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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
USS LIBERTY VETERAN ASSOC FILES WAR CRIMES AGAINST ISRAEL
These USS Liberty freaks are amusing. Hey, we know what happened. End of story. Get something sensible to do. : June 7th An Israeli Nord aircraft took off from an airfield early on the morning of the 8th with an Israeli navy spotter on board to patrol the shore and insure that enemy vessels did not penetrate Israeli waters during the night before. Israel had to have a human spotter for early warning because Israel in 1967 had very limited radar capability. Almost two hours after the aircraft started its patrol, it notified the duty officer in the navy's war room that a ship had been spotted West of Gaza. It appeared to be a destroyer from the air. The officer orderd a red marker placed on the battle control table. Red was the color used to indicate an "unidentified" ship. Almost 20 minutes later the Nord sent another report in which the spotter identified the ship as an "American naval-supply vessel. The ship was identified by the spotter and would have then been considered neutral, but the marker was not changed from red to green, to designate a neutral vessel. The Israelis admitted this. They DID NOT DENY it. The reason given by the duty officer at a board of inquiry was the "identification had been vague and uncertain." And, then from 6 to 9 a.m. the navy's attention in the war room was diverted to an emergency, with the penetration of an enemy submarine west of the town of Atlit, where a huge oil slick had been sighted. At 8:50 the navy dispatched the destroyer MV Haifa to the area. The Haifa detonated five depth charges at 9:02 without success. While the hunt for the enemy sub was ongoing, Admiral Erell entered the underground war room to take personal command and he questioned the duty officer about the red marker west of the Sinai coast. Told that the marker designated what was thought to be an American supply ship, he ordered the marker changed to green and he concentrated on the submarine. More depth charges were detonated and air bubbles and oil was rising to the surface. At the same time, the war room received a cable from an Israel pilot reporting that he was being shot at by an "unidentified" ship off the Sinai coast. After he landed and in debriefing he said that he was not fired at, but he had seen a ship and it appeared to be "gray" and "wider than usual, and with a bridge in the middle." The information was filed and forgotten. Then, after 10 a.m. the Nord aircraft returned and in debriefing the navy spotter reported that he had clearly seen a GTR-5 on the side of the vessel. Major Pinchasi at the naval operations room at Naval Headquarters consulted Jane's Fighting Ships and identified the ship as an American intelligence vessel named the "Liberty." At 11 a.m. the duty cammanders in the navy war room changed shifts and a Lt. Col took over temporary command. He ordered the green marker removed from the battle control table so it would not be cluttered. Standard naval operating procedure dictated that battle control table should be kept as simple as possible, BUT in retrospect, it was a fatal decision for the Liberty because from 11:05 on the Liberty was no longer a known quantity for those who were operationally responsible for conducting a FAST-MOVING THREE-FRONT WAR.., who were feeling the heat of battle decision making. At 11:24 the air force reported to the naval chief of operation, Col Issy Rehav, that the Sinai coast city of El Arish, captured by Israeli forces the day before was being shelled from the sea. And, at 11:27 a.m., a second, independent report ame in, and this time from Southern Command Hqts, that El Arish was indeed being bombarded from the sea. In his book, Ennis also reported explosions in El Arish. The smoke and explosions were clearly visible to the crew of the Liberty 'WHICH IS HOW CLOSE THEY WERE' to what was presumed to be an enemy attack on the coastal city. Later it was determined that an Egyptian ammo depot had exploded in El Arish. The Israeli general command assumed that the city was under attack from the sea and the Liberty 'JUST HAPPENED TO BE THERE', which made it look an awful lot like the Liberty had been doing the shelling. Col Rehav at 12:05 p.m. ordered three torpedo boats from the 914 Squadron to leave Ashdod and proceed towards El Arish and at 12:15 captain of the flagship torpedo boat, Lt. Col Moshe Oren was ordered to sail to 20 miles north of El Arish and patrol that area. At 1:07 p.m. he was instructed to call for an air strike upon spotting the target. At 1:41, 2nd Lt Aharon Yfrach, the radar operator about the flagship, T-204, picked up a target on his scope. The ship was spotted at 20 nautical miles northwest of El Arish, 14 miles off the Bardawil shore, and moving west at a speed of about thirty knots. Standard operating procedure for the Israeli navy in 1967 was that any ship moving faster than 20 knots in a battle arena was to be presumed hostile. A second radar check indicated the target's speed at 28 knots. The Israelis later said the reading was inaccurate, which can be attributed to what is known as "radar jump" or simply an erroneous reading by the radar operator? The radar on torpedo boats were often inaccurate. The conclusions at the time however was, it was moving at faster than 20 knots and the TARGET IN QUESTION WAS PROBABLY A WARSHIP. It also 'APPEARED TO BE SAILING AN EVASIVE COURSE' in the direction of Port Said, at the mouth of the Suez Canal, which would also indicate it was hostile. At 1:45 p.m. it was decided by Rehav to order an attack on the ship. It would take awhile for the torpedo boats to get there so an air strike was called. Senior air force battle controller, Lt Col Shmuel Kislev, ordered two Mirage III C fighters on their way back to Israel from an air patrol over the Suez Canal to divert to the target. The Mirages reached the target at about 2 p.m. The lead plane dropped to an altitude of 3,000 feet and circled the target twice. The second aircraft circled the target only once. It was reported that the ship was NOT Israeli, it was painted battle-gray and had two cannons in the forecastle, a mast in the front and one funnel. Major General Mordechai Hod, the commander of the Israeli air force, asked the pilot by radio if any flag was visible. The pilot reported back "I SEE NO FLAG OR OTHER SIGNS OF IDENTIFICATION." Members of the crew find this a point of contention, but regardless of that fact, there must still be ACCOUNTABILITY FOR BEING IN A BATTLE ARENA, and assessments are made by the air force command, based on the pilot's observation, the course of the ship, the reported speed and the evasive running of the ship, location, etc., and the IMPRESSION WAS IT WAS A HOSTILE SHIP. At 2:06, the pilots began their straffing runs and straffed the Liberty four times. Fire had broken out on the left side of the ship. Two more aircraft were diverted, this time Super Mystere jets en route to a bombing mission over the Mitla Pass in the Central Sinai. The were carrying napalm bombs, which are not suitable for attacking targets at sea but it was decided to use the aircraft anyway. The Mysteres made two bombing runs, but only one bomb hit the ship. As there was no return fire from the Liberty, the lack of a response was puzzling and the lead pilot flew low enough to notice a P-30 painted on the hull. He then dropped to only ninety feet above the water line and this time noticed CTR-5 on the hull. 'HE SAID HE SAW NO FLAG'. He was told to report on damages and leave the target area. At 2:15 the air force controller in central operation dispatched two helicopters to the area to pick up survivors. Meanwhile the torpedo boats had arrived at the scene. The flagship flahed the message, "WHAT SHIP?" But, the Liberty replied "AA" meaning "Identify yourselves first." That was really dumb. Here they are listing, enveloped in smoke, heavily damaged and their captain is telling the torpedo boats to identify themselves first? Eleven years before, during the Sinai campaign, exactly the same exchange had taken place between an Israeli destroyer, the MV Yaffo, and an Egyptian ship, the Ibrahim-el-Awwal. Oren, who was a young offer on the Yaffo's bridge at the time, 'REMEMBERED THE INCIDENT WELL'. If he had any doubts that the burning vessel ahead of him was Egyptian, they were now dispelled. While he was deciding whether to attack, a burst of machine gun fire erupted from the ship's forecastle. It seems that a seaman apprentice on board did not hear the Captain's "hold-your- fire order" and fired several volleys at the torpedo boats. Oren still hestitated until he consulted the Israeli navy's book identifying the ships of the Arab navies and concluded that the ship in question was the Egyptian suppply vessel EL QUSEIR. One of the other captains of another torpedo boat came up with the same identification. And, at 2:37 Lt Col Oren gave the order to attack the ship. THIS WAS 'AFTER BEING FIRED UPON FROM THE LIBERTY'. At 2:43 advancing with rapid cannon fire, the topedo boats fired torpedos. At least one torpedo hit the ship. When the T-204 crossed the ship's bow, one of the officers aboard noticed the letters GTR on the hull of the ship and Oren immediately issued the hold-fire order. It was 2:47. At 2:51, Oren radioed back to command headquarters that the ship could be Russian. Rabin called an emergency meeting of his adviser to discuss the possiblity of large sacale Soviet intervention but at 3:20 Oren notified headquarters that the ship was NOT Russian, IT WAS AMERICAN. At 3:30 the news was conveyed to Commander Castle, naval atache in Tel Aviv. ISRAEL OFFERED TO HELP WITH THE WOUNDED. The offer was rejected. The attack on the LIBERTY was not with malice, but a genuine understandable mistake, like many which are often made in battle, and which could have been avoided if the Liberty had stayed out of harm's way [as we learned later was the intention of the State Department and the Chiefs of Staff] |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.aviation.military Jukka O. Kauppinen wrote:
USS LIBERTY VETERAN ASSOC FILES WAR CRIMES AGAINST ISRAEL These USS Liberty freaks are amusing. Hey, we know what happened. End of story. Get something sensible to do. This history is completely plausible--just the sort of chain of errors, coincidences, and small mistakes that seem to lead up to almost every disaster such as airliner crashes. I had not seen this narrative before; can you tell me what the source was? --------------------------------- June 7th An Israeli Nord aircraft took off from an airfield early on the morning of the 8th with an Israeli navy spotter on board to patrol the shore and insure that enemy vessels did not penetrate Israeli waters during the night before. Israel had to have a human spotter for early warning because Israel in 1967 had very limited radar capability. Almost two hours after the aircraft started its patrol, it notified the duty officer in the navy's war room that a ship had been spotted West of Gaza. It appeared to be a destroyer from the air. The officer orderd a red marker placed on the battle control table. Red was the color used to indicate an "unidentified" ship. Almost 20 minutes later the Nord sent another report in which the spotter identified the ship as an "American naval-supply vessel. The ship was identified by the spotter and would have then been considered neutral, but the marker was not changed from red to green, to designate a neutral vessel. The Israelis admitted this. They DID NOT DENY it. The reason given by the duty officer at a board of inquiry was the "identification had been vague and uncertain." And, then from 6 to 9 a.m. the navy's attention in the war room was diverted to an emergency, with the penetration of an enemy submarine west of the town of Atlit, where a huge oil slick had been sighted. At 8:50 the navy dispatched the destroyer MV Haifa to the area. The Haifa detonated five depth charges at 9:02 without success. While the hunt for the enemy sub was ongoing, Admiral Erell entered the underground war room to take personal command and he questioned the duty officer about the red marker west of the Sinai coast. Told that the marker designated what was thought to be an American supply ship, he ordered the marker changed to green and he concentrated on the submarine. More depth charges were detonated and air bubbles and oil was rising to the surface. At the same time, the war room received a cable from an Israel pilot reporting that he was being shot at by an "unidentified" ship off the Sinai coast. After he landed and in debriefing he said that he was not fired at, but he had seen a ship and it appeared to be "gray" and "wider than usual, and with a bridge in the middle." The information was filed and forgotten. Then, after 10 a.m. the Nord aircraft returned and in debriefing the navy spotter reported that he had clearly seen a GTR-5 on the side of the vessel. Major Pinchasi at the naval operations room at Naval Headquarters consulted Jane's Fighting Ships and identified the ship as an American intelligence vessel named the "Liberty." At 11 a.m. the duty cammanders in the navy war room changed shifts and a Lt. Col took over temporary command. He ordered the green marker removed from the battle control table so it would not be cluttered. Standard naval operating procedure dictated that battle control table should be kept as simple as possible, BUT in retrospect, it was a fatal decision for the Liberty because from 11:05 on the Liberty was no longer a known quantity for those who were operationally responsible for conducting a FAST-MOVING THREE-FRONT WAR.., who were feeling the heat of battle decision making. At 11:24 the air force reported to the naval chief of operation, Col Issy Rehav, that the Sinai coast city of El Arish, captured by Israeli forces the day before was being shelled from the sea. And, at 11:27 a.m., a second, independent report ame in, and this time from Southern Command Hqts, that El Arish was indeed being bombarded from the sea. In his book, Ennis also reported explosions in El Arish. The smoke and explosions were clearly visible to the crew of the Liberty 'WHICH IS HOW CLOSE THEY WERE' to what was presumed to be an enemy attack on the coastal city. Later it was determined that an Egyptian ammo depot had exploded in El Arish. The Israeli general command assumed that the city was under attack from the sea and the Liberty 'JUST HAPPENED TO BE THERE', which made it look an awful lot like the Liberty had been doing the shelling. Col Rehav at 12:05 p.m. ordered three torpedo boats from the 914 Squadron to leave Ashdod and proceed towards El Arish and at 12:15 captain of the flagship torpedo boat, Lt. Col Moshe Oren was ordered to sail to 20 miles north of El Arish and patrol that area. At 1:07 p.m. he was instructed to call for an air strike upon spotting the target. At 1:41, 2nd Lt Aharon Yfrach, the radar operator about the flagship, T-204, picked up a target on his scope. The ship was spotted at 20 nautical miles northwest of El Arish, 14 miles off the Bardawil shore, and moving west at a speed of about thirty knots. Standard operating procedure for the Israeli navy in 1967 was that any ship moving faster than 20 knots in a battle arena was to be presumed hostile. A second radar check indicated the target's speed at 28 knots. The Israelis later said the reading was inaccurate, which can be attributed to what is known as "radar jump" or simply an erroneous reading by the radar operator? The radar on torpedo boats were often inaccurate. The conclusions at the time however was, it was moving at faster than 20 knots and the TARGET IN QUESTION WAS PROBABLY A WARSHIP. It also 'APPEARED TO BE SAILING AN EVASIVE COURSE' in the direction of Port Said, at the mouth of the Suez Canal, which would also indicate it was hostile. At 1:45 p.m. it was decided by Rehav to order an attack on the ship. It would take awhile for the torpedo boats to get there so an air strike was called. Senior air force battle controller, Lt Col Shmuel Kislev, ordered two Mirage III C fighters on their way back to Israel from an air patrol over the Suez Canal to divert to the target. The Mirages reached the target at about 2 p.m. The lead plane dropped to an altitude of 3,000 feet and circled the target twice. The second aircraft circled the target only once. It was reported that the ship was NOT Israeli, it was painted battle-gray and had two cannons in the forecastle, a mast in the front and one funnel. Major General Mordechai Hod, the commander of the Israeli air force, asked the pilot by radio if any flag was visible. The pilot reported back "I SEE NO FLAG OR OTHER SIGNS OF IDENTIFICATION." Members of the crew find this a point of contention, but regardless of that fact, there must still be ACCOUNTABILITY FOR BEING IN A BATTLE ARENA, and assessments are made by the air force command, based on the pilot's observation, the course of the ship, the reported speed and the evasive running of the ship, location, etc., and the IMPRESSION WAS IT WAS A HOSTILE SHIP. At 2:06, the pilots began their straffing runs and straffed the Liberty four times. Fire had broken out on the left side of the ship. Two more aircraft were diverted, this time Super Mystere jets en route to a bombing mission over the Mitla Pass in the Central Sinai. The were carrying napalm bombs, which are not suitable for attacking targets at sea but it was decided to use the aircraft anyway. The Mysteres made two bombing runs, but only one bomb hit the ship. As there was no return fire from the Liberty, the lack of a response was puzzling and the lead pilot flew low enough to notice a P-30 painted on the hull. He then dropped to only ninety feet above the water line and this time noticed CTR-5 on the hull. 'HE SAID HE SAW NO FLAG'. He was told to report on damages and leave the target area. At 2:15 the air force controller in central operation dispatched two helicopters to the area to pick up survivors. Meanwhile the torpedo boats had arrived at the scene. The flagship flahed the message, "WHAT SHIP?" But, the Liberty replied "AA" meaning "Identify yourselves first." That was really dumb. Here they are listing, enveloped in smoke, heavily damaged and their captain is telling the torpedo boats to identify themselves first? Eleven years before, during the Sinai campaign, exactly the same exchange had taken place between an Israeli destroyer, the MV Yaffo, and an Egyptian ship, the Ibrahim-el-Awwal. Oren, who was a young offer on the Yaffo's bridge at the time, 'REMEMBERED THE INCIDENT WELL'. If he had any doubts that the burning vessel ahead of him was Egyptian, they were now dispelled. While he was deciding whether to attack, a burst of machine gun fire erupted from the ship's forecastle. It seems that a seaman apprentice on board did not hear the Captain's "hold-your- fire order" and fired several volleys at the torpedo boats. Oren still hestitated until he consulted the Israeli navy's book identifying the ships of the Arab navies and concluded that the ship in question was the Egyptian suppply vessel EL QUSEIR. One of the other captains of another torpedo boat came up with the same identification. And, at 2:37 Lt Col Oren gave the order to attack the ship. THIS WAS 'AFTER BEING FIRED UPON FROM THE LIBERTY'. At 2:43 advancing with rapid cannon fire, the topedo boats fired torpedos. At least one torpedo hit the ship. When the T-204 crossed the ship's bow, one of the officers aboard noticed the letters GTR on the hull of the ship and Oren immediately issued the hold-fire order. It was 2:47. At 2:51, Oren radioed back to command headquarters that the ship could be Russian. Rabin called an emergency meeting of his adviser to discuss the possiblity of large sacale Soviet intervention but at 3:20 Oren notified headquarters that the ship was NOT Russian, IT WAS AMERICAN. At 3:30 the news was conveyed to Commander Castle, naval atache in Tel Aviv. ISRAEL OFFERED TO HELP WITH THE WOUNDED. The offer was rejected. The attack on the LIBERTY was not with malice, but a genuine understandable mistake, like many which are often made in battle, and which could have been avoided if the Liberty had stayed out of harm's way [as we learned later was the intention of the State Department and the Chiefs of Staff] |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Excellent letter by James Bamford on the Israel firsters (like Mike
Weeks and A. Jay Cristol) who continue to cover up Israeli treachery (USS Liberty attack) against America: http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewt...=157839#157839 Bamford has also written his newest book ('A Pretext for War' which just came out in paperback) about the JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocon traitors who took US to war in Iraq for Israel: 'A Clean Break/war for Israel (pages 261-269 from James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book): http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
wrote: Excellent letter by James Bamford on the Israel firsters (like Mike Weeks and A. Jay Cristol) who continue to cover up Israeli treachery (USS Liberty attack) against America: ROTFLOL. Bamford's 2001 "letter" pretty much bit the dust "as it were" with the release of the NSA tapes in 2003 and the DOS FRUS Vol. XIX book in 2004. As to what Bamford was claiming back in 2001 -- here's a link to a very fine rebutal: http://historynewsnetwork.org/articl...le.html?id=369 This poor sap of a poster truly is clueless when it comes to making claims, like one one above for example. Gawd, what a clown. If it were accurate, how come he's still able to post, or even breathe ??? Think about it ... g MW |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.aviation.military Mike wrote:
wrote: Excellent letter by James Bamford on the Israel firsters (like Mike Weeks and A. Jay Cristol) who continue to cover up Israeli treachery (USS Liberty attack) against America: ROTFLOL. Bamford's 2001 "letter" pretty much bit the dust "as it were" with the release of the NSA tapes in 2003 and the DOS FRUS Vol. XIX book in 2004. As to what Bamford was claiming back in 2001 -- here's a link to a very fine rebutal: http://historynewsnetwork.org/articl...le.html?id=369 I do have to take some exception to one of the paragraphs in this citation; however the exceptions relate only to historical references: "No rockets were fired at Liberty. No bombs, "heavy" or otherwise, were used. The attacking aircraft were not armed to attack a ship. Had they dropped the standard 500 pound iron bombs normally used against ship targets, the Liberty would very likely have been sunk in minutes. (During the battle of Midway in World War II, U.S. Navy dive bombers using standard 500 pound iron bombs sank three Japanese aircraft carriers in ten minutes.)" The three Japanese carriers (Akagi, Kaga, and Soryu) were hit within ten minutes of each other (1020-1030 on June 4, 1942) but none sank immediately. I believe the recorded sinking times ranged from late afternoon until the next morning, and that one of the ships was ultimately sunk by torpedoes from a Japanese destroyer to prevent its capture when the Japanese fleet withdrew. Also the bombs had such devastating effect only because the carrier decks were crowded with fully armed and fueled planes ready for takeoff, and the hangar decks with recently unloaded ordnance. Later in WW II, American carriers survived much more serious hits and survived. But one point that the above paragraph makes (but does not emphasize) is that if the Israelis intended to sink the Liberty, they would have armed the attacking aircraft with weapons better suited to naval targets. If the attack was against a known American target, why use weapons of less effectiveness than other weapons easily available? The fact is that the aircraft were diverted from other targets when a ship was discovered and was (mistakenly) believed to be a threat. Clearly the entire episode was spur-of-the-moment and not a premeditated attack. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
=EF=BB=BFMerlin Dorfman wrote:
snip I do have to take some exception to one of the paragraphs in this citation; however the exceptions relate only to historical references: ... You have brought up what is always a challenge when attempting to cite various examples in order to emphasize the major point being addressed -- how to present it and how much detail to provide -- especially if the "generally known" story is already out there at a very summary level to the general public ... g MW |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Weeks (in his continued traitorous support of Israeli treachery
against America in the deliberate attack of the USS Liberty) couldn't get past the Captain Ward Boston question in San Diego ( http://members.aol.com/w4lmk/sdari/ ) as he still can't (without continuing to look foolish): Forwarded: Adam Ereli (the deputy spokesperson for the US State Department who makes regular appearances during the press conferences on C-SPAN) still has not answered the following email which was sent to him this past March (2005): Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:38:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: For Adam Ereli/US State Department To: Mr. Ereli, I had written to the US State Department last year and never received a reply as I had inquired as to when Mark Susser (with the Department of the Historian) will enter Captain Ward Boston's declaration (about the USS Liberty attack/cover-up) into the historical record. Captain Boston's declaration can be read at the following URL: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-boston.html One can watch esteemed US intelligence writer James Bamford reading Captain Boston's declaration via the 'History in the Making: State Rules on the 1967 Arab-Israeli War' link near the bottom of www.irmep.org as the following article is from the San Diego Union Tribune: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...17liberty.html Scroll down to the article on Captain Ward Boston by Delinda Hanley at the following URL: http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...asc&star t=20 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
U.S. Vets Seek Probe of Alleged War Crimes By WILLIAM C. MANN,
Associated Press Writer Fri Jun 10, 5:48 AM ET Survivors of a U.S. spy ship attacked by Israeli fighters and torpedo boats 40 years ago are pressing the Pentagon for a full investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes for a strike that caused 205 casualties, including 34 killed. The attack on the USS Liberty occurred in international waters during the Six-Day War in 1967 between Israel, Egypt and other Arab nations. The survivors claim the attack itself was a violation of the Geneva Conventions regulating conduct of war and that further crimes occurred when Israeli sailors fired at rescuers and firefighters on the ship's bullet-riddled deck and into rubber life rafts thrown into the water to pick up survivors. Gary Brummett, president of the USS Liberty Veterans Association, said the appeal to the Defense Department is nothing more than an appeal for justice for his shipmates. Brummett was a boiler tender aboard the Liberty. "Politicians will not touch this issue," Brummett said. "All the presidents we have will not touch this issue. It's politically incorrect. All we are trying to do now is to follow the rule of law." Their new action, a 35-page, heavily footnoted report demanding a full-scale, new investigation, quotes the laws of war in alleging that Israel didn't honor them. On the afternoon of June 8, 1967, two days into the Six-Day War, Israeli warplanes began circling the Liberty as its nest of antennas collected intelligence in international waters between al-Arish, Egypt, in the Sinai near the Israeli border, and the Gaza Strip west of Israel. The 7,725-ton Liberty, a former civilian cargo ship refitted into one of the era's top intelligence-gathering vessels, was flying the U.S. flag and bore U.S. Navy markings. When the attack began, jets made six strafing runs, killing at least 10 and wounding others with gunfire, rockets and bombs. Three torpedo boats joined the fray, firing machine guns and cannon. One fired a torpedo, which missed the maneuvering ship. Another boat loosed its torpedo, which struck on the starboard side, forward of the command areas, caused more casualties, and Liberty began to list to the right. Those left among the crew of 294 officers and men kept her afloat. Israel said its personnel mistook the ship for an Egyptian Navy vessel. U.S. officials said that ship was far smaller than Liberty and had none of the antennas the intelligence-gatherer had. Previous official U.S. and Israeli investigations have found Israel guilty of nothing more than making a mistake, possibly by misidentifying the U.S. ship. A contentious State Department- sponsored conference of historians and other experts last year failed to reach consensus. Israel apologized and paid damages of close to $13 million, some to families of the victims. David Siegel, spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, repeated the Israeli position that the attack was in no way premeditated. "I can state categorically that the Liberty incident was a tragic mistake, a case of mistaken identity," Siegel told The Associated Press. "These are old allegations, discredited years ago by successive U.S. administrations following numerous official investigations, including by the official historians of the State Department, the National Security Agency and other federal agencies." The latest move by the Liberty survivors, who have pressed for decades to have the official record changed, was submitted to Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey, who acts as executive agent for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for such cases. Col. Thomas Collins, Harvey's spokesman, said he could not discuss the matter because the secretary had not received it as of Thursday. The document, shipped Tuesday by courier service, was dated Wednesday, the 38th anniversary of the attack. Brummett, of Grand Cane, La., said the association has no idea what Harvey will do. "He will look at this and will say, `Hey, OK, we've got to investigate it.' Or he will turn it down. Whatever they want to do. "If future is like the past, if politicians get involved, they will certainly turn it down." ___ On the Net: USS Liberty Veterans Association report: http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/Report/Report.pdf http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050610/...py_ship_israel |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.aviation.military Mike wrote:
The narration appears to be a slice taken from: http://pnews.org/art/ussliberty.shtml Yes, that's the source, spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and all :-) The full story is on the record, and the only two "reasons" that the Israelis would attack an American ship have been debunked: - There was no massacre at El Arish, so there was no need to take out an American ship to keep the massacre from being discovered - The US knew about the planned attack on the Golan Heights before- hand, and did not object, so there was no need to stop intelligence collection to keep the attack from being discovered. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
USS LIBERTY CASE EVIDENCE JUSTIFIES REOPENING | Ewe n0 who | Military 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 |