A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

USS Liberty Challenge/Reward



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 28th 04, 07:55 AM
Issac Goldberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default USS Liberty Challenge/Reward

ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote:

http://libertyincident.com/documents.htm

Finally! After lots of name calling, changing the
subject and non sequiturs, Weeks gives a source
which he alleges contains information concerning
Congress investigating the Liberty and concluding
that the attack was an accident.

First, rather that 5 or 6 Congressional investigations,
there are only two alleged investigations into the USS
Liberty. But, as we will see, these two committees did
not conduct conclusive investigations into the major
points of controversy concerning the USS Liberty.

1) House Armed Services Committee Investigation

Lo and behold, rather than "A Report on the attack on the
USS Liberty," the link takes you to a report on "Review of
Department of Defense Worldwide Communications."

The only connection with the attack on the Liberty was
the misrouted message ordering the Liberty to leave the
area due to the hostilities. No other aspect of the
attack on the Liberty was looked at. The topics
not looked at included:

a) Whether the attack was intentional,

b) Whether Israel had previously identified
the Liberty,

c) Whether rescue aircraft were recalled,

d) Whether an American intelligence plane
recorded conversations between the attacking
Israeli aircraft and their controllers, and
what those conversations were.

In fact the only issue considered in the report
deals with problems with DOD communications.

If this is an example of what Cristol alleges was a
Congressional investigation of the Liberty which
exonerates the Israelis, Cristol is a failure.

2) Senate Foreign Relations Committee Investigation

Lo and behold, rather than "An Investigation into the
attack on the USS Liberty," the link takes you to
hearings on the "Foreign Assistance Act of 1967."

It is not a report giving conclusions of an
investigation into the attack on the USS Liberty;
it is merely hearings. They are two different things.

However, there are some comments by Senators which
indicate their feelings on the assault on the USS
Liberty:

Senator Hickenlooper: "I think it was a deliberate
assault on [the USS Liberty.] ... I think they had ample
opportunity to identify it as an American ship. ...
It is inconceivable to me that the ship could not
have been identified."

Senator Aiken: "I think, not only the committee, but the
public wants better information than they have had so far."

Senator Mundt also expresses doubts about the failure of
the attacking Israeli pilots to identify the ship "in
broad daylight."

So, based on the only three Senators who were quoted, the
conclusion of the Committee, if there had been a report,
would have been the rejection of the contention that
the attack was accidental.

If this is an example of what Cristol alleges was an
investigation of the Liberty which exonerates the
Israelis, Cristol is a failure.

Cristol is 0 for 2. Cristol is a failure.

There was no Congressional investigation of the
USS Liberty which concluded that the Israeli
attack was an accident. And this was from the
link that Weeks provided. Maybe Weeks will
continue to provide other links which disprove
his contentions.
  #2  
Old June 28th 04, 07:36 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote:

http://libertyincident.com/documents.htm

Finally! After lots of name calling, changing the
subject and non sequiturs, Weeks gives a source
which he alleges contains information concerning
Congress investigating the Liberty and concluding
that the attack was an accident.


Mike had given his sources in the past, quite a few times.
You feel that Mike had a duty to spoon-feed you, and treat you
with respect, even though you had no idea what you were talking
about. I don't really care about your hurt feelings.

First, rather that 5 or 6 Congressional investigations,
there are only two alleged investigations into the USS
Liberty. But, as we will see, these two committees did
not conduct conclusive investigations into the major
points of controversy concerning the USS Liberty.


It is not the job of Congress to investigate everything.
The US Navy's Court Of Inquiry did a pretty good job establishing
the facts. (And please read those 727 pages before you claim
your "facts." Mike did it, no reason why you can't.)

Congress trusted the Navy investigation, which seems to be pretty
professional and unbiased. There was no point taking the 158 pages
of testimony, under oath, and have the same witnesses repeat the same
testimony in front of Congress.

1) House Armed Services Committee Investigation


Lo and behold, rather than "A Report on the attack on the
USS Liberty," the link takes you to a report on "Review of
Department of Defense Worldwide Communications."


That was the one point that, from a military point of view was not clear.
How, a couple of years after Tonkin, the US Navy sent a ship into a
war zone? Did the Navy officers have no clue what a mess another
Tonkin could cause?

There were two explanation, a communication error from home, or an error
by the crew. Congress did a pretty good job checking that. (IMO the
commander of the ship had to realize the danger of going to a war zone
and protest, loud, to highers up. The US Navy appreciates "follow the
orders" much more than I do, and does not share my opinion.)

In your opinion, what data, not in the Navy's Court Of Inquiry
report, could Congress find? Which witnesses should have been
called? What documents could they request?

a) Whether the attack was intentional,


The US Navy decided that it was not.

b) Whether Israel had previously identified
the Liberty,


Israel admitted indentifying the ship earlier, but losing its
position later. I don't think that the US notification
that none of its ships were near the war zone helped much.

c) Whether rescue aircraft were recalled,


Why is that important?

d) Whether an American intelligence plane
recorded conversations between the attacking
Israeli aircraft and their controllers, and
what those conversations were.


The US government has this data, and the Navy's Court had the power
to subpoena it. The US government wants to keep the data secret,
just like it keeps plenty of other military data secret. If you think
that the *US* government, in the last eight adminstrations (Johnson,
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush), is a part of a cover-
up then you need a better story to explain that.

In fact the only issue considered in the report
deals with problems with DOD communications.


Because that seemed, to Congress, like a major issue that can end
up in another Tonkin. Pueblo shows that Congress had a clue.

2) Senate Foreign Relations Committee Investigation


However, there are some comments by Senators which
indicate their feelings on the assault on the USS
Liberty:


Senator Hickenlooper: "I think it was a deliberate
assault on [the USS Liberty.] ... I think they had ample
opportunity to identify it as an American ship. ...
It is inconceivable to me that the ship could not
have been identified."


I wonder why those Monday morning quarter-backs never talk that way
when US forces attack US forces...

Talk is cheap, having a clue how to prevent "friendly fire" incidents
is not.

Senator Aiken: "I think, not only the committee, but the
public wants better information than they have had so far."


The committee could subpoena the information. Choosing not to do so,
and then whining about missing information, is what I would expect
Senators to do. Would not you?

Senator Mundt also expresses doubts about the failure of
the attacking Israeli pilots to identify the ship "in
broad daylight."


And how much experience does Senator Mundt have flying jets?
(BTW Israeli pilot had little training in attacking
ships, and they used the wrong bombs for sinking ships.)

So, based on the only three Senators who were quoted, the
conclusion of the Committee, if there had been a report,
would have been the rejection of the contention that
the attack was accidental.


Again, talk is cheap; making a case is much harder. To make a case
you have to explain most data, not just pick and choose. The
senators did not want to sign their names on a report that made
claims without proof; it could be a long term liability.

If this is an example of what Cristol alleges was an
investigation of the Liberty which exonerates the
Israelis, Cristol is a failure.


Have you read Cristol book?
Yes or No?

(I did not read most of the book BTW; I wait to the consipracy
guys to make a real case before I'll bother disproving it.)

Hillel

"That the Congress approves and supports the determination of
the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary
measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the
United States and to prevent further aggression."
  #3  
Old June 28th 04, 11:43 PM
Issac Goldberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...

For some reason, I cannot reply directly to Hillel's post.

The main point, which Hillel does his best to avoid is:

Congress never conducted an investigation solely concerning
the USS Liberty affair, and Cristol's web page does not refute
that.


ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote:

http://libertyincident.com/documents.htm

Finally! After lots of name calling, changing the
subject and non sequiturs, Weeks gives a source
which he alleges contains information concerning
Congress investigating the Liberty and concluding
that the attack was an accident.

First, rather that 5 or 6 Congressional investigations,
there are only two alleged investigations into the USS
Liberty. But, as we will see, these two committees did
not conduct conclusive investigations into the major
points of controversy concerning the USS Liberty.

1) House Armed Services Committee Investigation

Lo and behold, rather than "A Report on the attack on the
USS Liberty," the link takes you to a report on "Review of
Department of Defense Worldwide Communications."

The only connection with the attack on the Liberty was
the misrouted message ordering the Liberty to leave the
area due to the hostilities. No other aspect of the
attack on the Liberty was looked at. The topics
not looked at included:

a) Whether the attack was intentional,

b) Whether Israel had previously identified
the Liberty,

c) Whether rescue aircraft were recalled,

d) Whether an American intelligence plane
recorded conversations between the attacking
Israeli aircraft and their controllers, and
what those conversations were.

In fact the only issue considered in the report
deals with problems with DOD communications.

If this is an example of what Cristol alleges was a
Congressional investigation of the Liberty which
exonerates the Israelis, Cristol is a failure.

2) Senate Foreign Relations Committee Investigation

Lo and behold, rather than "An Investigation into the
attack on the USS Liberty," the link takes you to
hearings on the "Foreign Assistance Act of 1967."

It is not a report giving conclusions of an
investigation into the attack on the USS Liberty;
it is merely hearings. They are two different things.

However, there are some comments by Senators which
indicate their feelings on the assault on the USS
Liberty:

Senator Hickenlooper: "I think it was a deliberate
assault on [the USS Liberty.] ... I think they had ample
opportunity to identify it as an American ship. ...
It is inconceivable to me that the ship could not
have been identified."

Senator Aiken: "I think, not only the committee, but the
public wants better information than they have had so far."

Senator Mundt also expresses doubts about the failure of
the attacking Israeli pilots to identify the ship "in
broad daylight."

So, based on the only three Senators who were quoted, the
conclusion of the Committee, if there had been a report,
would have been the rejection of the contention that
the attack was accidental.

If this is an example of what Cristol alleges was an
investigation of the Liberty which exonerates the
Israelis, Cristol is a failure.

Cristol is 0 for 2. Cristol is a failure.

There was no Congressional investigation of the
USS Liberty which concluded that the Israeli
attack was an accident. And this was from the
link that Weeks provided. Maybe Weeks will
continue to provide other links which disprove
his contentions.

  #4  
Old June 29th 04, 08:40 AM
Issac Goldberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


[snip]

(Mike Weeks) wrote:

http://libertyincident.com/documents.htm


Finally! After lots of name calling, changing the
subject and non sequiturs, Weeks gives a source
which he alleges contains information concerning
Congress investigating the Liberty and concluding
that the attack was an accident.


Idiot;


Weeks does what he does best, he resorts to childish
name calling. If he had a strong case, there would
be no reason for his constant insults, his arguments
alone would carry the day. But, considering how often
he engages in name calling, his case must be very,
very weak.

He acknowledges that Congress has never conducted an
investigation devoted solely to the Liberty affair.

Congress did investigate a single aspect of the
Liberty incident, relating to DOD communications,
which did not look at the question of whether the
attack by Israel was intentional. In fact, none of
the links provided by Cristol is to a Congressional
investigation into the question, "was that attack
on the USS Liberty intentional?"

Weeks, if I am wrong, please provide a link to a
Congressional investigation which looked into whether
the attack on the USS Liberty was intentional. You can't,
because Congress never conducted such an investigation.

To say that Congress never found evidence that the attack
was intentional is being disingenuous. If there was no
investigation, then there was no conclusion. But to imply
that Congress thoroughly investigated the Liberty affair,
and to further imply that this investigation exonerated
Israel, is the kind of dishonesty recently practiced by
President Bush in convincing our country to invade Iraq.
Bush can accurately say that he never directly accused
Saddam of being behind 9/11, but his implications were
so strong that a majority of U.S. citizens were convinced
at the beginning of the assault on Iraq that Saddam was
directly responsible for 9/11. Bush is an expert in
using weasel words, just like Weeks. Maybe Bush went to
the same disinformation school that Weeks attended.

[snip]
  #5  
Old June 29th 04, 08:50 AM
Issac Goldberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

http://libertyincident.com/documents.htm

Finally! After lots of name calling, changing the
subject and non sequiturs, Weeks gives a source
which he alleges contains information concerning
Congress investigating the Liberty and concluding
that the attack was an accident.


Idiot;


Weeks does what he does best, he resorts to childish
name calling. If he had a strong case, there would
be no reason for his constant insults, his arguments
alone would carry the day. But, considering how often
he engages in name calling, his case must be very,
very weak.

He acknowledges that Congress has never conducted an
investigation devoted to whether the attack on the
USS Liberty was intentional.

Congress did investigate a single aspect of the
Liberty incident, relating to DOD communications.
This investigation by the House Armed Services
Committee did not consider the question of whether
the attack on the USS Liberty by Israel was
intentional. In fact, none of the links provided
by Cristol is to a Congressional investigation
into the question, "was that attack on the USS
Liberty intentional?"

To say that Congress never found evidence that
the attack was intentional is being disingenuous.
If there was no investigation into whether the
attack was intentional, then there could be no
conclusion. But to imply that Congress thoroughly
investigated the Liberty affair, and to further
imply that this investigation exonerated Israel,
is the kind of dishonesty recently practiced by
President Bush in convincing our country to invade
Iraq. Bush can accurately say that he never
directly accused Saddam of being behind 9/11, but
his implications were so strong that a majority of
U.S. citizens were convinced at the beginning of
the assault on Iraq that Saddam was directly
responsible for 9/11. Bush is an expert in
using weasel words, just like Weeks. Maybe Bush
went to the same disinformation school that Weeks
attended.

[snip]
  #9  
Old June 30th 04, 01:26 AM
Theodore Herzl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:

http://libertyincident.com/documents.htm

Finally! After lots of name calling, changing the
subject and non sequiturs, Weeks gives a source
which he alleges contains information concerning
Congress investigating the Liberty and concluding
that the attack was an accident.


Idiot;


Weeks does what he does best, he resorts to childish
name calling. If he had a strong case, there would
be no reason for his constant insults, his arguments
alone would carry the day. But, considering how often
he engages in name calling, his case must be very,
very weak.

He acknowledges that Congress has never conducted an
investigation devoted to whether the attack on the
USS Liberty was intentional.

Congress did investigate a single aspect of the
Liberty incident, relating to DOD communications.
This investigation by the House Armed Services
Committee did not consider the question of whether
the attack on the USS Liberty by Israel was
intentional. In fact, none of the links provided
by Cristol is to a Congressional investigation
into the question, "was that attack on the USS
Liberty intentional?"

To say that Congress never found evidence that
the attack was intentional is being disingenuous.
If there was no investigation into whether the
attack was intentional, then there could be no
conclusion. But to imply that Congress thoroughly
investigated the Liberty affair, and to further
imply that this investigation exonerated Israel,
is the kind of dishonesty recently practiced by
President Bush in convincing our country to invade
Iraq. Bush can accurately say that he never
directly accused Saddam of being behind 9/11, but
his implications were so strong that a majority of
U.S. citizens were convinced at the beginning of
the assault on Iraq that Saddam was directly
responsible for 9/11. Bush is an expert in
using weasel words, just like Weeks. Maybe Bush
went to the same disinformation school that Weeks
attended.

[snip]


You sure have Mike "the Mole" Weeks pegged right. He cannot back up
Cristols lies as he knows they are lies and still cannot explain why
his is so vehemently opposed to a new investigation such that he
spends so much time trying to prevent it. It seems rather reasonable
to investigate anew the events surrounding the USS Liberty attack in
public investigation that settles this once and for all.

I also believe that Weeks is nothing but a Zionist mole working to
undermine the security of United States of America. An investigation
into Mike Week's past should also be conducted as Weeks "claims" to
have served in the US Navy (hard to believe I know) so what secrets he
may have stolen is also in question.
  #10  
Old June 30th 04, 01:29 AM
Steve Richter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message . com...
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
Idiot;


Weeks does what he does best, he resorts to childish
name calling.


What Mike does best is finding the facts and presenting
his conclusions based on the facts; e.g. you are an idiot.

He acknowledges that Congress has never conducted an
investigation devoted solely to the Liberty affair.


What makes "Congress" more qualified to run an investigation than
the CIA? Can Congress get more data? Does Congress have deeper
understanding of Israel? Does Congress have better exprerts in
navies-at-war issues than the US NAvy?


1st, Congress has the legal authority to place witnesses under oath.
2nd, as an equal branch of government to the executive, can demand
full access to all information known by the GOUS. Thirdly, and most
important, the US Congress owns Israel from the perspective that it
authorizes the billions of $$ each year that the US gives to Israel to
conduct its brutal occupation of the palestinian territories. The
Congress could, if it wanted, force Israel to release what it knows.

To this day, Israel refuses to release crucial facts of the attack on
the American ship. A simple item like the flight path of the initial
Kursa attack jets as they approached the Liberty is unknown. It is
important to know because Micha Limor, a blabbermouth crewman of the
attacking MTBs, wrote an article contemporaneous to the attack that
reports the jets flew over the MTBs then went on to attack the
Liberty. The testimony of the captain of the Liberty, CDR McGonagle
indicates strongly to that flight path. ( Hillel, Mike Weeks, who you
think highly of, was very disengenous in a past online discussion of
this issue. He posted that the Liberty's radar readings of the
approaching jets as they passed overhead of the MTBs at 32,000 yds
distance was not possible because the Liberty radar was for surface
contacts only. He was immediately corrected by a poster knowledgeable
on the subject who informed the readership that the verticle beam of
the Liberty's radar would have reached the height of those jets at the
32000 yd distance as they passed over the approaching MTBs. )

This is just an example of the little pieces of information that
Israel will not release to the American public to explain its attack.
Israel says the first attack jets circled the Liberty twice before
going in for the kill. The IAF controller transcripts indicate that
only a few minutes elapsed between the time that the Kursa lead pilot
is talking to the MTB crew and correcting their course to the Liberty
and the time the Israeli jets complete their first attack. The immed
pre attack timeline drawn from the NCOI, which matches up with what
Micha Limor reported in his article, does not come close to matching
the one drawn from the IAF controller transcripts. Add to this the
assertion that the Israelis are lieing about the attack jets first
circling the Liberty and there are credible grounds to suspect that
the IAF controller tapes and transcripts have been doctored, that is
conversations have been removed from those tapes.

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? Israel's
shills like Jay Cristol parrot the Israeli explanation that the MTBs
measured the Liberty's speed at 30 knots, "warship" speed. ( Micha
Limor, our man on the MTB, writes that the measured speed of the
Liberty was much less! ) But at jet attack time, the IAF controllers
are using the very capable coastal radar net to direct the Kursa jets
from whereever they were coming from to the Liberty. The Israeli
coastal radar could see the Liberty fine. Why was it not used to find
the ship that was supposedly shelling El Arish instead of the crappy
radar onboard the MTBs?

The public has been told how the Israeli Naval command forgot it knew
of the American spy ship Liberty the morning of 8 June, hours before
it ordered the attack. But what about what the Israeli air force
command knew? IDF COS Rabin and IAF CDR Hod were both in on the
attack, communicating with the Kursa flight leader as he approached
the Liberty. Did they know the Liberty had been identified as an
American spy ship hours before also? If so, why did those highest
ranking Israeli commanders not question their subordinates as the
attack was developing as to the obvious question of was the ship that
was going to be attacked the American ship? ( And if not, why not?
The presence of an American spy ship possibly means the Russians are
in the area. Are the Russians organizing a counterattack in the
Sinai? That would be the most important news of the day for
Rabin/Hod/Dayan to be aware of. ) And if Rabin and Hod were talking to
Kursa flight leader Spector immed pre attack ( as per well connected
SDW historian Michael Oren ), why are their conversations not present
on the IAF controller transcripts?

So yes, Hillel, a congressional investigation is long overdue and
worthwhile to the American public. The fact that American Jews appear
to be the only entity opposed to such an investigation is very
upsetting. Americans have been very loyal and friendly to Israel.
Israel should return that goodwill in kind.

-Steve
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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 10:01 PM
THOMAS MOORER, EX-JOINT CHIEFS CHAIR DIES Ewe n0 who Military Aviation 2 February 12th 04 01:52 AM
Letter from USS Liberty Survivor Grantland Military Aviation 1 July 17th 03 03:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.