Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - USS Liberty: lies, lies and more lies.

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

USS Liberty: lies, lies and more lies.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:13 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

the NSA responded:

Our records reflect that Mr. James Ronald Gotcher, III has never been affiliated with this agency. (Emphasis added.)

NSA tells the truth at all times. Such as: They haven't been wiretapping since 2001...

But let's say for the sake of argument Gotcher is a poser. Fine. One nut among a long list of very reliable witnesses. If that is the best you've got, you're wasting your time.

igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 5:50 am Post subject:

http://www.gtr5.com/ http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmithInterviewsEnnis.html

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 6:07 am Post subject:

keane wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

the NSA responded:

Our records reflect that Mr. James Ronald Gotcher, III has never been affiliated with this agency. (Emphasis added.)

Ok why would Israel go through the trouble to go through with the conspiracy and not sink the boat?

Wouldn't they cover it up if they left no witnesses.

Also what is the motive?

Quote:

USS Liberty attack tapes released

From David Ensor
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) --Tapes released by the National Security Agency shed new light on the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 Americans and is one of the most controversial mysteries in U.S. Navy history.

The attack, which took placein international waters off the Sinai Peninsula on June 8, 1967, during the Six Day War, also left 171 Americans injured.

The Israelis have always said the attack on the Liberty, which was monitoring communications in the war, was a tragic accident.

But some survivors and senior U.S. officials at the time have said they believe the attack was a deliberate effort to stop American surveillance of Israeli activities during the conflict.

The NSA on Tuesday released audiotapes of Israeli pilots and ground control speaking in Hebrew, along with English transcripts.

The recordings were made by a nearby American surveillance aircraft in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

"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.

James Bamford, the author of a history of the NSA, believes the tapes suggest the Israelis may have deliberately attacked the U.S. spy ship, perhaps fearing -- for some reason not known -- that it was spying on them.

"Here the transcripts are saying, 'Well, you know, there may be people speaking English on this ship,'" Bamford said. "Why would you say that if it's an Egyptian ship, carrying horses?"

On the tape, after the rescue helicopter pilot tells ground control he sees an American flag on the ship, he receives an order in return.

"They request that you make another pass and check once again whether it is really an American flag," ground control says.

The order suggests the Israelis were surprised at word of a U.S. flag, but it also runs counter to what Israeli fighter pilots and torpedo boat crews have always insisted: That they could not see an American flag.

"Clearly the flag was there," Bamford said, "because the intercepts show that the helicopter pilots saw it immediately, before they ever even got up to the ship."

The ship's flag now hangs in the National Cryptologic Museum in Fort Meade, Maryland, adjacent to NSA headquarters.

"I think this is probably the most important link in the evidence that ought to bring closure to this matter," Cristol said.

Surviving members of the Liberty crew argue that -- far from putting the matter to rest -- the tapes only underline the continuing need for a full, public U.S. investigation.

"A simple investigation -- that's all they have to do," said Joe Meadors, a Liberty survivor. "Find out what happened. If anybody did anything wrong, punish them."

In a letter to Cristol, the NSA said that contrary to rumors there was no U.S. submarine in the area watching, and the Liberty itself made no relevant recordings.

Israeli Embassy spokesman Mark Regev said the tapes are "further evidence that the Liberty incident was a terrible and tragic case of mistaken identity."

Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/09/uss.liberty.tapes

arjuna

Joined: 31 Mar 2007

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:02 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

In many cases, Kuros, not even "allies" are truly "friends"; just those who, for the time being at least, share at least some vital interests on one or another issue.

"Friends" in world affairs are rare. America's are probably limited to the Western-European democracies. I would hesitate to ever put Tel Aviv in that category.

Does this mean that you now accept the facts about the attack on the USS Liberty?

Does what Ostrovsky says about the attitude of the Israelis regarding the Beirut barracks bombing still sound too far-fetched?

http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?p=1321114&highlight=#1321114

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:46 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

keane wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

the NSA responded:

Our records reflect that Mr. James Ronald Gotcher, III has never been affiliated with this agency. (Emphasis added.)

Ok why would Israel go through the trouble to go through with the conspiracy and not sink the boat?

Wouldn't they cover it up if they left no witnesses.

Also what is the motive?

Sometimes I seriously want to slap you silly, in the sense of, "What the hell are you on? Wake the hell up!" Rhhee... they TRIED like hell to sink it. Asking this question is like discussing Global Warming and asking what CO2 is. It shows you haven't bothered to read the other side of the story. You have no business in the thread in that case.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:16 am Post subject:

arjuna wrote:

Gopher wrote:

Very puristic and simplistic way of interpreting what I said and its implications.

To answer your questions, in order: no and no. I really admire the way you set up the first question, too, by the way. Wink

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:20 pm Post subject:

keane wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

keane wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

the NSA responded:

Our records reflect that Mr. James Ronald Gotcher, III has never been affiliated with this agency. (Emphasis added.)

Ok why would Israel go through the trouble to go through with the conspiracy and not sink the boat?

Wouldn't they cover it up if they left no witnesses.

Also what is the motive?

keane you are stupid

Quote:

* Had Israel intended to attack the USS Liberty, IAF aircraft would have been sent out with bombs, not light machine gun ammunition, sinking the Liberty within the first few minutes of the incident. [18]

* The attacking aircraft used napalm rockets and machine guns, and napalm is an ineffective armament for doing real damage to a steel-hulled ship�other than starting fires in combustibles. Machine guns, though, are often used to keep a ship's company under cover, thus keeping the company from manning weather deck stations and doing damage control topside.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Hey keane if Israel wanted to sink the boat why didn't they attack it with submarine? Why did they attack it during the day?

You are alleging a massive conspiracy why didn't Israel use unmarked aircraft - I mean wouldn't that make it easier to cover up?

Israel had just destroy the Egyptian and Syrians air force but they could destroy one boat? Why didn't Israel bomb the boat?

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

keane you are stupid

Don't act like a child. Your questions do not stand under the testimony given. Repeat them all you want, but the testimony itself answers them, which makes them pointless argumentation. Ask a question actually raised by the info. The one thing you did say is interesting: why no sub? I don't know. Ask the commanders in Israel. Given the ship was an unarmed frigate, I see no reason they wouldn't have expected an easy sinking. Their own comments show they were frustrated at their failure. This is all there for you to read.

Why don't you actually read the article?

PGF

Joined: 27 Nov 2006

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject:

Highly believable. israel made a bad mistake-friendly fire, was ordered to sink the ship, failed, payed reparations. the US could not do anything in response....best thing to do....cover up. or, Israel got a hair up it's as8s and thought it could fu9ck with/ sink a US intel ship; successfully fuc9ked with but could not sink the ship. paid reparations and covered it up. The US and Israel are both involved in international war crimes on a daily basis in the 21st century. No shock here that they were both involved in shady crap in the 1960's.

arjuna

Joined: 31 Mar 2007

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

arjuna wrote:

I am not sure what you mean by "puristic." I take it you consider yourself realistic, sensible, and reasonable? It's all a matter of perspective. Whatever lies outside your perspective appears to you to be illogical, unreasonable, impossible, crazy. One with a greater perspective can see all things, including other limited perspectives, and put them all in proper place.

I see your defect is constitutional. Oh well. Carry on.

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:33 am Post subject:

PGF wrote:

Highly believable.

israel made a bad mistake-friendly fire, was ordered to sink the ship, failed, payed reparations. the US could not do anything in response....best thing to do....cover up.

or,

Israel got a hair up it's as8s and thought it could fu9ck with/ sink a US intel ship; successfully fuc9ked with but could not sink the ship. paid reparations and covered it up.

The US and Israel are both involved in international war crimes on a daily basis in the 21st century. No shock here that they were both involved in shady crap in the 1960's.

The idea was, according to some, to sink the ship and blame the Egyptians, et al., and get the US more involved. Who would suspect a friend? They jammed communications (unsuccessfully) to prevent broadcast then attacked. The failure of the jamming allowed communications, the US command found out before they could finish the job.

Simple and plausible.

How sick a president do you have to be to call back two rescue missions?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:02 am Post subject:

keane wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

keane you are stupid

Why didn't Israel bomb the ship or chase it with a submarine?

If Israel really wanted to sink it they why not use heavy weapons why use napalm?

Where is it that Israel was frustrated by failure?

and then there are the tapes of the attack. There they said it was an arab ship.

Quote:

USS Liberty: Israel Did Not Intend to Bomb the Ship
By A. Jay Cristol

Mr. Cristol is the author of the forthcoming The Liberty Incident.

Editor's Note: This summer HNN devoted a special edition to Israel's attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 during the Six Day War, which resulted in the deaths of 34 Americans. Israel insists the attack was an accident. Many others contend it was deliberate, among them, James Bamford, author of Body of Secrets., which has attracted a great deal of attention. A. Jay Cristol, a federal bankruptcy judge in Florida, has spent 14 years researching the incident and has been allowed exlusive access to Israeli archives and officials. His long-awaited book, The Liberty Incident, will be published in March by Brassey. In the piece below, Judge Cristol critiques the claims advanced by Mr. Bamford. The judge's conclusion? Mr. Bamford is guilty of telling "tall tales."

Bamford: Describes the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty as "unprovoked."

Fact: He completely ignores that the United States had publicly announced to the world at the United Nations Security Council only two days before June 8, 1967 that it had no warships within hundreds of miles of the combat zone. The chain of reactions were started by an Israeli army report of explosions at El Arish. Since Israel controlled the air and the ground, they made the assumption that they were being shelled from the sea and a warship was in eye view. In view of the U.S. public announcement, it seems more logical for the Israelis to have assumed that a haze grey warship sailing within eye view of the ongoing combat was an enemy vessel rather than a U.S. ship.

Bamford: "Israel fighters and torpedo boats assaulted the ship for more than an hour."

Fact: The air attack lasted about 12 minutes and was terminated as soon as the Israel Air Force determined the ship was not an Arab ship. While the Air Force was initiating rescue operations, the torpedo boats approached, stopped, and began signaling to the Liberty. The response of the Liberty was to begin shooting at the torpedo boats which thereupon began the torpedo attack. It lasted less than 15 minutes during which time the navy torpedo boats believed they were facing an enemy who initiated the shooting at them.

Bamford: The Israeli attackers used "cannon fire, rockets, heavy bombs, burning napalm and five torpedoes"

Fact: No rockets were fired at Liberty. No bombs, "heavy" or otherwise, were used. The attacking aircraft were not armed to attack a ship. Had they dropped the standard 500 pound iron bombs normally used against ship targets, the Liberty would very likely have been sunk in minutes. (During the battle of Midway in World War II, U.S. Navy dive bombers using standard 500 pound iron bombs sank three Japanese aircraft carriers in ten minutes.) Four napalm canisters [bombs] were dropped by the attacking aircraft. At least three and possibly all missed. The Liberty's doctor reported no treatment of any crew member for napalm burns.

Bamford: "Israeli reconnaissance planes had positively identified the ship"

Fact: A routine Israel Navy reconnaissance flight at dawn on June 8 sighted Liberty at about 6:00 A.M. steaming southeasterly and south more than 70 miles further west of El Arish. Positive identification was made and the information passed to Naval Intelligence Headquarters and the Liberty was marked on the battle control board at Naval Headquarters. Five hours later, the Liberty mark was considered old information and removed from the battle control board. At 11:00 A.M., shifts changed and the information about the Liberty was not known to the officer who assumed command. At about 1:00 P.M., when the presence of a ship steaming west, 14 miles off the coast of the Sinai and reported to be shelling Israel Army positions from the sea became a tactical issue, the Navy Officer in command did not know about the dawn sighting of Liberty many miles to the west.

Bamford: "Throughout the attack, according to survivors, the Liberty was flying a large American flag,"

Fact: Immediately prior to the air attack, the Liberty had a 5 by 8-foot American flag hoisted but because of the light wind conditions it probably was not extended. This is the Finding of Fact number 2. of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry of June 18, 1967. As a matter of fact, a reference to the formula for visual acuity reveals that a flag that size, if fully extended in good light would not be identifiable beyond 1323 feet and the attacking aircraft never came that close. It is also the undisputed testimony of the Commanding Officer of the Liberty that the 5 by 8-foot flag was shot away on the first strafing run. A second, larger, 7 by 13 foot flag was hoisted after the air attack and prior to the torpedo attack but it was engulfed in smoke and thus was not an identification factor during the attacks. The first actual sighting of an American flag on the Liberty was made by an Israeli helicopter pilot more than 30 minutes after both air and sea attacks were over.

Bamford: "Nowicki heard both the pilots and the torpedo boat crew members referring to the American flag during the attack,"

"Nowicki also heard the pilots talk about the American flag."

Fact: No reference to an American flag was made on any radio intercept until 1512, approximately 30 minutes after the attack was over. I have obtained transcripts of the Israel Air Force tapes which confirm this. I have an appeal pending before the National Security Agency for release of their tapes, which are the tapes described by Bamford. Release of these tapes by NSA will corroborate both what Nowicki originally told Bamford as well as the transcripts of the Israel Air Force tapes. That is the attack was a mistake.

Bamford: [The Liberty] "had its name painted in English in ten-foot letters across the stern."

Fact: The name Liberty on the curved stern of the ship was not larger than 18 inches and because of the curvature of the stern, was extremely difficult to read under any circumstances. The ships identifier, "GTR-5" was painted on both sides of the ship near the bow and near the stern but only the number "5" was ten feet tall. The "GTR" was substantially smaller. It was the sighting of these markings by the second wave of aircraft that identified the ship as not an Arab ship and resulted in immediate termination of the air attack.

Bamford: "Among those who never believed Israel's explanation are the survivors and the captain of the ship."

Fact: The captain of the ship, William L. McGonagle, testified under oath before the U.S. navy Court of Inquiry on June 13, 1967 "I realized that there was a possibility of the aircraft having been Israeli and the attack having been conducted in error." [emphasis added] [Court of Inquiry Record, p. 39] Bamford attributes rejection of the Israel explanation of mistaken identity to "The Survivors." This infers all the survivors. Again, this is not a true statement.

Bamford: "Among those who never believed Israel's explanation are ... Secretary of State, Dean Rusk and Chief of Naval Operations (and later Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) Admiral Thomas Moorer;"

Fact: Dean Rusk never accepted the Israeli explanation but when I asked him in an interview at Athens, Georgia on April 5, 1989 on what evidence he based his opinion, he conceded that he never read the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry findings, the CIA Report, or the Clark Clifford Report. When pressed further, he said, "I did not make a career of studying the evidence."

Admiral Moorer was Commander in Chief Atlantic on the day of the attack on the Liberty and became Chief of Naval Operations on August 1, 1967. In two interviews in Washington, D.C. on February 10, 1989 and May 3, 1990, he explained that the Liberty's identity could not be mistaken because she was the "Ugliest ship in the Navy" and was larger in size than the Egyptian ship for which she was mistaken. The CIA Report concludes the opposite, that the two ships could be mistaken. Ironically, the findings of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry were approved by Moorer's office while he was the Chief of Naval Operations.

Bamford: [The Liberty] never fired a shot."

Fact: This statement is a lie. The evidence has been undisputed for more than three decades that when the torpedo boats approached, stopped, and began signaling, the Liberty began shooting at them. Captain McGonagle, the commanding officer, testified to this under oath at the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry and reconfirmed it in a videotaped press conference on board Liberty when the ship returned to the United States. He may be observed on videotape telling of the Liberty firing at the torpedo boats in the Thames TV documentary, Attack on the Liberty, aired on British television on January 27, 1987.

Bamford: "The evidence that Israel's attack was deliberate is overwhelming." [He refers to] "the mountain of evidence in my book indicating that Israel knew the ship was American."

Fact: All attacks are inherently deliberate. The question is: did the Israelis attack knowing that it was an American ship. Ten official U.S. investigations and three official Israeli investigations have all concluded that the attack was a tragic mistake or that there is no evidence to establish that it was not a tragic mistake. Seven U. S. Presidents, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush, and Clinton have all accepted the conclusion that the attack was a tragic mistake. Still, more than two dozen conspiracy theories, most of which like Mr. Bamford's conspiracy theory, are based on false or erroneous premises, and have been circulating for years. They all start from the assumption that all the above investigations were wrong or a deliberate cover up; that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship; and the only question is: "Why". Bamford's book presents a mountain of allegations but no credible evidence to prove the allegations.

Bamford: Refers to Marvin Nowicki plus "another Hebrew linguist" who, he says, "is" confident that the Israeli attack was a deliberate attack.

Fact: Here again Mr. Bamford lies. Dr. Marvin Nowicki, the U.S. Navy Hebrew linguist on the NSA EC-121 aircraft who heard the Israeli Air Force pilots' radio transmissions and supervised their recording, told Mr. Bamford exactly the opposite, that is Nowicki is certain the attack was a mistake. In an e-mail letter dated March 3, 2000, a copy of which was provided to me by Nowicki and which will be published in full in my forthcoming book, Nowicki wrote to Bamford, "...we recorded most, if not all, of the attack. Further, our intercepts, never before made public, showed the attack to be an accident on the part of the Israelis." Dr. Nowicki's letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal published on May 16, 2001 unequivocally contradicts what Bamford attributes to him. Nowicki said in the Wall Street Journal letter: "My position, which is opposite of Mr. Bamford's, is the attack, ..., was a gross error." There are not one, but two other NSA connected Hebrew linguists that, according to Dr. Nowicki, have heard the tapes and share his - not Bamford's - alleged conclusions.

ABOUT JUDGE CRISTOL: He is a former U.S. Navy carrier pilot, and a lecturer for the Department of Defense on the Law of Naval Warfare. He retired from my Naval service with the rank of Captain. He is professionally knowledgeable about air combat and naval matters. He has spent fourteen years researching one question about the Liberty incident: did the Israelis attack her knowing she was a U.S. ship ("No") or was it a case of mistaken identity ("Yes")? This study was his doctoral dissertation accepted in 1997 by the Graduate School of International Studies of the University of Miami and is on file in the Library of Congress.

The quotations attributed to Mr. Bamford were taken from a statement he published in the New Republic.

http://hnn.us/articles/369.html

Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:18 am; edited 1 time in total

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:04 am Post subject:

keane wrote:

PGF wrote:

why would the Israel need to get the US more involved they had just destroyed the Egyptian air force?

igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:25 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

why would the Israel need to get the US more involved they had just destroyed the Egyptian air force?

http://www.gtr5.com/

http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmithInterviewsEnnis.html

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:43 am Post subject:

Iamthewitness is such a great site.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe