Operation Cyanide and the USS Liberty (was: Navy crew remembers 1967 Israeli attack)

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:

In both the Lavon Affair and the Liberty Attack, one of Israel's
goals was the removal of Nasser from power in Egypt.
LOL; say what. Attacking a US ship was going to remove Nasser, is that right??
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.
LOL: you idiot; greater Cairo would be gone given your warped understanding of
something which has no documentation ...

I said nothing about the target of the nuclear attack. Why do you
assume that it would have been Cairo? Killing Nasser would have
made him a martyr. Israel definitely did not want to do that. The
bomb could have been dropped in the desert as a warning, and it
would have had the desired effect.

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.
LBJ would have been very careful to avoid leaving any evidence,
and he would probably destroy any evidence which arose.

LBJ was not stupid.

Second, it takes/took a presidential order
to even launch such armed aircraft if not an exercise or other non-war setting.

I agree that Johnson must have known and approved of Operation
Cyanide. To minimize suspicion, the pilot was probably told it
was an exercise. If everything had gone according to plan,
he would have gotten attack orders while he was airborne,
instead of getting recall orders.

Oh, here's some real documentation:

start
Z 081316Z JUN 67
FM CTF SIX ZERO
TO USS AMERICA
USS SARATOGA
...
S E C R E T
DEFENSE USS LIBERTY
...
4. DEFENSE OF USS LIBERTY MEANS EXACTLY THAT. DESTROY OR DRIVE OFF ANY
ATTACKERS WHO ARE CLEARLY MAKING ATTACKS ON LIBERTY. REMAIN OVER INTERNATIONAL
WATERS. DEFEND YOURSELF IF ATTACKED.
end

What's your point, other than to highlight that the Navy jets
did not reach the Liberty despite their orders? And when are
you going to tell us about the arrogant jet jocks that you had
to deal with?

False flag operations require enormous amount of effort
to produce 'evidence' which would:

1) 'prove' that the attack was done by somebody else.

In the case of Lavon Affair, false evidence was left to implicate
the Muslim Brotherhood, such as leaving copies of the Koran with
Muslim Brotherhood literature inside which would then be found
serendipitously at the attack sites (sound familiar?)

In Operation Cyanide, evidence would have been fabricated to
'prove' that Egypt sunk the Liberty, Hence, the submarine which
just 'happened' to be there, may have had the mission to take
photographs which would later be modified to show that it was
Egyptian planes rather than Israeli planes which attacked the
Liberty. Even in the days before digital photography, it was
possible to alter photographs to show whatever you wanted.

2) provide alibis to the guilty parties, and destroy evidence
which would implicate Israel and the United States.

The moral standing of the United States has certainly fallen
world wide because of the torture photographs from Iraq. Imagine
the world response if it were learned that the U.S. was involved
in a nuclear attack based on a fabricated pretext. To keep this
knowledge secret, it may be necessary to conduct a long term
operation to silence critics, perhaps using name calling, ridicule,
changing the subject, non sequiturs, in fact, all the things that
you do, Weeks.

Oh, BTW, you skipped over: What happened to the claim it was to prevent the US
from learning of the open-secret that the Golan Heights were most likely to be
attacked next? Huh?

I'm sure Washington had prior knowledge of Israel's intention
to attack Syria, and that Washington gave Israel a green light
to proceed. The whole point of the SDW was not just to defeat
the Arabs, but to improve the relationship between Israel and
the United States. Looking at U.S. foreign military aid to Israel
since that time, relations obviously did improve. Israel now
gets billions of dollars in military aid from the United States
every year, and the trend has been upwards.

"Issac Goldberg" wrote in message
om...
Some weird conspiracy theory I doubt even he believes.

tim gueguen 101867

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.
2) Attack with the wrong weapon. For sinking ships you need half iron
bombs, like the US used in Midway, not NAPLAM.
3) Attack with a single plane.
4) Leave the Liberty enough time to report the first attack, that could
not be blamed on the Egyptian air force in that point.
5) Attacking with boats that displayed the Israeli flag.
6) Not finishing the attack by a couple more torpedeos.

A submarine surprise attack, using 4 torpedeos at once, would
be a much better method for framing Egypt.

In fact, one of the
planes that LBJ had recalled was armed with a nuclear bomb.

First, LBJ ordered nothing of the kind.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
You cannot prove that, since it is impossible to prove a negative.

Which is the base for your never ending bull****.

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?

(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.
You claimed quite a few time that a single pilot "should" have recognized
Liberty's unique shape. But you have never made the argument that the
crew of the Liberty "should" have recognize the Mirage's unique shape,
connect the dots, and send an emergency message to the US embassy in
Tel-Aviv to tell the Israelis to "stop it."

And wasn't France in on the 1956 attack on Egypt?
It could have been a repeat performance by France.

*Before* the Six-Days-War France took a clear pro-Arab stand and
put arms embargo on Israel. Besides, how could France, physically,
send a Mirage to attack a ship near El-Arish?

Your assertion that only Israel had Mirages is obviously wrong.

OK.
Israel was the only country in the Middle East with Mirages.

The Mirage which attacked the Liberty did not have any identification,
since the Israelis painted over identifying markings.

Or the crew that could not see the Mirage unique, "no horizontal"
tail, missed the much smaller identifications.

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.

Everybody who has ever played with ham radios (a dying breed...)
could tell you that rigging an antenna is easy; if you want to stop
communication then you should take out the transmitors.

Israeli attempts to jam all of Liberty's known radio frequencies
failed.

How could Israel jam the radio frequency?
What hardware that could do the job Israel had in 1967?
How could such jamming be done without the embassy in Tel-Aviv, or
the Sixth Fleet, detecting that?

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.

For a cover-up you need to minimize the number of people who know
a secret. Putting the navy, and the airforce, on the task just doubles
the people who know the secret. Pretty stupid.

The fact that
the first four torpedoes missed shows that the Israeli navy
needed more practice.

As any other navy that has ever shot WWII quality torpedoes
from such a distance.

3) Attack with a single plane.

The Israeli air force successfully took all of Liberty's above
board antennas out of action.

For a cover up you need near 100% succeess. Redundency is a good idea.

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.

In the first day of the war the Arab's airforces were the top priority.

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.

Have you ever built a ham radio antenna? Just wondering...

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.

Oh dear.
Do you have any clue how many ham frequency can reach the other side
of the world? Do you realize how many other frequencies could reach the
Sixth Fleet or the US embassy in Tel-Aviv? Even the US did not have
the ability to block so many frequencies in 1967.

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.

But why take the extra risk?

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.

And all of that was done in about a minute, without any radio
communication that the US embassy in Tel-Aviv could detect.
(Have you ever seen the forest of antennas on the roof of the
US embassy in Tel-Aviv? Just wondering...)
Somehow, the torpedeos boats claim that they saw the flag after the
first attack and therefore stopped makes more sense.

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.

No.
If I had to run such an operation then I'd probably use the small
"suicide boats" that sunk the Egyptian flagship in 1948.
They leave very few traces, much more accurate than a torpedeo,
and had proved themselves in battle. (You probably don't even know
that Egypt had a flagship in 1948, or how it was taken out.)

Did the Israeli navy even have submarines in 1967?

Yes.
Had you ever learned some naval history then you would know that
since WWI submarines were the "weapon of choice" for the weaker navy.
Had you known how to use google you could find the link to
http://www.dolphin.org.il/sclasse/

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.

I call your posting bull**** because that's what they are.

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...&notFound=true

I donn't know about how some of the others on this group feel, but I am
getting tired of it and from now on those parties involved are going to bew
blocked. What happened is done and cannot bring back those that were lost.
Both sides lied and that is all I am going to say.

Leanne

ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:

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."

This doesn't even remotely prove what you've been claiming …

In the quote above, Eitan did NOT say:

"I never heard of Operation Cyanide," or

"I was not involved in Operation Cyanide and I don't
know any of its details."

What he did say implies that he both heard of Operation
Cyanide and knew what the details were. And that he would
continue to keep the details secret. Hmmmm.

I never even remotely claimed that I could PROVE anything. I was
not a member of the Liberty crew, nor was I involved in any official
investigation of the Liberty, nor did I ever work for a government
intelligence agency, nor was I ever a member of the Armed Services.

I have made speculations based on what is available publicly, and
that does not include any of the classified material. And the
information which is available publicly does not support your
conclusion that everything is OK.

All I ask for is an impartial investigation of the attack on the
USS Liberty which would hear all sides and consider all evidence.

You, however, oppose a new investigation with every ounce of
energy in your body. Why? If you are correct in your assertions,
then you have nothing to worry about.

But you do worry, don't you? Why do you spend so much of your
time opposing a new investigation? And when are you going to
tell us about the arrogant jet jockeys you had to deal with?

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 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.

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.