Political Crossfire Forums

[the sane voice]

fiction416 wrote:

I don't assume things onto you - I try to debate the issues...


sure you do-thats why you called me an "idiot" :)

Quote: How does this have to do with human shields?
i dont know-you brought this up

Quote: WTF ?

I am aware that group Y is a legit part of Gov't ZZ

does the above statement indicate I support group Y ?


if you think a group that its agenda is to destroy another country is a legit one then its called support.


Quote: So?

so its not the same thing.

Quote: Hezbollah did not ask for a cese-fire
The Lebanese PM did

Hezbollah operates as a state within a state

I'm not talking about this anymore in here....

so im confused it operates as a state in a state,its a legit group,it has 2 seates in the gov and the lebanease pm doesnt represnt hezbollah.
lebanon is a messed up state.

Quote: STFU?
???

[fiction416]

lilwolf wrote: lilwolf wrote: superskippy wrote: Quote: There is a defference between supporting & commenting on the fact that they are a legit group, is ther not?

Ok here is the test, do you accept that they are a terrorist organization with multiple terrorist attacks to there name including the recent continuiation of absentia proceedings in Argentina for their attacks there that combined killed nearly 150 people.


Sane voice...I was asking is all, because i got confused by some answers is all. I am understanding now.

I accept that they are a terrorist organization that needs to be removed from the face of the earth.
I would and do openly stand by for the desruction of the hezbollah org.
and their elimination.


Sane voice I seem to have been right about you all along here. I found this statement you made about the man of the year on that thread.


i didnt read all the posts-but i want to say one thing.
peace will come to the me when there will be no jews in israel.

Now did you say that or not?


OMFG - someone is making a point by using critical thinking... sniff sniff

could it be that maybe, regardless of his stances in life, he can think & speak beyond that & communicate what he thinks is actually an honest answer, inre; peace in the middle east; is it not possible, that as an honest answer, he can speak beyond his politics, and give an answer that holds merit?

maybe it's the right answer?
maybe it's wrong

think about it, though, as an answer to a question

Would there be peace in the middle east if there were no Jews[sic]?

put your politics & views aside, and just look at the question, and his answer... doe they work? Donot consider the question to be anything other than academic, okay?

(i think he was just being sarcastic, btw....)

Why are you so hungry to categorise people around here, wolf (no need to answer, I'm just making an observation!)?

[the sane voice]

dont assume things on wolf fiction

[lilwolf]

fiction416 wrote: lilwolf wrote: lilwolf wrote: superskippy wrote: Quote: There is a defference between supporting & commenting on the fact that they are a legit group, is ther not?

Ok here is the test, do you accept that they are a terrorist organization with multiple terrorist attacks to there name including the recent continuiation of absentia proceedings in Argentina for their attacks there that combined killed nearly 150 people.


Sane voice...I was asking is all, because i got confused by some answers is all. I am understanding now.

I accept that they are a terrorist organization that needs to be removed from the face of the earth.
I would and do openly stand by for the desruction of the hezbollah org.
and their elimination.


Sane voice I seem to have been right about you all along here. I found this statement you made about the man of the year on that thread.


i didnt read all the posts-but i want to say one thing.
peace will come to the me when there will be no jews in israel.

Now did you say that or not?


OMFG - someone is making a point by using critical thinking... sniff sniff

could it be that maybe, regardless of his stances in life, he can think & speak beyond that & communicate what he thinks is actually an honest answer, inre; peace in the middle east; is it not possible, that as an honest answer, he can speak beyond his politics, and give an answer that holds merit?

maybe it's the right answer?
maybe it's wrong

think about it, though, as an answer to a question

Would there be peace in the middle east if there were no Jews[sic]?

put your politics & views aside, and just look at the question, and his answer... doe they work? Donot consider the question to be anything other than academic, okay?

(i think he was just being sarcastic, btw....)

Why are you so hungry to categorise people around here, wolf (no need to answer, I'm just making an observation!)?

Ya know fiction I don't think you need to belittle yourself with sarcasm and all.

I asked him the question because I was a little confused over some of the spin in his answers, and the fact that he is showing an Israeli flag under his avatar.
I will support the Israelis till I die and that is a fact. If that makes me into some sort of an offensive person to you because I think or make my stand clear it will mater not.... I ahev indeed been called worse.

I am not categorizing anyone I just want to know which way to shoot and at what. If that bothers you so be it.

Also, the sane voice is right. Don't assume anything about me. I am opinionated and I am not stupid. I might not like what a person says but I am willing to listen and voice my opinion and that in itself makes me a dangerous person to some.


Also fiction I am not a wolf that runs around looking for a teet to suckle. This wolf has teeth and he does bite, just so you know :-D

[Yrkoon]

lilwolf wrote: I will support the Israelis till I die

lilwolf wrote: I am not stupid.

^ Contradiction. :P

[lilwolf]

Yrkoon wrote: lilwolf wrote: I will support the Israelis till I die

lilwolf wrote: I am not stupid.

^ Contradiction. :P

Care to explain yourself here? :?

[fiction416]

lilwolf wrote: Yrkoon wrote: lilwolf wrote: I will support the Israelis till I die

lilwolf wrote: I am not stupid.

^ Contradiction. :P

Care to explain yourself here? :?


What are your thoughts on Blind Faith?

[lilwolf]

fiction416 wrote: lilwolf wrote: Yrkoon wrote: lilwolf wrote: I will support the Israelis till I die

lilwolf wrote: I am not stupid.

^ Contradiction. :P

Care to explain yourself here? :?


What are your thoughts on Blind Faith?


Irrelevant to the topic. stick with the topic here.

[fiction416]

lilwolf wrote: fiction416 wrote: lilwolf wrote: Yrkoon wrote: lilwolf wrote: I will support the Israelis till I die

lilwolf wrote: I am not stupid.

^ Contradiction. :P

Care to explain yourself here? :?


What are your thoughts on Blind Faith?


Irrelevant to the topic. stick with the topic here.


I was taking a jab at the question you asked to have explained

I think it's your blind faith he was reffering to... but ok, i will drop it!

[Yrkoon]

lilwolf wrote: Yrkoon wrote: lilwolf wrote: I will support the Israelis till I die

lilwolf wrote: I am not stupid.

^ Contradiction. :P

Care to explain yourself here? :?
I was taking the obvious pot-shot, jokingly (note the smilie).

But if you want to make a discussion out of it, I can oblige.

No *truely* intelligent person would ever claim that he will support anything in politics until he dies. An Intelligent person knows that politics is ever changing.

By stating that you will support israel until you die, you leave yourself open to future contraditions to your other stances. Do you currently oppose Terrorism against the Jewish state? if so, then what if Israel one day elects some extremely charismatic leader who is able to convince the Israeli masses that Palestinian terrorism is simply the result of Israeli policies against the Arabs, and thus Israel must take a hint and give Jerusalem back to the Arabs, pull completely out of the West Bank and the Golan, and engage in diplomatic relations with Iran while severing ties With the US? What if he's so charismatic that he manages to successfully sell this stance of his to the Israeli masses and they end up agreeing with him and all of the above ends up occuring? Will you still support israel?

Or better yet, If Israel nuked the US, would you still support it?

[the sane voice]

Yrkoon wrote:
if so, then what if Israel one day elects some extremely charismatic leader who is able to convince the Israeli masses that Palestinian terrorism is simply the result of Israeli policies against the Arabs, and thus Israel must take a hint and give Jerusalem back to the Arabs, pull completely out of the West Bank


you know that is what rabin said and wanted to do?and barak.
but still we have terror.

**infact the first suicide bombers started during hes time as p.m in 92-95.

[lilwolf]

Yrkoon wrote: lilwolf wrote: Yrkoon wrote: lilwolf wrote: I will support the Israelis till I die

lilwolf wrote: I am not stupid.

^ Contradiction. :P

Care to explain yourself here? :?
I was taking the obvious pot-shot, jokingly (note the smilie).

But if you want to make a discussion out of it, I can oblige.

No *truely* intelligent person would ever claim that he will support anything in politics until he dies. An Intelligent person knows that politics is ever changing.

By stating that you will support israel until you die, you leave yourself open to future contraditions to your other stances. Do you currently oppose Terrorism against the Jewish state? if so, then what if Israel one day elects some extremely charismatic leader who is able to convince the Israeli masses that Palestinian terrorism is simply the result of Israeli policies against the Arabs, and thus Israel must take a hint and give Jerusalem back to the Arabs, pull completely out of the West Bank and the Golan, and engage in diplomatic relations with Iran while severing ties With the US? What if he's so charismatic that he manages to successfully sell this stance of his to the Israeli masses and they end up agreeing with him and all of the above ends up occuring? Will you still support israel?

Or better yet, If Israel nuked the US, would you still support it?


Let's do this for the sake of clarification and an understanding so we will have no confusion here okay?

I will support Israel till I die...but I do not support politcs. The reaso I say that is because I support Israel which to me is the people that believ in their nation as people. I don't do politics at all. Never have.

Yes, I do oppose terrorism against Israel and the jewish people as a whole.
First off there is not a what if with regards ti Jerusalem and that will never happen and it would never fly because of the significance to the jewish people. Not a chance at all.
Next the very thought of engaging with Iran is not feasable because Iran would never be able to sway it's religiuos leaders that have bastardized islam into doing anything with Israel let alone a treaty that no Iranian terror group would follow.
They will not give back the Golan heights for many obvious reasons all of which you are familiar with.
Israel will not sever ties with the US for economic reasons let alone militarily. They need us as much as we need them.

I rather doubt that Israel would attack the US in any manner. One it is not a logical assumption nor is it a reality or even a hypothetical argument. So, there is not any basis for Israel to commit suicide by launching a nuke at the US. They won't because they are not a nation that has nay intent upon launching against the US or anyone unless they were attacked.
But in answer yes, if there were justification I would still support Israel till the end. That is a religious POV and not open for debate.

[fiction416]

lilwolf wrote:
I rather doubt that Israel would attack the US in any manner. One it is not a logical assumption nor is it a reality or even a hypothetical argument.


Excuse me, check yourself

[ALi*]

^^^^^^^ +9^11 ;)

Quote: The Israeli attack killed 34 U.S. servicemen and wounded at least 173.
owned lilwolf sorry :?

[the sane voice]

fiction416 wrote: lilwolf wrote:
I rather doubt that Israel would attack the US in any manner. One it is not a logical assumption nor is it a reality or even a hypothetical argument.


Excuse me, check yourself

Quote: Both the Israeli and American governments conducted multiple inquiries into the incident, and issued reports concluding that the attack was a tragic mistake, caused by confusion about the identity of the USS Liberty.

:roll:

[lilwolf]

ALi* wrote: ^^^^^^^ +9^11 ;)

Quote: The Israeli attack killed 34 U.S. servicemen and wounded at least 173.
owned lilwolf sorry :?


Not really the question was about a nuke attack. I am familiar with the liberty. But the question was a nuke attack asked by yrkoon.


Or better yet, If Israel nuked the US, would you still support it?

[fiction416]

the sane voice wrote: fiction416 wrote: lilwolf wrote:
I rather doubt that Israel would attack the US in any manner. One it is not a logical assumption nor is it a reality or even a hypothetical argument.


Excuse me, check yourself

Quote: Both the Israeli and American governments conducted multiple inquiries into the incident, and issued reports concluding that the attack was a tragic mistake, caused by confusion about the identity of the USS Liberty.

:roll:


Quote: Ongoing controversy

This incident stands as the only peacetime attack on a U.S. naval vessel not investigated by Congress. The survivors want a full Congressional hearing[citation needed]; they hold that a proper investigation has never taken place and that all previous reports are incomplete, mention the incident in passing, and either that they are intended to exonerate Israel or that they do not even question the culpability of the attack (instead, they hold, it focuses on other topics, such as American communication problems).

Israel denied all accusations that the attack was deliberate using the following arguments:

* The incident took place during the Six Day War when Israel was engaged in battles with three Arab countries, creating an environment where mistakes and confusion were prevalent. For example, at 11:45, a few hours before the attack, there was a large explosion on the shores of El-Arish followed by black smoke, probably caused by the destruction of an ammunition dump by retreating Egyptian forces. The Israeli army thought the area was being bombarded, and that an unidentified ship offshore was responsible. (According to U.S. sources, Liberty was 14 nautical miles (26 km) from those shores at the time of the attack.)

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

* Liberty opened fire first on the gunboats (though after the aerial attacks).

* No adequate benefit has been put forward that the Israelis would derive from the attack on an American ship, especially considering the high cost of the predictable complications that must inevitably follow such an attack on a powerful ally, and the fact that Israel immediately notified the American embassy after the attack.

Virtually all of the survivors of Liberty, some U.S. government officials and some U.S. military officers have asserted that the attack was premeditated. Jim Ennes, a junior officer (and off-going Officer of the Deck) on Liberty's bridge at the time of the attack, has published a book titled Assault on the Liberty. Like virtually all accounts of the "Liberty" incident, it has come under heavy criticism by those disagreeing with its point of view [citation needed].

Ennes and Joe Meadors, another survivor of the attack, run a web site that was built "with support and encouragement from the USS Liberty Veterans Association." Meadors states that the classification of the attack as deliberate is the official policy of the association, to which all known survivors belong. Other survivors run several additional websites.

Several books and the BBC documentary USS Liberty: Dead in the Water tried to prove Liberty was attacked on purpose. They claim that the ship was attacked to prevent the U.S. from knowing about the forthcoming attack in the Golan Heights, which apparently would violate a cease-fire to which Israel's government had agreed.[6] They are backed in this position by some representatives of the U.S. intelligence community. Critics claim many of the books and documentaries include incorrect assumptions and use fuzzy reasoning. For example, critics note that a document declassified in 1997 indicated that the U.S. Ambassador at the time had reported on the day of the Liberty attack that he "would not be surprised" by an Israeli attack on Syria, and that the IDF Intelligence chief had told a White House aide then in Israel that "there still remained the Syria problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow,"[7] which, the critics argue, indicate that Israel was not trying to conceal the planned invasion of Syria from the U.S.

The 1981 book Weapons by Russell Warren Howe asserts that Liberty was accompanied by the Polaris submarine USS Andrew Jackson, which filmed the entire episode through its periscope but was unable to provide assistance. According to Howe: "Two hundred feet below the ship, on a parallel course, was its 'shadow'- the Polaris strategic submarine Andrew Jackson, whose job was to take out all the Israeli long-range missile sites in the Negev if Tel Aviv decided to attack Cairo, Damascus or Baghdad. This was in order that Moscow would not have to perform this task itself and thus trigger World War Three."

James Bamford, a former ABC News producer, in his book Body of Secrets, proposes a different possible motive for a deliberate attack: "to cover up a massacre of 1,000 Egyptian prisoners of war" that was supposedly taking place at the same time in the nearby town of El-Arish. In 1995, mass graves of 90 Egyptian soldiers were discovered outside of El-Arish, and IDF veterans have admitted that unarmed civilians and prisoners of war were murdered in the 1967 War, although there is no evidence of hundreds of prisoners having been executed.[7][8] In any event, the possibility of a ship at sea discovering such a crime on land, at or beyond the limit of its visual range, is questionable (according to U.S. accounts, the ship was 14 nautical miles (26 km) from shore at the time of the attack, and did not get much closer to it previously).

In 2003, journalist Peter Hounam wrote Operation Cyanide: How the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III, which proposes a completely different theory regarding the incident. In an attempt to explain why there was no support by U.S. forces as backup, Hounam claims that Israel and U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson had secretly agreed on day four of the Six Day War that Liberty would be sunk with complete loss of life. The attack would be blamed on Egypt, allowing the U.S. in turn to attack Egypt, thus helping out Israel. However, according to Hounam's theory, because the Liberty did not sink after two hours, the plan was quickly reversed, Israel apologized for the case of mistaken identity, and a cover-up put into place. Likewise the BBC documentary (2002) claims that the Liberty incident provoked the launch of nuclear-armed planes targeted against Cairo from a US aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. It is claimed in the theory that they were recalled only just in time, when it was clear the Liberty had not sunk with all hands, and that Israel was responsible [9].

From the early 1950s up to shortly before the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel's primary military ally was France. The United States, with a few exceptions, consistently refused requests for sales of offensive weapons to Israel until 1968. The height of French-Israeli cooperation was in the 1956 Suez war, when France, Israel and the United Kingdom participated in a combined ground, sea and air offensive against Egypt, despite stringent opposition (and even threats) by the United States and the Soviet Union.

Israeli officials and Jewish organizations worldwide have asserted that materials claiming the Liberty incident was deliberate are often used as a pretext for anti-Semitic declarations and acts[citation needed]. They claim these reviews often do not give Israel the benefit of the doubt, turning the incident into an obsessive circus for Israel bashing, especially in comparison to the treatment of other incidents involving foreign attacks on U.S. vessels. Meadors and Ennes have denied an anti-Semitic pretext in their work, and have repeatedly expressed sharp disapproval at the use of the Liberty incident in anti-Semitic contexts, and have pointed out that some of the ship's company was Jewish.

On July 2, 2003, as a result of Florida Judge Jay Cristol's (retired Naval carrier pilot) lawsuit using the Freedom of Information Act, the National Security Agency made two significant admissions: there had been no radio intercepts made by USS Liberty, and there had been no radio intercepts made by the U.S. submarine Amberjack. The National Security Agency released copies of the recordings it made from an EC-121 aircraft in the vicinity of the attacks from 2:30 p.m. to 3:27 p.m. Sinai time, and the resultant translations and summaries. The tapes show that the helicopters were first dispatched to rescue Egyptians, and then demonstrate the confusion as to the identification of the target ship. Cristol adds: "The tapes confirm that the helicopter pilot observed the flag at 3:12 p.m." which would coincide with the audio tapes the Israel Air Force released to Judge Cristol of the radio transmissions before, during and after the attack. The English translations of the Israeli Air Force tapes are published in Appendix 2 of Judge Cristol's book The Liberty Incident.

On October 10, 2003, The Jerusalem Post ran an interview with Yiftah Spector, one of the pilots who participated in the attack [10], and thought to be the lead pilot of the first wave of planes. Spector stated in the interview that the ship was assumed to be Egyptian at the time of the attack; the transcripts of the Israeli communications about the Liberty are also in the interview.

As of 2005, the National Security Agency (NSA) has yet to declassify "boxes and boxes" of Liberty documents. Numerous requests under both declassification directives and the Freedom of Information Act are pending in various agencies including the NSA, Central Intelligence Agency, and Defense Intelligence Agency.

On June 8, 2005 the USS Liberty Veterans Associations filed a "Report of War Crimes Committed Against the U.S. Military, June 8, 1967" with the Department of Defense. Department of Defense Directive 2311.01E requires the Department of Defense to conduct a thorough investigation of the allegations contained in this report.

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

-----------------------------------------------

Details in dispute

The events surrounding the attack, even very simple elements such as its duration, are the subject of fierce controversy. Among the disputed facts:

* Visibility of ensign: The most vehemently debated point is the visibility of the large American flags that the ship was flying; Americans claimed the flags were clearly visible in the wind. The Israeli pilots claimed they were either unable to notice it altogether (possibly due to there being no wind, or because Liberty was steaming with the wind at the same speed that the wind was blowing), or considered it an Egyptian diversion aimed to mislead them. One point is beyond dispute: USS Liberty bore an eight-foot-high "5" and a four-foot-high "GTR" along either bow, clearly indicating her hull (or "pendant") number (AGTR-5), and had 18-inch-high letters spelling the vessel's name across the stern. These marking were not cursive Arabic script but in English.
* Israeli aircraft markings: Some American survivors of the attack assert that the Israeli aircraft were unmarked. Israel never responded to this claim.
* Jamming: An additional point on which Israel did not comment is the use of radio jamming. In the absence of reliable records, it is only left to speculate whether jamming (of Navy tactical and international maritime distress frequencies) did take place, or whether the deficiency in communications originated in the attack itself (i.e., loss of power and damage of antennas). Both Liberty and USS Saratoga radio operators reported hearing the distinctive buzzing sound usually indicative of radio frequency jamming. According to a book by Russell Warren Howe (see below), Captain McGonagle testified that the jamming of his transmissions had been on American, not Egyptian, frequencies, suggesting that the Israelis were aware of the nationality of the ship. The U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry concluded that Liberty experienced jamming (finding 47).
* Probability of identification: Americans claim the thirteen closer flybys of the previous two days should have been sufficient for identification. Israel acknowledged the ship had been identified as American and neutral the previous day; however, it claims that at 11 a.m., the ship moved out of the status board. An hour later, when explosions were heard in El-Arish, Israel claims to have reacquired the ship without being aware that it was the same one that was flown over the day before.
* Effort for identification: The American crew claims the attacking aircraft did not make identification runs over Liberty, but rather began to strafe immediately. One Israeli report claims several passes were made.
* Speed of the vessel: According to Israeli accounts, they made (admittedly erroneous) measurements that indicated the ship was steaming at 30 knots (56 km/h). Supposedly, Israeli naval doctrine at the time required that a ship traveling at that speed must be presumed to be a warship. The speed of Liberty was later recalculated to be 28 knots (52 km/h), although maximum sustained speed of Liberty was only 17.5 knots (32 km/h), 21 knots (39 km/h) being attainable by overriding the engine governors. According to Body of Secrets, by James Bamford, and Liberty crewmen (including the Officer-of-the-Deck), the ship was steaming at 5 knots (9 km/h) at the time of the attack.
* Visual communications: Joe Meadors, the signalman on bridge, states that "Immediately prior to the torpedo attack, he was on the Signal Bridge repeatedly sending 'USS Liberty U.S. Navy Ship' by flashing light to the torpedo boats." The Israeli boats claim to have read only the signal "AA", which was exactly the signal dispatched by the Egyptian destroyer Ibrahim Al-Awal when it was engaged by the Israeli Navy eleven years earlier. Meadors claims he never sent "AA" (which would require him to identify himself as well); this disagreement may be settled by considering the fact that Liberty was unable to read signals sent from the boats.
* Call for ID: Israel claims to have called the ship on radio several times without receiving an answer, while the American crew members deny ever receiving a call for identification. The crew's failure to receive any call for identification may be related to the possible Israeli jamming of radio frequencies. (Refer to Jamming above.)
* Israeli ships' actions after the torpedo hit: The American crew claims that after Liberty had been torpedoed, Israeli boats circled the ship firing machine guns at descended (unmanned) life rafts and sailors on board the ship. Israelis claim they recognized the ship as American immediately after it was hit and ceased fire. The former point of view was expressed by many of the crew members, while the latter one is reinforced by the lack of mention of the action by the ship's captain. The former point of view has also been corroborated by Captain Ward Boston, senior counsel to the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry.[11]
* Israeli offers of help: Reports differ regarding whether the Israeli boats offered help. The crew claims the torpedo boats simply withdrew, while the captain and the Israeli crew report that help was offered.
* U.S. rescue attempts: At least two rescue attempts were launched from U.S. aircraft carriers nearby but were recalled, according to David Lewis, officer of the deck (OOD) during the attack. Lewis wrote and made an audio recording about a meeting 6th Fleet Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis requested in his cabins: "He told me that since I was the senior Liberty survivor on board he wanted to tell me in confidence what had actually transpired. He told me that upon receipt of our SOS, aircraft were launched to come to our assistance and then Washington was notified. He said that the Secretary of Defense (Robert McNamara) had ordered that the aircraft be returned to the carrier which was done. RADM Geis then said that he speculated that Washington may have suspected that the aircraft carried nuclear weapons so he put together another flight of conventional aircraft that had no capability of carrying nuclear weapons. These he launched to assist us and again notified Washington of his actions. Again McNamara ordered the aircraft recalled. He requested confirmation of the order being unable to believe that Washington would let us sink. This time President Johnson ordered the recall with the comment that he did not care if every man drowned and the ship sank, but that he would not embarrass his allies. This is, to the best of my ability, what I recall transpiring 30 years ago."

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

[lilwolf]

The investigations that were conducted never were investigated by congree because the military made a conclusion and it was not needed at all.

Next

[ALi*]

the sane voice wrote: fiction416 wrote: lilwolf wrote:
I rather doubt that Israel would attack the US in any manner. One it is not a logical assumption nor is it a reality or even a hypothetical argument.


Excuse me, check yourself

Quote: Both the Israeli and American governments conducted multiple inquiries into the incident, and issued reports concluding that the attack was a tragic mistake, caused by confusion about the identity of the USS Liberty.

:roll:

hehe ya right... like the arab countries had aircraft carriers at the time! :lol:

[fiction416]

lilwolf wrote: The investigations that were conducted never were investigated by congree because the military made a conclusion and it was not needed at all.

Next


BS - And what about all the controversy.

what about all these dead USS soldiers:

Quote:
* Cryptologic Technician 3rd Class William B. Allenbaugh, USN
* Lieutenant Commander Philip A. Armstrong Jr., USN
* Seaman Gary R. Blanchard, USN
* Cryptologic Technician 2nd Class Allen M. Blue, NSA
* Quartermaster 3rd Class Francis Brown, USN
* Cryptologic Technician 2nd Ronnie J. Campbell, USN
* Cryptologic Technician 2nd Class Jerry L. Converse, USN
* Cryptologic Technician 2nd Class Robert B. Eisenberg, USN
* Cryptologic Technician 2nd Class Jerry L. Goss, USN
* Cryptologic Technician 1st Class Curtis L. Graves, USN
* Cryptologic Technician Lawrence P. Hayden, USN
* Cryptologic Technician 1st Class Warren Hersey, USN
* Cryptologic Technician 3rd Class Alan Higgins, USN
* Seaman Carl L. Hoar, USN
* Cryptologic Technician 2nd Class Richard W. Keene, USN
* Cryptologic Technician James L. Lenau, USN
* Chief Cryptologic Technician Raymond E. Linn, USN
* Cryptologic Technician 1st Class James M. Lupton, USN
* Cryptologic Technician 3rd Class Duane R. Marggraf, USN
* Cryptologic Technician David W. Marlborough, USN
* Cryptologic Technician 2nd Class Anthony P. Mendle, USN
* Cryptologic Technician Carl C. Nygren, USN
* Lieutenant James C. Pierce, USN
* Sergeant Jack Raper, U.S.M.C.
* Corporal Edward Rehmayer II, U.S.M.C.
* Interior Communications Electrician David N. Skolak, USN
* Cryptologic Technician 1st Class John C. Smith Jr, USN
* Chief Cryptologic Technician Melvin D. Smith, USN
* Postal Clerk 2nd Class John C. Spicher, USN
* Gunner's Mate 3rd Class Alexander N. Thompson, USN
* Cryptologic Technician 3rd Class Thomas R. Thornton, USN
* Cryptologic Technician 3rd Class Phillipe C. Tiedtke, USN
* Lieutenant Stephen S. Toth, USN
* Cryptologic Technician 1st Class Frederick J. Walton, USN