|
| 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 |
|
#11
July 10th 04, 08:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
HE MEANS in that theater of war ASS CLOWN!! -- "I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly" R.J. Goldman http://www.usidfvets.com and http://www.stopfcc.com "Issac Goldberg" wrote in message m... wrote: Operation Cyanide: after the Liberty was sunk, and after Egypt had been framed, the US would drop a nuclear bomb on Egypt. Nasser would be gone. If that was the goal, then Israel made (at least...) six mistakes: 1) Attack with a Mirage, a plane with a unique shape that only Israel had. Only Israel had the Mirage? Didn't France have any, or was the entire production run of Mirages sold to Israel? And wasn't France in on the 1956 attack on Egypt? It could have been a repeat performance by France. Your assertion that only Israel had Mirages is obviously wrong. The Mirage which attacked the Liberty did not have any identification, since the Israelis painted over identifying markings. That is why the first goal of the Israeli attack was to take out Liberty's communications. Israel was successful in destroying the antennas on Liberty's deck, but Liberty radiomen were able to jury-rig an antenna and send a message out, which was the only thing that saved the Liberty. Israeli attempts to jam all of Liberty's known radio frequencies failed. 2) Attack with the wrong weapon. For sinking ships you need half iron bombs, like the US used in Midway, not NAPLAM. It was decided that the Israeli navy, still in its infancy, would have the 'honor' of sinking the Liberty. The fact that the first four torpedoes missed shows that the Israeli navy needed more practice. 3) Attack with a single plane. The Israeli air force successfully took all of Liberty's above board antennas out of action. And since one of the antenna was a rather large and unique satellite dish, there could be no mistaking the Liberty for an Egyptian horse transport. If Egypt had equipped a horse transport with a satellite dish, the Israeli air force would have sunk such a ship on the first day of the war. 4) Leave the Liberty enough time to report the first attack, that could not be blamed on the Egyptian air force in that point. Only the success by the Liberty radiomen in jury rigging an antenna allowed the radio message to be sent. According to the Liberty radiomen, Israel did attempt to jam all of Liberty's known radio frequencies, but the jamming failed because Liberty radoimen were able to find a usable frequency that was not jammed. 5) Attacking with boats that displayed the Israeli flag. Operation Cyanide depended on taking out all of Liberty's communications ability during the initial surprise air attack. If Liberty could not get a message out, then it did not matter if the boats displayed the Israeli flag. 6) Not finishing the attack by a couple more torpedeos. Israel intercepted a message that American aircraft had been launched from aircraft carriers and were headed towards the Liberty. Instead of risking exposure, the entire operation was called off. A submarine surprise attack, using 4 torpedeos at once, would be a much better method for framing Egypt. So you agree that it was possible that Operation Cyanide intended to frame Egypt. Did the Israeli navy even have submarines in 1967? In fact, one of the planes that LBJ had recalled was armed with a nuclear bomb. First, LBJ ordered nothing of the kind. You cannot prove that, since it is impossible to prove a negative. Which is the base for your never ending bull****. The fact that you need to resort to obscenities shows that you are not very secure with your arguments. If you had a strong case, it would stand on its own, without the need for insults, name calling and/or obscenities. We hear lawyer-talk like 'Congress investigated the attack five times and found no evidence that the attack was intentional.' But since Congress never conducted an in-depth investigation devoted to the attack on the Liberty, it found no evidence one way or another since CONGRESS NEVER INVESTIGATED WHETHER THE ATTACK ON THE LIBERTY WAS INTENTIONAL. It could just as accurately have been said that Congress found no evidence to show that the attack on the Liberty was an accident. See how easy it is to use weasel words? 
|
|
#12
July 10th 04, 08:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
notice how you continue to lie and post lies in your never ending effort to
put Jews in a bad light! notice you continue to post lies in the effort to make your Arab paycheck bigger!! -- "I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly" R.J. Goldman http://www.usidfvets.com and http://www.stopfcc.com "Issac Goldberg" wrote in message om... ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote: (Issac Goldberg) wrote: We hear lawyer-talk like 'Congress investigated the attack five times and found no evidence that the attack was intentional.' But since Congress never conducted an in-depth investigation devoted to the attack on the Liberty, it found no evidence one way or another since CONGRESS NEVER INVESTIGATED WHETHER THE ATTACK ON THE LIBERTY WAS INTENTIONAL. It could just as accurately have been said that Congress found no evidence to show that the attack on the Liberty was an accident. See how easy it is to use weasel words? Notice how the weasel ... Notice how Weeks cannot avoid a personal attack. I guess he realizes how weak his arguments are. If he had strong arguments, he would not need to make personal attacks, or use name calling and insults, or repeatedly use dishonest tactics, like implying that Congress investigated the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional. ... turns everything on its head, in his black-is-white world. Here in the USA one has to bring credible evidence to the table if you're going to go out and make charges and have any crediblity ... All the material going to Congress never indicated that the IDF attacked this ship, knowing her to be US, let alone one named the USS Liberty. What material are you talking about? Are you saying Congress did investigate whether the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional? Which Congressional committee conducted that investigation? Why doesn't Cristol list that investigation on his web site instead of the two Congressional investigations which obviously did NOT look into the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional? You could have just as easily said that all the material going to Congress never indicated that the IDF attack was an accident. It looks like you are the one who sees the world as black-is-white. If you are going to say Congress did investigate whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional you need to bring credible evidence to the table if you're going to have any credibility ... Lack of evidence is exactly that -- lack of evidence. So where is your evidence that Congress held hearings on the question of whether the attack was intentional? We are still waiting for your answer. Where is the Committee's report? No hearings + no report = no investigation. Lack of evidence is exactly that - lack of evidence. But what the heck, let's even claim this attack was a joint US-Israeli operation as this poster does and really muddy the waters ... From a story which appeared in the Washington Post: 'Asked on camera by the BBC about Operation Cyanide, Rafi Eitan, who was with the Israeli secret service in 1967, smiled cryptically and said: "I know what I am able to tell you and where I have to stop. And here I stop." 'When the same interviewers questioned former CIA chief Helms on camera, he confirmed the covert function of the 303 Committee but said, "You'll have to ask McNamara" about Operation Cyanide. When Robert McNamara, secretary of defense in 1967, was asked on camera about Operation Cyanide, he replied, "I won't say a word about the Liberty." Why?' http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...¬Found=true
|
|
#13
July 10th 04, 09:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Read the book. or do you need to be spoon fed!
-- "I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly" R.J. Goldman http://www.usidfvets.com and http://www.stopfcc.com "Issac Goldberg" wrote in message om... ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote: (Issac Goldberg) wrote: All the material going to Congress never indicated that the IDF attacked this ship, knowing her to be US, let alone one named the USS Liberty. What material are you talking about? Are you saying Congress did investigate whether the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional? Which Congressional committee conducted that investigation? Read Cristol's book, chapter 12: "America Investigates." A nice evasion. I ask which Committee, and Weeks again says, "read Cristol." [The reason Weeks needed to evade my question is because Congress NEVER held an investigation which looked into the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional or not. And I'm sure in response to this post, Weeks will again evade the question and respond with even more insults, name calling and character assassination. It's what he does best.] Here are some comments by Senators at one of the alleged investigations cited by Cristol, the hearings on the Foreign Assistance Act of 1967, held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1967 (after the Kidd inquiry had issued its report): start Senator Hickenlooper: I think it was a deliberate assault on this ship. I think they had ample opportunity to identify it as an American ship. I may be utterly wrong, but I do recall that some time ago we had some difficulties in the Bay of Tonkin where at night without full identification or really full proof it was assumed that certain torpedo boats made rather menacing approaches to one of our destroyers and we rushed over here with the Tonkin Bay resolution right away. A war was unleashed. What have we done about the Liberty? Have we become so placid, so far as Israel is concerned or so far as that area is concerned, that we will take the killing of 37 American boys and the wounding of a lot more and the attack of an American ship in the open sea in good weather? We have seemed to say: "Oh, well, boys will be boys." What are you going to do about it! It is most offensive to me. Senator Hickenlooper: It is inconceivable to me that the ship could not have been identified. According to everything I saw the American flag was flying on this ship. It had a particular configuration. Even a landlubber could look at it and see that it has no characteristic configuration comparable to the so-called Egyptian ship they now try to say they mistook it for. If these people were as well trained as they allege they are, and did what they did, I donâ?Tt know. It just doesnâ?Tt add up to me. It is not at all satisfactory. Senator Aiken: I think, not only the committee, but the public wants better information than they have had so far. Senator Hickenlooper: The public is thoroughly dissatisfied with the situation. I donâ?Tt know. It is the seemingly cavalier attitude expressed by Israel in some ways apparently accepted by us on a very tragic situation. I think there is utterly no excuse for it. end If this is your best evidence that Congress thoroughly investigated whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional or not, both you and Cristol have thoroughly discredited yourselves. But prove me wrong, tell me which Congressional Committee held hearings and investigated whether the attack on the Liberty was an accident.
|
|
#14
July 10th 04, 09:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
ROFLOL if you really think that these were carrier based ask .
they will tell you if the Mirage III was able to be carrier based or not. I never saw a tail hook on any in the IAF stocks -- "I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly" R.J. Goldman http://www.usidfvets.com and http://www.stopfcc.com "Issac Goldberg" wrote in message om... wrote in message . com... (Issac Goldberg) wrote in message om... wrote: If that was the goal, then Israel made (at least...) six mistakes: 1) Attack with a Mirage, a plane with a unique shape that only Israel had. Only Israel had the Mirage? Didn't France have any, or was the entire production run of Mirages sold to Israel? A Mirage could not fly from France to Al-Arish, you idiot. Ever hear of a thing called an aircraft carrier? The fact that you need to resort to name calling indicates that you feel your arguments are too weak to stand on their own. If you were confident in your assertions, there would be no need to engage in name calling.
|
|
#16
July 11th 04, 06:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
Read the book. The same response as Weeks. I ask which Committee, Goldman says 'read the book.' It was a nice evasion when Weeks used that response, but Goldman adds nothing new, he just repeats Weeks. In effect, he said 'me, too.' Congress NEVER held an investigation which looked into the question of whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional or not. If Goldman is aware of a Congressional Committee that did hold hearings on whether the attack on the Liberty was an accident or not, I invite him to share that knowledge. If that Committee issued a report, let us know about it. But if all you have are insults, name calling and evasions, then you are just a carbon copy of Weeks. "Issac Goldberg" wrote (Mike Weeks) wrote: (Issac Goldberg) wrote: All the material going to Congress never indicated that the IDF attacked this ship, knowing her to be US, let alone one named the USS Liberty. What material are you talking about? Are you saying Congress did investigate whether the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional? Which Congressional committee conducted that investigation? Read Cristol's book, chapter 12: "America Investigates." A nice evasion. I ask which Committee, and Weeks again says, "read Cristol." Here are some comments by Senators at one of the alleged investigations cited by Cristol, the hearings on the Foreign Assistance Act of 1967, held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1967 (after the Kidd inquiry had issued its report): start Senator Hickenlooper: I think it was a deliberate assault on this ship. I think they had ample opportunity to identify it as an American ship. I may be utterly wrong, but I do recall that some time ago we had some difficulties in the Bay of Tonkin where at night without full identification or really full proof it was assumed that certain torpedo boats made rather menacing approaches to one of our destroyers and we rushed over here with the Tonkin Bay resolution right away. A war was unleashed. What have we done about the Liberty? Have we become so placid, so far as Israel is concerned or so far as that area is concerned, that we will take the killing of 37 American boys and the wounding of a lot more and the attack of an American ship in the open sea in good weather? We have seemed to say: "Oh, well, boys will be boys." What are you going to do about it! It is most offensive to me. Senator Hickenlooper: It is inconceivable to me that the ship could not have been identified. According to everything I saw the American flag was flying on this ship. It had a particular configuration. Even a landlubber could look at it and see that it has no characteristic configuration comparable to the so-called Egyptian ship they now try to say they mistook it for. If these people were as well trained as they allege they are, and did what they did, I don't know. It just doesn't add up to me. It is not at all satisfactory. Senator Aiken: I think, not only the committee, but the public wants better information than they have had so far. Senator Hickenlooper: The public is thoroughly dissatisfied with the situation. I don't know. It is the seemingly cavalier attitude expressed by Israel in some ways apparently accepted by us on a very tragic situation. I think there is utterly no excuse for it. end If this is your best evidence that Congress thoroughly investigated whether the attack on the Liberty was intentional or not, both you and Cristol have thoroughly discredited yourselves. But prove me wrong, tell me which Congressional Committee held hearings and investigated whether the attack on the Liberty was an accident.
|
|
#17
July 11th 04, 02:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
(Yes, I saw a Mirage 3 close by. Unlike other planes I saw close by (A4, F4, F15), it did not have a hook.) You've seen an F-15 with a tailhook? Where? Bobbi --- Roberta Hatch '65 Panhead Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, CA (This space for rent)
|
|
#18
July 11th 04, 09:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#19
July 11th 04, 10:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
sci.military.naval, talk.politics.mideast, rec.aviation.military.naval
wrote: (Issac Goldberg) wrote: # If that was the goal, then Israel made (at least...) six mistakes: # 1) Attack with a Mirage, a plane with a unique shape that only Israel had. % Only Israel had the Mirage? Didn't France have any, or was the entire % production run of Mirages sold to Israel? A Mirage could not fly from France to Al-Arish, you idiot. Ever hear of a thing called an aircraft carrier? Sending an aircraft carrier through the Med., without the Sixth Fleet realizing that, would be a neat trick. Hillel's errors are revealed, and Hillel tries changing the subject. Again. I refuted your assertions that: 1) Only Israel had the Mirage, and 2) A Mirage could not fly from France to Al-Arish. The Sixth fleet has nothing to do with your two mistakes. Just like all the other 'it-was-an-accident' proponents, you are unable to admit a mistake, even when it is a whopper. Instead you use name calling and try to change the subject. It's an indication that you feel you have a very weak case, since there would be no need for you to call people names if you had a strong case.
|
|
#20
July 11th 04, 10:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
#(Yes, I saw a Mirage 3 close by. Unlike other planes I saw close
#by (A4, F4, F15), it did not have a hook.) Roberta Hatch wrote in message ... You've seen an F-15 with a tailhook? Where? Israeli Airforce, 1978. It was a small one, like the A4's tailhook. It seems like other people saw the same thing, e.g.: ################################################## ###### From: ) Subject: Does the F117 have a tailhook? Original Format Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military Date: 1997/02/04 I don't diasagree about the F-117 not having a tailhook. However, according to Clancy's Fighter Wing, the F-15 has a tailhook. However I have no idea what it is used for, as the gear are not string enough for cats and traps. ################################################## ########################
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
