Originally Posted by tetvet

As much as I try to make sense of Israel's attack on the Liberty I still cannot make sense of it , one attack maybe , things can get confused in war but several attacks no way .

I agree I found this on the Liberty's memorial site... (http://www.gtr5.com/news.htm)

Q:
We are frequently asked, "Why did Israel attack?"

A:
Israel's motive is irrelevant. They did it. They admit they did it. If motive were a factor, then Charles Manson should be released from prison because no one knows his precise motive for mass murder.
Q:
Still, they must have has some reason to attack. What plausible motive could they have had?

A:
We were an intelligence ship and the Israelis were doing something that they did not want the US to know about. One popular writer of Jewish fear-literature, John Loftus, writes in "The Secret War Against the Jews" (a Jewish version of The Turner Diaries) that Israel attacked deliberately because Israeli authorities believed that USS Liberty was relaying Israeli war plans to Egypt in order to assure the destruction of the Jewish State. That is patently ridiculous, but widely accepted even in Israel. Loftus claims to have documented his position through interviews with long lists of "retired old spies" whom he refuses to identify. While Loftus may be correct about Israeli paranoia, he is totally wrong about Liberty's mission. Liberty's primary mission was to collect intelligence on the Soviet forces in the area. The ship didn't even have a qualified Hebrew linguist aboard.
Q:
What other reason might they have had for attacking?

A:
Intelligence analysts agree that they attacked because they feared we might learn something that they did not want the United States to know.

That could have been

1. The planned invasion of the Golan Heights which was set to start a few hours after Liberty's arrival in the area. When Liberty arrived, the invasion was postponed for 24 hours, Liberty was attacked, and the invasion took place the next day. Did they postpone the invasion until Liberty was out of the way and unable to report on the war?

2. It is possible that they were afraid that Liberty might learn and report to the United States that Israeli forces were executing up to 1,000 Egyptian Prisoners of War at El Arish at the very moment that Liberty was just 13 miles off shore.

3. It is also possible that USS Liberty was attacked to prevent the ship from reporting a deliberate massacre of 14 Indian United Nations peacekeepers that took place in Gaza shortly before Israel's attack on USS Liberty. Q:
Some of those reasons sound far fetched. Is there any proof to substantiate them?
A:
Israeli apologists dismiss these stories as untrue or wildly speculative, despite the fact that they are well documented. Israeli apologist-historian Michael Oren in his book "Six Days of War" and in published articles dismisses the claim as untrue claiming that, if it were true, there would be mass graves, reports in the major media, and great outcries from Egypt for justice.

Behold! There are mass graves, major media reports and cries for justice.

Attention is invited to

CNN reporting on the subject which reports the mass graves of POWs and a TIME Magazine story which reports the outcry

More on the atrocities can be found in Jim Ennes's report in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, and in Jim Bamford's Body of Secrets.


http://www.gtr5.com/news.htm

Israel is a burden to the U.S. President after President have tried to bring peace to Palestine and Israel , I think in this Israel is the culprit .

You can not bring peace to a situation where one side has nothing to lose and the other has nothing to offer.

The status quo allows Israel to gradually expand its borders by creating new "facts on the ground" all the while receiving unconditional protection from the US power of veto so why would they want to resolve this issue and until the funding of your politicians by special interest groups like AIPAC is stopped your politicians will maintain this problem indefinitely.

From the Palestinian point of view there is no solution to this problem because the goal posts keep moving, first up it is "you have to cease hostilities" which they did, then it was you have to "recognise Israel's right to exist" which they did, now it is "you have to recognise Israel as the Jewish State" and if they do that it will be "you have to recognise Israel as the Jewish State with sugar on top".

There are only two options left to resolve this mess:
1) The US starts acting as an impartial mediator or drops out of the process altogether.
2) Israel annexes more of the West Bank and a two state solution becomes impossible thus forcing Israel to accept the Palestinians as citizens or the repercussions of being an apartheid state.

The USS Liberty incident should have been a wake up call unfortunately it was a cover up instead.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I think what most people believe is that in a democracy you don't call in the army to get rid of unwanted politicians you just don't elect them again.

As much as the case in Egypt may have been the will of the majority it was still counter to a true democratic process.

Unfortunately though, the country was in a very sensitive situation by the time. It was just after a revolution, the economy was crumbled, security concerns and terrorism rising up...etc.

And when it comes to not electing politicians again, that could be true in some scenarios but not for this case in Egypt for what I stated above and plus, elections never really made a difference as that's how Mubarak remained in power for 3 decades. Every presidential elections Egyptians would just hear that Mubarak won by 99% of votes and other outrageous numbers. There used to be a joke going around that people should rally up trying to find this 1 guy that voted against Mubarak for a big thanks. Of course the Maths doesn't really add up since 1% isn't 1 person but you get the point.

Democracy by definition, means the government by people. Due to all the blatant and empty lies being told by many of the presidential candidates around the world, I do disagree with saying since they got into office now we have to wait until the next election. I feel it's more "democratic" that when a candidate wins the elections and becomes the president, he/she knows that the people are watching and looking for positive progress else, the same population that put him into office will take him out. That was the exact case with Morsi since as soon as he won the elections it was made clear that he has exactly 1 year to fulfill the promises that he has made and since of course he didn't really fulfill them as he promised, he was overthrown. I see that as more power to the people and at least closer to the definition of democracy.

Originally Posted by ScarabVenom

Democracy by definition, means the government by people. Due to all the blatant and empty lies being told by many of the presidential candidates around the world, I do disagree with saying since they got into office now we have to wait until the next election. I feel it's more "democratic" that when a candidate wins the elections and becomes the president, he/she knows that the people are watching and looking for positive progress else, the same population that put him into office will take him out. That was the exact case with Morsi since as soon as he won the elections it was made clear that he has exactly 1 year to fulfill the promises that he has made and since of course he didn't really fulfill them as he promised, he was overthrown. I see that as more power to the people and at least closer to the definition of democracy.

As I was in the country during the early stages of the protests this question is somewhat redundant but to play devils advocate how do we know the crowd in Tahrir Square were genuinely representative of the Egyptian people as a whole and not just a rent a mob as was the case in the Ukraine recently?

The problem with the idea that if enough people show up to a protest the army will over throw an elected government is that it is inherently undemocratic and makes for unstable government as it becomes almost impossible for them to do "unpopular" things and like it or not governments do at times have to do unpopular things.

Originally Posted by MontyB

As I was in the country during the early stages of the protests this question is somewhat redundant but to play devils advocate how do we know the crowd in Tahrir Square were genuinely representative of the Egyptian people as a whole and not just a rent a mob as was the case in the Ukraine recently?

The problem with the idea that if enough people show up to a protest the army will over throw an elected government is that it is inherently undemocratic and makes for unstable government as it becomes almost impossible for them to do "unpopular" things and like it or not governments do at times have to do unpopular things.

Unfortunately, such possibilities do always exist and some people already assume so. I personally do believe the protests were genuine because I know how life was in Egypt before the revolution and for a little bit after since I traveled to USA in late 2011 so I was living in the country before, during and after the 2011 revolution. Plus, it's kind of difficult to believe that the Tunisian revolution that influenced the Egyptian revolution that influenced the Libyan revolution etc, was a "mob" as you described it. When I decided to join the revolution, I know that I personally wasn't getting bribed by anyone or being a part of a "mob" or whatsoever.

When it comes to the army taking over, I'd like to clarify that it started as mass protests in the beginning and the army only involved when Morsi showed stubbornness talking about how he's elected and blah blah blah. For sure, governments do unpopular things, an example would be the sky-rocketing prices and increasing tax rates that supposedly should contribute to a better economy. Sisi's government has increased the prices on a lot of products but since I do believe in him and his love for the country, I can at least say I have good expectations but one can't know the future. Actions more or less depend on the country, for some people a coup d'etat means military dictatorship in Egypt's case it was a coup d'etat that freed the country from the British puppet called king.

Originally Posted by ScarabVenom

increasing tax rates that supposedly should contribute to a better economy. .

Yeah, right, that's just Leftist theory that the Govt (full of people of supposedly high intelligence) knows how to spend the people's (whom Elitist assume are too stupid to figure out what to spend it on if left in their pockets) money better than the people could. Kennedy & Reagan had good results from cutting taxes.

Originally Posted by ScarabVenom

Unfortunately, such possibilities do always exist and some people already assume so. I personally do believe the protests were genuine because I know how life was in Egypt before the revolution and for a little bit after since I traveled to USA in late 2011 so I was living in the country before, during and after the 2011 revolution. Plus, it's kind of difficult to believe that the Tunisian revolution that influenced the Egyptian revolution that influenced the Libyan revolution etc, was a "mob" as you described it. When I decided to join the revolution, I know that I personally wasn't getting bribed by anyone or being a part of a "mob" or whatsoever.

When it comes to the army taking over, I'd like to clarify that it started as mass protests in the beginning and the army only involved when Morsi showed stubbornness talking about how he's elected and blah blah blah. For sure, governments do unpopular things, an example would be the sky-rocketing prices and increasing tax rates that supposedly should contribute to a better economy. Sisi's government has increased the prices on a lot of products but since I do believe in him and his love for the country, I can at least say I have good expectations but one can't know the future. Actions more or less depend on the country, for some people a coup d'etat means military dictatorship in Egypt's case it was a coup d'etat that freed the country from the British puppet called king.

I think no matter how you look at it what happened in Egypt was by definition a military coup which is not necessarily a bad thing if that is indeed what the people want.

I am not sure how Egypt is now and all I can really say is that I was appalled by the media coverage of the protests, when I got home the news was awash with stories about what was happening there but what they were reporting and what I encountered were two very different things.

While I was there tourism had been hit hard and after watching what had been reported it isn't hard to see why, I hope when I go back next year things will have improved because I had a great time and would hate to see people miss out on seeing the country due to over sensational media coverage.

Originally Posted by tetvet

As much as I try to make sense of Israel's attack on the Liberty I still cannot make sense of it , one attack maybe , things can get confused in war but several attacks no way .

Once Israel knew it was an American ship, the attacks ceased.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Once Israel knew it was an American ship, the attacks ceased.

Yeah but after 9 hours of knowing it was an American ship.