USS Liberty - Israel's "War of Self Defense" - Page 7




 
--
 
June 10th, 2009  
senojekips
 
 
Please don't try accusing me of not answering your every point. If you care to read back through the thread, you will find that they have probably already been covered, or are regarded as frivolous.

I can go back and find as many of my points that you have not answered or provided logical explanations for like the quote repeated here for the third time.
Quote:
Moorer, who as top legal council to the official investigation is in a position to know, agrees that Israel intended to sink the USS Liberty and blame Egypt for it, thus dragging the United States into a war on Israel's behalf. This seems to be a common trick of Israel. Starting with the Lavon affair, through the USS Liberty, to the fake radio transmitter that tricked Reagan into attacking Libya , to potentially 9-11 itself , Israel's game is to frame Arabs and set them up as targets for the United States.
I know you have no excuse to cover this and I have just counted it as a point that I won and moved on. So let's just get over it.

As I said several posts ago, I have stated my opinion and noted the opinions of all other posters here, it certainly seems that my opinion is in agreement with the majority of US posters, so that's where I'll throw my lot on this subject. No one else has said anything that would cause me to doubt my decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
But we are still left with the question of why.
There are no doubt only a very small number of persons who actually know the answer,... and they are not talking, so the best I can do in view of the available evidence is to side with the thoughts of the US Senior Legal Council, as stated in the quote above..
June 10th, 2009  
LeMask
 
So, what are the possible scenarios?

I dont think there is many.

The official version is of course a joke. We are not told the truth. They always feed us with the most stupid stories available...

They would be easier to believe if they told me that Aliens came up with flying saucers disguised as Israeli jets and bombed the ship with lasers... I could believe that.

Truth is like liberty. No body will give you liberty. You will have to take it.

Anyway, this event looks like the Gulf of Tonkin incident. A fake attack on an US warship to pull the American people into a war.

You are all here focused on the Israelis. But it's the Americans you should care about.

Following what I've heard, the American ship called for help and begged for support. And it didnt receive any. They even called off aircrafts rushing for help...

I think that the attack was planned from both sides. The Israelis are just the ones who were supposed to kill the human sacrifice.

Maybe the US wanted an excuse to set a foothold in the area?

And they dont say much about the Russian intelligence ship. The attack stopped when this Russian ship arrived. They even asked the USS Liberty if they needed help...

I think that if the Russians werent there, the Americans would have blamed the attack on Egyptians and sent forces to take control of the whole area...
June 10th, 2009  
Chukpike
 
The most probable reason for Israel to attack the ship was to keep it from doing its job. Which was gathering real time information about the progress of the war and what Israel was accomplishing. Israel only wanted the US to know what it was willing to tell them.

This ship was not a freighter.

It was probably not to drag the US into the war. That probably would have happened if the Israelis were losing, which they were not.
--
June 10th, 2009  
LeMask
 
Well, you may be right. but I wouldnt bet money on that.

I would rather bet on the US government trying to start a war.

War are good for business. And a war against an Arab nation with their low tech armies is child's play for a super power like the US.

Once you have air superiority, all they can do is a eat lead and bombs... You send troops later to secure ground and finish off the disorganised troops.

And even if the Israelis were actually dominating on the battlefield, having a an ally superpower setting foot in the area was still welcome.

Just my opinion. I've heard many scenarios, and I think that it's the best one.

I think that call it false flag operations. You ask some of your units to destroy other of your units and then you blame it on the desired enemy.
June 10th, 2009  
EladBell
 
 
and as I said before,there are so many things that we do not know,and each country has its own reason for doing things,that may sound stupid for its citizens,but that is Politics,that is the world now.
"בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה"
this one is from the Bible and it means that a war could be waged by tricks and deceptions.
so lets agree not to agree.
if some of you say that Israel caused all the wars in the world,and that is what senojekips said or belive in his quotes.
and if some of you think that it is the US who wanted a foothold in the area after seeing all the Oil which could be at it's dissposle.
let it be then,only few know the truth and these few dont talk for a REASON.

Elad
June 10th, 2009  
Chukpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMask
Well, you may be right. but I wouldn't bet money on that.

I would rather bet on the US government trying to start a war.

War are good for business. And a war against an Arab nation with their low tech armies is child's play for a super power like the US.

Once you have air superiority, all they can do is a eat lead and bombs... You send troops later to secure ground and finish off the disorganised troops.

And even if the Israelis were actually dominating on the battlefield, having a an ally superpower setting foot in the area was still welcome.

Just my opinion. I've heard many scenarios, and I think that it's the best one.

I think that call it false flag operations. You ask some of your units to destroy other of your units and then you blame it on the desired enemy.
Pretty much, does not make sense at all.

The US did not need to start a war. The US was already in one, Vietnam. The liberty was attacked June 1967. We could just say Israel needed our help. We did not need to sink a asset that would have been very valuable in an actual conflict. It would have been used to monitor actions by both friendly and enemy forces. Does it make sense to cut off your ears and blind your eyes when going into battle?

Does it not make more sense for Israel to blind the US government to what it was doing? Leaving the US to get information the Israelis wanted the US to have.

I believe that a valid answer to the question why is: The Israelis did not want the US monitoring its military actions. Sometimes the obvious can be the answer.
June 10th, 2009  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike
Pretty much, does not make sense at all.

The US did not need to start a war. The US was already in one, Vietnam. The liberty was attacked June 1967. We could just say Israel needed our help. We did not need to sink a asset that would have been very valuable in an actual conflict. It would have been used to monitor actions by both friendly and enemy forces. Does it make sense to cut off your ears and blind your eyes when going into battle?

Does it not make more sense for Israel to blind the US government to what it was doing? Leaving the US to get information the Israelis wanted the US to have.

I believe that a valid answer to the question why is: The Israelis did not want the US monitoring its military actions. Sometimes the obvious can be the answer.
I would say that I lean toward this answer myself but it still has one sticking point, the USA and Israel were allies if Israel had said we have sensitive operations going on in this area and don't want your ship there chances are that the USA would not have put it there.

Attacking the one country that is pretty much funding and supplying your operations when surrounded by countries that want to destroy you does not sound like a rational action.

It is this point alone that leads me to believe this was an escalation in order to cover up a mistake rather than a deliberate assault.

It is very clear that in the eyes of the crew they were not meant to have survived the attack, the sinking of life rafts and the munitions used clearly indicate this and I find it odd that some of them believe that the only reason the attack stopped was the appearance of a Russian ship.
June 10th, 2009  
SHERMAN
 
 
Actually in 1967 Israel used very little US funding for security needs. The IDF had almsot no american hardware apart for one bettalion of M48 tanks. Only after 1967 because of the French refusal to sell Israel aircraft did the military relations really start to gear up.

The whole story is very wierd. You have to understand the people involved in the decision making at the time were not exactly the type to take radical decisions such as attackin a friendly superpower.

If anything I am with MontyB I think someone made a mistake at the first attack than panicked and ordered the IAF and Israeli Navy to sink her and kill the crew. Not that its any better, but it seems more likely...
June 11th, 2009  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EladBell
if some of you say that Israel caused all the wars in the world,and that is what senojekips said or belive in his quotes..
Elad
Now I know the true value of your reasoning, "You are a liar and an underhanded trouble maker, plain and simple".

Please find where I have said that and post your answer. I know you can't because I've never said it nor indicated anything like it, because it is simply not true. Stop behaving like a spoilt child who has been told the truth for the first time in his life.

You have no idea what I think, and you are merely trying to discredit me for telling you what you didn't want to hear, you'd better get used to it Buster as you're going to see a lot more of it. I tell the truth as I see it, whether it be about Israel, the USA or Australia, it makes no difference to me.

You'd be far better advised to read my signature, and take heed of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
If anything I am with MontyB I think someone made a mistake at the first attack than panicked and ordered the IAF and Israeli Navy to sink her and kill the crew. Not that its any better, but it seems more likely...
This is the only other story so far, that I feel is possible. It is very very "weird", but it is credible. My only doubt being that I thought the Israelis were far better organised than that.
June 11th, 2009  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
This is the only other story so far, that I feel is possible. It is very very "weird", but it is credible. My only doubt being that I thought the Israelis were far better organised than that.
This answer also has a flaw that I haven't explored because it starts to move more toward conspiracy theory and I hate conspiracies, but the flaw is this.

Why didn't the 6th Fleet respond to the attack?