About USS Liberty - Israel's "War of Self Defense" Page 10
|October 16th, 2009||#91|
| || |
That what Mr Cristol.author of the book 'Liberty incident' said:
Mr. Bamford provides as his source of this claim two Israeli journalists, both of whom have denied statements attributed to them by Bamford. First, it is literally impossible for an electronic intelligence gatherer to overhear murders taking place in a desert more than a dozen miles away. The Sinai was returned to Egypt in 1973. Egypt has made no claim that such murders took place. No mass graves have been located and no Egyptian soldiers from the '67 war are missing or unaccounted for. Mr. Bamford writings are much closer to fiction than to history.
"On July 2, 2003, as a result of my lawsuit using the Freedom of Information Act, the National Security Agency made two significant admissions. First, that there had been no radio intercepts made by the USS Liberty. Second, that there had been no radio intercepts made by the US submarine Amberjack. And finally, the National Security Agency released copies of the recordings it made from an EC-121 aircraft in the vicinity of the attacks during the time periods 2:30 p.m. Sinai time to 3:27 p.m. Sinai time. These tapes contain nothing to support the prior conspiracy claims and show that the helicopters were first dispatched to rescue Egyptians, and then demonstrate the confusion as to the identification of the target ship."
Cristol adds: "The tapes confirm that the helicopter pilot observed the flag at 3:12 p.m. This perfectly dove-tails with the audio tapes which the Israel Air Force released to Judge Cristol of the radio transmissions before, during and after the attack. The English translations of those tapes are published in Appendix 2, of Judge Cristol's book "The Liberty Incident". The NSA tapes are the last significant piece of evidence which remained classified until now. They clearly corroborates the Israeli Air Force tapes and support the decisions of ten official U.S. investigations and 3 or more official Israeli investigations, all of which concluded that the tragic event was a case of mistaken identity."
"As Admiral "Bud" Edney, former NATO supreme allied commander, Atlantic; and commander in chief, U.S. Atlantic command, stated, "Only those with an ulterior motive can still cling to the conspiracy theories after Judge Jay Cristol's excellent coverage documents each detail that led to the tragic mistaken attack."
Last edited by greg2k; October 17th, 2009 at 15:54..
|October 20th, 2009||#92|
| || |
1) An unarmed ship
2) in International waters
3) Clearly flying a neutral parties flag.
Now I can accept an initial mistake that lead to confusion over the ships identity by the reconnaissance aircraft in the first flyby and that warplanes would then be dispatched (lets ignore that they were in international waters for a second) but it is hard to explain the same identification issues from the attacking aircraft and then the subsequent gunboat attack.
I don't accept the conspiracy theories that have sprung up around this attack as they are far fetched to say the least but I do believe it was a deliberate attempt to sink the ship more than likely caused by a compounding mistake at a local level.
We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
|October 20th, 2009||#93|
| || |
B.Israel acknowledged the ship had been identified as American and neutral morning June 8,at 6 a.m, however, it claims that at 11 a.m., the ship was removed from the command status board. Later that day,approx. 12 p.m,when explosions were heard in El-Arish, Israel claims to have reacquired the ship without being aware that it was the same one that was flown over earlier in the day.
C.If you have a belief the attack was deliberate you can live with it,if you want to prove something please bring facts.
Last edited by greg2k; October 20th, 2009 at 17:26..
|October 20th, 2009||#94|
| || |
Yeah this is all nifty and if we take each individual chance to avoid an attack as a single event your argument would be plausible but the problem is that there were 3 opportunities to go "whoops this is a neutral vessel in international waters perhaps we shouldn't be attacking it" .
I am happy to accept that the ship was initially incorrectly identified and this no doubt led to it being attacked (no arguments and a perfectly understandable reaction during a war) but your argument fails to take into account that it flew the US flag throughout the attack and it was attacked by two separate combat entities (not counting the unarmed recon flights before the attack) at different times (aircraft as least two separate assaults and ships), I do not believe for an instant that neither of those two forces took the time to identify their target correctly.
Last edited by MontyB; October 20th, 2009 at 19:38..
|October 20th, 2009||#95|
| || |
The first wave of two planes attacked the ship at 2 PM and the leading pilot identified the ship as enemy military ship,moving in direction of Port Said.The order was given to attack the ship to the first pair of planes and to the second pair of planes ,which were close.Second pair did not need to identify the ship,because it was identified already by first leading pilot.When we understand these lets look at the situation with motor boats.They were the first which had gotten order to identify the ship,but because of the distance from their base in Ashdod to the location of Liberty was big,they called for assistance from air force.So by the time motor boats came to the scene, air attack already took place.Israelis already had doudts about the ship identification,based on the pilots messages quoting CTR5 letters on the ship.Approaching motor boats and USS Liberty were signalling to each other, but because of the distance and heavy smoke they did not understand each other signals.And then suddenly USS Liberty opened fire on approaching boats from two machine guns.For the israeli boats it was an indication of the hostility of the ship,and motor boat sent five torpedoes,one of them hit the target.This are the timetable of the event: 1420 1220 0820
IAF Command at Kirya tells Naval Command at Stella Maris there is doubt about the target’s
identification. [IDF History Department.] Stella Maris orders MTB Division 914 not to attack.
[IDF History Department/MTB Division War Log.] 1423 1223 0823
MTB Division 914 reports no clear eyeball identification. Target range 4 miles (8,000 yards.)
[IDF Navy HQ War Log.]
1424 1224 0824
Liberty records three (3) MTBs sighted abaft starboard beam, distance 3-4 miles. [USS Liberty
Deck Log, 8 June 1967.] The distance is recorded as 4-5 miles in the US Naval Court of
Inquiry/Exhibit 27: Chronology of Events.
MTB Division 914 reports ship may be commercial or a supply vessel. Not sure. [IDF Navy HQ
1424 3 MTB'S SIGHTED ABAFT STARBOARD 1BEAM DISTANCE 4 -5 MILES (ship log) 1425 1225 0825
Saratoga received from Liberty over the Hi-Com: "Three unidentified gunboats are approaching
vessel now." [US Naval Court of Inquiry/Document 85 of Exhibit 48: DTG 081237Z June 1967,
USS Saratoga to CINCUSNAVEUR.]1426 1226 0826
Liberty records normal (5x8-ft.) steaming ensign noticed not flying. Holiday-size (7x13-ft.) flag
hoisted on port yardarm. [US Naval Court of Inquiry/Exhibit 27: Chronology of Events; USS
Liberty Deck Log, 8 June 1967.]
1428 1228 0828
Liberty records “MTB signaling by flashing light from starboard quarter. Light obscured by densesmoke from burning motor whale boat.” [US Naval Court of Inquiry/Exhibit 27: Chronology of Events and Record of Proceedings, p. 39; USS Liberty Deck Log, 8 June 1967.] IDF History
Department states the MTB signaling time as 1427 with a response from the smoking vessel of
“AA.”[MTB Division 914 War Log.] The Navy HQ War Log indicates MTBs reported the range
as two miles [4,000 yards] while Commander McGonagle’s testimony on p. 39 estimated the
range as 2,000 yards.
1428 MTB SIGNALLING BY FLASHING LIGHT FROM STBD QUARTER.
LIGHT OBSCURED BY DENSE SMOKE FROM BURNING MOTOR WHALEBOAT. (ship log)
1430-31 1230-31 0830-31
Liberty records starboard .50-caliber machine guns opened fire on MTBs. Captain ordered “hold
fire.” Word passed to “standby torpedo attack starboard.” [US Naval Court of Inquiry/Exhibit
27: Chronology of Events and Record of Proceedings, p. 39; USS Liberty Deck Log, 8 June
MTBs commence attack run after permission to do so from Naval HQ is granted. The MTB
Division 914 War Log records “detected firing flashes” at 1435, identification of the ship as the
El Quiser at 1437, and attack commencing at 1440.
Dispatched IAF helicopters are informed they are heading towards an attacked “warship.” [NSA
1430 ONE ROUND FIRED BY MACHINE GUN 51. C.O. ORDERED HOLD FIRE. (ship log)
1431 MACHINE GUN 53 OPENED FIRE. C.O. SENT ENS LUCAS AROUND
PORT SIDE OF BRIDGE TO GET MACHINE GUN 53 TO CEASE FIRING (ship log)
see next posting.
Last edited by greg2k; October 21st, 2009 at 00:46..
|October 20th, 2009||#96|
| || |
I guess it comes down to how much stock you put into the survivors accounts, I tend to think that for the most part they are accurate as they have the bullet holes to back them up.
I also think it is incredibly unlikely that multiple waves of aircraft and ships operating at low level and in the case of the ships at close proximity never once focused enough attention on their target to notice the flag it was flying.
This is my personal belief:
1) The ship was incorrectly identified as an Egyptian vessel.
2) It was attacked.
3) It was then correctly identified as a US vessel and local commanders decided to complete the attack and sink the vessel in the hopes of being able to pass off a mistake as an Egyptian attack.
No conspiracies at senior levels just simple human error and stupidity, I do not believe that the US government was involved nor do I believe that the higher echelons of the Israeli government were involved.
Last edited by MontyB; October 20th, 2009 at 22:15..
|October 20th, 2009||#97|
| || |
cont.from previous posting 1434 1234 0834
One torpedo passed astern logged by Liberty. [US Naval Court of Inquiry/Exhibit 27:
The Liberty Incident Time Line Page 25 of 56
Chronology of Events; USS Liberty Deck Log, 8 June 1967.]
IAF HQ is informed that the ship is “an Egyptian supply boat” by IAF Regional Control Central
based on the information passed by the navy. [IAF audio tapes.] Dispatched IAF helicopters are
informed the vessel is “now identified as Egyptian. You can return home now.” [NSA audio
1435 TORPEDO HIT STARBOARD SIDE AMIDSHIPS. TWENTY SIX MEN
DIED AS A RESULT OF THE TORPEDO HIT AND MTB STRAFING FIRE. (ship log)
1440 MTB'S STANDING AWAY FROM THE SHIP. ONE MTB HAS HULL NUMBER 206-17 (ship log)
1450 1250 0850
Admiral Martin transmitted directly to America ordering her to launch four armed A-4s and
provide fighter cover and tankers. He also transmitted directly to Saratoga to launch four armed
A-1s ASAP same mission.. [JCS Fact Finding Team Report, June 1967: DTG 081250Z June
1967, COMSIXTHFLT to USS America and USS Saratoga.]
Note: The next day Admiral Martin sent the following message to CTF60, Admiral Geis:
“In the rush of getting the flight off to protect Liberty, I went direct to your carriers
bypassing you. The action was inadvertent and I apoligize [sic] for it.” [Naval Historical
Center: DTG 091306Z June 1967, CTF60 to TF60.]
It is also interesting to note that Admiral Martin mentions "the flight" rather than “flights.” It also
confirms that bypassing the chain-of-command was not a normal event.
The MTBs are ordered to search for survivors and establish identity. [MTB Division 914 War
1451 1251 0851
The MTBs report that ship might be Russian: “Based on writing on back [stern] of vessel.” [MTB
Division 914 War Log.]
1456 1256 0856
IAF HQ is informed that the dispatched IAF helicopters will be asked to determine the language
of the sailors picked up. [IAF audio tapes.]
1458 1258 0858
The IAF helicopters are instructed to determine the nationality of the first man picked up and to
report immediately. [NSA audio tapes.]
1503 ONE MTB RETURNED TO SHIP AND SIGNALLED "DO YOU NEED
HELP" IN ENGLISH C.O. SIGNALLED "NEGATIVE" (ship log)
1503 1303 0903
Israeli MTBs offered assistance by flashing light to Liberty. Assistance is declined. [USS Liberty
Deck Log, 8 June 1967; US Naval Court of Inquiry/Exhibit 27: Chronology of Events.] The Navy
HQ War Log reports MTB Division 914 “closely approaching in order to identify the vessel” at
The MTBs record two helicopters are coming. [MTB Division 914 War Log.]
The IAF helicopters report coming up on three small vessels and one large vessel. They are
informed the three small vessels are “ours.” [NSA audio tapes.]
1504 1304 0904
IAF Command records nationality of the ship is not established. [IAF audio tapes.] One of the
dispatched IAF helicopters has established communications with the MTBs. [NSA audio tapes.]
1506 1306 0906
The IAF helicopters are instructed to determine the language of any men picked up. If they speak
Arabic, take them to El Arish. If English, to Lod airport. [NSA audio tapes.]
1512 1312 0912
IAF Command records that the identification of the ship is American. The helicopters are
requested to double-check.[IAF and NSA audio tapes; CIA Report SC No. 01415/67, 13 June
1967.] The IDF Navy HQ War Log reports this events as 1513.
1514 1314 0914
IAF HQ is informed “it’s an American flag.” The helicopters are instructed to “return home.”[IAF
and NSA audio tapes.]
So now we can see that israeli motor boats were attacked first in the international waters,USS Liberty did not know the identity of the approaching boats and opened fire on them.USS Liberty was on fire with heavy smoke from air attack and israelis could not see flag on the ship.Only the pilots of the two israeli helicopters ,which came on the scene and approached very close to the ship first reported saw it at 3.12 PM.Only after that the ship was finally identified as american.
Last edited by greg2k; October 20th, 2009 at 23:19..
|October 20th, 2009||#98|
| || |
I get the impression here you are trying play at being an apologist, I suspect that by the time the MTBs arrived the crew of the Liberty were wishing they had something more useful than a couple of 50cals to fire at the approaching ships and I certainly don't blame them for that (in fact you have to admire them for being able to engage an enemy given the damage they suffered).
I have no idea why you want to bring "international waters' into this as an Israeli defence given that the Liberty was defending itself from an attack that was already underway in "international waters" and when you consider that the testimony of the Liberty's crew was that they managed to ID the nationality of the Recon flights, attacking aircraft and naval vessels even while under attack I find it impossible to accept Iraeli accounts that they couldn't ID the Liberty given the bloody great flag it was flying.
I accept that my views as you have stated are based on opinion/feeling but I think most people know when someone is trying to pull a fast one without requiring written documentation and in the case of the Israeli excuses on this one I think it is pretty clear.
|October 21st, 2009||#99|
| || |
Last edited by greg2k; October 21st, 2009 at 00:39..
|October 21st, 2009||#100|
| || |
Clearly you do not understand human nature then because I will guarantee you that immediately after the attack there is no way Israeli personnel or help would have been accepted on that ship without a gun battle first to think that anyone is going to accept aid from the same guys the minutes before sucker punched them and killed their shipmates in international waters is wishful thinking to say the least.
As far as the survivors beliefs regarding their own government, CIA etc. go I see that as perfectly understandable when you take into account the actions taken and no amount of apologising will change this, it is easy for governments to brush aside incidents and accept apology's when they were not there at the time.
Out of interest if I unexpectedly opened up on your house killing a couple of family members then a couple of hours into the attack suddenly said "whoa sorry I thought you were someone else, my bad can I call you a doctor" and the police that showed up told you that I apologied so they are not going to pursue the matter, how happy would you be?
I am betting you wouldn't be at all satisfied.