Israeli planes violate Lebanon airspace

MSgt · Jul 31, 2008

obvious Child said:
That is an exceptionally long chain of mistakes.

Care to cite a single friendly fire incident in history where the attacker failed to notice the numerous Id marks of their allies, attacked in unmarked planes, failed to notice the numerous radio communications in ENGLISH, kept attacking after an even larger flag was hoisted, attacked from a distance with boats, the list goes on and on.

Why should you? The facts do not support an accidental attack. All sutherland is doing is posting press releases. He has not examined a single fact of the actual attack.

How does that even relate? If you haven't noticed, the massive dishonesty and defense of the dishonesty is what pisses me off.

Mess is a poor choice of word. Bring us into the war, yes. You failed to realize the actual motivation.

There is no incident of friendly fire in history that can compare to this.

Sutherland couldn't even try to dispell the radio communications and unmarked planes. It's like he's suspended his thinking.

Once again....1967! That comes to thirty years ago. It's perfectly OK to move on. Both governments have. Why don't you just admit what is really going on here. It's the same in every thread where Israel is involved. You try to pick Israel apart as if Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Saddam Hussein, Al-Queda, the House of Saud, Sharia in Sudan, and other type realities don't exist. As if the big bad wolf is Israel, which has all the power to wipe out its enemies, but has decided to show restraint decade after decade despite contiual threat and violence. Your issue is that Israel exists. This has nothing to do with some grave emotional tender spot in your heart for the U.S.S. Liberty of thirty years ago. Stop dancing around it already.

MSgt · Jul 31, 2008

Volker said:
Didn't the US join WWI because of it?

To your people's dismay.

Vader · Jul 31, 2008

GySgt said:
Once again....1967! That comes to thirty years ago. It's perfectly OK to move on. Both governments have. Why don't you just admit what is really going on here. It's the same in every thread where Israel is involved. You try to pick Israel apart as if Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Saddam Hussein, Al-Queda, the House of Saud, Sharia in Sudan, and other type realities don't exist. As if the big bad wolf is Israel, which has all the power to wipe out its enemies, but has decided to show restraint decade after decade despite contiual threat and violence. Your issue is that Israel exists. This has nothing to do with some grave emotional tender spot in your heart for the U.S.S. Liberty of thirty years ago. Stop dancing around it already.

OOORAHHH!!!!
:mrgreen:

Infinite Chaos · Aug 1, 2008

Dragon Skin said:
Size becomes difficult to ascertain at long distance or high altitude.

I can't "buy that" in this instance.
I accept there have been "friendly fire" incidents right up until the recent period but not when the "target" has been ID-ed and radar tracked for up to 9 hours previous: if this was a genuine mistake there would have been greater checks before the attack went ahead because the Israelis knew there was a US ship in the area. The Israeli excuses have always concentrated upon the US flag not being visible - either because of low wind (perfect visibility) or because the ship hadn't raised it.

The US sailors (majority of survivors) state the flag was up anyway - I believe their story rather than the inquiries afterwards unless they have all suffered collective hallucination. I cannot suspend disbelief enough to believe the official version of events.

Dragon Skin said:
Um that ship identification number is on the side of the ship at a slanted angle which would make it nearly impossible to see from altitude flying at high speeds, what do you think the Israeli pilots were looking through binoculars or something?

Do you know that all ships have slanted sides? You are trying to pass this off when conventionally all the US ships I've ever seen have slanted sides and large painted ID numbers on the sides.

The Israeli jets would not have done one single pass only - they would have flown around the target several times - the attack is recorded at the very minimum of being at least 45 minutes long. Enough time for anyone to spot the ship's ID. I also ask myself when I read excuses like this how come Japanese kamikaze pilots had no problem recognising US ships during WW2...

As I stated above, I cannot suspend disbelief to agree your version.

I myself failed my RAF pilot entry exam because I don't have 20/20 vision - you know that is a pre-requisite for becoming a military pilot don't you? I joined instead a paratroops regiment but I could still represent my unit at national army shooting competitions (through hard work rather than natural skill) but you are given responsibility for weapons because you can discriminate / evaluate and decide. Modern stand off weapons means that pilots and weapons specialists don't always have line-of-sight to target but we are talking about times before sophisticated targeting from cover / night-time or misty conditions.

Dragon Skin said:
Furthermore; the torpedo boats eventually did ID the ship, broke off the attack, and offered assistance.

Yes, if we suspend disbelief that Israeli pilots (flying too fast to bother reading remember) could not see the ship's ID for the official 45 minutes then we have to believe that the slower torpedo boats also couldn't read the slanted ID numbers for the same time???

I cannot suspend disbelief to agree your version.

Dragon Skin said:
Look if this was intentional then you have to explain to me why the NSA tapes

See the links about Captain Boston.

Dragon Skin said:
-- why they didn't come armed to sink the ship,

Why NOT send an anti-shipping sortie out properly armed if you aren't intending to sink the enemy? If I was sent out to sink an enemy warship I would expect to be properly armed / equipped and or trained for the task.

Infinite Chaos · Aug 1, 2008

GySgt said:
Volker said:

Didn't the US join WWI because of it?

Click to expand...

To your people's dismay.

I have had a huge amount of respect for your posts GySgt, that however is needless and way beneath your previous standards. However, I also have problems with the post below too -

GySgt said:
You try to pick Israel apart as if Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Saddam Hussein, Al-Queda, the House of Saud, Sharia in Sudan, and other type realities don't exist. As if the big bad wolf is Israel, which has all the power to wipe out its enemies, but has decided to show restraint decade after decade despite contiual threat and violence. Your issue is that Israel exists.

Bit close to reaching ground where someone has fallen foul of Godwin's law?

donsutherland1 · Aug 1, 2008

Infinite Chaos said:
You see, this is another case in point - Captain Boston was "counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry into the incident conducted just days after the event" meaning that he was directly involved - not some remote academic or author; thus I tend to believe his word over those who merely witnessed the incidents and documents 3rd or even 4th hand.

In his legal position, Captain Boston would know first-hand the vital importance of substantiating every legal argument. Yet, he developed his theory of an ordered cover-up many years later; he did not make the allegation during the investigative process. Most importantly, he has provided no documentation or witnesses to the alleged order(s). In addition neither President Johnson’s Memoirs/writings nor Secretary McNamara's memoirs/writings mention or even hint at such an order.

In addition, subsequent investigations well after the Johnson Administration had left office found no evidence of cover-ups. Instead, the earlier findings of a terrible accident were reaffirmed.

Dragon Skin · Aug 1, 2008

Infinite Chaos said:
I can't "buy that" in this instance.
I accept there have been "friendly fire" incidents right up until the recent period but not when the "target" has been ID-ed and radar tracked for up to 9 hours previous:

Again the Liberty was taken off of the command control board at the same time it drastically shifted course from east to south towards the Sinai which was an area it wasn't supposed to be.

if this was a genuine mistake there would have been greater checks before the attack went ahead because the Israelis knew there was a US ship in the area. The Israeli excuses have always concentrated upon the US flag not being visible - either because of low wind (perfect visibility) or because the ship hadn't raised it.

The US sailors (majority of survivors) state the flag was up anyway - I believe their story rather than the inquiries afterwards unless they have all suffered collective hallucination. I cannot suspend disbelief enough to believe the official version of events.

Just as with the ID numbers a flag even if it was flying high would be extremely hard to ID from altitude and high speed.

Do you know that all ships have slanted sides? You are trying to pass this off when conventionally all the US ships I've ever seen have slanted sides and large painted ID numbers on the sides.

Ya and all ships are hard to identify from their ID numbers by Jet fighters at altitude.

The Israeli jets would not have done one single pass only - they would have flown around the target several times - the attack is recorded at the very minimum of being at least 45 minutes long. Enough time for anyone to spot the ship's ID.

They misidentified it as the El Quseir, that's kind of the whole point.

I also ask myself when I read excuses like this how come Japanese kamikaze pilots had no problem recognising US ships during WW2...

Dude are you serious? U.S. ships were running in large convoys and the Kamikaze pilots were pretty much flying on deck.

As I stated above, I cannot suspend disbelief to agree your version.

Well you obviously can because you completely refuse to acknowledge the exculpatory evidence.

I myself failed my RAF pilot entry exam because I don't have 20/20 vision - you know that is a pre-requisite for becoming a military pilot don't you? I joined instead a paratroops regiment but I could still represent my unit at national army shooting competitions (through hard work rather than natural skill) but you are given responsibility for weapons because you can discriminate / evaluate and decide. Modern stand off weapons means that pilots and weapons specialists don't always have line-of-sight to target but we are talking about times before sophisticated targeting from cover / night-time or misty conditions.

Unless you can see like a fooking eagle then you can not ID a ship by its ID numbers from altitude at high speed.

Yes, if we suspend disbelief that Israeli pilots (flying too fast to bother reading remember) could not see the ship's ID for the official 45 minutes then we have to believe that the slower torpedo boats also couldn't read the slanted ID numbers for the same time???

I cannot suspend disbelief to agree your version.

lol there would be absolutely no way to ID that ship from its identification number at high speed and at altitude especially by pilots who were ordered to engage.

See the links about Captain Boston.

How about you just explain how he answers the NSA tapes that weren't released until the 90s through a freedom of information act request.

Why NOT send an anti-shipping sortie out properly armed if you aren't intending to sink the enemy? If I was sent out to sink an enemy warship I would expect to be properly armed / equipped and or trained for the task.

Because they weren't trying to sink the ship. If your conspiracy theory was correct why would they leave survivors to identify their attackers? It just doesn't make any sense. With a little logic and reason one can realize that this theory just doesn't hold water.

You may think that you offered a rebuttal to the fact that they didn't attempt to sink the Liberty but that response is in no way what so ever a valid response and quite frankly is a non-sequitur.

Infinite Chaos · Aug 1, 2008

donsutherland1 said:
In his legal position, Captain Boston would know first-hand the vital importance of substantiating every legal argument. Yet, he developed his theory of an ordered cover-up many years later; he did not make the allegation during the investigative process --

From what I read Boston kept quiet and then spoke once Cristol's book came out. I am happy to acknowledge if I am wrong, from what I read on the BBC and other websites, he looked back AFTER the investigation and found that his files had been altered. Difficult to substantiate once the papers you've signed and handed over have been modified if his claim is true.

Infinite Chaos · Aug 1, 2008

Dragon Skin said:
Again the Liberty was taken off of the command control board at the same time it drastically shifted course from east to south towards the Sinai which was an area it wasn't supposed to be.

That's from sources that tend to support the "official" investigations.

Dragon Skin said:
Just as with the ID numbers a flag even if it was flying high would be extremely hard to ID from altitude and high speed.
Ya and all ships are hard to identify from their ID numbers by Jet fighters at altitude.

Have you looked at the pictures taken from the Liberty during the attack?

Now tell me the Israeli jets only flew at high altitude again....

Dragon Skin said:
They misidentified it as the El Quseir, that's kind of the whole point.

My point above yet again.

Dragon Skin said:
Dude are you serious?

Yes, I am.

Dragon Skin said:
Well you obviously can because you completely refuse to acknowledge the exculpatory evidence.

Sorry, you are saying that the sailors who survived and Captain Boston also refuse to accept the evidence too? On what grounds do you say they are wrong about their experience?

You were there I take it? :roll:

Dragon Skin said:
Unless you can see like a fooking eagle then you can not ID a ship by its ID numbers from altitude at high speed.

lol there would be absolutely no way to ID that ship from its identification number at high speed and at altitude especially by pilots who were ordered to engage.

Point already countered, unless you now wish to say the picture of the attacking Israeli jet is a fake..

Mind you, you're also forgetting the Israeli helicopter that is also in the photographs. Care to explain why the helicopter also cannot see 6 1/2 ft high letters? I deliberately left out mention of the helicopter to see how far you would try and explain away the failure to spot the identification...

Dragon Skin said:
How about you just explain how he answers the NSA tapes that weren't released until the 90s through a freedom of information act request.

As one of the personnel involved has claimed documents have been tampered with after the event I won;t touch this yet. I want to see your answers first.

Dragon Skin said:
Because they weren't trying to sink the ship. If your conspiracy theory was correct why would they leave survivors to identify their attackers? It just doesn't make any sense. With a little logic and reason one can realize that this theory just doesn't hold water.

You may be mistaking me for another poster. I have simply asked questions and offered no theory. Your answers do not satisfy or alleviate my natural sense of doubt.

Dragon Skin said:
You may think that you offered a rebuttal to the fact that they didn't attempt to sink the Liberty but that response is in no way what so ever a valid response and quite frankly is a non-sequitur.

That is because I believe you have taken the argument you had with obvious child and transposed it to me. I have offered no theory regarding why they attacked and did not sink the Liberty. I have my thoughts but have no directly spoken about them yet.

Thank you for the entertainment, I will return to this later. Real life calls for the present.

Dragon Skin · Aug 2, 2008

Infinite Chaos said:
That's from sources that tend to support the "official" investigations.

And this is called an ad-hominem logical fallacy. I understand that you want to ignore the facts but the facts are stubborn things.

Have you looked at the pictures taken from the Liberty during the attack?

Now tell me the Israeli jets only flew at high altitude again....

Unless they were flying on deck they wouldn't have been able to see the ID number.

My point above yet again.

What point?

Sorry, you are saying that the sailors who survived and Captain Boston also refuse to accept the evidence too? On what grounds do you say they are wrong about their experience?

You were there I take it? :roll:

The NSA was there secretly monitoring Israeli communications and their tapes prove that the Israelis were under the impression that it was an Arab ship even after the attack.

Point already countered, unless you now wish to say the picture of the attacking Israeli jet is a fake..

Was the plane flying on deck?

Mind you, you're also forgetting the Israeli helicopter that is also in the photographs. Care to explain why the helicopter also cannot see 6 1/2 ft high letters? I deliberately left out mention of the helicopter to see how far you would try and explain away the failure to spot the identification...

What pictures are you referring to? The helicopters were there after the attack as part of the rescue mission, were is your source for attack choppers participating in the attack?

As one of the personnel involved has claimed documents have been tampered with after the event I won;t touch this yet. I want to see your answers first.

So now the NSA is in on the conspiracy as well? Do you have any evidence what so ever that the NSA tapes are fakes or are you just blowing smoke?

You may be mistaking me for another poster. I have simply asked questions and offered no theory. Your answers do not satisfy or alleviate my natural sense of doubt.

Well I'm asking questions too, and you can't answer them, because the "intentional attack" theory goes out the window when simple logic and reason is applied.

Infinite Chaos · Aug 2, 2008

Dragon Skin said:
-- I understand that you want to ignore the facts but the facts are stubborn things-- What pictures are you referring to? The helicopters were there after the attack as part of the rescue mission, were is your source for attack choppers participating in the attack? --

I enjoyed that...

You obviously have never visited the official website for the USS Liberty...

Photos taken during the Israeli attack on USS Liberty

Website Template

Website Template

And just to help with your explanation of jets flying "at altitude" - try this one for size...

Website Template

I'll give you time to think up some excuse but the above picture was taken by Captain McGonagle.

Dragon Skin · Aug 2, 2008

Infinite Chaos said:
I enjoyed that...

You obviously have never visited the official website for the USS Liberty...

Photos taken during the Israeli attack on USS Liberty

Website Template

Website Template

And just to help with your explanation of jets flying "at altitude" - try this one for size...

Website Template

I'll give you time to think up some excuse but the above picture was taken by Captain McGonagle.

A) How do I know when that picture with the helicopter (which was quite high and quite far from the ship anyways) was taken?

B) That fighter was clearly not flying on deck and there's no way to know how fast it was traveling.

Infinite Chaos · Aug 3, 2008

Dragon Skin said:
A) How do I know when that picture with the helicopter (which was quite high and quite far from the ship anyways) was taken?

I was mistaken, I thought you had actually bothered to do some homework on this affair. If you aren't even familiar with photographs taken by the Liberty crew-members during the attack or the USS Liberty website I won't waste either of our time anymore.

Dragon Skin said:
B) That fighter was clearly not flying on deck and there's no way to know how fast it was traveling.

As above. Please don't expect any further replies on this thread.

Dragon Skin · Aug 3, 2008

Infinite Chaos said:
I was mistaken, I thought you had actually bothered to do some homework on this affair. If you aren't even familiar with photographs taken by the Liberty crew-members during the attack or the USS Liberty website I won't waste either of our time anymore.

So in other words you have no way to prove if that photo was taken before, during, or after the attack.

As above. Please don't expect any further replies on this thread.

:roll:

MSgt · Aug 5, 2008

Infinite Chaos said:
I have had a huge amount of respect for your posts GySgt, that however is needless and way beneath your previous standards. However, I also have problems with the post below too -

Bit close to reaching ground where someone has fallen foul of Godwin's law?

More close to being tired of entertaining his typical complaints about all things Israel. Nobody complains this much without having a deeper issue. Review it yourself...why would someone care so deeply about accusing Israel of something that occurred thirty years ago? When someone steers away from the typical complaints about "Israeli aggression, or Israeli apartheid, or Israeli whatever," for favor of painting terrorist like guilt for the U.S.S. Liberty, doesn't this sound alarms that his complaints are deeper than just a casual critique? In other words, when rallying for hatred over "Israeli aggression" upon hapless peace loving innocent Palestinian victims doesn't get the support one is looking for, one may choose a way to paint them as aggressors against Americans...no matter the incident. Take in the fact that Germans and Japanese killed far more Americans in an intentional war and they receive far less bashing by these type of critics, and you have something to think about.

Sounds like a deeper issue to me.

Infinite Chaos · Aug 6, 2008

GySgt - my post to you was about your response to two different posters. I know you are better than your response to Volker (post two).
The post about your response to Obvious Child - well, I dont know much about him - he may be anti-Israeli but that doesn't mean he had a valid point to make regarding the USS Liberty incident from his perspective. I would also say if you were offended by his interest in the Liberty incident then don't read further.

Just as when it became obvious "Dragon Skin" was wasting my time I chose not to respond further until he actually had done some background research - but then he went and got himself banned.. :lol:

MSgt · Aug 7, 2008

Infinite Chaos said:
GySgt - my post to you was about your response to two different posters. I know you are better than your response to Volker (post two).

Well, we're all human and Volker deserves a jab every now and then. Even I'm capable of stooping.

Infinite Chaos said:
The post about your response to Obvious Child - well, I dont know much about him - he may be anti-Israeli but that doesn't mean he had a valid point to make regarding the USS Liberty incident from his perspective. I would also say if you were offended by his interest in the Liberty incident then don't read further.

Just tired of him dancing around.

Infinite Chaos said:
Just as when it became obvious "Dragon Skin" was wasting my time I chose not to respond further until he actually had done some background research - but then he went and got himself banned.. :lol:

He was a former banned member.

Israeli planes violate Lebanon airspace

MSgt

Read Some Books

MSgt

Read Some Books

Vader

Infinite Chaos

Infinite Chaos

donsutherland1

Dragon Skin

Infinite Chaos

Infinite Chaos

Dragon Skin

Infinite Chaos

Dragon Skin

Infinite Chaos

Dragon Skin

MSgt

Read Some Books

Infinite Chaos

MSgt

Read Some Books