|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| I was also surprised that you felt the horrific bombardment of Lebanese civilians was somehow justified by what was a comparatively small border skirmish. |
You mean the deliberate kidnapping of Israeli soldiers on Iran's commands?
Not all of the reaction was proportional, but likewise Hezbollah would have violated int'l law by putting their arms under Lebanese hospitals.
Hezbollah antagonized (a good word) Israel intentionally b/c the liberation of Lebanon was threatening their raison d'etre. Their commanders in Tehran realized this was a problem, so they stirred up the hornet's nest, knowing that Israel has shallow strategic depth and they'd have to respond to provocation.
Hezbollah set up a brilliant trap, and I share judgment with most of the non-Shi'a of Lebanon that much of the blood (though not all) is on Hezbollah's hands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is another perspective. I've written my own views on it too many times, so I thought I'd do a quick cut and paste of an opposing perspective:
http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2006/07/correlli-barnett-on-israels-terrorist.html
Several of my good friends are American, but this does not inhibit me from criticising George W. Bush's catastrophically misguided invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Similarly, I have good friends who are Jewish, but this will not inhibit me from criticising the current "total war" being waged on Lebanon by the Israeli state.
The fact that some of my Jewish friends will read this article only makes me the more sad that I have to say, as a military historian, that this war is grotesquely out of proportion to the level of casualties and damage previously inflicted on Israel by Hezbollah.
It is likewise grotesquely out of proportion to the taking hostage of two Israeli soldiers. As are the ferocious Israeli attacks inside the Gaza Strip in response to the taking hostage of just one soldier. Certainly, Israel has the right to defend herself today, as she has done successfully in the past.
But surely her response to Hamas and Hezbollah should have been limited and precisely targeted rather than a version of the "shock-and-awe" bombing that opened the American invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The Israeli Government should have learned that "shock and awe" may only be a prelude to a protracted guerrilla war.
During the long and bitter struggle against the IRA in Northern Ireland, it never occurred to any British government that IRA bases and arms dumps within the Irish Republic should be bombed by the Royal Air Force.
Let alone that whole districts of Irish cities known to harbour IRA terrorists should be destroyed.
Equally, it has never occurred to a Spanish government that it would be right and proper to respond to the lethal, indiscriminate attacks by ETA (the Basque terrorist organization) by savagely bombing and rocketing San Sebastian and other Basque cities.
Why should Israel regard herself as a privileged exception?
Why should "the West" in general, and Bush and Blair, in particular regard her as entitled to conduct a total war in response to Hezbollah attacks no worse than those of the IRA and ETA?
These questions are the more pertinent because Israel was born out of a terrorist struggle in 1945-48 against Britain, which then ruled Palestine under a United Nations mandate.
The so-called Stern Gang (after its founder, Abraham Stern) specialised in assassination; its most famous victim being Lord Moyne, the Colonial Secretary, shot in Cairo in 1944.
But by far the most dangerous Jewish terrorist group was the Irgun Zvei Leumi (National Military Organisation) led by Menachem Begin who, after the creation of the state of Israel, founded the Likud political party, and even finished up as prime minister.
The group's propaganda stated its political aims with brutal clarity.
First, what it called "the Nazo-British occupation forces" must be driven out of Palestine. Then a Jewish state would be established embracing Palestine and Transjordan (as Jordan was then known). Too bad about the native population of Arabs, of course.
The group's logo, displayed on the fly-posters which I saw as a soldier in Palestine in 1946-47, showed a crude map of Palestine and Transjordan with an arm holding a rifle splayed across it.
The Irgun's successful attacks included the demolition in August 1946 of the wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem housing the secretariat of the British mandatory government and the HQ of British troops in Palestine: at a cost of 91 lives; Jewish, Arab and British, most of them civilians. Another "success" was the blowing up of the Officer's Club in Jerusalem in March 1947.
In combat with a terrorist group perhaps 3000 strong, a maximum of 100,000 British troops were deployed in a country the size of Wales.
There was a lesson here for George W. Bush and Tony Blair before their invasion of Iraq, but of course a lesson unheeded by men with no interest in history.
In July 1947, the Irgun Zvei Leumi kidnapped two British Intelligence Corps sergeants as hostages to trade against the lives of three Irgun terrorists under sentence of death for an attack on Acre jail.
Here is an exact parallel to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah.
But, unlike the savage reaction of Ehud Olmert's Government today, the British government in 1947 did not seek to apply pressure to the kidnappers by ordering the RAF to destroy large parts of Tel Aviv.
In the event, the three Jewish terrorists were hanged and the Irgun in turn strung up the two British sergeants from a tree in an orange grove and booby-trapped their bodies.
All attempts to negotiate a future for Palestine, which balanced Jewish interests against those of the majority Arab population, came to nothing. A project for a single state with Jewish and Arab cantons was rejected by the Arabs.
An Arab proposal for a single state based on the existing Arab majority and a limit on future Jewish immigration was rejected by Jewish leaders. A two-state solution proposed by a UN commission and favoured by Washington was in turn rejected by the Labour Government, which rightly feared that it would be British troops who would have to impose the settlement on one side or the other, or perhaps on both.
So Britain handed the mandate back to the UN and announced that British rule in Palestine would end in May, 1948.
By the time the last British force had left, this violence had degenerated into anarchic civil war between Jew and Arab. It was just the prelude to the full-scale war between the new state of Israel and neighbouring Arab regimes wanting to extinguish it.
The war ended in the successful conquest by Israel of the larger part of Palestine, and a tidal wave of Arab refugees into Lebanon and Jordan.
Here is the origin of today's bitter Arab resentment of Israeli hegemony, a resentment that powers both Hamas and Hezbollah as they follow the path of terrorism first mapped out by the Stern Gang and the Irgun Zvei Leumi in the 1940s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For anyone interested in reading about the USS Liberty, you could start here:
USS Liberty Memorial - Summary of Events
Disclaimer: always keep your minds open kids. Always remember that every source you read may be (intentionally or not) biased in some way.
I might point out that even if they didn't know the ship was of the US (which is very difficult to believe once you look at all the evidence), the way it was attacked still constitutes a war crime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There has never been an independant Palestinian state in the history of the world. That doesn't mean that there ought not be or that refugees are not entitled to compensation.
If Hizzbollah is an organization that is not out to destroy Israel then Israel's actions were excessive. If Hezzbollah is an organization out to destroy Israel then by not destroying Hizzbollah Israel is waiting around for the next attack.
USS Liberty attack tapes released
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/09/uss.liberty.tapes/
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| ernie wrote: |
"the palestinians have blown several chances at statehood"
ummm... they HAD a state before the zionists decided to invade. while i agree that the extremist palestinians are in the wrong, they at least have a valid claim to the land. israel is a 'state' created out of land seized by settlers whose 'claim' to the land comes from a (fictional) narrative, ie the bible. the israelis need to start working with the palestinians, not the other way around! |
There has never been an independant Palestinian state in the history of the world. |
So many nation states today exist where there was once no 'independent (insert here) state before'. That means nothing, Joo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| ernie wrote: |
"the palestinians have blown several chances at statehood"
ummm... they HAD a state before the zionists decided to invade. while i agree that the extremist palestinians are in the wrong, they at least have a valid claim to the land. israel is a 'state' created out of land seized by settlers whose 'claim' to the land comes from a (fictional) narrative, ie the bible. the israelis need to start working with the palestinians, not the other way around! |
There has never been an independant Palestinian state in the history of the world. |
So many nation states today exist where there was once no 'independent (insert here) state before'. That means nothing, Joo. |
That has never been an independant Palestinian state in the history of the world. That doesn't mean that there ought not be or that refugees are not entitled to compensation. But that is the fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was aware of this at the time it came out. It just posed more questions, and did not put the thing to rest.
Here's a more recent news piece (from 2007): New revelations in attack on American spy ship - Chicago Tribune
And here's a statement from just one witness. I'm only posting one, because it would clutter this thread. But there are now plenty of witnesses who have come forward about what they witnessed on that day. I chose just one of the witnesses whose testimony puts the evidence you proffered in question:
Statement by former Air Force intelligence analyst Stephen Forslund:
I finally feel the overwhelming compulsion to say something about what I witnessed. I do so with fear and discomfort because of the oath of secrecy we all took and the uncertainty over the legality of speaking out. What motivates me to speak is the fact that nothing I can add will harm our nation or compromise our intelligence sources at this late date. I can be written off as a liar or "conspiracy weirdo" or prosecuted if they want to admit that what I say is true.
Much discussion has gone on about what the NSA archives hold about the Liberty attack. The latest I read, stated that the only and final "tapes" that the NSA has released show that helicopters sent by Israel to the site of the attack on the Liberty, after the attack, were unaware of her nationality. Much importance is put on this issue by different factions in this debate. Parties state that these are the only tapes of intercepts that exist. That may very well be true, now. Nothing I can say will change anyone's mind but I have to state, for my own peace of mind, what I witnessed as an all source intelligence analyst for the U.S. Air Force during the 6 day war.
There were other intercepts, and I and many others like me, read transcripts of the air-to-air and air-to-ground communications of the fighters who attacked the USS Liberty. We read these in real time during the day the attack occurred. These intercepts were preceded by many others we read that week that started with the opening attack by Israel in the war and included intercepts of messages between the USA and Israel in which our government stated their knowledge of the Israeli's pre-emptive attack that began the war and warned Israel to cease their activities.
On the day of the attack on the Liberty, I read yellow teletype sheets that spewed from the machines in front of me all day. We obtained our input from a variety of sources including the NSA. The teletypes were raw translations of intercepts of Israeli air-to-air and air-to-ground communications between jet aircraft and their ground controller. I read page after page of these transcripts that day as it went on and on. The transcripts made specific reference to the efforts to direct the jets to the target which was identified as American numerous times by the ground controller. Upon arrival, the aircraft specifically identified the target and mentioned the American flag she was flying. There were frequent operational transmissions from the pilots to the ground base describing the strafing runs. The ground control began asking about the status of the target and whether it was sinking. They stressed that the target must be sunk and leave no trace. The pilots stated they had made several runs and the target was still floating. The ground control station re-iterated that it was urgent that the target be sunk, leaving no trace. There was a detectable level of frustration evident in the transmissions over the fact that the aircraft were unable to accomplish the mission quickly and totally.
The aircraft eventually broke off and we received no further transcripts of the event. I have since learned in later descriptions of the attack that torpedo boats attacked the Liberty also. I saw neither intercepts nor analyses that addressed that attack. An hour or two later I was discussing the event with a team member and he stated they had received, during the time frame of the attack, an intercept of a US State Department message to Israel stating that the United States had full evidence of what had occurred in the attack on the Liberty and strongly warning Israel to cease activities immediately.
Imagine my surprise when, upon going home that night, I was watching the evening news and a short piece that gave vague reference to a mistaken attack by Israel upon an American ship off Sinai came on. The next day there was a small article buried in the A section of the paper stating that there had been an accidental attack on the USS Liberty and that the governments involved were in discussions. I saw little mention after that in the popular press and, of course, said nothing for the next 36 years.
I read these discussions debating whether Israel intentionally attacked the USS Liberty and what their motivation would have been for a deliberate attack. I can't debate their motivation. But, I will carry the memory of those transcripts with me until I die. We all lost our virginity that day.
Steve Forslund
[email protected] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://hnn.us/articles/39936.html
Does you always like to use articles with false information?
| Quote: |
One is James Gotcher, now an attorney in California, who was then serving with the Air Force Security Service's 6924th Security Squadron, an adjunct of the NSA, at Son Tra, Vietnam.
"It was clear that the Israeli aircraft were being vectored directly at USS Liberty," Gotcher recalled in an e-mail. "Later, around the time Liberty got off a distress call, the controllers seemed to panic and urged the aircraft to 'complete the job' and get out of there."
One is James Gotcher, now an attorney in California, who was then serving with the Air Force Security Service's 6924th Security Squadron, an adjunct of the NSA, at Son Tra, Vietnam.
"It was clear that the Israeli aircraft were being vectored directly at USS Liberty," Gotcher recalled in an e-mail. "Later, around the time Liberty got off a distress call, the controllers seemed to panic and urged the aircraft to 'complete the job' and get out of there." |
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,3737033,full.story
| Quote: |
On Friday January 3, 2003, at 11:48:01, Ron Gotcher posted an e-mail to Mr. R [redacted] which stated in part:
After my discharge, I worked for the agency [NSA] at Fort Meade. I saw the internal report on the attack, as did most agency employees. The report conclusively established that the attack was deliberate.
In response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request 50412, the NSA responded:
Our records reflect that Mr. James Ronald Gotcher, III has never been affiliated with this agency. (Emphasis added.)
The full texts of the Gotcher e-mail dated January 3, 2003, FOIA request 50412, the NSA release in response to FOIA request 50412, and the report to the NSA Director, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) 23 May - 8 June 1967 are reproduced below. |
Gotcher never worked for the NSA.
http://www.libertyincident.com/gotcherdebunked.html
Bad fact checking in your article.
Here is the tape.
| Quote: |
"For your info, it is apparently an Arab ship," says ground control.
"Roger," says the pilot.
"It is an Egyptian supply ship," says ground control.
"Roger," comes the response.
The NSA released the tapes and transcripts under the Freedom of Information Act in response to a request from Miami Judge Jay Cristol.
An author of a book on the attack, Cristol said the tapes show it was a tragic accident in a time of war -- that the Israelis mistook the ship for an Egyptian one.
"I don't think there's any question that anyone who reads these tapes would be absolutely convinced there was the fog of war out there," Cristol said.
Later on the tape, the Israelis sound confused and concerned. Ground control orders the helicopter pilots to look for survivors and to check their nationality.
"If they speak Arabic -- Egyptians -- you're taking them to Al-Arish. If they speak English -- non-Egyptians -- you're taking them to Lod. Is that clear?" says ground control.
"Roger," says the pilot. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another survivor, Jim Ennes:
| Quote: |
A point that baffles me (and my shipmates) about that view is that the Israelis did NOT stop firing when they drew close enough to positively identify us as American.
I was lying in a stretcher in a starboard passageway just inboard of the wardroom and almost directly over the torpedo that exploded. I remember very clearly the warning that torpedo boats were approaching followed by the explosion, the ship lifting away from the blast, then settling back to starboard and the very real fear that it would continue to settle until it rolled over and sank. Moments later the torpedo boats approached within fifty feet of the ship. One boat stopped alongside and trained a heavy machinegun on a man who was standing alone on a hatch on the main deck, but did not fire even though the man gave the boatmen the finger. Then a boat moved to within fifty feet of the fantail where the ship displayed her name in large letters in English painted on the hull and her GTR5 numbers in even larger letters. The boatmen clearly examined those markings and can hardly have failed to see other very distinctive American markings and the American flag that flew from the mast. Yet, even though the Israeli government claims it was at that point that they offered help, never firing at us again after the torpedo explosion, this is not so. Almost every man on that ship recalls -- as I personally recall very clearly from my position outside the wardroom -- that the torpedo boats then circled the ship for a long time firing at close range at anything that moved. Men trying to aid their wounded shipmates on deck were fired upon. Men fighting fires were fired upon and recall seeing their fire hoses punctured by machinegun fire. This went on for several minutes. At one point the boatmen concentrated their fire near the waterline amidships, presumably hoping to blow up the boilers to hasten our demise. Finally they pulled a distance back from the ship. We figured they were waiting for us to sink. And then at 3:15, forty minutes after the torpedo explosion and in response to orders from the bridge to prepare to abandon ship, men launched the only three life rafts that seemed still usable. The boats quickly drew closer, machinegunned the liferafts and then took one aboard after the machine gun fire severed a line that had tethered it to the ship. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're tape doesn't prove anything, when put in the context of all the evidence. The fact that someone is assuring another soldier that it is an Egyptian vessel is not conclusive proof at all. He may have been doing so because he himself has been given false information, or because he knows that some of the Israeli soldiers felt reluctant to carry out that attack when they realised they were being asked to attack Americans (as some witnesses reported), and so he is keeping that information from him. You'll need to do a lot more cutting and pasting than that, Joo.
As for the Chicago Tribune getting some of it's facts wrong, I do not know. But I do not trust your (very selective) source either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RJjr

Joined: 17 Aug 2006 Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was definitely a flagrant act of Jewish terrorism against American servicemen.
www.gtr5.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
You're tape doesn't prove anything, when put in the context of all the evidence. The fact that someone is assuring another soldier that it is an Egyptian vessel is not conclusive proof at all. He may have been doing so because he himself has been given false information, or because he knows that some of the Israeli soldiers felt reluctant to carry out that attack when they realised they were being asked to attack Americans (as some witnesses reported), and so he is keeping that information from him. You'll need to do a lot more cutting and pasting than that, Joo.
As for the Chicago Tribune getting some of it's facts wrong, I do not know. But I do not trust your (very selective) source either. |
1. What was the motive?
2. If Israel had it in to take down the boat and so they were going through the motions of misinforming the soldier then why not sink the boat? Why didn't Israel hit it with something that sinks boats? Why didn't they bomb the boat? If they had sunk the boat there would have been no evidence and it would have been much easier to cover up.
3. Go to the NSA on Gotcher. The link is there. He never worked for the NSA. Your article says he did and uses him as a source.
You explain it?
http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/GotcherFOIArelease.pdf
4. What was the US governments motive for a cover up?
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:15 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know, and I don't care to speculate. But there are theories out there. You've probably read them. Chomsky's belief is that as the Israelis were busy slaughtering their many captured POWs (instead of treating them according to Geneva conventions) the Israelis were afraid of this being discovered by the US spy ship. I'm not interested in telling you what you and others can seek out for yourselves.
I'm done with this now - I don't have the time. Anyone who is interested in it can do their own research and draw their own conclusions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
I don't know, and I don't care to speculate. But there are theories out there. You've probably read them. Chomsky's belief is that as the Israelis were busy slaughtering their many captured POWs (instead of treating them according to Geneva conventions) the Israelis were afraid of this being discovered by the US spy ship. I'm not interested in telling you what you and others can seek out for yourselves.
I'm done with this now - I don't have the time. Anyone who is interested in it can do their own research and draw their own conclusions. |
How exactly would the Liberty be able to find out about such an incident? How could The Liberty "see" that far out, that far away? That is not even possible with today's technology unless you have an unmanned vehical. The USS Liberty had no "eye in the sky" .
By the way the NSA says there are no other tapes of the incident. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
How exactly would the Liberty be able to find out about such an incident? How could The Liberty "see" that far out, that far away? That is not even possible with today's technology unless you have an unmanned vehical. The USS Liberty had no "eye in the sky" .
|
WHAT!? They didn't need an 'eye in the sky.'
By intercepting communications, of course. That's what they were doing to the soviets. The USS Liberty's mission was to spy on Soviets in the area.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
By the way the NSA says there are no other tapes of the incident. |
Yeah, but witnesses of the time are on record disputing that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|