Jordan never moved onto Israeli territory. But it does not really matter. Because of the occupation Israel has a never ending and likely escalating conflict on its hands. Are you asserting that these very unfavorable facts on the ground were forced on Israel by Jordan? How stupid are Israelis to fall for such a trick! Israel must have anticipated the marked increase in terror attacks from pratically zero before the occupation to what has occured after. There must have been some in the GOI who did not think that more land for Israel was worth the price of those killed by insurgent attacks. What all of that has to do with the ability of Israel to cover up?! It has to do with the motive for the attack on the Liberty. If those making the decisions in Israel would endanger Israel's security by expanding its borders to include a large number of arabs, then they could similarly motivated to attack their benefactor. This is one item amoung many where Israel's explanations do not answer legitimate questions about the attack. What did the Israeli coastal radar net see when its operators looked at the Liberty? What "Israel coastal radar net" in 1967?! Where did you get that idea? Don't you know that in 1967 the Israeli "navy" was a collection of WWII quality small ships? Israel had a couple of old naval radars, near its bigget navy bases (Haifa and Ashdod), but it did not have a radar that could look over the horizon. How were the IAF controllers able to direct the Kursa attack jets to the Liberty? Was it Yahweh or radar? Arial radar or observations. Welcome to 1967, when some airplanes had radars! Good to know! So Israel had a kind of first generation AWACS system in place during the SDW. The arial radar the IAF controllers used to track the Liberty, was it airborne all morning or just at attack time? Those mysterious repeated overflights of the Liberty the morning of 8 June, were they also augmented by arial radar observations not observed by the Liberty's crew? Why does Israel continue to suppress so much information re the attack? Were IDF COS Rabin and IAF CDR Hod told of the identification of the American spy ship the morning of 8 June? Why are their conversations with the Kursa attack planes missing from the IAF controller transcripts? Why will Israel not release the detailed testimony from its aftermath investigations? -Steve |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...
wrote in message . com... The job of the court is to: 1) Establish the facts. 2) Check what "story" fits the facts best. The court can even decide that two stories make sense and it can't decide which one is true. (Something like a dead-lock jury.) Such a case is very rare because the court, unlike a jury, can subpoena more data. Capt Boston on his and Adm Kidd's impression of the evidence heard by the NCOI: "... Each evening, after hearing testimony all day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as "murderous *******s." So? A good judge may form an opinion after hearing half of the evidence and yet have the integrity to change his opinion after hearing all the evidence. It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident. ..." So why did not they write just that in the report? Why did not Capt Boston refuse to sign the report? (Yes, a judge is allowed to do that.) Did Capt Boston lied by signing a false report 37 years ago, or does he lie now? How can we check if his claims about Johnson and Kidd are true? (Dead people usually refuse to answer questions.) Admiral Kidd could submit his report with no "final conclusion" and a comment "I can't submit final conclusions because the following data, that can be accessed, is hidden." If Kidd suspected that somebody hid data from his court then it was his right, and *duty*, to write such a comment. and officers of the IDF, are they obligated to report criminal acts like the intentional crushing of young American protestors in Gaza? The IDF officers obligation is to Israel, Kidd & Boston obligation was to the US. If they signed a false report, knowing that it was false, then they *FAILED* in their duty. "...Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. Admiral Kidd telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making arrangements. Admiral Kidd later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter. ..." Admiral Kidd could write just that in his report. If he felt, rightly or wrongly, that information was surpressed then he should have reported that. "...I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of "mistaken identity" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. ..." What was the interest of Johnson & McNamara to cover up for Israel? Do you realize that if they did what you say (a big if) then they were guilty of Obstruction of Justice? "...Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the court's findings. ..." ....and he just rolled over and played dead... And you believe that an admiral would do just that without reporting to the military justice system about such Obstruction of Justice. "... Finally, the testimony of Lt. Painter concerning the deliberate machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews, which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and included in the original transcript, is now missing and has been excised. ..." Testimony by whom? Can the person who gave the original testimony verify that? OK, I am getting tired of your bull****. Your "evidence" is about as good as the description of the Dreyfus trial in Anatole France' "Penguin Island." It is too stupid to be even funny. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USS LIBERTY CASE EVIDENCE JUSTIFIES REOPENING | Ewe n0 who | Military Aviation | 0 | April 2nd 04 08:31 PM |
USS LIBERTY CASE EVIDENCE JUSTIFIES REOPENING | Ewe n0 who | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 2nd 04 08:31 PM |
THOMAS MOORER, EX-JOINT CHIEFS CHAIR DIES | Ewe n0 who | Naval Aviation | 4 | February 21st 04 09:01 PM |
THOMAS MOORER, EX-JOINT CHIEFS CHAIR DIES | Ewe n0 who | Military Aviation | 2 | February 12th 04 12:52 AM |
Letter from USS Liberty Survivor | Grantland | Military Aviation | 1 | July 17th 03 03:44 PM |