The Truth About France
Patriot
When theBush administration was gearing up for war in Iraq by convincing
americans that Saddam Hussein was the force behind the 09/11 attacks, and that
Hussein had purchased "yellow cake" uranium from Niger, both pundits and
ordinary citizens went around making jokes about the stupidity and cowardice of
French citizens for failing to understand that Hussein was a menace to global
peace. Did we not stupidly change the name of "french fries" to "freedom
fries" and launch boycotts against french goods that continue to this day even
though we now know that the yellow cake story was an incredibly stupid
deception? And, of course, Iraq has turned out to be a quagmire exactly as
french diplomats had predicted.
After a bogus series of "anti-semitic" crimes that were committed last month
in France were traced back to jews themselves, it should now be apparent to all
of us that there *IS* something wrong with France after all. We can see now
that the french police are superior to american police because they managed to
solve these crimes instead of blaming them on muslims in general. Yet, there
is an extremely stupid element in french society that deserves our negative
praise... namely the french branch of the mossad. Couldn't Israel find french
mossad agents who could burn down old jewish buildings in the name of "Allah"
without getting caught so quickly? And why the hell couldn't a jewish
spokesman for Israel make threatening phone calls to himself in a way that
would have prevented the french police from quickly discovering that he was the
author of his own "hoax" victimization? Last but not least, why did the bogus
"muslims" who quickly confessed to burning down the jewish community center not
wait a few days to claim victory for "islam" until the real arsonist could be
safely flown to Israel? As it stands, all the french mossad agents have "oeuf"
on their faces and rightly so. 'Especes de clowns!'
Let's face it: France has a big problem because her mossad agents are quite
arguably the DUMBEST mossad agents in the entire world. And americans like me
will not EVER let you live this down. It's clear to me and many other
american patriots that you froggies should be THOROUGHLY ashamed of yourselves
for not developing a smarter breed of israeli agent to attack your culture, to
attack your institutions and to use french soil for fomenting global war in
general. Shame on you! No wonder americans are far, far ahead of France in
the War on Terror.
It's tempting for me to say that our american mossad agents are 100% smarter
than froggy mossad agents, but then I'm forced to remember that Pollard caught
caught, the "israeli art students" in NJ were caught but not convicted after
09/11, the ADL in San Francisco got caught, and AIPAC got caught. So maybe our
american zionists aren't 100% smarter than french zionists after all. Still,
I think it's safe to say that they are at least 50% smarter than their french
counterparts... as evidenced by the fact that a peace activist like Cat Stevens
has been refused permission to enter the USA because of his muslim religious
beliefs and affiliations. So, eat your hearts out, froggies. Once again,
america reigns supreme! We are the victors! Hu-Rah!
El Mariachi
:-)
It takes a lot of courage to dare fighting the pro-war theory inside the
USA, cheers !
EM
"Patriot" <usapat...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:06mdnU-f2vp...@giganews.com...
Susan Cohen
"El Mariachi" <stu...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:41533a2c$0$28100$79c1...@nan-newsreader-04.noos.net...
> LOL ! You should be careful for being such a treator to your glorious
> nation
> :-)
>
> It takes a lot of courage to dare fighting the pro-war theory inside the
> USA, cheers !
You do realize that he's just a Jew-hater, & is only spreading lies about
Jews being behind the war?
Look at his post - how little of it actually concerns the war?
>
> EM
>
>
> "Patriot" <usapat...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:06mdnU-f2vp...@giganews.com...
>>
>> When theBush administration was gearing up for war in Iraq by convincing
>> americans that Saddam Hussein was the force behind the 09/11 attacks, and
> that
>> Hussein had purchased "yellow cake" uranium from Niger, both pundits and
>> ordinary citizens went around making jokes about the stupidity and
> cowardice of
>> French citizens for failing to understand that Hussein was a menace to
> global
>> peace. Did we not stupidly change the name of "french fries" to
>> "freedom
>> fries" and launch boycotts against french goods that continue to this day
> even
>> though we now know that the yellow cake story was an incredibly stupid
>> deception? And, of course, Iraq has turned out to be a quagmire exactly
> as
>> french diplomats had predicted.
>>
>> After a bogus series
A lie.
of "anti-semitic" crimes that were committed last
> month
>> in France were traced back to jews themselves,
ANother lie.
It was not traced to Jews.
it should now be apparent
> to all
>> of us that there *IS* something wrong with France after all. We can see
> now
>> that the french police are superior to american police because they
> managed to
>> solve these crimes instead of blaming them on muslims in general. Yet,
> there
>> is an extremely stupid element in french society that deserves our
> negative
>> praise... namely the french branch of the mossad. Couldn't Israel find
> french
>> mossad agents who could burn down old jewish buildings in the name of
> "Allah"
>> without getting caught so quickly?
And another lie - it was never any such thing.
And why the hell couldn't a jewish
>> spokesman for Israel
And another lie.
make threatening phone calls to himself in a way that
>> would have prevented the french police from quickly discovering that he
> was the
>> author of his own "hoax" victimization? Last but not least, why did the
> bogus
>> "muslims" who quickly confessed to burning down the jewish community
> center not
>> wait a few days to claim victory for "islam" until the real arsonist
> could be
>> safely flown to Israel?
More lies.
Dana
news:06mdnU-f2vp...@giganews.com...
>
> When theBush administration was gearing up for war in Iraq by convincing
> americans that Saddam Hussein was the force behind the 09/11 attacks, and
that
> Hussein had purchased "yellow cake" uranium from Niger, both pundits and
> ordinary citizens went around making jokes about the stupidity and
cowardice of
> French citizens for failing to understand that Hussein was a menace to
global
> peace. Did we not stupidly change the name of "french fries" to "freedom
> fries" and launch boycotts against french goods that continue to this day
even
> though we now know that the yellow cake story was an incredibly stupid
> deception?
And the french were behind this deception.
> After a bogus series of "anti-semitic" crimes that were committed last
month
> in France were traced back to jews themselves
Why must you lie.
DeMaisonneuve
lies" is not enough to support your point. You should bring proofs to this
to make it clear to everyone.
For now, what the guy said, is relatively close to what the news told me.
Please provide some more sources agreeing with your words.
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:sBK4d.12117$464.1573@trnddc01...
Patriot
>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:10:54 -0500, Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
Much dumber. :-) The Mossad agents in New Zealand will soon be getting out of
jail after a brief stay, whereas the jewish arsonist in Paris could be looking
at serious "hard time" given the french "bashing" and "anti-semitism" outcries
from both american jews and Israel when unknown muslim "terrorists" were the
suspected culprits in the jewish community center arson case. Moreover,
correct me if I'm wrong here, but two of the four mossad agents in NZ who had
been identified by NZ investigators in the "false passport identity" case
managed to return to Israel before the cops could slap on the cuffs.
Face the facts, Daniel. :-) Either France MUST have the dumbest mossad agents
on the face of the earth, or alternatively, we will be forced to believe that
the french police are significantly brighter than their counterparts in the USA
and in New Zealand.
In retrospect, however, there's another alternative to consider. It's
possible -- as much as it would pain both of us to admit it -- that French
politicians are simply fed up with Israeli manipulation and treachery and have
told the french police to simply do their job instead of cutting mossad agents
a lot of "slack" and looking the other way. Our friends in the american
zionist community may be drawing the same conclusions about George Bush as
evidenced in the article from a zionist publication cited below. Still George
is way behind Chirac when it comes to saying "no" to zionist hardliners.
Neocons Blast Bush's Inaction On 'Spy' Affair
By MARC PERELMAN
http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=perelman20040909327
>>And americans like me
>>will not EVER let you live this down. It's clear to me and many other
>>american patriots that you froggies should be THOROUGHLY ashamed of
>>yourselves
>>for not developing a smarter breed of israeli agent to attack your culture,
>>to
>>attack your institutions and to use french soil for fomenting global war in
>>general. Shame on you! No wonder americans are far, far ahead of France in
>>the War on Terror.
>>
>>It's tempting for me to say that our american mossad agents are 100% smarter
>>than froggy mossad agents, but then I'm forced to remember that Pollard
>>caught
>>caught, the "israeli art students" in NJ were caught but not convicted after
>>09/11,
>
>That is smart. Getting caught with your fingers in the biscuit tin but
>still beating the rap.
It signifies either intelligence on their part or bungling on the part of
american cops and politicians. I suppose it's possible that the Department of
Justice brought pressure to bear on other agencies to secure the release of the
"art students", but it's just so hard for me to believe that american
politicians could ever be corrupt. Everyone is honest here in the USA. :-)
Political interference where Israel is concerned isn't a new phenomenon. When
Israeli mirage aircraft were attacking the USS Liberty during the 1967 war,
and torpedo boats were machine gunning survivors attempting to launch
lifeboats (in violation of international law), the admiral of the mediterranean
fleet ordered the launching of fighter jets from a nearby carrier to protect
the sailors under attack. According to McNamera who was Secretary of Defense
at the time, President LB Johnson ordered the recall of the fighter jets to
avoid "embarrassment" for Israel... nevermind the lives of servicemen who were
bleeding to death on the decks of the ship. Details of the USS Liberty attack
can be found at the website maintained by survivors: www.ussliberty.org. Of
course, I should mention that Israel claimed at the time that the USS Liberty,
a state of the art "spy" ship bristling with antennae and sporting a huge radar
dish, had been mistaken for an egyptian "horse carrier" roughly a fraction of
her size. Yet one wonders why Israel would have expended so much in the way
of munitions on a "horse carrier" that could have no conceivable military
value.
>> the ADL in San Francisco got caught, and AIPAC got caught. So maybe our
>>american zionists aren't 100% smarter than french zionists after all.
>
>But you haven't caught JINSA yet.
I'm sure there are many rocks left to be overturned.
>>Still,
>>I think it's safe to say that they are at least 50% smarter than their french
>>counterparts... as evidenced by the fact that a peace activist like Cat
>>Stevens
>>has been refused permission to enter the USA because of his muslim religious
>>beliefs and affiliations. So, eat your hearts out, froggies. Once again,
>>america reigns supreme! We are the victors! Hu-Rah!
>>
>AH but what about the Mossad agents like The Wolfoman and Perle? Hell,
>at least we didn't let out Mossy agents waltz into high office. Also,
>what about that prize Mossy agent, GW Bush. He has to be! Anyone who
>can say Sharon is a "man of peace" without wetting himself must have a
>little Mossy agent inside his head controlling his brain.
Bush isn't a real texan, but he's trying hard to learn. Sometimes texans say
one thing when we mean the exact opposite. As such, I suppose I would agree
with Bush that Sharon is, indeed, a man of peace.
BTW, I tried sending some documents to maferme.fr but they bounced.
Patriot
>Look at his post - how little of it actually concerns the war?
Would you care to discuss the facts concerning New Zealand's arrest of Israeli
agents who used stolen identities in an attempt to obtain fraudulent NZ
passports -- presumably for some Mossad murder plot in Lebanon? And perhaps
you would care to discuss the facts concerning the burning of the jewish
community center in Paris?
It's worth mentioning that a website in Israel, allegedly run by christians,
had stated that a muslim group had claimed credit for burning the jewish
community center. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, none of the newspapers
than ran stories about the alleged muslim "confession" bothered to print
retractions when it turned out that a jewish man had been arrested for the
crime.
Here's the "muslim" confession:
http://www.icej.org/cgi-local/view.cgi?type=headline&artid=2004/08/23/854240257
One curious question for Daniel and other french citizens: Was the jewish
community center insured? It's always a bonus when a jewish group can burn
down its own OLD building, blame muslims for the crime, and then collect
insurance money in the bargain... assuming, of course, that the insurance was
not underwritten by a jewish business. It will be interesting to see if the
building's owners intercede on behalf of the arsonist by absolving him of the
crime.
Final note -- Given the bogus confession cited above, one wonders whether any
of the other 'anonymous' confessions from various middle east conflicts have
absolute validity... such as muslim confessions for the recent spate of
beheadings in Iraq.
Daniel Bernard
"Dana" <de...@losers.com> wrote in message
news:c2fd626f047f673f...@news.meganetnews.com...
> "Patriot" <usapat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:06mdnU-f2vp...@giganews.com...
>>
>> When theBush administration was gearing up for war in Iraq by convincing
>> americans that Saddam Hussein was the force behind the 09/11 attacks, and
> that
>> Hussein had purchased "yellow cake" uranium from Niger, both pundits and
>> ordinary citizens went around making jokes about the stupidity and
> cowardice of
>> French citizens for failing to understand that Hussein was a menace to
> global
>> peace. Did we not stupidly change the name of "french fries" to
>> "freedom
>> fries" and launch boycotts against french goods that continue to this day
> even
>> though we now know that the yellow cake story was an incredibly stupid
>> deception?
>
> And the french were behind this deception.
>
Susan Cohen
Did we not stupidly change the name of "french fries" to "freedom
>> fries" and launch boycotts against french goods that continue to this day
> even
>> though we now know that the yellow cake story was an incredibly stupid
>> deception?
>
> And the french were behind this deception.
>
>> After a bogus series of "anti-semitic" crimes that were committed last
> month
>> in France were traced back to jews themselves
>
> Why must you lie.
Because the truth defeats him
(Or was this a rhetorical question?)
Susan
>
>
Patriot
>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:36:41 -0500, Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>Political interference where Israel is concerned isn't a new phenomenon.
>>When
>>Israeli mirage aircraft were attacking the USS Liberty during the 1967 war,
>>and torpedo boats were machine gunning survivors attempting to launch
>>lifeboats (in violation of international law), the admiral of the
>>mediterranean
>>fleet ordered the launching of fighter jets from a nearby carrier to protect
>>the sailors under attack. According to McNamera who was Secretary of Defense
>>at the time, President LB Johnson ordered the recall of the fighter jets to
>>avoid "embarrassment" for Israel...
>
>Sometimes, there are cases for overruling the Commander in Chief and
>bugger the consequences. This would have been one of those cases.
I agree, but in this case the vast majority of americans didn't know what was
going on, and by and large, still don't know what happened. Or they readily
buy the "accidental" attack excuse that's full of holes. As you may know,
Johnson was much despised by many young "radicals" in the USA -- a young
"radical" is defined as a person who didn't wish to kill or be killed in order
to force vietnamese young "radicals" to respect the private property of
colonial landlords -- because he escalated the vietnam war significantly after
Kennedy's murder. When Johnson announced that he would not seek or accept an
additional term of office, everyone assumed that his decision stemmed from his
unwillingness to either prosecute the war in vietnam or alternatively to
"lose" the vietnam war by withdrawing, but it's also possible that he
eventually learned more of the facts about the '67 war and about the USS
Liberty incident and was worried about the nightmarish possibilities of nuclear
catastrophe triggered in the middle east.
Here's a link to the website run by the surviving crew members of the USS
Liberty: www.ussliberty.org
Apart from the deaths of the american sailors themselves, the possibility that
the Liberty attack was another "false flag" attempt like the Lavon affair may
have nagged on his conscious... meaning that the Israelis may have wanted to
sink the Liberty and blame the sinking on Egypt. And it's also possible that
Johnson had concerns about the massacre of egyptian soldiers at El Arish on the
Sinai plateau just a few miles from the track of the Liberty's wake. This
massacre was unknown to most americans until 1995 or thereabouts when it broke
in the press after an Israel general confessed to committing a similar atrocity
at the same location during the 1956 war. You can find more extensive coverage
about the massacre of egyptian POWs at the USS Liberty website but here's an
article in Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/951002/middleeast.html
Incidently, when the stories about these two massacres became known, the
Israeli attorney general claimed that war crimes trials should not be held
because there is a 20 year statute of limitations. 20 year statute of
limitations on MURDER? In the USA there is no statute of limitations ANYWHERE
(to the best of my knowledge) on murder, and indeed, the USA has cooperated
with the Israel government's pursuit of nazi murderers even fifty years after
the fact.
>> nevermind the lives of servicemen who were
>>bleeding to death on the decks of the ship.
>
>Hell, how many millions of Americans are there? I do not think you
>should mind a few dying just so Israel can avoid "embarrassment".
/sarcasm on/
Yes, what should we care if a few hundred "blue collar" soldiers get shot by
the Israeli air force, or even a few thousand soldiers get shot, or even a few
hundred thousand soldiers get shot? The important thing is to make sure that
the sons and daughters of the privileged classes don't get harmed in any way,
and that we get to enjoy the plunder and the power.
>> Details of the USS Liberty attack
>>can be found at the website maintained by survivors: www.ussliberty.org. Of
>>course, I should mention that Israel claimed at the time that the USS
>>Liberty,
>>a state of the art "spy" ship bristling with antennae and sporting a huge
>>radar
>>dish, had been mistaken for an egyptian "horse carrier" roughly a fraction of
>>her size. Yet one wonders why Israel would have expended so much in the way
>>of munitions on a "horse carrier" that could have no conceivable military
>>value.
>Oh it "must" have been an honest mistake.
I mentioned just recently in this ng that I have an EX-friend -- a jewish
atheist -- who now works as a fundraiser collecting money for Israel from naive
christians. In the presence of christians he pretends to love the same "god"
and talks about "judeo-christian" traditions and the steadfast devotion of jews
for "god", but in private he ridicules what he calls "christian stupidity"...
just as many israeli jews ridicule Neturei Karta rabbis who believe in G*d and
reject the state of Israel on religious grounds. My ex-friend views them as
stupid, in part because they believe in the "god" that he rejects, but also
because they actually believe his own lies. I suspect that the same mentality
is at work whenever and wherever americans are given some kind of "excuse" for
Israeli duplicity.
Neturei Karta http://www.nkusa.org/
Also http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/
Patriot
>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:57:46 -0500, Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>Look at his post - how little of it actually concerns the war?
>>
>>Would you care to discuss the facts concerning New Zealand's arrest of
>>Israeli
>>agents who used stolen identities in an attempt to obtain fraudulent NZ
>>passports -- presumably for some Mossad murder plot in Lebanon? And perhaps
>>you would care to discuss the facts concerning the burning of the jewish
>>community center in Paris?
>>
>over streaky bacon.
Pity.
>>It's worth mentioning that a website in Israel, allegedly run by christians,
>>had stated that a muslim group had claimed credit for burning the jewish
>>community center. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, none of the newspapers
>>than ran stories about the alleged muslim "confession" bothered to print
>>retractions when it turned out that a jewish man had been arrested for the
>>crime.
>>
>>Here's the "muslim" confession:
>>
>>http://www.icej.org/cgi-local/view.cgi?type=headline&artid=2004/08/23/854240257
>>
>>One curious question for Daniel and other french citizens: Was the jewish
>>community center insured?
>
>I would assume so. Building insurance is a legal requirement and I
>would say more important for a building that is used by the public.
>Also, Terrorism insurance might have been in place.
Would this imply that the owners of the building would not be legally capable
of "absolving" the culprit?
Daniel Bernard
wrote:
>Daniel Bernard <aime...@laferme.fr> wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:36:41 -0500, Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>Political interference where Israel is concerned isn't a new phenomenon.
>>>When
>>>Israeli mirage aircraft were attacking the USS Liberty during the 1967 war,
>>>and torpedo boats were machine gunning survivors attempting to launch
>>>lifeboats (in violation of international law), the admiral of the
>>>mediterranean
>>>fleet ordered the launching of fighter jets from a nearby carrier to protect
>>>the sailors under attack. According to McNamera who was Secretary of Defense
>>>at the time, President LB Johnson ordered the recall of the fighter jets to
>>>avoid "embarrassment" for Israel...
>>
>>Sometimes, there are cases for overruling the Commander in Chief and
>>bugger the consequences. This would have been one of those cases.
>
>I agree, but in this case the vast majority of americans didn't know what was
>going on, and by and large, still don't know what happened.
But surely the Naval commanders close to the incident were aware. The
Admiral of the Med Fleet should have ignored that order and in that
case, I would hold him as culpable as the Israelis and LBJ.
>Or they readily
>buy the "accidental" attack excuse that's full of holes. As you may know,
>Johnson was much despised by many young "radicals" in the USA -- a young
>"radical" is defined as a person who didn't wish to kill or be killed in order
>to force vietnamese young "radicals" to respect the private property of
>colonial landlords -- because he escalated the vietnam war significantly after
>Kennedy's murder. When Johnson announced that he would not seek or accept an
>additional term of office, everyone assumed that his decision stemmed from his
>unwillingness to either prosecute the war in vietnam or alternatively to
>"lose" the vietnam war by withdrawing, but it's also possible that he
>eventually learned more of the facts about the '67 war and about the USS
>Liberty incident and was worried about the nightmarish possibilities of nuclear
>catastrophe triggered in the middle east.
>
I would have to say that in my opinion, he was always aware of the
Liberty incident. No matter what gloss the Israelis would have put on
the story, I am sure his own Naval Commanders would have given him
their side of the affair.
>Here's a link to the website run by the surviving crew members of the USS
>Liberty: www.ussliberty.org
>
I've seen that site quite a few times. Another poster has referred me
to it in the past.
>Apart from the deaths of the american sailors themselves, the possibility that
>the Liberty attack was another "false flag" attempt like the Lavon affair may
>have nagged on his conscious... meaning that the Israelis may have wanted to
>sink the Liberty and blame the sinking on Egypt.
What would have been Americas response if the Liberty had been sunk by
Egypt?
>And it's also possible that
>Johnson had concerns about the massacre of egyptian soldiers at El Arish on the
>Sinai plateau just a few miles from the track of the Liberty's wake. This
>massacre was unknown to most americans until 1995 or thereabouts when it broke
>in the press after an Israel general confessed to committing a similar atrocity
>at the same location during the 1956 war. You can find more extensive coverage
>about the massacre of egyptian POWs at the USS Liberty website but here's an
>article in Time Magazine:
>
>http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/951002/middleeast.html
>
>Incidently, when the stories about these two massacres became known, the
>Israeli attorney general claimed that war crimes trials should not be held
>because there is a 20 year statute of limitations. 20 year statute of
>limitations on MURDER? In the USA there is no statute of limitations ANYWHERE
>(to the best of my knowledge) on murder, and indeed, the USA has cooperated
>with the Israel government's pursuit of nazi murderers even fifty years after
>the fact.
>
One rule for the Israelis and one for the rest of civilised society
huh? Maybe all the SS commanders they are still chasing around should
try to pull that little chestnut.
>>> nevermind the lives of servicemen who were
>>>bleeding to death on the decks of the ship.
>>
>>Hell, how many millions of Americans are there? I do not think you
>>should mind a few dying just so Israel can avoid "embarrassment".
>
>/sarcasm on/
>Yes, what should we care if a few hundred "blue collar" soldiers get shot by
>the Israeli air force, or even a few thousand soldiers get shot, or even a few
>hundred thousand soldiers get shot? The important thing is to make sure that
>the sons and daughters of the privileged classes don't get harmed in any way,
>and that we get to enjoy the plunder and the power.
>
And that Israeli comes out smelling of roses. What I cannot understand
is why so many Americans seem to brush off that incident as
unimportant.
Oh wait. It's only the underclass that were shot up. Pretty expendable
really, aren't they?
>>> Details of the USS Liberty attack
>>>can be found at the website maintained by survivors: www.ussliberty.org. Of
>>>course, I should mention that Israel claimed at the time that the USS
>>>Liberty,
>>>a state of the art "spy" ship bristling with antennae and sporting a huge
>>>radar
>>>dish, had been mistaken for an egyptian "horse carrier" roughly a fraction of
>>>her size. Yet one wonders why Israel would have expended so much in the way
>>>of munitions on a "horse carrier" that could have no conceivable military
>>>value.
>
>>Oh it "must" have been an honest mistake.
>
>I mentioned just recently in this ng that I have an EX-friend -- a jewish
>atheist -- who now works as a fundraiser collecting money for Israel from naive
>christians. In the presence of christians he pretends to love the same "god"
>and talks about "judeo-christian" traditions and the steadfast devotion of jews
>for "god", but in private he ridicules what he calls "christian stupidity"...
>just as many israeli jews ridicule Neturei Karta rabbis who believe in G*d and
>reject the state of Israel on religious grounds. My ex-friend views them as
>stupid, in part because they believe in the "god" that he rejects, but also
>because they actually believe his own lies. I suspect that the same mentality
>is at work whenever and wherever americans are given some kind of "excuse" for
>Israeli duplicity.
>
Yes and the more America accepts it, the more stupid the excuses will
become until eventually they turn around and say "Yeah we did it. So
fucking what?"
Then what will the public do and how will the political classes react?
--
Gordon Radavich is innocent!
Patriot
One of us is lying outrageously. Do you have the intellectual courage to
debate these "anti-semitic" crimes committed by jews, rationally and factually
without resorting to your usual "snip" response followed by name calling? We
can begin with the burning of the community center which was documented in the
NY Times and most parisian papers. And then we can move on to the other two
notable incidents that occurred within the last few weeks.
Patriot
>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:03:55 -0500, Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>>I would assume so. Building insurance is a legal requirement and I
>>>would say more important for a building that is used by the public.
>>>Also, Terrorism insurance might have been in place.
>>
>>Would this imply that the owners of the building would not be legally capable
>>of "absolving" the culprit?
>>
>Pretty much so. After all, a crime has been committed and while the
>owners could say "oh hell, I forgive ya", that should not be able to
>halt legal proceedings.
This is true in theory in the USA but in recent years this has not always been
true in practice if/when the allegedly offended party pleads with the
authorities to let the matter drop. If there's a broad conspiracy at play in
the burning of the jewish community center, much will depend on the ethnicity
of the insurance company and the value of the building.
According to the reports that I've seen in the press, the french police have
theorized that the accused man was angry about the impending closure of the
center and perpetrated the crime because he was hoping that the burning of the
building would inflate the spectre of "anti-semitism" and lead to the
cancellation of the closure plans. In the USA the police take a long hard look
at arson cases in which a building burns down after a company or organization
has announced any sort of "closure" plan. Why? Because it's so much more
convenient to receive a check from the insurance company than to clean up and
repair the building and prepare it for public sale.
Patriot
The President is commander-in-chief.
There's much debate on the question of american knowledge at the time of the
attack. During the mid 60's, the american military had a global communication
system in place that was used to transmit highly sensitive and urgent
information within a short period of time -- just a few minutes -- to ALL
american bases everywhere in the world. This system was called "CRITIC". A
few veterans who were manning these CRITIC stations at the time of the attack
-- at least one in vietnam and another in europe if memory serves -- are now
claiming that they saw messages come across their CRITIC teletype from spy
planes in the area that identified the attackers as Israelis and allegedly
intercepted radio traffic showing that the attack was deliberate. These same
individuals have also testified -- in sworn affadavits -- that they were
ordered to destroy all of these messages on the day after the Liberty attack
and ordered to keep their mouths shut about the messages under threat of court
martial.
There was a cursory military investigation of the incident, but one of the men
who was responsible for collected the data for the proceeding is now claiming
that the whole procedure was a deliberate white wash and that the admiral in
charge of this white wash regretted it throughout his subsequent career.
>>Or they readily
>>buy the "accidental" attack excuse that's full of holes. As you may know,
>>Johnson was much despised by many young "radicals" in the USA -- a young
>>"radical" is defined as a person who didn't wish to kill or be killed in
>>order
>>to force vietnamese young "radicals" to respect the private property of
>>colonial landlords -- because he escalated the vietnam war significantly
>>after
>>Kennedy's murder. When Johnson announced that he would not seek or accept an
>>additional term of office, everyone assumed that his decision stemmed from
>>his
>>unwillingness to either prosecute the war in vietnam or alternatively to
>>"lose" the vietnam war by withdrawing, but it's also possible that he
>>eventually learned more of the facts about the '67 war and about the USS
>>Liberty incident and was worried about the nightmarish possibilities of
>>nuclear
>>catastrophe triggered in the middle east.
>>
>I would have to say that in my opinion, he was always aware of the
>Liberty incident. No matter what gloss the Israelis would have put on
>the story, I am sure his own Naval Commanders would have given him
>their side of the affair.
Agreed. McNamera says that Johnson knew the facts but was afraid of the
political repercussions.
>>Here's a link to the website run by the surviving crew members of the USS
>>Liberty: www.ussliberty.org
>>
>I've seen that site quite a few times. Another poster has referred me
>to it in the past.
>
>>Apart from the deaths of the american sailors themselves, the possibility
>>that
>>the Liberty attack was another "false flag" attempt like the Lavon affair may
>>have nagged on his conscious... meaning that the Israelis may have wanted to
>>sink the Liberty and blame the sinking on Egypt.
>
>What would have been Americas response if the Liberty had been sunk by
>Egypt?
Devastation in Cairo or Alexandria, and america's green light to Israel for the
seizure of palestine as a whole along with Syria and the permanent possession
of the Sinai.
>>And it's also possible that
>>Johnson had concerns about the massacre of egyptian soldiers at El Arish on
>>the
>>Sinai plateau just a few miles from the track of the Liberty's wake. This
>>massacre was unknown to most americans until 1995 or thereabouts when it
>>broke
>>in the press after an Israel general confessed to committing a similar
>>atrocity
>>at the same location during the 1956 war. You can find more extensive
>>coverage
>>about the massacre of egyptian POWs at the USS Liberty website but here's an
>>article in Time Magazine:
>>
>>http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/951002/middleeast.html
>>
>>Incidently, when the stories about these two massacres became known, the
>>Israeli attorney general claimed that war crimes trials should not be held
>>because there is a 20 year statute of limitations. 20 year statute of
>>limitations on MURDER? In the USA there is no statute of limitations
>>ANYWHERE
>>(to the best of my knowledge) on murder, and indeed, the USA has cooperated
>>with the Israel government's pursuit of nazi murderers even fifty years after
>>the fact.
>>
>One rule for the Israelis and one for the rest of civilised society
>huh? Maybe all the SS commanders they are still chasing around should
>try to pull that little chestnut.
They have tried. It doesn't work for any country other than Israel. :-)
>>>> nevermind the lives of servicemen who were
>>>>bleeding to death on the decks of the ship.
>>>
>>>Hell, how many millions of Americans are there? I do not think you
>>>should mind a few dying just so Israel can avoid "embarrassment".
>>
>>/sarcasm on/
>>Yes, what should we care if a few hundred "blue collar" soldiers get shot by
>>the Israeli air force, or even a few thousand soldiers get shot, or even a
>>few
>>hundred thousand soldiers get shot? The important thing is to make sure
>>that
>>the sons and daughters of the privileged classes don't get harmed in any way,
>>and that we get to enjoy the plunder and the power.
>>
>And that Israeli comes out smelling of roses. What I cannot understand
>is why so many Americans seem to brush off that incident as
>unimportant.
>
>Oh wait. It's only the underclass that were shot up. Pretty expendable
>really, aren't they?
Yes. :-) Still, the vast majority of americans have never heard of the USS
Liberty and if/when they hear the news they readily buy the story that it was
just a little accident. BTW, the ship's captain was awarded a Metal of Honor
for his heroic efforts to save ship and crew but the metal was presented on a
back lot in the Naval Yard by a relatively low rank official, and NOT on the
White House lawn.
Patriot
>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:55:13 -0500, Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>radar since it was revealed that the arsonist wasn't an Muslim or a
>Neo-Nazi.
>
>I will hunt around this weekend and let you know if I find anything
>more up-to-date on this affair.
Thanks. I often listen to RFI but I probably should cough up some money for a
subscription to a french mainstream newspaper. Suggestions would be
appreciated.
Patriot
>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:46:07 -0500, Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>>>>> After a bogus series of "anti-semitic" crimes that were committed last
>>>> month
>>>>> in France were traced back to jews themselves
>>>>
>>>> Why must you lie.
>>>
>>>Because the truth defeats him
>>>(Or was this a rhetorical question?)
>>
>>One of us is lying outrageously. Do you have the intellectual courage to
>>debate these "anti-semitic" crimes committed by jews, rationally and
>>factually
>>without resorting to your usual "snip" response followed by name calling?
>>We
>>can begin with the burning of the community center which was documented in
>>the
>>NY Times and most parisian papers. And then we can move on to the other two
>>notable incidents that occurred within the last few weeks.
>
>And do not forget Rabbi Garbiel Farhi, who stabbed himself then
>claimed he was attacked by a young French Muslim.
Ah, yes! Gabriel Farhi. I've appended an article about Farhi and the "train"
incident from the Jerusalem Post that acknowledges the false allegations of the
two "victims" in these separate cases, but you'll notice that the article
alleges that both of the culprits/victims were "disturbed". As you've
pointed out previously, this "disturbed" descriptor has become so commonplace
when a jewish person is convicted of some criminal act that it has turned into
a farce. My prediction: When the arson case goes to trial, the zionists in
France, Israel and America will scream "anti-semitism" if the court sentences
the "disturbed" arsonist to time in prison instead of letting him off the hook
like Noam Friedman was let off the hook after the Hebron shootings.
The article goes on to lament the fact that these "hoaxes" will detract
attention from real anti-semitism in the future because jewish victims will be
reluctant to report their victimization to police. These folks just can't
seem to admit when they've been caught in a lie. Rather they keep spinning a
new yarn at every twist and turn.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1093921793243&p=1008596975996
===============
Aug. 31, 2004 14:30 | Updated Sep. 1, 2004 17:25
Analysis: French Jews' dilemma
By MEIR AZOULAY
The situation in France won't be easy for French Jewry in the near future. The
latest developments in the police investigation into the arson attack on a
Jewish social center in Paris, where a Jew has been arrested on suspicion of
involvement in the attack, is bound to put French Jews in a very uncomfortable
position.
Although the police have not yet confirmed whether the man detained for
interrogation is the perpetrator of the arson, the media seem to be convinced
that he is.
If this is in fact the case, then the attack will mark the third 'anti-Semitic'
act perpetrated by someone with psychological problems.
The first such case was when rabbi Gabriel Farhi attempted to to lay the blame
for his self-inflicted stab-wounds on young Muslims. The reasons for his
manipulation are still not clear and French Police are yet to announce a final
verdict on the matter, but the French public has already made up its mind.
The Paris Metro affair is the second embarrassing incident for French Jews. The
news that a mother and her baby were attacked on a Paris train by Arab
assailants, who reportedly drew swastikas on the mother's stomach, attracted a
fortune of condemnations and publicity. Even French President Jacques Chirac
rushed to condemn the "horrific act". The story that made international
headlines turned out to be nothing but a hoax prepared by a mentally disturbed
woman.
The icing on this unsavory cake was the arson at the Jewish social center at
Paris' arrondissement 11. If it is proven that it is a Jew who perpetrated the
attack, then Jews in France may be sufficiently ashamed that they may display a
certain indifference to anti-Semitic incidents.
People attacked or insulted just for being Jewish will think twice before going
to a police station to file a complaint. They may also have to brave the
sarcastic remarks made by their colleagues at work or elsewhere labeling them
as paranoid.
Even those Jews who do file complaints are discouraged to follow up on their
cases, which usually come to dead ends - few arrests are made, and, of course,
no one ends up behind bars.
Earlier this month, a Parisian court ordered two Muslim youths reinstated at
school after they were expelled for insulting and beating a Jewish pupil. The
verdict said that there was no evidence of anti-Semitic action and ordered the
school to reaccept the two Muslim pupils.
The tip of the iceberg of anti-Semitism in France was revealed Monday when the
French Justice Minister announced that 300 anti-Semitic acts have been
registered since the beginning of the year.
We are speaking of registered acts. God knows how many more go unreported? And,
more so, in those 300 cases, how many arrests are made, and how many people are
convicted?
French Jews have the feeling that nothing will change for the good, on the
contrary, things will only get worst.
When they hear their representatives, like the president of Paris' Jewish
councils or the former president of the UFJS (Union of French Jewish Students),
declaring that publicity on anti-Semitism is exaggerated and saying that Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon "understands nothing about France, we live very well here
and we are totally secure," they have the sensation that those people who are
supposed to protect them are helpless. Words are beautiful but for many French
Jews the daily reality in the street is ugly indeed.
The formula is simple. French Jews are not safe and when they see fellow Jews
acting like the suspect in the arson attack on the Jewish social center, they
understand that publicity can only add oil to an already fiery stove. So the
less they complaint, it seems, the safer is their future.
El Mariachi
news:V7S4d.10317$Bg5.3936@trnddc07...
Talking about french antisemitism, I think you lack a lot of informations :
1. The most funny because it involved an israeli minister : the burning of a
jewish center in the rue Popincourt in Paris :
http://www.proche-orient.info/xjournal_pol_der_heure.php3?id_article=27611
Mr Cukierman, president of the CRIF (french jewish association), says that
instead of coming to France to complain about the way we handle antisemitic
crimes, Mr Sylvan Shalom (Israeli Foreign Minister) should better focus on
Israel and let the french manage their internal affairs.
http://www.reuters.fr/locales/c_newsArticle.jsp?type=topNews&localeKey=fr_FR&storyID=6127619
Mr Raphaël Benmoha, who is jewish himself, has been charged for the
burning of the jewish center in Paris where he used to be working. That was
only a revenge.
2. About the aggression of a woman in the RER (transport service in Paris) :
She was a mythoman, who only wanted to surf on the "antisemitic" wave to get
some attention.
Despite its pro-jewish views, you'll find many interesting details about the
so-called french antisemitism in this article (in english) :
Hope this helps...
EM
Patriot
>2. About the aggression of a woman in the RER (transport service in Paris) :
>
>She was a mythoman, who only wanted to surf on the "antisemitic" wave to get
>some attention.
Thanks. A few questions and points:
1) Any embarrassing incident perpetrated by an israel in palestine or a
zionist anywhere else is usually attributed by Israel to a mental
"disturbance". Two examples would be the "disturbed" condition of Noam
Friedman in Hebron, and the allegedly "disturbed" condition of the community
center arsonist as reported by the NY Times. Given the fact that Friedman was
released from his psychiatric confinement in Israel after just a few months --
a quick recovery for a person who was so "disturbed" that he shot quite a few
people who were shopping for groceries and such -- I have become very
suspicious when the term "disturbed" is associated with any zionist malefactor.
It's my understanding that the arsonist was evaluated by psychiatrists and
found to be quite normal. Was the woman on the train also evaluated from the
psychiatric point of view?
2) One of the early reports implied that the woman on the train was jewish.
Was this false?
3) Apart from the fact that the incidents occurred, I'm still concerned about
their timing which coincided with and/or shortly followed a series of short
french bashing "one act plays" from the world's favorite pair of "drama
queens" called Ariel Sharon and George W Bush. It's as though these hoaxes
were intended to elucidate french "stupidity" for a) criticizing Israeli
policies and b) criticizing our glorious american war efforts in Iraq -- soon
to be Iran. Yet, I've seen no discussion of the hoax timing in the french
news stories that have crossed my desk over the past few weeks. Is this a
non-issue in France?
BTW, I have this recurring fantasy of Chirac practicing savate techniques using
an oversized doll dressed like George Bush.
ZW
> Excuse me Susan, but with all respects, just having you saying "lies, lies,
> lies" is not enough to support your point. You should bring proofs to this
> to make it clear to everyone.
>
> For now, what the guy said, is relatively close to what the news told me.
> Please provide some more sources agreeing with your words.
>
France - or the french gvt shall I say, was correct about Iraq, no
real threat and a deep hole to fall into. I personnaly was pro-war
simply to oust Saddam Hussein but I never gave a bit of credibility of
what W bush and his followers said about WMD, 9-11, UN respect,
freedom and demoracy. It's all about oil, pretty darn simple to
understand, if not for all the spin and lies we all heard.
As far as France goes, it is clear that its position to speak up
against the US was a courageous position aside from being the correct
one (see above).
What you see now in the US main stream media is the retaliation
campaign against France, essentially dirt and lies about cowardice,
about anti-semitism.
Cowardice ? certainly not about Iraq. And not about combat, keep in
mind that 1.6 million french soldiers died to fight and win against
Germany in WW 1. That's the equivalent of 10 million dead US
soldiers....or about 18 times what the US lost in WW 2. With regards
to WW 2, Nazi Germany had built a war machine that defeated about 15
countries in a matter of few weeks. It took the USSR and the US to
defeat Nazi Germany...and the US lost 200,000 men in Europe while
Russia lost 20 million !! so the french army did pretty much what any
army in the world could have done in 1940.
Anti-semitism ? there is some in France, there is some in pretty much
all christian nations...it's based on some sort of semi religious
cultural back grounds. But interestingly enough, jews were least
persecuted in France than any other european nation in WW 2...which
pretty much is a proof that french are not *really* anti-semits. What
we have today is a 8 to 10% of the population coming from north
africa, mainly muslims, lots of them young and unemployed. They see
what happends in Israel and they feel hate against jews and everybody
else in fact. The number of christian cemiteries vandalised is higher
than the number of jewish ones; but be careful, there are more
christian cemiteries than jewish one so there is a *real* problem. It
is way exagerated by the media to show a negative light on France...if
a taxi cab says he doesn't like blacks...no one cares, if he says he
doesn't like jews, it's the headlines on the next day newspaper !!
There are real problems....anti-semitism in christian nation is one,
and money or fanatism in politics is another one (W Bush).
Cheers.
ZW
If the french were antisemits, how do you explain that during WW 2,
the jewish people were the least persecuted in France than in any
other european nation ?
France is a little bit anti semtic, just like *every* christian
nation. Sad, but true.
What happens is that the US and Israel have each a reason to bash
France. The opposition to the war in Iraq is the reason for the US and
the opposition to the crimes in Palestine is the other one.
France is standing up, speaking up against these abuse and France is
getting a smear campaign in retaliation.
Fair enough, you got to know what you stand for. The problem is that
lies and bogus stories are constantly put in people's mind in the US
about France. Sadn but true.
ps: if you want credible URLs that substanciate my claims, please let
me know.
Bob
> I know but if he gives an order that costs American lives, then not
> only should the order be ignored but he should be arrested and tried
> or dereliction of duty.
WTF do you know about the military???????? Would you have had FDR ignore
Pearl Harbor because it would cost American lives????? Are Americans so fond
of their own lives that we will refuse to fight a cause worth dying for?????
Yer outta your freaking mind!!!!!!!!!
Patriot
>"DeMaisonneuve" <lu...@me.ca> wrote in message
>news:<6ML4d.535$hI2...@fe51.usenetserver.com>...
>> Excuse me Susan, but with all respects, just having you saying "lies, lies,
>> lies" is not enough to support your point. You should bring proofs to this
>> to make it clear to everyone.
>>
>> For now, what the guy said, is relatively close to what the news told me.
>> Please provide some more sources agreeing with your words.
>>
>
>France - or the french gvt shall I say, was correct about Iraq, no
>real threat and a deep hole to fall into. I personnaly was pro-war
>simply to oust Saddam Hussein but I never gave a bit of credibility of
>what W bush and his followers said about WMD, 9-11, UN respect,
>freedom and demoracy. It's all about oil, pretty darn simple to
>understand, if not for all the spin and lies we all heard.
Your essay is well written and truthful. Thanks.
However, it's not ALL about oil. Oil is important, but it's only part of the
equation. Most people understand that human beings can be taught to
understand facts and to think clearly using rules of logic, but most people
don't understand that people can also be taught to misunderstand or ignore
facts and to think sloppily using fallacious patterns of thought. If you
think critically about the bigger pattern of life in the USA and what you see
on television everyday, you'll begin to see that americans are slowly but
surely learning to think stupidly. Very stupidly. I would love to say that
this is the result of republican politics or zionism or something along those
lines, but it's much bigger than George Bush or Karl Rove or Ariel Sharon.
It's much, much bigger. And it's as nasty and evil as anything could be in
life.
Of course, we could dispell the idea that I've presented above by taking an
opinion poll... which would surely indicate the truth, would it not? If you
grab any text book on basic logic and examine a list of basic fallacies and run
down the list, you'll see that americans have mastered them almost in toto over
the past decade or so.
Truth by polling? Down pat.
Truth by attacking irrelevant character traits of a speaker? Down pat
Truth by authority? Down pat.
Truth by force? Down pat.
I could illustrate this point more clearly, but someone else will do it for me
by saying that I'm a "liberal" or a "jew hater" or a "red neck" or something
along those lines. Watch and see. :-)
Patriot
>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:07:34 -0500, Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"El Mariachi" <stu...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>2. About the aggression of a woman in the RER (transport service in Paris) :
>>>
>>>She was a mythoman, who only wanted to surf on the "antisemitic" wave to get
>>>some attention.
>>
>>Thanks. A few questions and points:
>>
>>1) Any embarrassing incident perpetrated by an israel in palestine or a
>>zionist anywhere else is usually attributed by Israel to a mental
>>"disturbance". Two examples would be the "disturbed" condition of Noam
>>Friedman in Hebron, and the allegedly "disturbed" condition of the community
>>center arsonist as reported by the NY Times. Given the fact that Friedman
>>was
>>released from his psychiatric confinement in Israel after just a few months
>>--
>>a quick recovery for a person who was so "disturbed" that he shot quite a few
>>people who were shopping for groceries and such -- I have become very
>>suspicious when the term "disturbed" is associated with any zionist
>>malefactor.
>> It's my understanding that the arsonist was evaluated by psychiatrists and
>>found to be quite normal. Was the woman on the train also evaluated from the
>>psychiatric point of view?
>>
>reports in the last two years. Part of her sentence was that she was
>ordered to receive treatment for her illness.
Did they all involve muslims? I'm just exploring here and not proposing a
conspiracy theory but in my own historical research I've come across many cases
where "insane" individuals were actually "set" to some criminal task for
propaganda purposes. Some of the best examples involved major inflammatory
issues so I would prefer to explain via email if you're interested. You're
familiar, of course, with the expression: "Throwing a rock in a hornet's
nest." :-)
>>2) One of the early reports implied that the woman on the train was jewish.
>>
>>Was this false?
>>
>Totally. That was one example of the press behaving like a rabid dog
>with a bone.
Thanks. Just to reassure myself on this issue, and to explore the behavior of
the press on this issue if it should be resurrected again, what were her
religious affiliations if any? More detail from you would be appreciated, but
if you have links to reliable stories in the press -- especially the french
press -- they would be much appreciated. Knowing you, I will take your word
on all of this, but I'd like to have verifiable evidence if someone else should
ask me down the road.
>
>As for Sharon and Shalom, you will be hard pushed to find two more
>opportunist politicians and the moment the so-called attacks took
>place they were licking their lips at the chance to make capital out
>of it.
Well said. Prior to the iraqi war I had my own pet names for two popular
european politicians:
Chirac --French Bush
Blair -- English Clinton
These are my own private expressions, but Blair was so well understood in the
USA, prior to Iraq, that I could refer to "english clinton" in a casual
conversation with any reasonably well informed american and he would say right
away: "Are you talking about Blair?" :-)
The fact that Bush buddies up to Blair on Iraq while attacking Chirac
demonstrates what I call the "supremacy of war". :-) As I mentioned to you
previously, Bush would have licked his lips at Villepin's way of stretching the
education budget, yet there was no mention of the teacher strike in any
american media (to the best of my knowledge) apart from National Public Radio.
www.npr.org One goal of right wing politics in the USA is to permanent cripple
and or disband the organization representing public school teachers.
> That was why so much coverage was given to the arrival of 200
>French Jews who moved to Israel around that time. What people overlook
>is that their moving was not inspired by that spate of fake attacks,
>as is obvious because you could not just uproot an entire family in a
>matter of days.
What's the normal exodus rate for french jews? Deep in my mind I have the
gnawing suspicion that this whole opera was carefully orchestrated to reduce
the power of the "french voice" in the USA if/when we attack Iran and Syria.
If the normal exodus rate for french jews is, say 10 a month, and all of a
sudden we have a SPIKE in the graph, and the evidence shows that the plans for
the exodus of 200 jews had been in the works for months (apartment sales, job
resignations, etc) then this would suggest that we're dealing with an OPERA
*and* an opera CONDUCTOR. Who's the conductor? :-)
Patriot
>Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:<s4qdnbscm9N...@giganews.com>...
>
>
>If the french were antisemits, how do you explain that during WW 2,
>the jewish people were the least persecuted in France than in any
>other european nation ?
I owe you an apology. I often write using a sarcastic or satirical style
because this helps get the point across when we're dealing with people who have
been propagandized. I don't believe that french people are anti-semites.
I've lived in France. My best friends in France were two well-known french
jews, and the french are surprisingly tolerant -- although this wasn't always
the case in their dealings with some groups of people, say algerians.
>France is a little bit anti semtic, just like *every* christian
>nation. Sad, but true.
You mean like "many" christian nations. The USA is very anti-semitic, but the
anti-semitism lurks under the surface in subliminated forms. Anti-semitism is
the major driving force in the USA behind non-jewish american support for
Israel.
>What happens is that the US and Israel have each a reason to bash
>France. The opposition to the war in Iraq is the reason for the US and
>the opposition to the crimes in Palestine is the other one.
Agreed.
>France is standing up, speaking up against these abuse and France is
>getting a smear campaign in retaliation.
Agreed. And thanks!
>Fair enough, you got to know what you stand for. The problem is that
>lies and bogus stories are constantly put in people's mind in the US
>about France. Sadn but true.
>
>ps: if you want credible URLs that substanciate my claims, please let
>me know.
I agree with your claims, but I would appreciate the URL just the same. In the
near future I will probably post quite a few "anti-french" articles. Read
between the lines and remember the english expression "tongue in cheek".
Pardon my spelling: Je ne parle plus couramment maintenant mais, "tongue in
cheek"?, je crois que ca s'appelle "deuxieme degre"? :-) Tu comprends
maintenant? :-)
Patriot
>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:20:58 -0500, Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>One line of defence taken by the Zionutters is that Mlle Leblanc of
>the train incident was not Jewish. I think the argument is that as she
>was not Jewish, then they should not be tarred with the same brush as
>a result of her actions. What they overlook is that no-one is tarring
>them with any brush for Mlle Leblanc's actions, but for "their"
>reaction after the incident became headline news. Instead of waiting
>for developments and confirmations, they were like sharks scenting
>blood and far too quick to judge. The same happened with the attack on
>the Centre in Paris.
>
>I remember one wag in these forums posting news about the Leblanc
>incident the day after it had been revealed as a hoax, without
>realising it was not only old news but old news that was debunked.
>Talk about keeping up with the times huh?
:-)
>>As you've
>>pointed out previously, this "disturbed" descriptor has become so commonplace
>>when a jewish person is convicted of some criminal act that it has turned
>>into
>>a farce. My prediction: When the arson case goes to trial, the zionists in
>>France, Israel and America will scream "anti-semitism" if the court sentences
>>the "disturbed" arsonist to time in prison instead of letting him off the
>>hook
>>like Noam Friedman was let off the hook after the Hebron shootings.
>
>I agree. I also say that there will be some people who say the man
>arrested was a fall-guy.
Yet, part of the evidence against the accused man is that chemists were able to
match markers from his home with the graffiti at the scene of the crime. By
and large, americans have been trained to accept any "scientific" evidence as
conclusive even when alternative explanations could explain a match. As such,
I'm inclined to predict that american jews and the american media will pursue
the "disturbed" theory rather than the fall guy theory.
>>The article goes on to lament the fact that these "hoaxes" will detract
>>attention from real anti-semitism in the future because jewish victims will
>>be
>>reluctant to report their victimization to police. These folks just can't
>>seem to admit when they've been caught in a lie. Rather they keep spinning a
>>new yarn at every twist and turn.
>>
>Well, they are right . It will detract from real attacks. You end up
>with a situation of the person who cried wolf once to often. What they
>are overlooking, willfully I might add, is that the thing that will
>really detract from anti-Semitic attacks is not the hoaxers but their
>response to the hoaxes. It is people like Sharon trumpeting every
>incident that detracts. It is a classic case of passing the buck then
>blaming some mental imbalance of the patsy so everyone is technically
>absolved.
Hmm. Thanks for pointing this out. There are nuances in french culture that I
can't detect thousands of miles away. I will rely on your judgment.
>
>Basically Sharon's interest in French Jews is only because they
>present a quick solution to his demographic problems caused by a
>rising Palestinian birth rate. If he had any interest in their
>well-being, he would not allow agencies like the JA to travel to
>France and unsettle the Jewish population. He would not allow his
>Foreign Minister to shoot his mouth off every time there is an
>"incident" without making sure it was a genuine attack. It is in his
>interests to destabilise their lives.
Hmm. :-) Bush and his cronies are doing their best to discredit France,
the UN, and many international organizations because Bush and Company often
rely on "ad populem" appeals to win their arguments and don't want critics to
point out that other nations have opposed the war in Iraq and the upcoming war
in Iran. From my point of view, Sharon's attacks on France seem to be part of
this bigger plan. If Bush suspects that Putin will put his foot down
vis-a-vis war in Iran, you can expect similar attacks on Putin and Russia.
Patriot
>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:13:16 -0500, Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>Agreed. McNamera says that Johnson knew the facts but was afraid of the
>>political repercussions.
>>
>I guessed as much. As I said earlier, LBJ would have known that he
>would likely have ended up on dereliction of duty charges of the truth
>came out.
I'm not convinced that he would have been impeached. During the height of the
vietnam war, Israel was perceived as america's only ally in the middle east,
and this notion was reinforced by the USSR's support of surrounding arab
countries. Johnson could have argued that a fire fight with Israel would have
served the USSR's interests in the region. Incidently Rabbi Meir Kahane
(founder of Kach) co-authored a book, as I recall, in which he argued that
jewish liberals were stabbing Israel in the back by opposing the war in
Vietnam... given the fact that the USSR supported arab countries in general. I
could be mistaken but I believe this book was the ORIGINAL cornerstone of the
neo-conservative movement. The idea that "Israel has a right to exist"
subsequently became a kind of trump card that overshadowed all other principles
in the minds of american jews. Incidently, in my younger days I knew several
american jewish intellectuals who knew Kahane personally and often went to
public meetings where he was scheduled to speak. At the time he was viewed by
most jews as a kind of rabbid clown-from-hell, and jews would typically point
to the fact that his overt hostility to critics often led to fist fights... not
with palestiniansor arabs but with moderate jews, christians, "liberals", and
anybody else who might have the audacity to contradict him.
Perhaps more important than blame from non-jewish americans, Johnson would have
been attacked by jewish political organizations for letting the story be told.
Have you noticed the recent attacks on Bush from various neo-conservative
organizations after the announcements about the FBI's investigation of AIPAC?
The fact that the FBI uncovered a spy plot is the fault of Bush!!!
> ...
>>Yes. :-) Still, the vast majority of americans have never heard of the USS
>>Liberty and if/when they hear the news they readily buy the story that it was
>>just a little accident. BTW, the ship's captain was awarded a Metal of Honor
>>for his heroic efforts to save ship and crew but the metal was presented on a
>>back lot in the Naval Yard by a relatively low rank official, and NOT on the
>>White House lawn.
>>
>>www.ussliberty.org
>>
>Which pretty much goes to sum up that it was one of the most shameful
>incidents in US ME policy.
Perhaps one of the most shameful incidents in WORLD history. 1) It's
incredibly ironic that the USS Liberty was a spy ship whose sole purpose was to
collect information. The attack on the USS Liberty was in many ways an attack
on the truth. 2) It's significant that the attack on the USS Liberty may
eventually be seen -- in another thousand years or so -- as an attack on
liberty itself. 3) And it's significant that the attack on the USS Liberty
was also an attack on america. Not the america of today that is rife with
greed and religious hypocrisy and lust for absolute power, but the america that
we were striving to become.
Patriot
Are you familiar with the USS Liberty incident? I'm going to give you some
very good advice that could change your life significantly for the better.
Plan on spending a whole week studying the materials on this site:
www.ussliberty.com, and then spend another week studying the opposing materials
published primarily by americans with Israeli citizenship. When you're
finished, and you've had a chance to critical examine the prejudices at play, I
think you'll agree that Johnson's decision to recall the fighter jets that had
been lauched to RESCUE american sailors was one of the most despicable acts of
political cowardice and treachery in american history.
BOEDICIA
>From: "Bob" b...@bob.bob
>Date: 9/25/04 6:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3ie5d.1902$Ki1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
And just what "cause" are Americans dying for in Iraq? What did Iraq have to
do with 9-11? They were Saudis who flew those planes, so why didn't the idiot
cowboy invade Saudi Arabia?
Iraq has never attacked the U.S. so why the invasion, as if we didn't know.
Onward Christian Soldiers.
little_people
> Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
> wrote...
> > > Patriot also wrote:
> > > When Israeli mirage aircraft
> > > were attacking the USS Liberty
> > > during the 1967 war, and torpedo
> > > boats were machine gunning
> > > survivors attempting to launch
> > > lifeboats (in violation of
> > > international law), the admiral
> > > of the mediterranean fleet
> > > ordered the launching of fighter
> > > jets from a nearby carrier to
> > > protect the sailors under
> > > attack.
According to records of 6th fleet communications, the recall was issued after
the attack had concluded and the Liberty reported that she was under power/control.
> > > According to McNamera who was
> > > Secretary of Defense at the
> > > time, President LB Johnson
> > > ordered the recall of the
> > > fighter jets to
> > > avoid "embarrassment" for
> > > Israel...
Can you point to a quote to this effect which is directly attributable to
McNamera?
> ...the vast majority of americans
> didn't know what was going on, and
> by and large, still don't know what
> happened. Or they readily
> buy the "accidental" attack excuse
> that's full of holes.
The facts of this incident were examined by the US Navy. The Court of Inquiry
concluded that the Israeli attack was the result of mistaken identity. There
are no "holes" in that conclusion.
[...]
> Here's a link to the website run by
> the surviving crew members of the
> USS Liberty: www.ussliberty.org
It's a Web site being run by a relative handful of professional "Liberty
survivors", chief among them is Jim Ennes, who, by his own admission, was
injured early in the attack and therefore could not have been an eyewitness
to many of the events purported by the site, some of which are wildly at
odds with the sworn testimony of other USS Liberty crewmembers who were in
a better position to view the actions of the Israelis.
If you're looking for something that'll really blow your hair back on this
issue, you might want to start with this site:
http://www.thelibertyincident.com
The analysis therein pretty-much sets the benchmark.
> Apart from the deaths of the
> american sailors themselves, the
> possibility that the Liberty attack
> was another "false flag" attempt
> like the Lavon affair may have
> nagged on his conscious... meaning
> that the Israelis may have wanted to
> sink the Liberty and blame the
> sinking on Egypt.
It's highly unlikely that the Israelis could or would have passed the blame
to the Egyptians, given the fact that the Egyptian Air Force had already
been decimated by that point in the war. Also, there is the fact (as testified
by USS Liberty crewmembers) that the motor torpedo boats were clearly marked
as Israeli. And then, finally, there is the fact that if it had been the
Israelis' intention to sink the Liberty (killing all hands, as it were),
then they most-certainly would have done that. Instead, however, they stopped
their attack and signalled offers of assistance. American representatives
were notified of Israel's involvement in the incident within the hour.
> And it's also possible that
> Johnson had concerns about the
> massacre of egyptian soldiers at El
> Arish on the Sinai plateau just a
> few miles from the track of the
> Liberty's wake. This massacre was
> unknown to most americans until 1995
> or thereabouts when it broke
> in the press after an Israel general
> confessed to committing a similar
> atrocity at the same location during
> the 1956 war. You can find more
> extensive coverage about the
> massacre of egyptian POWs at the USS
> Liberty website but here's an
> article in Time Magazine:
> http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/951002/middleeast.html
Whatever may or may NOT have happened at El Arish, the fact of the matter
is that the USS Liberty was not in any position to visually monitor events
happening on the ground miles inland from the coastline.
[...]
> > > ...one wonders why Israel would
> > > have expended so much in the way
> > > of munitions on a "horse
> > > carrier" that could have no
> > > conceivable military value.
Because the Liberty was mistaken for (what was assumed to be) an Egyptian
ship which had just shelled IDF troop positions near the coast. The "horse
carrier" misidentification happened later on when Liberty was already covered
in smoke. On the basis of the Liberty's single smoke stack configuration,
the ship was compared to a silhouette in a book of the Egyptian "carrier".
When the Israeli boat commanders attempted to signal the ship, they were
answered with a hail of machine gun fire from two of the Liberty's gun mounts.
Convinced that the ship in front of them was indeed Egyptian, they commenced
attack.
[...]
If you're gonna use this incident as an example of that by which US/Israeli
relations should be judged, then you should bone up on the facts a little
better. You appear to be quite unaware of some of the finer details.
Patriot
>>Subject: Re: The Truth About France
>>From: "Bob" b...@bob.bob
>>Date: 9/25/04 6:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <3ie5d.1902$Ki1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
>>
>>"Daniel Bernard" <aime...@maferme.fr> wrote
>>> I know but if he gives an order that costs American lives, then not
>>> only should the order be ignored but he should be arrested and tried
>>> or dereliction of duty.
>>
>> WTF do you know about the military???????? Would you have had FDR ignore
>>Pearl Harbor because it would cost American lives????? Are Americans so fond
>>of their own lives that we will refuse to fight a cause worth dying for?????
>
>And just what "cause" are Americans dying for in Iraq? What did Iraq have to
>do with 9-11? They were Saudis who flew those planes, so why didn't the idiot
>cowboy invade Saudi Arabia?
We can't be 100% certain who flew the planes. In fact we can't be certain
humans were even at the controls. Generally speaking we need at least fifty
years of hindsight and sometimes more before events leading to war stand out in
perfect clarity. Consider, for example, the "attack" by Spain on the USS
Maine in Havana Bay that triggered the Spanish-American War in 1898. Along
with stories about Spain's "murder" of 260 sailors who were killed in the
"attack", newspapers belonging to William Randolph Hearst regaled american
readers with fictionalized stories of incredible acts of brutality that were
allegedly perpetrated by Spaniards on innocent cubans. It was only recently,
relatively speaking, that americans learned that the ship was sunk, not by a
Spanish mine, but by an explosion in the powder room inside the ship.
>Iraq has never attacked the U.S. so why the invasion, as if we didn't know.
>
>Onward Christian Soldiers.
Truly.
little_people
> Patriot wrote...
> Are you familiar with the USS
> Liberty incident?
Are you? I ask because your knowledge of the facts seems woefully lacking.
> I'm going to give you some
> very good advice that could change
> your life significantly for the
> better. Plan on spending a whole
> week studying the materials on this
> site: www.ussliberty.com, and then
> spend another week studying the
> opposing materials
Start with these ones:
http://www.thelibertyincident.com
http://hnn.us/articles/369.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/09/uss.liberty.tapes/
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1086230742987
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36685
> published primarily by americans
> with Israeli citizenship. When
> you're finished, and you've had a
> chance to critical examine the
> prejudices at play, I think you'll
> agree that Johnson's decision to
> recall the fighter jets that had
> been lauched to RESCUE american
> sailors was one of the most
> despicable acts of political
> cowardice and treachery in american
> history.
Why is that, when the recall wasn't issues until AFTER the attack had concluded
and the Israelis had admitted involvement?
There does not, nor has there ever existed any credible evidence whatsoever
that President Johnson personally ordered the recall of the planes. What
there is amounts to little more than hearsay (dead man's statute, etc.).
And even if he had given such an order, the fact of the matter is that the
recall was issued at a time when the Liberty's sailors were out of immediate
danger.
Susan Cohen
"El Mariachi" <stu...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:cj0ses$13uq$1...@biggoron.nerim.net...
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> a écrit dans le message de
> news:V7S4d.10317$Bg5.3936@trnddc07...
>>
>> "Dana" <de...@losers.com> wrote in message
>> news:c2fd626f047f673f...@news.meganetnews.com...
>> > "Patriot" <usapat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:06mdnU-f2vp...@giganews.com...
>> >>
>> >>
>> [snip most of tripe]
>>
>> Did we not stupidly change the name of "french fries" to "freedom
>> >> fries" and launch boycotts against french goods that continue to this
> day
>> > even
>> >> though we now know that the yellow cake story was an incredibly stupid
>> >> deception?
>> >
>> > And the french were behind this deception.
>> >
>> >> After a bogus series of "anti-semitic" crimes that were committed
>> >> last
>> > month
>> >> in France were traced back to jews themselves
>> >
>> > Why must you lie.
>>
>> Because the truth defeats him
>> (Or was this a rhetorical question?)
>>
>> Susan
>
>
> Talking about french antisemitism, I think you lack a lot of informations
> :
So do you.
>
> 1. The most funny because it involved an israeli minister : the burning of
> a
> jewish center in the rue Popincourt in Paris :
>
> http://www.proche-orient.info/xjournal_pol_der_heure.php3?id_article=27611
> Mr Cukierman, president of the CRIF (french jewish association), says that
> instead of coming to France to complain about the way we handle
> antisemitic
> crimes, Mr Sylvan Shalom (Israeli Foreign Minister) should better focus on
> Israel and let the french manage their internal affairs.
Youmean the way the French should focus on France instead of making sure
everyone knows they think Israel is "a shitty little country"?
>
> http://www.reuters.fr/locales/c_newsArticle.jsp?type=topNews&localeKey=fr_FR&storyID=6127619
> Mr Raphaël Benmoha, who is jewish himself, has been charged for the
> burning of the jewish center in Paris where he used to be working. That
> was
> only a revenge.
>
>
> 2. About the aggression of a woman in the RER (transport service in Paris)
> :
>
> She was a mythoman, who only wanted to surf on the "antisemitic" wave to
> get
> some attention.
Yes, I know.
But she was NOT Jewish.
>
> Despite its pro-jewish views, you'll find many interesting details about
> the
> so-called french antisemitism in this article (in english) :
>
> http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1093921793243&p=1008596975996
>
> Hope this helps...
I hope you look at the other side as well.
Susan
>
> EM
>
>
Susan Cohen
"ZW" <zeno...@adres.nl> wrote in message
news:5c7974fc.04092...@posting.google.com...
> "DeMaisonneuve" <lu...@me.ca> wrote in message
> news:<6ML4d.535$hI2...@fe51.usenetserver.com>...
>> Excuse me Susan, but with all respects, just having you saying "lies,
>> lies,
>> lies" is not enough to support your point. You should bring proofs to
>> this
>> to make it clear to everyone.
He should prove what he's saying, and he cant'.
The women in the subway was NOT Jewish.
There was only one incident, not many, of false burning.
>>
>> For now, what the guy said, is relatively close to what the news told me.
>> Please provide some more sources agreeing with your words.
>>
>
> France - or the french gvt shall I say, was correct about Iraq, no
> real threat and a deep hole to fall into.
When *they* had sold him the weapons?
Susan Cohen
> a
> jewish center in the rue Popincourt in Paris :
I forgot to answer this in my reply to you.
There was only *one* incident, not many.
Susan Cohen
> news:<s4qdnbscm9N...@giganews.com>...
>
>
> If the french were antisemits, how do you explain that during WW 2,
> the jewish people were the least persecuted in France than in any
> other european nation ?
They were?
Where did you hear this?
Susan
Susan Cohen
"Bob" <b...@bob.bob> wrote in message
news:3ie5d.1902$Ki1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Bernard doesn't care about anyone's life but his.
But that's not just because he's French.
Susan
>
>
DeMaisonneuve
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:w%s5d.6217$me5.3587@trnddc06...
Who is *THEY*?
>
DeMaisonneuve
How many incidents were made by evil Frenchmen in Israel?
Patriot
>Another issue about that case which was quite damaging and what I
>found personally more insulting was the supposed reaction of the other
>passengers and how that was spun by the worlds media. The way the
>story was presented was that "Young woman attacked for being Jewish
>while Frenchmen and women look on and do nothing". From a propaganda
>purpose, that was almost the perfect story and it was presented in a
>way as to tell Jews in France "hey, you will be attacked and your
>fellow Citizens of the Republic will just sit by and let it happen".
>it does not mention that even if the story was true, she was not
>specifically attacked for being Jewish.
Agreed. I have been looking far and wide for corrections in the american press
but have found none. It would appear that american journalists are content to
leave a FALSE impression in the minds of their readers. Can someone point me
to an american account of this "train" story, or the Farhi hoax or the jewish
community center arson case that is 100% truthful? No? Not a single one???
Why not? Why were the false stories important enough to print, but not the
more truthful "revised" stories?
The NY Times mentioned that a jewish man had been arrested for the arson crime,
but claimed that he was "disturbed". Yet there's no evidence that I've seen
published anywhere to indicate that the accused individual EVER suffered from
ANY psychiatric problems so this "disturbed" description appears to be a
fabrication grounded on popular Israeli political mythology. My theory: The
NY Times would have ignored the arrest of the jewish man altogether, except for
the fact that many NY readers are sophisticated in their choice of news sources
and would have encountered the truth in Le Monde are perhaps the Guardian or
some such. Consequently, they published the story but tacked on the idea that
the accused man was "disturbed".
> ...
>>If the normal exodus rate for french jews is, say 10 a month, and all of a
>>sudden we have a SPIKE in the graph, and the evidence shows that the plans
>>for
>>the exodus of 200 jews had been in the works for months (apartment sales, job
>>resignations, etc) then this would suggest that we're dealing with an OPERA
>>*and* an opera CONDUCTOR. Who's the conductor? :-)
>>
>I think it is more an attempt to solve the demographic problems of
>Israel. There are around 600,000 Jewish people in France. It is the
>largest community outside Israel and the US but unlike the American
>Jews, I like to think they consider themselves French first and
>foremost (I know that is how I consider them and I do not like using
>the term French Jew though it is quicker to type). If you unsettle
>them, make them feel threatened then send in an agency like the JA of
>Israel, you can then count on an inflow of people into Israel.
This is the french view. :-) Read on for the skeptical american view.
>
>As for an opera and a conductor I would say that orchestra is a better
>term and the Jewish Agency, a body tasked with bringing Jews from
>overseas to Israel, are the orchestra. As for the conductor, I would
>have to say that it would be Silvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign
>Minister.
I agree with you that the one benefit for emigration is the demographic
problem, but I would also point out that modern politicians and modern
businessmen also try to devise strategies that yield multiple benefits for any
given action. There's clearly a propaganda angle to the recent emigration
figures that transcends the demographic issue... and is MUCH more important
because it fosters the idea that america's primary international CRITIC, ie
France, has irrational motives for opposing american foreign policy. One of
these irrational motives is that France is a nation of "jew hating bigots".
Let's suppose that you and I walk into an american barbershop in Texas and
strike up a loud conversation about the war in Iraq or the upcoming war in
Iran. I might say that these wars are good because "everybody" says so (ad
populem fallacy), but you might loudly proclaim that France and most member
states of the UN are opposed to these wars for good reasons (an antithetical
ad populem fallacy). The reaction from other patrons of the barbershop will be
loud and clear at this point. They will tell you that most members states of
the UN are "full of shit" and that the USA should withdraw from the UN, and
they will further point out that France is a nation of cowards who would be
living under the control of nazi germany if the USA hadn't come to their
rescue. If you had challenged them a few weeks ago that France has many
informed citizens who take a serious interest in global politics and are WELL
INFORMED, they would have replied that France is also a nation of jew-hating
anti-semites. And they would point to the community center fire and the train
incident to prove the point.
Another point along these same lines. I know many physicians in the USA and I
know very few, apart from interns and residents and a few medical school
professors, who don't make 300-400K+ per year in private practice. By
contrast, the average french physician makes around 73K dollars/year if memory
serves. Clearly the practice of medicine is much more lucrative for american
doctors than for their french counterparts, and yet, if you ask the average man
on the street why medical costs are so high in the USA he will say that it's
because of "lawyers". This explanation is drummed into his head at every
turn... almost as much as the idea of muslim "terrorism". You can show him
the actual statistics for malpractice litigation in the USA and demonstrate
that it's a drop in the bucket compared to the total share of the GNP
associated with medicine, but he'll scratch his head for a few seconds and then
tell you that fear of litigation causes doctors to "order more tests" or
"prescribe more medicine" or something along those lines. Never, ever, will he
tell you that american doctors make four or five times more money that french
doctors. This point would simply never occur to him, nor would it occur to
him to compare the cost of a prescription drug with the corresponding cost of
the same drug in Paris. If you point this out to him, he'll say that this
doesn't matter because France is a nation of lunatics and french doctors are
incredibly poor by american standards. And he may even tell you that's he
remembers reading that french drugs are often counterfeit or substandard. What
this means is that the impression of France as a country of idiots is important
to american policy makers for reasons OTHER than the wars in the middle east.
Patriot
You're poorly informed, Susan Cohen. There were THREE notable incidents of
french anti-semitism hoaxes during August, 2004, within a few short weeks.
Knowing your standard tactic of labeling all criticism as "lies", I've lifted
the following quotes from an article in the Jerusalem Post, dated 08/31/04.
The Jerusalem Post mentions that these incidents embarrassed Israel in the
international press but NEGLECTED to mention that american newspapers, as far
as I can tell, neglected to correct the FALSE impression created by the
original reports of anti-semitism. At least one website in Israel is still
displaying an anonymous letter from muslims claiming credit for the burning of
the jewish community center. I wrote to the webmaster to inquire if
politically motivated "lies" are acceptable to jews and fundamentalist
christians in Israel but received no reply. My guess: It's ok to blame
muslims-in-general for any crime without either conclusive identification or
trial of the perpetrators, yet it would be wrong to blame a jew for any crime
if there's ANY possibility that the jew was either innocent or "disturbed".
1) "The first such case was when rabbi Gabriel Farhi attempted to to lay the
blame for his self-inflicted stab-wounds on young Muslims. The reasons for his
manipulation are still not clear and French Police are yet to announce a final
verdict on the matter, but the French public has already made up its mind."
2) "The Paris Metro affair is the second embarrassing incident for French Jews.
The news that a mother and her baby were attacked on a Paris train by Arab
assailants, who reportedly drew swastikas on the mother's stomach, attracted a
fortune of condemnations and publicity. Even French President Jacques Chirac
rushed to condemn the "horrific act". The story that made international
headlines turned out to be nothing but a hoax prepared by a mentally disturbed
woman."
3) "The icing on this unsavory cake was the arson at the Jewish social center
at Paris' arrondissement 11. If it is proven that it is a Jew who perpetrated
the attack, then Jews in France may be sufficiently ashamed that they may
display a certain indifference to anti-Semitic incidents."
Quoted from the Jerusalem Post, " French Jews' dilemma", dated 08/31/2004.
Here's a link.
And here's the text:
==========================
Aug. 31, 2004 14:30 | Updated Sep. 1, 2004 17:25
Analysis: French Jews' dilemma
By MEIR AZOULAY
The situation in France won't be easy for French Jewry in the near future. The
latest developments in the police investigation into the arson attack on a
Jewish social center in Paris, where a Jew has been arrested on suspicion of
involvement in the attack, is bound to put French Jews in a very uncomfortable
position.
Although the police have not yet confirmed whether the man detained for
interrogation is the perpetrator of the arson, the media seem to be convinced
that he is.
If this is in fact the case, then the attack will mark the third 'anti-Semitic'
act perpetrated by someone with psychological problems.
The first such case was when rabbi Gabriel Farhi attempted to to lay the blame
for his self-inflicted stab-wounds on young Muslims. The reasons for his
manipulation are still not clear and French Police are yet to announce a final
verdict on the matter, but the French public has already made up its mind.
The Paris Metro affair is the second embarrassing incident for French Jews. The
news that a mother and her baby were attacked on a Paris train by Arab
assailants, who reportedly drew swastikas on the mother's stomach, attracted a
fortune of condemnations and publicity. Even French President Jacques Chirac
rushed to condemn the "horrific act". The story that made international
headlines turned out to be nothing but a hoax prepared by a mentally disturbed
woman.
The icing on this unsavory cake was the arson at the Jewish social center at
Paris' arrondissement 11. If it is proven that it is a Jew who perpetrated the
attack, then Jews in France may be sufficiently ashamed that they may display a
certain indifference to anti-Semitic incidents.
People attacked or insulted just for being Jewish will think twice before going
to a police station to file a complaint. They may also have to brave the
sarcastic remarks made by their colleagues at work or elsewhere labeling them
as paranoid.
Even those Jews who do file complaints are discouraged to follow up on their
cases, which usually come to dead ends - few arrests are made, and, of course,
no one ends up behind bars.
Earlier this month, a Parisian court ordered two Muslim youths reinstated at
school after they were expelled for insulting and beating a Jewish pupil. The
verdict said that there was no evidence of anti-Semitic action and ordered the
school to reaccept the two Muslim pupils.
The tip of the iceberg of anti-Semitism in France was revealed Monday when the
French Justice Minister announced that 300 anti-Semitic acts have been
registered since the beginning of the year.
We are speaking of registered acts. God knows how many more go unreported? And,
more so, in those 300 cases, how many arrests are made, and how many people are
convicted?
French Jews have the feeling that nothing will change for the good, on the
contrary, things will only get worst.
When they hear their representatives, like the president of Paris' Jewish
councils or the former president of the UFJS (Union of French Jewish Students),
declaring that publicity on anti-Semitism is exaggerated and saying that Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon "understands nothing about France, we live very well here
and we are totally secure," they have the sensation that those people who are
supposed to protect them are helpless. Words are beautiful but for many French
Jews the daily reality in the street is ugly indeed.
The formula is simple. French Jews are not safe and when they see fellow Jews
acting like the suspect in the arson attack on the Jewish social center, they
understand that publicity can only add oil to an already fiery stove. So the
less they complaint, it seems, the safer is their future.
==========================
Patriot
>
>> Patriot wrote...
>
>> Are you familiar with the USS
>> Liberty incident?
>
>Are you? I ask because your knowledge of the facts seems woefully lacking.
Not as much as you would pretend. "Little People" is a semi-professional
debunker of the USS Liberty incident, and is believed by many Liberty survivors
to be a pseudonym for Aaron Jay Cristol... a self-inflated "expert" on military
aviation who's been debunked many times by former naval and air force
servicemen in newsgroups that have explored the USS Liberty incident in depth.
>There does not, nor has there ever existed any credible evidence whatsoever
>that President Johnson personally ordered the recall of the planes. What
>there is amounts to little more than hearsay (dead man's statute, etc.).
>And even if he had given such an order, the fact of the matter is that the
>recall was issued at a time when the Liberty's sailors were out of immediate
>danger.
The tactic used by "Little People" is almost identical to the tactic used by
Aaron Jay Cristol. Specifically this tactic entails a dual standard of proof:
an extremely rigid standard that the israeli critics are expected to meet, and
an extremely lax standard that allows any pro-israeli "evidence" to be accepted
straight away.
My advice to everyone: Read ALL the materials presented by the USS Liberty
survivors before allowing american traitors with Israeli citizenship to sweep
the incident under the rug on behalf of a foreign government.
Patriot
> [quibbling and hand waving deleted]
Here's an interesting "thought experiment". Go to any usenet newsgroup and
launch a discussion of the "USS Liberty" incident and count the days before
"Little People" shows up to defend Israel's point of view. :-) It's my
personal belief that critics of "Little People" are correct in surmising that
he is actually Aaron J Cristol, the author of an incredibly stilted, one-sided
account of the USS Liberty incident who has been thoroughly discredited by
former navy and air force personnel in endless usenet discussions on the USS
Liberty incident. My favorite example of this was Crystol's claim as a
former pilot that israeli pilots could have easily missed markings and
structural features on the ship (such as an extremely large radar dish) that
would have indicated that she was anything BUT an antiquated egyption "horse
carrier" only a fraction of her size. In response, former naval aviators who
had flown fighters off carrier decks got involved in the discussion and
provided examples galore to prove that Cristol didn't know what he was talking
about.
Some time ago, when I first heard about the USS Liberty incident, I actually
believed what "Little People" had to say about the USS Liberty in a usenet
thread that was raging at the time. However, after much closer inspection, I
realized that many of his critics on usenet were correct in claiming that
"Little People" employed a "dual standard" of proof, which included outrageous
ad hominem character attacks when he was unable to counter irrefutable
testimony. After looking at all the facts and arguments using the same
standard of proof -- not the shifting, "make shift" standard advocated by Aaron
J Cristol and "Little People" I concluded that both Crystol and "Little People"
were less than truthful in their defenses of the official Israeli position.
Ironically, in this same time frame both Crystol and "Little People" had relied
on the work of a former navy serviceman named "Ward Boston" to support their
point of view. Boston had been instrumental in the Navy's whitewash "inquiry"
on the incident. However, shortly thereafter Ward Boston decided to tell the
press the truth about the coverup and told the whole world that the "inquiry"
was a political cover up. Needless to say, both Crystol and "Little People"
are now saying that Ward Boston is a "liar" and a "jew-hater" and therefore
should not be believed. Actually to be more precise, they claimed that Boston
had been misquoted by a reporter from a political journal devoted to mideast
politics who first broke the story, and then they claimed that Boston had
contested a quote attributed to him in the first reporter's account. This made
the rounds in a few pro-israeli newspapers until someone contacted Boston who
basically said "Bullshit. I stand by the story."
Here's an article from the San Diego Union Tribune:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20040217-9999-1n17liberty.html
Ex-officer alleges cover-up in probe of spy ship attack
By James W. Crawley
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
February 17, 2004
PEGGY PEATTIE / Union-Tribune
Retired Navy Capt. Ward Boston has sparked controversy after accusing Israel of
intentionally attacking the Liberty in 1967.
Ward Boston is an unassuming octogenarian who resides in a gated community on
Coronado's Silver Strand.
A retired Navy captain, he hardly attracts attention in a town full of
active-duty and retired sailors.
Yet Boston is in the maelstrom of a nearly 37-year-old controversy surrounding
Israel's deadly attack on the Navy's spy ship Liberty during the Six-Day War
with Egypt, Syria and Jordan. The June 1967 attack killed 34 Americans and
wounded 171.
Last October, Boston broke decades of silence and declared that the Navy
admiral who investigated the incident had been ordered by President Lyndon
Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara to conclude it was a case of
mistaken identity, despite evidence to the contrary.
As the chief counsel for the Navy's court of inquiry, Boston had an insider's
view.
"I didn't speak up earlier because I was told not to," Boston said in an
interview.
His revelation, repeated last month before a State Department conference about
the Six-Day War, has rekindled a smoldering debate over how it happened and
whether the United States and Israel covered up the truth.
Anti-Israel factions portray Boston's words – true to his legal background,
memorialized in two affidavits but rarely spoken to an audience larger than one
person – as proof of Israel's guilt.
Israel's supporters, including a federal bankruptcy judge who researched the
attack and wrote a book on it, say Boston is lying. Some pin an anti-Semitic
badge on his lapel.
On Web pages and through e-mail, an electronic brawl is raging over Boston's
disclosures among his admirers and detractors.
But, for the men who survived the attack, Boston's comments endorse views
smelted in cordite, blood and smoke.
"We feel we've been vindicated," said James Ennes, the Liberty's officer of the
deck the day of the attack, which left him severely wounded.
"We've been saying for 37 years that the court of inquiry was a fraud, that it
was corrupted, that it ignored evidence and made findings not supported by the
evidence," said Ennes, whose book about the incident claims it was a deliberate
Israeli attack.
Boston's cover-up allegation is "enormously significant," said author James
Bamford, who has written several books about the super-secret National Security
Agency, which analyzed radio intercepts from Liberty and other U.S.
surveillance ships.
"It's equivalent to former Supreme Court (Chief) Justice Earl Warren coming out
and saying 'the Warren Commission report on (the) Kennedy (assassination) –
everything we said was not what we believed, but we were pressured to say it,'
" Bamford said.
"It puts an enormous shadow over everything that was in the (Navy) report," he
said.
Even with Boston's affidavits and some newly released documents presented at
the State Department conference, no consensus was reached on whether the attack
was deliberate, accidental or the result of negligence.
The Liberty was a Navy spy ship, plain and simple.
Associated Press
The stricken Liberty made its way across the Mediterranean Sea after the U.S.
vessel was severely damaged by Israeli forces off the Sinai Peninsula on June
8, 1967. Israel has called the attack, which left 34 Americans dead and 171
wounded, a case of mistaken identity.
Like its ill-fated sister vessel Pueblo, which was captured by North Korea six
months later, the Liberty was festooned with antennas and its cargo holds were
converted into top-secret locked compartments lined with receivers where petty
officers eavesdropped on other nations' militaries.
During the Six-Day War, the Liberty loitered off the Sinai Peninsula, listening
to Israel's lightning victory over Egypt.
On the afternoon of June 8, 1967, Israeli jets strafed the ship. Hours later,
Israeli torpedo boats attacked. By the evening, 34 U.S. sailors were dead and
171 injured.
Israel said the attack was a terrible mistake caused by the misidentification
of the Liberty as an Egyptian vessel. Investigations followed, including the
Navy's court of inquiry.
That's when Ward Boston's involvement began.
If Hollywood had discovered Boston, he could have been the real-life prototype
for Cmdr. Harmon Rabb, one of the leads on the television show "JAG."
In the Pacific during World War II, Boston flew harrowing photo-reconnaissance
missions over Tokyo and Iwo Jima in Navy Hellcat fighters, sometimes making
three passes over a single target – once to take pre-bombing pictures, then
joining other planes in attacking the target and, finally, a post-attack pass
to photograph the damage.
After the war, Boston went to law school, passed the bar and entered private
practice. Meanwhile, he continued to fly Navy fighters as a reservist,
including its first jet, the FH-1 Phantom.
In the late 1940s, he joined the FBI and was assigned to field offices in San
Francisco and Los Angeles. During the Korean War, he rejoined the Navy, this
time as a JAG officer.
By June 1967, Boston was legal officer for then-Rear Adm. Isaac Kidd Jr. when
the flag officer was assigned to head the hastily convened inquiry into the
Liberty attack.
Unable to interview hospitalized sailors and Israeli military and civilian
officials, the investigative panel was given just a week to examine the
battered ship, interview survivors and collect radio intercepts and other
information.
Boston said it was obvious then who was responsible.
"There's no way in the world that it was an accident," Boston said.
In his affidavits and a recent interview, Boston recounted how he and Kidd
discussed their conclusions about the survivors' testimony.
"(Kidd) referred to the Israelis as 'murderous bastards,' " Boston said.
After Kidd delivered the panel's report to Washington officials, Boston said
the admiral told him, "they aren't interested in the facts or what happened.
It's a political issue. They want to cover it up." Then Kidd admonished Boston
to keep silent.
Boston said Kidd told him privately that orders came from Johnson and McNamara
to find the incident was a mistake and not a deliberate act.
There is no documentation to support Boston's account.
Kidd died in 1999 at 79 after a career topped by command of the Atlantic Fleet.
He never spoke of a cover-up.
The late '60s was the height of the Cold War between the United States and the
Soviet Union. The Soviets were backing the Arab nations; the United States was
allied with Israel. U.S. troops were fully engaged in Vietnam and the United
States was fearful of growing Soviet influence, especially in the oil-rich
Mideast.
Those who claim the attack was no accident argue that Israel wanted to stop the
Liberty from snooping on its military during the war.
Boston kept quiet too, until the 2002 publication of "The Liberty Incident," by
Judge Jay Cristol, provoked him.
Cristol's book, based on more than 10 years of research and hundreds of
interviews and the collection of thousands of documents, argued that Israeli
pilots, sailors and top military officials, in the heat of combat and the fog
of war, were unaware the Liberty was a U.S. ship, mistaking it for an Egyptian
vessel.
The two men spoke twice during the 1990s while Cristol researched his book, but
Boston said recently that he only discussed his career and did not reveal
details of the inquiry.
"It is Cristol's insidious attempt to whitewash the facts that has pushed me to
speak out," Boston said in a Jan. 8 affidavit, read by Bamford at the State
Department conference last month. Boston did not attend the conference.
Boston's affidavit was passed to Bamford by a friend who believes that Israel
is responsible for the attack on the Liberty.
The judge, during a recent telephone interview, discounted Boston's contention
that Johnson and McNamara covered up Israel complicity.
"I think those (accusations) are kind of nonsense," Cristol said.
Cristol – also a former Navy pilot and JAG officer – said Boston's comments
show that he either lied in 1967 by knowingly filing a false report or that his
memory has changed with age.
Referring to Cristol, Boston said, "I'm not going to get into a spitting
contest with a skunk."
He also rejected suggestions that he is anti-Semitic, while acknowledging some
sympathy for the plight of Palestinian refugees.
As he splits his day between local organizations and daily visits to the gym to
loosen up arthritic joints, Boston remains largely oblivious to the electronic
cacophony of e-mail and Internet chat that makes him out to be either a patriot
or a patsy for anti-Israel factions.
That's because Boston doesn't have a computer. Friends print out and pass along
Internet postings mentioning him or his statements.
"I'm a dinosaur," he said. "I use a pencil with an eraser and a typewriter."
=====
Patriot
>On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 11:44:18 -0500, Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>Perhaps more important than blame from non-jewish americans, Johnson would
>>have
>>been attacked by jewish political organizations for letting the story be
>>told.
>> Have you noticed the recent attacks on Bush from various neo-conservative
>>organizations after the announcements about the FBI's investigation of AIPAC?
>>
>>The fact that the FBI uncovered a spy plot is the fault of Bush!!!
>>
>charges aside. It would be pretty pointless attacking the "grey men"
>at the FBI.
There is a tremendous resentment within the FBI for this interference. This
"internal" resentment within the CIA and the FBI is the only thing keeping the
great Israeli patriot "Jonathan Pollard" in jail.
little_people
> Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > little_people wrote...
> > > Patriot wrote...
> > > Are you familiar with the USS
> > > Liberty incident?
> > Are you? I ask because your
> > knowledge of the facts seems
> > woefully lacking.
> Not as much as you would
> pretend. "Little People" is a semi-
> professional debunker of the USS
> Liberty incident,
Nope. Just another American who has examined the facts of this particular
incident. Occasionally, I Google the subject to see what people are currently
saying about it... if there have been any recent developments. Once in a
while, I like to amuse myself by calling people (like you) on what they post,
and then watching as they twist in the wind. Typically, they wind up exposing
their own deep biases against Jews and/or Israel.
Not much more to it than that, really. It is perhaps important to remember
that YOU were the one who brought up the subject of the USS Liberty in a
public forum, not me. If you don't like being challenged on what you say
about it, then perhaps you shouldn't bother in the first place.
> and is believed by many Liberty
> survivors to be a pseudonym for
> Aaron Jay Cristol...
Hah. I defy you to name *one* USS Liberty survivor who believes (or who has
ever posted words to the effect) that I am A. Jay Cristol.
> a self-inflated "expert" on military
> aviation who's been debunked many
> times by former naval and air force
> servicemen in newsgroups that have
> explored the USS Liberty incident in
> depth.
That is your opinion. Let the reader decide if this is, in fact, the case.
> > There does not, nor has there ever
> > existed any credible evidence
> > whatsoever that President Johnson
> > personally ordered the recall of
> > the planes. What there is amounts
> > to little more than hearsay (dead
> > man's statute, etc.). And even if
> > he had given such an order, the
> > fact of the matter is that the
> > recall was issued at a time when
> > the Liberty's sailors were out of
> > immediate danger.
> The tactic used by "Little People"
> is almost identical to the tactic
> used by Aaron Jay Cristol.
And what "tactic" would that be? Citing the actual transcripts of UHF communications
between the Israeli planes/helicopters and their controllers? Noting the
content of various Sixth Fleet communique? Referring to the sworn testimony
given by the Liberty's crewmembers as to the actions of the Israelis on the
day of the attack? Pointing out the factual inconsistencies between the conspiracy
theories and said crewmember testimony?
> Specifically this tactic entails a
> dual standard of proof:
> an extremely rigid standard that the
> israeli critics are expected to
> meet, and an extremely lax standard
> that allows any pro
> israeli "evidence" to be accepted
> straight away.
That's rich coming from someone who has yet to present much of anything on
the matter that doesn't amount to hearsay (i.e., "sworn" affidavits which
quote extensively from dead people and/or non-existant documents).
> My advice to everyone: Read ALL the
> materials presented by the USS
> Liberty survivors before allowing
> american traitors with Israeli
> citizenship to sweep the incident
> under the rug on behalf of a foreign
> government.
I notice that you snipped away the links I previously posted. Do you not
want people to exemine both sides of this issue? If not, why not?
Here... let me put them back again:
http://www.thelibertyincident.com http://hnn.us/articles/369.html http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/09/uss.liberty.tapes/
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1086230742987
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36685
And, while I'm at it, let me add a link to the sworn testimony of the USS
Liberty's crew which was taken back in 1967:
http://www.ussliberty.org/nci.txt
Perhaps you'd care to explain to "everyone" why we should defer to the testimony
of people like Jim Ennes (of www.ussliberty.org, who, by his own admission,
was injured early in the attack, taken downladder and left on the deck, tied
to a stretcher behind a closed door) over the testimony of the ship's CO,
William McGonagle (who was, by all accounts, on the bridge of the ship during
the entire attack and who, therefore, was an eywitness to all of the actions
of the Israelis).
This ought to be interesting.
little_people
> Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
> wrote...
> > little_people wrote...
> > [quibbling and hand waving deleted]
Read: Inconvenient facts that you are unable to address deleted.
> Here's an interesting "thought
> experiment". Go to any usenet
> newsgroup and launch a discussion of
> the "USS Liberty" incident and count
> the days before "Little People"
> shows up to defend Israel's point of
> view. :-)
By all means, please do. In fact, do a Google search of all of my posts (and
all posts in which "USS Liberty" is mentioned). I did. Here are the stats
for this year:
As of this writing, there have been a total of about 11,400 posts which contain
the phrase "USS Liberty". Of those 11,400 posts, about 132 (or, roughly,
1% of the total) were authored by "little_people". In other words, I have
made about 1 out of every 100 posts on the subject this year.
Whoop-de-doo. I have also posted about 182 messages to the Dr. Laura newsgroup.
Perhaps I am actually Dr. Laura in disguise.
> It's my personal belief that critics
> of "Little People" are correct in
> surmising that he is actually Aaron
> J Cristol,
Kindly cite the posts in which this has been surmised.
> the author of an incredibly stilted,
> one-sided account of the USS Liberty
> incident who has been thoroughly
> discredited by former navy and air
> force personnel in endless usenet
> discussions on the USS Liberty
> incident.
Here is a link to what other "personnel" have had to say:
http://www.thelibertyincident.com/book.htm#comments
> My favorite example of this was
> Crystol's claim as a former pilot
> that israeli pilots could have
> easily missed markings and
> structural features on the ship
> (such as an extremely large radar
> dish) that would have indicated that
> she was anything BUT an antiquated
> egyption "horse carrier" only a
> fraction of her size.
As a matter of fact, Cristol points out that, according to transcripts of
UHF communications between the Israeli planes and their controllers, the
pilots DID eventually make out the markings on the Liberty's hull. When they
radioed in that they had observed Roman (as opposed to Egyptian) characters,
they were ordered to break off from their attack, which they immediately
did.
> In response, former naval aviators
> who had flown fighters off carrier
> decks got involved in the discussion
> and provided examples galore to
> prove that Cristol didn't know what
> he was talking about.
Since your initial premise is incorrect, the opinion of one Naval aviator
hardly matters with regard to the central question. The fact of the matter
is that the pilots broke off their attack when they began to suspect that
the ship was other than Egyptian in origin. If it was their intention to
deliberately sink a ship that they knew to be American, then why did they
break off their attack while the Liberty was still afloat? For that matter,
why were they not carrying the proper ordinance (i.e., bombs) with which
to sink a ship in the first place?
> Some time ago, when I first heard
> about the USS Liberty incident, I
> actually believed what "Little
> People" had to say about the USS
> Liberty in a usenet thread that was
> raging at the time. However, after
> much closer inspection, I realized
> that many of his critics on usenet
> were correct in claiming
> that "Little People" employed
> a "dual standard" of proof, which
> included outrageous ad hominem
> character attacks when he was unable
> to counter irrefutable testimony.
"Testimony" from whom? Dead people? Those who quote from non-existant documents?
Show us this "irrefutable testimony".
> After looking at all the facts and
> arguments using the same standard of
> proof -- not the shifting, "make
> shift" standard advocated by Aaron
> J Cristol and "Little People" I
> concluded that both Crystol
> and "Little People" were less than
> truthful in their defenses of the
> official Israeli position.
The "official Israeli position"? How about the official US Navy position
which concluded that the attack was the result of mistaken identity?
How about the fact that I cite sworn testimony from the USS Liberty's crew
in support of that position? How about the transcripts of communications
between the Israeli pilots and their controllers? How about the contents
of various Sixth Fleet communique?
This is what I bring to the table of discussion. And what do you bring? Hearsay.
Innuendo. Unsupported speculation. Out and out lies.
If I am wrong, then prove it.
> Ironically, in this same time frame
> both Crystol and "Little People" had
> relied on the work of a former navy
> serviceman named "Ward Boston" to
> support their point of view. Boston
> had been instrumental in the Navy's
> whitewash "inquiry" on the
> incident. However, shortly
> thereafter
Try 30-some-odd years after the fact.
> Ward Boston decided to tell the
> press the truth about the coverup
> and told the whole world that
> the "inquiry" was a political cover
> up. Needless to say, both Crystol
> and "Little People" are now saying
> that Ward Boston is a "liar" and
> a "jew-hater" and therefore
> should not be believed.
I do not pretend to know what motivated Boston to make his claims. But I
do know that he was either lying back in 1967 or he is lying now. There are
no two ways about it.
> Actually to be more precise, they
> claimed that Boston had been
> misquoted by a reporter from a
> political journal devoted to mideast
> politics who first broke the story,
> and then they claimed that Boston
> had contested a quote attributed to
> him in the first reporter's
> account.
I don't recall ever making such a claim. Perhaps you can post a relevant
cite?
> This made the rounds in a few pro-
> israeli newspapers until someone
> contacted Boston who basically
> said "Bullshit. I stand by the
> story."
> Here's an article from the San Diego
> Union Tribune:
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20040217-9999-1n17liberty.html
[...]
Essentialized:
> Boston said Kidd told him privately
> that orders came from Johnson and
> McNamara to find the incident was a
> mistake and not a deliberate act.
What's truly brilliant about this is the fact that Kidd is no longer living
and can therefor neither confirm nor deny what Boston now says that he said.
Boston apparently waited to make his allegations until such a time that Kidd
was dead and could not respond. Note that Boston does not say that he himself
ever received such an order directly from Johnson or McNamera - he says that
it was Kidd who supposedly received the order and then relayed its contents
to Boston whilst they were sitting 'round the campfire one day.
> There is no documentation to support
> Boston's account.
Of course there isn't. Such is par for the course among USS Liberty conspiracy
theorem.
> Kidd died in 1999 at 79 after a
> career topped by command of the
> Atlantic Fleet.
> He never spoke of a cover-up.
Of course he didn't. Yet we are now expected to believe that he did on the
basis of what Boston remembers 30-some-odd years after the fact.
Here is a link to some more comments about Boston and his affidavit:
http://www.thelibertyincident.com/docs/boston-comments.pdf
[...]
Patriot
>
>> Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> > little_people wrote...
>> > > Patriot wrote...
>
>> > > Are you familiar with the USS
>> > > Liberty incident?
>
>> > Are you? I ask because your
>> > knowledge of the facts seems
>> > woefully lacking.
>
>> Not as much as you would
>> pretend. "Little People" is a semi-
>> professional debunker of the USS
>> Liberty incident,
>
>Nope. Just another American who has examined the facts of this particular
>incident. Occasionally, I Google the subject to see what people are currently
>saying about it... if there have been any recent developments.
Uh huh. Occasionally as in every two days I believe. I've done a bit of
googling myself and discovered that your name invariably pops up whenever and
wherever the USS Liberty incident is mentioned. BTW, what has happened to
"Weeks", the other semi-professional defender of Israel in the USS Liberty
debate? Did he get tired of being subjected to ridicule by ex-american
servicemen who're upset with the way the Liberty survivors have been portrayed
by you, by Weeks and by Cristol?
Patriot
>
>> Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote...
>> > little_people wrote...
>
>> > [quibbling and hand waving deleted]
>
>Read: Inconvenient facts that you are unable to address deleted.
I think www.ussliberty.org does a decent job of presenting the facts...
including rebuttals of Cristol's book. The only question that hasn't been
adequately answered in my own mind is this: Who paid for your, err, I mean
Cristol's, many trips to Israel?
little_people
> > [I'm] Just another American who
> > has examined the facts of this
> > particular incident. Occasionally,
> > I Google the subject to see what
> > people are currently saying about
> > it... if there have been any
> > recent developments.
> Uh huh. Occasionally as in every
> two days I believe.
That simply *can't* be the case, but whetever...
> I've done a bit of googling myself
> and discovered that your name
> invariably pops up whenever and
> wherever the USS Liberty incident is
> mentioned.
If that were true, then I would submit that I would have many more posts
on this subject than that which can be found with a Google search. But, as
I said... whatever. As in, whatever may or may not be true regarding my posting
history (with which, for some reason, you seem much more concerned than the
actual content of my posts), the fact remains that I present actual transcripts
and sworn testimony in support of my position, while you (and a good many
others) invariably rely on hearsay "evidence" and various purportions of
that which is contained within non-existant documents (e.g., your earlier
"CRITIC" example).
And that's the difference between you and me. I don't need to cut the guts
out of your posts and/or go off on some irrelevant tangent with regard to
your posting history in the course of my responses to you. I can more or
less leave everything intact and address the bulk of what you have to say,
head-on.
You either can't or won't do this with me. And this is plain for all to see.
> BTW, what has happened to
> "Weeks", the other semi-professional
> defender of Israel in the USS
> Liberty debate?
Since I don't know "Weeks", I cannot account for his whereabouts.
> Did he get tired of being subjected
> to ridicule by ex-american
> servicemen who're upset with the way
> the Liberty survivors have been
> portrayed by you, by Weeks and by
> Cristol?
I would submit that the survivors of which you speak "portray" themselves
in a certain light far more than they are portrayed by others in any light.
In any event, and as often as I quote directly from USS Liberty survivors
in support of my position, I doubt that my portrayals have been less than
charitable. I just happen to think that some of them are a little more credible
than others as far as the truth is concerned.
You're not even going to note when and where you snip the contents of my
posts (which, once again, you have failed to address) anymore, are you?
This, by the way, is how most of the discussions I have with others begin
to devolve.
Norma
I think you have read "Weeks" wrong... Norma
>
>
Patriot
>> > > According to McNamera who was
>> > > Secretary of Defense at the
>> > > time, President LB Johnson
>> > > ordered the recall of the
>> > > fighter jets to
>> > > avoid "embarrassment" for
>> > > Israel...
>
>Can you point to a quote to this effect which is directly attributable to
>McNamera?
My mistake. Unlike you, the USS Liberty incident is not my life's work, and,
unlike you and many others, I believe in something called "intellectual
integrity". Knowledge about LBJ's recall of the planes came from Rear Admiral
Geis, as reported by Lieutenant Commander David Lewis who had been wounded in
Israel's attack on the Liberty and subsequently met with Geis after Lewis was
transferred to the hospital facility on the USS America.
http://wais.stanford.edu/USA/US_USSLiberty(110503).html
This was reconfirmed by Admiral Thomas Moorer in an article from Stars and
Stripes that appeared in the Jan 16, 2004 edition of Stars and Stripes.
http://www.doublestandards.org/moorer1.html
================
A fair probe would attack Liberty misinformation
by Thomas Moorer
16 January 2004
While State Department officials and historians converge on Washington this
week to discuss the 1967 war in the Middle East, I am compelled to speak out
about one of U.S. history's most shocking cover-ups.
On June 8, 1967, Israel attacked our proud naval ship -- the USS Liberty --
killing 34 American servicemen and wounding 172. Those men were then betrayed
and left to die by our own government.
U.S. military rescue aircraft were recalled -- not once, but twice -- through
direct intervention by the Johnson administration. Secretary of Defense Robert
McNamara's cancellation of the Navy's attempt to rescue the Liberty, which I
confirmed from the commanders of the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga,
was the most disgraceful act I witnessed in my entire military career.
To add insult to injury, Congress, to this day, has failed to hold formal
hearings on Israel's attack on this American ship. No official investigation of
the attack has ever permitted the testimony of the surviving crew members.
A 1967 investigation by the Navy, upon which all other reports are based, has
now been fully discredited as a cover-up by its senior attorney. Capt. Ward
Boston, in a sworn affidavit, recently revealed that the court was ordered by
the White House to cover up the incident and find that Israel's attack was "a
case of mistaken identity."
Some distinguished colleagues and I formed an independent commission to
investigate the attack on the USS Liberty. After an exhaustive review of
previous reports, naval and other military records, including eyewitness
testimony from survivors, we recently presented our findings on Capitol Hill.
They include:
* Israeli reconnaissance aircraft closely studied the Liberty during an
eight-hour period prior to the attack, one flying within 200 feet of the ship.
Weather reports confirm the day was clear with unlimited visibility. The
Liberty was a clearly marked American ship in international waters, flying an
American flag and carrying large U.S. Navy hull letters and numbers on its bow.
* Despite claims by Israeli intelligence that they confused the Liberty
with a small Egyptian transport, the Liberty was conspicuously different from
any vessel in the Egyptian navy. It was the most sophisticated intelligence
ship in the world in 1967. With its massive radio antennae, including a large
satellite dish, it looked like a large lobster and was one of the most easily
identifiable ships afloat.
* Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty's radio operators from sending a
call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels.
* Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at close range that had
been lowered to rescue the most-seriously wounded.
As a result, our commission concluded that:
* There is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate
attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew.
* In attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against
U.S. servicemen and an act of war against the United States.
* The White House knowingly covered up the facts of this attack from the
American people.
* The truth continues to be concealed to the present day in what can only
be termed a national disgrace.
What was Israel's motive in launching this attack? Congress must address this
question with full cooperation from the National Security Agency, the CIA and
the military intelligence services.
The men of the USS Liberty represented the United States. They were attacked
for two hours, causing 70 percent of American casualties, and the eventual loss
of our best intelligence ship.
These sailors and Marines were entitled to our best defense. We gave them no
defense.
Did our government put Israel's interests ahead of our own? If so, why? Does
our government continue to subordinate American interests to Israeli interests?
These are important questions that should be investigated by an independent,
fully empowered commission of the American government.
The American people deserve to know the truth about this attack. We must
finally shed some light on one of the blackest pages in American naval history.
It is a duty we owe not only to the brave men of the USS Liberty, but to every
man and woman who is asked to wear the uniform of the United States.
Adm. Thomas Moorer was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 to 1974
and once was 7th Fleet commander. He is joined in the Independent Commission of
Inquiry by Rear Adm. Merlin Staring, former judge advocate general of the Navy;
and Ambassador James Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Gen. Ray
Davis, former assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, was a member of the
commission at the time of his death in September.
================
little_people
> Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> I think www.ussliberty.org does a
> decent job of presenting the
> facts... including rebuttals of
> Cristol's book.
Including many "facts" which are at odds with the sworn testimony of their
shipmates.
> The only question that hasn't been
> adequately answered in my own mind
> is this: Who paid for your, err, I
> mean Cristol's, many trips to Israel?
I think there was one occasion in which someone over there bought him a Coke.
Otherwise, the money came out of his own pocket.
And, once again, your failure to address any of the points in my previous
post is duly noted.
But, hey... at least you're consistent.
Patriot
>I would submit that the survivors of which you speak "portray" themselves
>in a certain light far more than they are portrayed by others in any light.
>In any event, and as often as I quote directly from USS Liberty survivors
>in support of my position, I doubt that my portrayals have been less than
>charitable. I just happen to think that some of them are a little more credible
>than others as far as the truth is concerned.
Credibility? How about Adm. Thomas Moorer who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1970 to 1974, Rear Adm. Merlin Staring, former judge advocate
general of the Navy, Ambassador James Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi
Arabia, and. Gen. Ray Davis, former assistant commandant of the Marine Corps.
Again, here are Admiral Moorer's recent comments in Stars and Stripes about the
Liberty incident and the findings of the inquiry conducted by himself, Merlin
Staring, James Akins and Ray Davis.
==================
==================
Susan Cohen
"little_people" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:41572746$1...@127.0.0.1...
>
>> Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> > little_people wrote...
>> > > Patriot wrote...
>
>> > > Are you familiar with the USS
>> > > Liberty incident?
>
>> > Are you? I ask because your
>> > knowledge of the facts seems
>> > woefully lacking.
>
>> Not as much as you would
>> pretend. "Little People" is a semi-
>> professional debunker of the USS
>> Liberty incident,
>
> Nope. Just another American who has examined the facts of this particular
> incident.
The interesting thing is that he wants everyone - anyone! - to think this
makes a difference.
Let's say - for the sake of discussion - that you ARE a PROFESSIONAL Liberty
lie debunker.
How does it affect the truth of what you post?
Answer: not one bit.
And how could it?
All "Patriot's" post is showing is his desperation to smear Israel - and, by
extension, Jews (After all, look where he keeps posting this stuff....?)
Susan
[snip rest of excellent bigot butt-kicking]
little_people
> > I would submit that the survivors
> > of which you speak "portray"
> > themselves in a certain light far
> > more than they are portrayed by
> > others in any light. In any event,
> > and as often as I quote directly
> > from USS Liberty survivors in
> > support of my position, I doubt
> > that my portrayals have been less
> > than charitable. I just happen to
> > think that some of them are a
> > little more credible than others
> > as far as the truth is concerned.
> Credibility? How about Adm. Thomas
> Moorer who was chairman of the Joint
> Chiefs of Staff from 1970 to 1974,
Moorer was not a USS Liberty survivor.
But he did sign off on the Navy Court of Inquiry's findings back in '67.
http://hnn.us/articles/369.html
[...
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.
...]
> Rear Adm. Merlin Staring,
Not a Liberty survivor.
[...]
> Ambassador James Akins
Not a Liberty survivor.
[...]
> Gen. Ray Davis
Not a Liberty survivor.
[...]
Patriot
>
>"Patriot" <usapat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:IL-dnVjXHvj...@giganews.com...
>> Uh huh. Occasionally as in every two days I believe. I've done a bit of
>> googling myself and discovered that your name invariably pops up whenever
>and
>> wherever the USS Liberty incident is mentioned. BTW, what has happened to
>> "Weeks", the other semi-professional defender of Israel in the USS Liberty
>> debate? Did he get tired of being subjected to ridicule by ex-american
>> servicemen who're upset with the way the Liberty survivors have been
>portrayed
>> by you, by Weeks and by Cristol?
>
>I think you have read "Weeks" wrong... Norma
In what way? I'm reasonably well informed about history and current events
and yet I was taken aback when I first learned about the USS Liberty incident
just a few years ago, more or less by accident. The history of the ship and
the attack on the ship was a complete surprise to me -- although "Little
People" has insisted elsewhere that the attack was thoroughly covered in the
press at the time. After reading most of the materials on the
www.ussliberty.org website I used a search engine to turn up additional
information and came across many arguments pro and con. The "pro" coverup
contingent consisted primarily of Liberty survivors, former servicemen who
remembered their role in specific parts of the coverup, and numerous
historians. The "con" contingent consisted of Cristol, who's book I read
cover to cover and found deficient in several ways (read on), Weeks, "Little
People" and a few other individuals who appeared to be ideologically aligned
with Israel.
As a general rule I try to make sure that I get much, if not most of my
"information feed" from opposing camps so, after reading the USS Liberty
website and Cristol's book, I spent several days reading many usenet threads on
this topic -- primarily involving Weeks but also involving "Little People" and
I eventually reached the conclusion that Weeks and "Little People" were using
the same vacillating standard of proof that was blatant in Cristol's book.
I'll explain this "vacillating" standard briefly. The history of philosophy
is full of examples showing that everything under the sun can be logically
contested by DETERMINED skeptics. For example, you would be hard pressed to
*rigorously* prove that you even exist. As Rene Descartes (Meditations)
pointed out several centuries ago, you could simply be a "dream" in the mind of
some demon. However, critics of skepticism in western civilisation, going back
to Socrates, have pointed out that most skeptics are insincere in their extreme
skepticism and display this insincerity by adopting alternating rigid and lax
standards of proof whenever it suits their needs. In one book, Socrates
mentions a skeptic who argued strenuously that reality is non-existent, yet
when invited to jump off a cliff that was a hundred feet high, the skeptic
refused to do so... fearing for his life. If he truly believed that life
isn't real, why would he hesitate to jump? The bottom line is that reasonable
people should adopt an appropriate standard of proof for any topic and maintain
the SAME standard while analyzing arguments on BOTH sides. Cristol fails to do
this. He accepts pro-Israel arguments at face value with no criticism, yet
strenuously disputes anything that contradicts the Israeli point of view. To
put this another way, we should use the same "scale" to way evidence on both
sides.
The REAL standard of proof that runs through Cristol's book, and the usenet
commentaries of "Little People" and Weeks involves one very simple but UNSTATED
standard: If a writer agrees with Israel's official position on the Liberty
incident, then he/she is praised and whatever he/she says is deemed to be true.
By contrast, anyone or anything that disagrees with Israel's position is
attacked on varying grounds, including ad hominem arguments that the person is
merely a "jew hater", or is senile, or lacks "authority" or cannot be believed
because he made contrary statements back in the 60s in conjunction with the
navy coverup.
Perhaps the most convincing element in the discussion is that Cristol, Weeks
and "Little People" have argued that the incident has already been adequately
researched and that a REAL congressional inquiry would be a waste of tax paper
money... nevermind the fact that our funds for Israel might be a bigger waste
of money ($10 billion this year). If Israel truly attacked the USS Liberty by
accident it seems to me that Israeli politicians and americans with israeli
citizenship would welcome an investigation to thoroughly and conclusively
prove Israel's innocence.
Patriot
>
>"Patriot" <usapat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:IL-dnVjXHvj...@giganews.com...
>> Uh huh. Occasionally as in every two days I believe. I've done a bit of
>> googling myself and discovered that your name invariably pops up whenever
>and
>> wherever the USS Liberty incident is mentioned. BTW, what has happened to
>> "Weeks", the other semi-professional defender of Israel in the USS Liberty
>> debate? Did he get tired of being subjected to ridicule by ex-american
>> servicemen who're upset with the way the Liberty survivors have been
>portrayed
>> by you, by Weeks and by Cristol?
>
>I think you have read "Weeks" wrong... Norma
In what way? I'm reasonably well informed about history and current events
Patriot
>All "Patriot's" post is showing is his desperation to smear Israel - and, by
>extension, Jews (After all, look where he keeps posting this stuff....?)
Is Admiral Moorer attempting to smear Israel?
=======================
=======================
http://www.doublestandards.org/moorer1.html
Patriot
>
>> Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> I think www.ussliberty.org does a
>> decent job of presenting the
>> facts... including rebuttals of
>> Cristol's book.
>
>Including many "facts" which are at odds with the sworn testimony of their
>shipmates.
Many of whom have since claimed that they were ordered to lie and threatened
with court martial if they failed to do so.
From the Moorer's aforementioned letter in Stars and Stripes:
=========
As a result, our commission concluded that:
* There is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate
attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew.
* In attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against
U.S. servicemen and an act of war against the United States.
* The White House knowingly covered up the facts of this attack from the
American people.
* The truth continues to be concealed to the present day in what can only
be termed a national disgrace.
=========
little_people
> Patriot wrote...
> Knowledge about LBJ's recall of the
> planes came from Rear Admiral
> Geis, as reported by Lieutenant
> Commander David Lewis who had been
> wounded in Israel's attack on the
> Liberty and subsequently met with
> Geis after Lewis was transferred to
> the hospital facility on the USS
> America.
> http://wais.stanford.edu/USA/US_USSLiberty(110503).html
This is a story that was told by CDR David Lewis to a reporter. Lewis relates
what Geis (who died in 1980) supposedly told him about the flights and the
recall during a meeting the two of them had. But Lewis's account of this
supposed meeting remains uncorroborated thus far. Then, of course, there
is the rather unbelievable notion that Geis, a two star rear admiral, would
have broken several links in the chain of command by speaking directly to
the Secretary of Defense (and then, eventually, to the Commander in Chief)
via radio telephone. And, finally, there is the fact that there did not exist
the ability to make a secure radio telephone link between Washington and
a ship in the Mediterranean back in 1967.
> This was reconfirmed by Admiral
> Thomas Moorer in an article from
> Stars and Stripes that appeared in
> the Jan 16, 2004 edition of Stars
> and Stripes.
> http://www.doublestandards.org/moorer1.html
[...]
> U.S. military rescue aircraft were
> recalled -- not once, but twice --
> through direct intervention by the
> Johnson administration. Secretary of
> Defense Robert McNamara's
> cancellation of the Navy's attempt
> to rescue the Liberty, which I
> confirmed from the commanders of the
> aircraft carriers America and
> Saratoga, was the most disgraceful
> act I witnessed in my entire
> military career.
See above.
See the transcripts of Sixth Fleet communications. ONCE AGAIN: The recall
wasn't issued until after the attack had concluded and the Liberty had reported
that she was back under power/control. Israel had already admitted involvement
and had apologized. So there was no longer any need to "rescue" the ship
from her attackers.
> To add insult to injury, Congress,
> to this day, has failed to hold
> formal hearings on Israel's attack
> on this American ship. No official
> investigation of the attack has ever
> permitted the testimony of the
> surviving crew members.
A lie. The US Navy Court of Inquiry is FULL of sworn testimony from surviving
crew members.
http:/ussliberty.org/nci.txt
And it was largely upon that testimony that the Court concluded that the
attack was the result of mistaken identity.
> A 1967 investigation by the Navy,
> upon which all other reports are
> based, has now been fully
> discredited as a cover-up by its
> senior attorney. Capt. Ward
> Boston, in a sworn affidavit,
> recently revealed that the court was
> ordered by the White House to cover
> up the incident and find that
> Israel's attack was "a case of
> mistaken identity."
More about Boston and his affidavit here:
http://www.thelibertyincident.com/docs/boston-comments.pdf
> Some distinguished colleagues and I
> formed an independent commission to
> investigate the attack on the USS
> Liberty.
What for, Mr. Moorer? Was it not your own office that approved the US Navy
Court's findings back in 1967? Why didn't you sound off with your suspicions
at a time when your opinion might have carried some real weight?
> After an exhaustive review of
> previous reports, naval and other
> military records, including
> eyewitness testimony from survivors,
> we recently presented our findings
> on Capitol Hill. They include:
> * Israeli reconnaissance aircraft
> closely studied the Liberty during
> an eight-hour period prior to the
> attack, one flying within 200 feet
> of the ship.
An event which is not recorded in any of the Liberty's logs.
> Weather reports confirm the day was
> clear with unlimited visibility. The
> Liberty was a clearly marked
> American ship in international
> waters, flying an American flag and
> carrying large U.S. Navy hull
> letters and numbers on its bow.
> * Despite claims by Israeli
> intelligence that they confused the
> Liberty with a small Egyptian
> transport, the Liberty was
> conspicuously different from
> any vessel in the Egyptian navy.
Not necessarily when it was shrouded in a cloud of black smoke it wasn't.
> It was the most sophisticated
> intelligence ship in the world in
> 1967. With its massive radio
> antennae, including a large
> satellite dish, it looked like a
> large lobster and was one of the
> most easily identifiable ships
> afloat.
> * Israel attempted to prevent the
> Liberty's radio operators from
> sending a call for help by jamming
> American emergency radio channels.
No conclusive proof of this has ever been put forward.
> * Israeli torpedo boats machine-
> gunned lifeboats at close range that
> had been lowered to rescue the most-
> seriously wounded.
This event is not in any of the Liberty's logs. It is a matter of sworn court
testimony that the order to abandon ship was never actually given. Damaged
life rafts were thrown overboard, which accounted for the fact that they
were found floating in the ship's wake
> As a result, our commission
> concluded that:
> * There is compelling evidence
> that Israel's attack was a
> deliberate attempt to destroy an
> American ship and kill her entire
> crew.
Then why didn't they do that when they very easily could have?
[...]
> The men of the USS Liberty
> represented the United States. They
> were attacked for two hours,
Not according to the sworn testimony of the crew. McGonagle's own statements
indicate that the total length of time in which the ship was under fire was
25-45 minutes.
Once again, the conspiracy theories differ wildly from that which has been
testified under oath by the Liberty's survivors.
Doesn't this give you even the *slightest* bit of pause?
[...]
little_people
> > > I think www.ussliberty.org does
> > > a decent job of presenting the
> > > facts... including rebuttals of
> > > Cristol's book.
> > Including many "facts" which are
> > at odds with the sworn testimony
> > of their shipmates.
> Many of whom have since claimed that
> they were ordered to lie and
> threatened with court martial if
> they failed to do so.
That's a lie. And I defy you to name ONE crew member who testified in open
court who has ever said that he was ordered to commit perjury under threat
of court martial.
Name just ONE.
One SINGLE crew member.
ONE.
<soundofcrickets.wav>
[...]
little_people
> Patriot wrote...
> > Norma said...
> > I think you have read "Weeks"
> > wrong... Norma
> In what way?
In many ways.
[...]
> The REAL standard of proof that runs
> through Cristol's book, and the
> usenet commentaries of "Little
> People" and Weeks involves one very
> simple but UNSTATED standard: If a
> writer agrees with Israel's official
> position on the Liberty incident,
> then he/she is praised and whatever
> he/she says is deemed to be true.
> By contrast, anyone or anything that
> disagrees with Israel's position is
> attacked on varying grounds,
> including ad hominem arguments that
> the person is merely a "jew hater",
> or is senile, or lacks "authority"
> or cannot be believed because he
> made contrary statements back in the
> 60s in conjunction with the navy
> coverup.
I have never suggested that anyone was a "jew hater" unless they attacked
Jewish people or used names like "kike" in reference to Jews.
I can respect anyone who presents plausible alternatives to the evidence
and testimony that I post. Who I tend to lose all respect for, however, are
those who continually fail to address what I say in any way whatsoever and
then continue (ad infinitum) to spout the very same "evidence" which has
been flatly refuted time and time again. I also tend to lose respect for
those who make wild assertions, and then shrink like a turd drying in the
sun when asked to provide a cite (or a relevant quote) in support of their
position.
Speaking of name calling, kindly observe how some of the USS Liberty's survivors
treat their fellow shipmates who don't agree with them:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36685
[...
Lt. Bennett devoted himself to saving lives and to help keep the ship from
sinking, for which he was awarded a Purple Heart and the Silver Star.
Bennett is now a retired Navy commander. Last June 3, 2003, he wrote to Judge
Cristol, author of perhaps the definitive book on this issue, "The Liberty
Incident."
Cmdr. Bennett wrote:
"From the viewpoint of one who was on board the Liberty at the time of the
attack, your account leaves little doubt that the attack was the result of
a series of confused decisions, made in a war setting. Error seems to compound
error both on the part of the Israelis and the U.S. Perhaps your account
will lay to rest the many conspiracy theories which have plagued us all these
last 30 off years."
One month later, Bennett heard the following, among other things, from a
former Liberty shipmate named John Gidusko, who left the ship a month before
it was attacked:
"I was aghast when I saw you supported Judge Cristol ... you know what the
ship looked like Murray! A 10-year-old boy could have identified it. Israel
couldn't? I find your way of thinking absolutely unbelievable and consider
you a traitor to your shipmates!"
...]
A "traitor" to his shipmates. And why?
Because he didn't toe the line. Pure and simple.
Susan Cohen
>
>> Patriot wrote...
>
>> * There is compelling evidence
>> that Israel's attack was a
>> deliberate attempt to destroy an
>> American ship and kill her entire
>> crew.
>
> Then why didn't they do that when they very easily could have?
Just like the similar lies his ilk tells about Israel re: the Palestinians.
Susan
Patriot
>
>> Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote...
>> > little_people wrote...
>> > > Patriot wrote...
>
>> > > I think www.ussliberty.org does
>> > > a decent job of presenting the
>> > > facts... including rebuttals of
>> > > Cristol's book.
>
>> > Including many "facts" which are
>> > at odds with the sworn testimony
>> > of their shipmates.
>
>> Many of whom have since claimed that
>> they were ordered to lie and
>> threatened with court martial if
>> they failed to do so.
>
>That's a lie. And I defy you to name ONE crew member who testified in open
>court who has ever said that he was ordered to commit perjury under threat
>of court martial.
What does it matter if the crew member testified in open court... given the
fact that there has been NO open court. As I mentioned previously, both you
and Cristol resort to wavering standards of proof. Has any of the evidence
presented by you and Cristol been the result of testimony in "open court"?
No, none of it. As such your demand for "open court" testimony is irrational
because you haven't applied it to your own side of the argument.
>Name just ONE.
>
>One SINGLE crew member.
Was I lying when I said that crew members have claimed that they were ordered
to lie and threatened with court martial if they failed to do so?
Here's a statement from Ken Ecker on the USS Liberty website.
http://www.ussliberty.org/ecker.txt
================
Immediately following the attack I was threatened
with court-martial if I discussed the incident
with the press or anyone else. One of the
warnings was also not to discuss the attack even
with my immediate family or friends. In my case
these warnings were repeated upon my transfer from
each duty station I left along with the standard
security clearance de-briefing. I was also
periodically taken aside and reminded of the
original threat even when not being transferred.
Though never told the reason for these one on one
"advisory" sessions, I personnaly believe they
were the result of some action that raised the
possibility of further publicity that our
government wanted to surpress.
I want no personal recognition, but I will not
rest until the 34 brave men that sacrificed their
lives are finally given the long overdue honor
they so justly deserve. Hopefully with the help of
all concerned this long denied justice will be
forthcoming in the not so distant future.
Ken Ecker USS Liberty
================
Why confine ourselves to crew members when there are more senior officials who
were ordered to lie?
Here's a link to a sworn affadavit from Ward Boston:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-boston.html
Here's an extract from the affadavit:
=========
I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President
Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude
that the attack was a case of “mistaken identity” despite overwhelming evidence
to the contrary.
Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that he had been
ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the
Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the court’s findings.
Admiral Kidd also told me that he had been ordered to “put the lid” on
everything having to do with the attack on USS Liberty. We were never to speak
of it and we were to caution everyone else involved that they could never speak
of it again.
I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement as I know that the
Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the
same one that I certified and sent off to Washington.
=========
little_people
[...]
> > > Many of [the crew] have since
> > > claimed that they were ordered
> > > to lie and threatened with court
> > > martial if they failed to do so.
> > That's a lie. And I defy you to
> > name ONE crew member who testified
> > in open court who has ever said
> > that he was ordered to commit
> > perjury under threat of court
> > martial.
> What does it matter if the crew
> member testified in open court...
> given the fact that there has been
> NO open court.
We were talking about those who gave sworn testimony to the US Navy Court
of Inquiry. I'm saying (contrary to your assertion) that none of them have
ever come forward to say that they were ordered to lie to those who sat present.
I'm asking you to produce the name of any ONE of them who ever has said that
they were so ordered.
You obviously cannot do this.
> As I mentioned previously, both you
> and Cristol resort to wavering
> standards of proof.
Not at all. Both of us tend to defer to the sworn Court testimony of those
who personally eywitnessed the actions of the Israelis during the attack.
We tend to dismiss other "testimony" which is at odds with this.
> Has any of the evidence presented by
> you and Cristol been the result of
> testimony in "open court"?
Perhaps "open" court is the wrong term to use (because the Navy Court proceedings
were probably conducted in a decidedly closed setting), but, yes, a great
deal of the evidence Cristol presents is based on the testimony of those
who gave sworn testimony to the Navy Court.
> No, none of it.
As a matter of fact, a great deal of it. Since your so fond of Google, then
why don't you search for the sworn testimony I've quoted directly from William
McGonagle, the USS Liberty's CO?
> As such your demand for "open court"
> testimony is irrational because you
> haven't applied it to your own side
> of the argument.
I apply it on a regular basis. Run a Google for McGonagle and Lloyd Painter
(among others).
> > Name just ONE.
> > One SINGLE crew member.
> Was I lying when I said that crew
> members have claimed that they were
> ordered to lie and threatened with
> court martial if they failed to do
> so?
I'm saying there isn't any proof whatsoever of this. I'm saying that no one
who gave sworn testimony at the Navy Court of Inquiry (and upon whose testimony
Cristol heavily relies) has ever come forward to say that they were ordered
to give false testimony to those who were present.
> Here's a statement from Ken Ecker on
> the USS Liberty website.
> http://www.ussliberty.org/ecker.txt
> Immediately following the attack I
> Ken Ecker USS Liberty
Note that Ecker never says that he was ordered to lie to the Navy Court of
Inquiry (as per your previous assertion). He says that he was warned not
to talk about the incident with "...the press or anyone else" under penalty
of court martial.
And yet, here is Ken Ecker talking extensively to "the press" about this
incident:
[start...]
American Spirit
July 1967
Vol. 3, No. 6
Wounded LIBERTY Crewman Ecker Tells Of Attack
One of the 75 wounded crewmen of the stricken ship, USS LIBERTY (AGTR-5),
Seaman Kenneth Ecker, 18, answered questions of newsmen of the national press
during an interview aboard USS AMERICA (CVA-66) on June 11. The interview
covered Seaman Ecker's actions and observations during the mistaken attack
upon the LIBERTY by Israeli forces on June 8 which cost the lives of 34 men.
[...]
After a torpedo struck the ship, LIBERTY's crew prepared to abandon ship.
Coming above decks to report to his abandon ship station, Ecker observed
three torpedo boats steaming approximately 100 yards off the LIBERTY's stern.
He could not recognize the nationality of the craft. "They were too far off.
They
were real small and you couldn't make out any marks on them or anything,"
he
said. Ecker learned several hours later, after returning to the sickbay,
that the torpedo boats and aircraft were Israeli. The fact was received
in the LIBERTY's radioroom over a British Broadcasting Company program.
[...end]
Tell me something. When and where was Ken Ecker ever court martialed for
this obvious breach of his supposed orders? If he was never punished, then
what does that suggest of his "testimony" today with regard to those supposed
orders?
> Why confine ourselves to crew
> members when there are more senior
> officials who were ordered to lie?
Because that's who we were originally talking about. Remember?
Having failed to produce any who has ever said that they were ordered to
give false testimony to the Navy Court of Inquiry (as per your earlier assertion),
you are now trying to change the subject.
> Here's a link to a sworn affadavit
> from Ward Boston:
> http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-boston.html
And here's a link which deals with Ward Boston:
Patriot
>
>> Patriot wrote...
>
>> Knowledge about LBJ's recall of the
>> planes came from Rear Admiral
>> Geis, as reported by Lieutenant
>> Commander David Lewis who had been
>> wounded in Israel's attack on the
>> Liberty and subsequently met with
>> Geis after Lewis was transferred to
>> the hospital facility on the USS
>> America.
>> http://wais.stanford.edu/USA/US_USSLiberty(110503).html
>
>This is a story that was told by CDR David Lewis to a reporter. Lewis relates
>what Geis (who died in 1980) supposedly told him about the flights and the
>recall during a meeting the two of them had. But Lewis's account of this
>supposed meeting remains uncorroborated thus far.
Uncorroborated? Is this a valid criticism? Have you reviewed the "facts"
presented in Cristol's book to determine whether *all* of these alleged facts
were "corroborated"? No, you haven't. As such, we can ignore this demand
for "corroboration" at the present time and wait until you and Cristol have a
chance to weed out "uncorroborated" facts from your own evidence. And BTW,
while you're "weeding" please be sure to eliminate any statements that weren't
presented under oath in OPEN COURT delegated to determine ALL the truth since
you tried to introduce this qualification about "Open Court" in a recent post.
For now, it's sufficient to say that Lewis remembers the incident clearly. I
believe that he's telling the truth.
>Then, of course, there
>is the rather unbelievable notion that Geis, a two star rear admiral, would
>have broken several links in the chain of command by speaking directly to
>the Secretary of Defense (and then, eventually, to the Commander in Chief)
>via radio telephone.
If memory serves, Geis was appealing to McNamara when Johnson came on the line
and issued the order saying something to the effect "I don't care if the ship
sinks, I don't want to embarrass Israel." As for "believability", you have a
simple standard that shines in all your posts: If a statement supports Israel,
you believe it. If a speaker doesn't support Israel you attack him using
varying standards of proof including attacks on his personal character. For
example, just in the past day you've attacked McEnnes (one member of the crew),
Ken Eckert (another member of the crew), Ward Boston (a key player in the court
of inquiry), and Admiral Moorer. Everybody's bad, in your opinion, except the
defenders of your beloved country (Israel).
> And, finally, there is the fact that there did not exist
>the ability to make a secure radio telephone link between Washington and
>a ship in the Mediterranean back in 1967.
How do you define "secure radio link" and why should we assume that the level
of security in any communication refutes the claim that Geis was ordered by
Johnson to stand down? Here's a quote from James Bamford's book on the NSA,
Body of Secrets:
--------------------
On board the flagship of the Sixth Fleet, Rear Admiral
Lawrence R Geis, who commanded the carrier force in the Mediterranean, was
angry and puzzled at the recall and protested to the secretary of defence,
Robert S McNamara.
Geis was shocked by what he heard next. "President Lyndon Johnson came on
with a comment that he didn't care if the ship sunk, he would not embarrass
his allies." Geis told Lieutenant Commander David Lewis, head of the NSA
group on the Liberty, about the comment but asked him to keep it secret
until after Geis died. It was a promise that Lewis kept.
[note to readers other than "Little People": The USS Liberty was, in some
ways, a floating container for NSA personnel who lived on board and were
responsible for gathering and decoding intercepted communications. This is the
primary reason why USS Liberty was discussed in Bamford's book]
=============
Precisely which "transcripts" should we examine? Would these transcripts be
included in the documents that Ward Boston claims were doctored?
>
>> To add insult to injury, Congress,
>> to this day, has failed to hold
>> formal hearings on Israel's attack
>> on this American ship. No official
>> investigation of the attack has ever
>> permitted the testimony of the
>> surviving crew members.
>
>A lie. The US Navy Court of Inquiry is FULL of sworn testimony from surviving
>crew members.
How FULL is "full", Little People? Please examine the names of survivors who
speak out on the USS Liberty website TODAY and point me to passages in the US
Navy Court of Inquiry wherein each of these individuals was allowed to have
their say without threat of reprisals? Better still, please show me where they
were allowed to testifiy in OPEN COURT with the full authority of congress to
explore ALL the facts? You did say previously, I believe, that the "Open
Court" standard ought to be applicable did you not?
Here again is a story in a San Diego based on a reporter's recent interview
with Ward Boston who had done much of the work associated with the Court of
Inquiry:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20040217-9999-1n17liberty.html
> ...
>> A 1967 investigation by the Navy,
>> upon which all other reports are
>> based, has now been fully
>> discredited as a cover-up by its
>> senior attorney. Capt. Ward
>> Boston, in a sworn affidavit,
>> recently revealed that the court was
>> ordered by the White House to cover
>> up the incident and find that
>> Israel's attack was "a case of
>> mistaken identity."
>
>More about Boston and his affidavit here:
>
>http://www.thelibertyincident.com/docs/boston-comments.pdf
This reaks of the same irrational wavering standard of proof that I pointed out
previously wherein Cristol assumes the truth of the argument that he is trying
to prove, attacks the character of persons who present testimony that doesn't
fit the Israeli position, and demands higher burdens of proof for opponents
than he applies to his own arguments. For example, he assumes that McNamara's
recent "no comment" statement on this issue reflected McNamara's approval with
Cristol's own point of view. "No comment" means "No comment". Not, "I agree
with you". Incidently, history shows that this same kind of assumption on
the part of Cristol is the reason why Ward Boston decided to "go public" in the
first place. In essence, Boston had kept his mouth shut for years until he
could no longer stand the lies, and Cristol's lies in particular.
My guess: If/when McNamara also decides to go public, you/Cristol will attack
him as well. Until then, you will praise McNamara the way you previously
praised Ward Boston.
>> Some distinguished colleagues and I
>> formed an independent commission to
>> investigate the attack on the USS
>> Liberty.
>
>What for, Mr. Moorer? Was it not your own office that approved the US Navy
>Court's findings back in 1967? Why didn't you sound off with your suspicions
>at a time when your opinion might have carried some real weight?
This is called an "ad hominem" attack. It's considered fallacious because it
doesn't address the issue at hand. Moreover, it ERRONEOUSLY assumes that
people with careers at stake are more likely to tell the truth than people
who've retired from public office.
>
>> After an exhaustive review of
>> previous reports, naval and other
>> military records, including
>> eyewitness testimony from survivors,
>> we recently presented our findings
>> on Capitol Hill. They include:
>
>> * Israeli reconnaissance aircraft
>> closely studied the Liberty during
>> an eight-hour period prior to the
>> attack, one flying within 200 feet
>> of the ship.
>
>An event which is not recorded in any of the Liberty's logs.
Are you referring to the Logs that Boston claims were alterred in conjunction
with the coverup?
>
>> Weather reports confirm the day was
>> clear with unlimited visibility. The
>> Liberty was a clearly marked
>> American ship in international
>> waters, flying an American flag and
>> carrying large U.S. Navy hull
>> letters and numbers on its bow.
>
>> * Despite claims by Israeli
>> intelligence that they confused the
>> Liberty with a small Egyptian
>> transport, the Liberty was
>> conspicuously different from
>> any vessel in the Egyptian navy.
>
>Not necessarily when it was shrouded in a cloud of black smoke it wasn't.
Was there a cloud of black smoke shrouding the ship during the orbits by
reconnaissance aircraft? Was there a cloud of black smoke prior to the initial
attacks? No?
>> It was the most sophisticated
>> intelligence ship in the world in
>> 1967. With its massive radio
>> antennae, including a large
>> satellite dish, it looked like a
>> large lobster and was one of the
>> most easily identifiable ships
>> afloat.
>
>> * Israel attempted to prevent the
>> Liberty's radio operators from
>> sending a call for help by jamming
>> American emergency radio channels.
>
>No conclusive proof of this has ever been put forward.
You mean apart from the testimony of the survivors? Time for me to interject
self-serving objections of my own: Is your knowledge of radio jamming
techniques superior to those of the Liberty's own radio operator?
>
>> * Israeli torpedo boats machine-
>> gunned lifeboats at close range that
>> had been lowered to rescue the most-
>> seriously wounded.
>
>This event is not in any of the Liberty's logs.
The ship was under attack. The captain was bleeding but remained at his
station for HOURS in order to save the ship and the crew. Oh, excuse me. He
neglected to order an entry in the logs. And once again, are you referring to
the logs that Boston claims were doctored?
> It is a matter of sworn court
>testimony that the order to abandon ship was never actually given.
Was everyone allowed to testify in a two side proceeding? No?
> Damaged
>life rafts were thrown overboard, which accounted for the fact that they
>were found floating in the ship's wake
Time for me to apply your standard of proof? Were you on board the USS
Liberty at the time and did you witness this with your own eyes? Moreover,
have you testified to this in "OPEN COURT"? No? Then we will disregard your
claim using the same standard of proof that you have invoked previously.
>
>> As a result, our commission
>> concluded that:
>
>> * There is compelling evidence
>> that Israel's attack was a
>> deliberate attempt to destroy an
>> American ship and kill her entire
>> crew.
>
>Then why didn't they do that when they very easily could have?
Please explain how they could have "easily" sunk the ship without introducing
evidence that would have shifted the finger pointing away from Egypt?
>
>[...]
>
>> The men of the USS Liberty
>> represented the United States. They
>> were attacked for two hours,
>
>Not according to the sworn testimony of the crew. McGonagle's own statements
>indicate that the total length of time in which the ship was under fire was
>25-45 minutes.
Sworn testimony of the crew? You mean "coerced testimony" of a few crew
members?
>Once again, the conspiracy theories differ wildly from that which has been
>testified under oath by the Liberty's survivors.
>
>Doesn't this give you even the *slightest* bit of pause?
Not when I apply the same standard of proof throughout the analysis. Cristol's
book is intellectually weak because of its wishy-washy standards.
And as an american who rejects the idea of "dual" citizenship, I regard
Cristol's "israeli" attacks on the CHARACTER and INTEGRITY of US servicemen as
disgraceful. Examples: His attacks on the surviving crew members of the USS
Liberty, his attacks on Ward Boston, and last but not least his attacks on the
members of the recent Moorer commission.
Patriot
>
>> Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote...
>> > little_people wrote...
>> > > Patriot wrote...
>
>[...]
>
>> > > Many of [the crew] have since
>> > > claimed that they were ordered
>> > > to lie and threatened with court
>> > > martial if they failed to do so.
>
>> > That's a lie. And I defy you to
>> > name ONE crew member who testified
>> > in open court who has ever said
>> > that he was ordered to commit
>> > perjury under threat of court
>> > martial.
>
>> What does it matter if the crew
>> member testified in open court...
>> given the fact that there has been
>> NO open court.
>
>We were talking about those who gave sworn testimony to the US Navy Court
>of Inquiry.
No, we were talking about ALL the testimony, and not merely the testimony that
was allowed into the record. ALL the testimony has not been heard in this
matter, as evidenced by the affadavits from crew members on the USS Liberty
website. You're confining your self-serving arguments to the "Court" of
Inquiry which, according to Ward Boston who was certainly in a position to know
the truth, had been ordered to reach a predetermined conclusion.
> I'm saying (contrary to your assertion) that none of them have
>ever come forward to say that they were ordered to lie to those who sat
>present.
>I'm asking you to produce the name of any ONE of them who ever has said that
>they were so ordered.
>
>You obviously cannot do this.
I've discussed your methodology in depth and I've shown why it's irrational if
not fraudulent. Please let me know when you're ready to endorse a single
standard of proof that you wish to apply across the board without resorting to
fallacious character attacks, appeals to special standards that you invoke to
suit special pleadings and so on.
As it stands, I think the documents on the USS Liberty website and the findings
of the Moorer Commission are compelling. Last but not least, it's worth
mentioning that you appear to have a special axe to grind in this dispute. You
appear to be concerned about Israel, whereas the crew members, Ward Boston,
Dean Rusk, Moorer and many others are appear to be american citizens, and
nothing but american citizens, who're solely concerned with the defense of the
USA.
Patriot
>I can respect anyone who presents plausible alternatives to the evidence
>and testimony that I post. Who I tend to lose all respect for, however, are
>those who continually fail to address what I say in any way whatsoever and
>then continue (ad infinitum) to spout the very same "evidence" which has
>been flatly refuted time and time again.
Refuted in *your* opinion.
It's true that a ten year old boy would have recognized that the ship could NOT
have been an antiquated horse carrier as alleged in the official Israeli story.
End of story.
little_people
> > > Knowledge about LBJ's recall of
> > > the planes came from Rear
> > > Admiral Geis, as reported by
> > > Lieutenant Commander David Lewis
> > > who had been wounded in Israel's
> > > attack on the Liberty and
> > > subsequently met with Geis after
> > > Lewis was transferred to the
> > > hospital facility on the USS
> > > America.
> > > http://wais.stanford.edu/USA/US_USSLiberty(110503).html
> > This is a story that was told by
> > CDR David Lewis to a reporter.
> > Lewis relates what Geis (who died
> > in 1980) supposedly told him about
> > the flights and the recall during
> > a meeting the two of them had. But
> > Lewis's account of this supposed
> > meeting remains uncorroborated
> > thus far.
> Uncorroborated?
Yes. Uncorroborated.
Uncorroborated by transcripts of fleet communications or any other such documentation.
Uncorroborated by McNamara. Uncorroborrated by any statements directly attributable
to Geis.
Uncorroborated.
> Is this a valid criticism?
Absolulutely. In a court of law, this would fall under a form of as hearsay
known as the Dead Man's Statute. Lewis did not personally witness Johnson
or McNamara issuing the recall order. He is quoting what Geis supposedly
said to him about that order (i.e., that Johnson was the one who personally
issued it). But he conveniently waited until Geis's passing before making
any such claim about what Geis supposedly said that Johnson said. So Geis
can therefore neither confirm nor deny the validity of Lewis's story. All
we are left with is what Lewis purports to have been Geis's words.
> Have you reviewed the "facts"
> presented in Cristol's book to
> determine whether *all* of these
> alleged facts were "corroborated"?
> No, you haven't.
Yes, I have. Cristol does not rely on such hearsay evidence in order to make
his case. He quotes direct testimony from the people who were actually there
- those who actually witnessed certain events with their own eyes and ears.
Not "testimony" about what someone says that somebody *else* said about somebody
*ELSE* said (e.g., what Lewis says that Geis said about what Johnson/NcNamara
supposedly said, or what Boston says that Kidd said about what Johnson/NcNamara
supposedly said).
Geis and Kidd are dead. They cannot confirm what Lewis and Boston are now
saying that they said about what Johnson/McNamara supposedly said.
Does this not seem clear to you?
> As such, we can ignore this demand
> for "corroboration" at the present
> time and wait until you and Cristol
> have a chance to weed
> out "uncorroborated" facts from your
> own evidence.
Such as?
You said you read Cristol's book. To which specific evidence do you now refer?
> And BTW, while you're "weeding"
> please be sure to eliminate any
> statements that weren't
> presented under oath in OPEN COURT
> delegated to determine ALL the truth
> since you tried to introduce this
> qualification about "Open Court" in
> a recent post.
I only tend to do that when there are two different testimonies which are
in conflict, and one is corroborated by fleet records and ship's logs while
the other is not. In such an instance, one has to go with that which is backed
up by verifiable facts, and not the stuff of tall tales and sea stories which
have no such backing.
> For now, it's sufficient to say that
> Lewis remembers the incident
> clearly. I believe that he's
> telling the truth.
And how do we know that *Geis* was telling the truth? Where is *his* testimony?
What evidence is there that Johnson directly ordered Geis to recall the flight?
Hint: There is none. It all hinges upon Lewis's purportions as to what Geis
supposedly told him about what Johnson supposedly said to Geis over the radio
telephone.
> > Then, of course, there
> > is the rather unbelievable notion
> > that Geis, a two star rear
> > admiral, would have broken several
> > links in the chain of command by
> > speaking directly to the Secretary
> > of Defense (and then, eventually,
> > to the Commander in Chief)
> > via radio telephone.
> If memory serves, Geis was appealing
> to McNamara when Johnson came on the
> line and issued the order saying
> something to the effect "I don't
> care if the ship sinks, I don't want
> to embarrass Israel."
Or so Lewis says that Geis said he said.
> As for "believability", you have a
> simple standard that shines in all
> your posts: If a statement supports
> Israel, you believe it.
That is not the standard. I only ask that statements be supported by verifiable
fact. If it is not, then it tends to get dismissed.
> If a speaker doesn't support Israel
> you attack him using varying
> standards of proof including attacks
> on his personal character.
This is not true. I have made no such attacks on anyone's "personal character".
I have only pointed out that their assertions are not supported by the known
facts.
> For example, just in the past day
> you've attacked McEnnes (one member
> of the crew),
No. I simply pointed out that what he has written is in conflict with what
others who were in a better position to know (e.g., McGonagle) have testified
under oath.
> Ken Eckert (another member of the
> crew),
No. I merely suggested that the comments he made to "the press" (without
reprocussion) tend to cast some doubt on his subsequent statements to the
effect that he was ordered to remain silent under penalty of court marshal.
> Ward Boston (a key player in the
> court of inquiry),
Ward Boston was either lying in 1967 or he is lying now. This is an inescapable
fact.
> and Admiral Moorer.
Moorer's office signed off on the 1967 Navy Court's findings. This is also
a fact.
> Everybody's bad, in your opinion,
> except the defenders of your beloved
> country (Israel).
I've never suggested that any of the above-named individuals are "bad" people.
But I do underscore the inconsistencies in their respective "testimonies".
If you think that I am wrong, then show me where I am wrong.
> > And, finally, there is the fact
> > that there did not exist
> > the ability to make a secure radio
> > telephone link between Washington
> > and a ship in the Mediterranean
> > back in 1967.
> How do you define "secure radio
> link" and why should we assume that
> the level of security in any
> communication refutes the claim that
> Geis was ordered by Johnson to stand
> down?
You mean, of course, Lewis's claim that Geis claimed that Johnson ordered
the stand-down.
> Here's a quote from James Bamford's
> book on the NSA,
> Body of Secrets:
> --------------------
> On board the flagship of the Sixth
> Fleet, Rear Admiral Lawrence R Geis,
> who commanded the carrier force in
> the Mediterranean, was angry and
> puzzled at the recall and protested
> to the secretary of defence,
> Robert S McNamara.
Or so Lewis says that Geis said that McNamara said.
> Geis was shocked by what he heard
> next. "President Lyndon Johnson came
> on with a comment that he didn't
> care if the ship sunk, he would not
> embarrass his allies." Geis told
> Lieutenant Commander David Lewis,
> head of the NSA group on the
> Liberty, about the comment but asked
> him to keep it secret until after
> Geis died. It was a promise that
> Lewis kept.
Right. Remember that last part. It represents a phenomena that crops up within
USS Liberty conspiracies again and again. Testimony regarding the supposed
words of people who are no longer alive. Purportions of that which is contained
within documents that no longer exist. This is the stuff to which we are
supposed to defer over the sworn statements of those who personally witnessed
the actions of the Israelis.
> [note to readers other than "Little
> People": The USS Liberty was, in
> some ways, a floating container for
> NSA personnel who lived on board and
> were responsible for gathering and
> decoding intercepted
> communications. This is the primary
> reason why USS Liberty was discussed
> in Bamford's book]
> Precisely which "transcripts" should
> we examine? Would these
> transcripts be included in the
> documents that Ward Boston claims
> were doctored?
Boston never said that the Inquiry transcripts were "doctored" to alter the
existing crewmember testimonies.
> > The US Navy Court of Inquiry is
> > FULL of sworn testimony from
> > surviving crew members.
> How FULL is "full", Little
> People? Please examine the names
> of survivors who speak out on the
> USS Liberty website TODAY and
> point me to passages in the US
> Navy Court of Inquiry wherein each
> of these individuals was allowed to
> have their say without threat of
> reprisals?
Jim Ennes was injured early on during the attack and taken downladder. He
could not, therefore, have personally eyewitnessed the Motor Torpedo Boat
attack of which he writes extensively. Is it your contention that his testimony
to this effect should have been given equal weight to that of McGonagle,
who remained on the bridge the entire time?
> Better still, please show me where
> they were allowed to testifiy in
> OPEN COURT with the full authority
> of congress to explore ALL the
> facts? You did say previously, I
> believe, that the "Open Court"
> standard ought to be applicable did
> you not?
I said that the sworn testimony which was given by Liberty crewmembers to
the Navy Court of Inquiry is at odds with that which is purported by Ennes
and others. Since the sworn testimony is consistent with known facts and
records, then I tend to defer to that sworn testimony.
Putting Ennes, et al in a courtroom setting will not in any way change the
fact that 1) their testimony would be unsupported by ship's logs and other
documentation, and 2) their testimony would still remain at odds with other
crew members who were in a much better position to observe the actions of
the Israelis.
[...previously covered ground snipped...]
> > Was it not [Moorer's] own office
> > that approved the US Navy
> > Court's findings back in 1967? Why
> > didn't [Moorer] sound off with
> > [his] suspicions at a time when
> > [his] opinion might have carried
> > some real weight?
> This is called an "ad hominem"
> attack.
No it isn't. It is an observable fact.
> It's considered fallacious because
> it doesn't address the issue at
> hand.
Sure it does. It raises the question of why Moorer has apparently changed
his tune with regard to the Navy Court's findings. This question merits some
examination, don't you think?
> Moreover, it ERRONEOUSLY assumes
> that people with careers at stake
> are more likely to tell the truth
> than people who've retired from
> public office.
So you are suggesting that Moorer lied in 1967 because his career was "at
stake"?
Interesting.
> Are you referring to the Logs that
> Boston claims were alterred in
> conjunction with the coverup?
Where does Boston ever claim that the ship's logs were altered?
> > > * Despite claims by Israeli
> > > intelligence that they confused
> > > the Liberty with a small
> > > Egyptian transport, the Liberty
> > > was conspicuously different from
> > > any vessel in the Egyptian navy.
> > Not necessarily when it was
> > shrouded in a cloud of black smoke
> > it wasn't.
> Was there a cloud of black smoke
> shrouding the ship during the orbits
> by reconnaissance aircraft? Was
> there a cloud of black smoke prior
> to the initial attacks? No?
There was a cloud of black smoke around the ship when it was misidentified
as the Egyptian ship (by the boat commanders).
> > > * Israel attempted to prevent
> > > the Liberty's radio operators
> > > from sending a call for help by
> > > jamming American emergency radio
> > > channels.
> > No conclusive proof of this has
> > ever been put forward.
> You mean apart from the testimony of
> the survivors? Time for me to
> interject self-serving objections of
> my own: Is your knowledge of radio
> jamming techniques superior to those
> of the Liberty's own radio operator?
No. But at the Inquiry, he testified about "jamming" noises that were heard
for some time after the attack had concluded. This would suggest that the
source of these noises was from something other than jamming.
[...]
> And once again, are you referring to
> the logs that Boston claims were
> doctored?
Boston makes no such claim.
> Was everyone allowed to testify in a
> two side proceeding? No?
No. Not everyone's testimony was required. Certainly, Ennes couldn't intelligently
comment on the actions of the torpedo boats, and so he wasn't called to testify
about this.
> > Damaged life rafts were thrown
> > overboard, which accounted for the
> > fact that they were found floating
> > in the ship's wake
> Time for me to apply your standard
> of proof?
Be my guest.
> Were you on board the USS Liberty at
> the time and did you witness this
> with your own eyes?
No, but Lloyd Painter was there, and he testified to the Navy Court to this
effect. And it is upon his sworn testimony that I now rely.
> Moreover, have you testified to this
> in "OPEN COURT"? No?
No, but Painter has. He was there and he saw this with his own eyes. In fact,
he testified that he threw some of the damaged rafts overboard himself.
> Then we will disregard your claim
> using the same standard of proof
> that you have invoked previously.
You can't. I'm paraphrasing from Painter's testimony, as per the standard
that I invoked previously.
QED.
> Please explain how they could
> have "easily" sunk the ship without
> introducing evidence that would have
> shifted the finger pointing away
> from Egypt?
Uhm... the fact that the boats were clearly marked as being Israeli (according
to the sworn testimony of McGonagle)? The fact that the Egyptian Air Force
had by then been wiped out and any planed used in the attack could be assumed
to have been Israeli?
> Sworn testimony of the crew? You
> mean "coerced testimony" of a few
> crew members?
Such as? Names and ranks, please.
[...]
little_people
> Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
> wrote...
> > little_people said...
> > We were talking about those who
> > gave sworn testimony to the US
> > Navy Court of Inquiry.
> No, we were talking about ALL the
> testimony, and not merely the
> testimony that was allowed into the
> record.
Fine. Would you care to revisit the "testimony" of Ken Ecker and the inconsistencies
contained therein (i.e., the part of my last post that you completely snipped
away without adressing whatsoever)?
> ALL the testimony has not been heard
> in this matter, as evidenced by the
> affadavits from crew members on the
> USS Liberty website.
Affidavits like Ken Ecker's, correct?
Okay, let's talk about Ken Ecker. Let's compare the interview he granted
"the press" with his subsequent statements to the effect that he was threatened
with a court martial if he ever talked to "the press". Let's talk about the
fact that he sang like a canary and was, in fact, never ever punished for
it.
> You're confining your self-serving
> arguments to the "Court" of
> Inquiry which, according to Ward
> Boston who was certainly in a
> position to know the truth, had been
> ordered to reach a predetermined
> conclusion.
Whether or not such is the case, it says nothing whatsoever of the sailors
who testified under oath to the court.
But let's not talk about *them*. Let's talk about Ken Ecker.
[...]
> I've discussed your methodology in
> depth and I've shown why it's
> irrational if not fraudulent.
Let's talk about Ken Ecker.
> Please let me know when you're ready
> to endorse a single
> standard of proof that you wish to
> apply across the board
I have done nothing but apply a single standard.
Let's talk about Ken Ecker.
> without resorting to fallacious
> character attacks, appeals to
> special standards that you invoke to
> suit special pleadings and so on.
Ken Ecker. Let's talk about him.
> As it stands, I think the documents
> on the USS Liberty website
Such as the Ken Ecker affidavit...
> and the findings of the Moorer
> Commission are compelling.
....and in spite of the fact that he has been caught in an apparent LIE,
you find his document to be "compelling", while you find the sworn testimony
of the USS Liberty's crew to be... not so compelling.
Talk about a double-standard.
> Last but not least, it's worth
> mentioning that you appear to have a
> special axe to grind in this
> dispute. You appear to be concerned
> about Israel, whereas the crew
> members, Ward Boston,
> Dean Rusk, Moorer and many others
> are appear to be american citizens,
> and nothing but american citizens,
> who're solely concerned with the
> defense of the USA.
I am concerned with the truth, wherever the chips may fall. That you are
apparently not so concerned with the truth (i.e., when someone is caught
in an apparent untruth) is somewhat of a mystery.
Daniel Bernard
wrote:
>Daniel Bernard <aime...@maferme.fr> wrote:
>>Another issue about that case which was quite damaging and what I
>>found personally more insulting was the supposed reaction of the other
>>passengers and how that was spun by the worlds media. The way the
>>story was presented was that "Young woman attacked for being Jewish
>>while Frenchmen and women look on and do nothing". From a propaganda
>>purpose, that was almost the perfect story and it was presented in a
>>way as to tell Jews in France "hey, you will be attacked and your
>>fellow Citizens of the Republic will just sit by and let it happen".
>>it does not mention that even if the story was true, she was not
>>specifically attacked for being Jewish.
>
>Agreed. I have been looking far and wide for corrections in the american press
>but have found none. It would appear that american journalists are content to
>leave a FALSE impression in the minds of their readers. Can someone point me
>to an american account of this "train" story, or the Farhi hoax or the jewish
>community center arson case that is 100% truthful? No? Not a single one???
> Why not? Why were the false stories important enough to print, but not the
>more truthful "revised" stories?
>
>The NY Times mentioned that a jewish man had been arrested for the arson crime,
>but claimed that he was "disturbed". Yet there's no evidence that I've seen
>published anywhere to indicate that the accused individual EVER suffered from
>ANY psychiatric problems so this "disturbed" description appears to be a
>fabrication grounded on popular Israeli political mythology.
Exactly. Most reports that I read state that the man was examined by
doctors and the only thing found wrong with him was that he was
suffering from diabetes.
>My theory: The
>NY Times would have ignored the arrest of the jewish man altogether, except for
>the fact that many NY readers are sophisticated in their choice of news sources
>and would have encountered the truth in Le Monde are perhaps the Guardian or
>some such. Consequently, they published the story but tacked on the idea that
>the accused man was "disturbed".
>
Makes sense because then they can argue that he was not responsible
for his actions or that they are not reflective on any particular
group.
--
Gordon Radavich is innocent!
Daniel Bernard
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:f1t5d.6220$me5.729@trnddc06...
>
> "Bob" <b...@bob.bob> wrote in message
> news:3ie5d.1902$Ki1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> "Daniel Bernard" <aime...@maferme.fr> wrote
>>> I know but if he gives an order that costs American lives, then not
>>> only should the order be ignored but he should be arrested and tried
>>> or dereliction of duty.
>>
>> WTF do you know about the military???????? Would you have had FDR
>> ignore
>> Pearl Harbor because it would cost American lives????? Are Americans so
>> fond
>> of their own lives that we will refuse to fight a cause worth dying
>> for?????
>> Yer outta your freaking mind!!!!!!!!!
>
> Bernard doesn't care about anyone's life but his.
> But that's not just because he's French.
>
Hey fatass, what's that supposed to mean?
--
Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?
ZW
> >
> >
> >If the french were antisemits, how do you explain that during WW 2,
> >the jewish people were the least persecuted in France than in any
> >other european nation ?
>
> I owe you an apology. I often write using a sarcastic or satirical style
> because this helps get the point across when we're dealing with people who have
> been propagandized. I don't believe that french people are anti-semites.
> I've lived in France. My best friends in France were two well-known french
> jews, and the french are surprisingly tolerant -- although this wasn't always
> the case in their dealings with some groups of people, say algerians.
>
ok
> >France is a little bit anti semtic, just like *every* christian
> >nation. Sad, but true.
>
> You mean like "many" christian nations. The USA is very anti-semitic, but
> the anti-semitism lurks under the surface in subliminated forms. Anti-
> semitism is the major driving force in the USA behind non-jewish american
> support for Israel.
I don't know about the US, because the US has a history made of
religious tolerance and at the same time is a christian nation. Don't
know what the result is is the US about anti-semitism. All I know is
that France is not really anti-semit and the reason why there are so
many lies in the media about France is because France is one of the
only nation to speak up against the W Bush policies in Iraq and the
current Sharon policies in Palestinian territories, clear and simple.
>
> >What happens is that the US and Israel have each a reason to bash
> >France. The opposition to the war in Iraq is the reason for the US and
> >the opposition to the crimes in Palestine is the other one.
>
> Agreed.
>
Ok.
> >France is standing up, speaking up against these abuse and France is
> >getting a smear campaign in retaliation.
>
> Agreed. And thanks!
>
In that respect, it is funny to see how France is constantly accused
of cowardice when in fact, it is the only nation speaking up against
the "big boys" and defending the weak ones (Palestinian population).
> >Fair enough, you got to know what you stand for. The problem is that
> >lies and bogus stories are constantly put in people's mind in the US
> >about France. Sadn but true.
> >
> >ps: if you want credible URLs that substanciate my claims, please let
> >me know.
>
> I agree with your claims, but I would appreciate the URL just the same. In
> the near future I will probably post quite a few "anti-french" articles.
> Read between the lines and remember the english expression "tongue in
> cheek". Pardon my spelling: Je ne parle plus couramment maintenant
> mais, "tongue in cheek"?, je crois que ca s'appelle "deuxieme degre"? :-)
> Tu comprends maintenant? :-)
The problem is that 90% of the voters in the US (same in Europe) are
eating shit with great appetite, they don't even realize that they are
being manipulated. So using "deuxieme degre" and bashing France will
ony further there ignorance - doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
Not that I want to defend France, I feel at ease and free to criticize
when need be, but I essentially want to get closer to the truth and
understand what is *really* going on. The smear campaign against
France at work in the media since about 18 months is a very good
example of what mind control and propaganda can be in 2004, 99% of the
so called info is bogus, unfunded, inacurate, lies, spin, etc...
My deep belief is that americans and french people share the same
quest
for freedom and human rights; I believe that they are being divided by
a misleader, the current US president. I feel sorry for americans to
have such a bad president and I hope that he will soon disapear from
the radar screens.
Here is the URL: http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/jewvicts.html
And here is the chart:
> Jews Murdered by Country in Europe
>
> The numbers presented on the map above are graphically represented in
> the chart which follows:
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Country Jewish Population Number of Jews Percentage
> of
> September, 1939 Murdered Jews
> Murdered
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> - Poland 3,300,000 2,800,000 85.0
> - USSR (occupied
> territories) 2,100.000 1,500,000 71.4
> - Romania 850,000 425,000 50.0
> - Hungary 404,000 200,000 49.5
> - Czechoslovakia 315,000 260,000 82.5
> - France 300,000 90,000 30.0
> - Germany 210,000 171,000 81.0
> - Lithuania 150,000 135,000 90.0
> - Holland 150,000 90,000 60.0
> - Latvia 95,000 85,000 89.5
> - Belgium 90,000 40,000 44.4
> - Greece 75,000 65,000 80.0
> - Yugoslavia 75,000 55,000 73.3
> - Austria 60,000 40,000 66.6
> - Italy 57,000 15,000 26.3
> - Bulgaria 50,000 7,000 14.0
> - Others 20,000 6,000 30.0
> _________ _________ ____
> Totals 8,301,000 5,978,000 72.0
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Source: Cited in Landau, The Nazi Holocaust, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1994.
> These data originally appeared in Poliakov and Wulf (eds), Das Dritte
> Reich und die Juden: Documente und Aufsatze (Arani Verlag, GmbH, Berlin,
> 1955).
ZW
> "ZW" <zeno...@adres.nl> wrote in message
> news:5c7974fc.04092...@posting.google.com...
> > "DeMaisonneuve" <lu...@me.ca> wrote in message
> > news:<6ML4d.535$hI2...@fe51.usenetserver.com>...
> >> Excuse me Susan, but with all respects, just having you saying "lies,
> >> lies,
> >> lies" is not enough to support your point. You should bring proofs to
> >> this
> >> to make it clear to everyone.
>
> He should prove what he's saying, and he cant'.
> The women in the subway was NOT Jewish.
> There was only one incident, not many, of false burning.
> >>
> >> For now, what the guy said, is relatively close to what the news told me.
> >> Please provide some more sources agreeing with your words.
> >>
> >
> > France - or the french gvt shall I say, was correct about Iraq, no
> > real threat and a deep hole to fall into.
>
> When *they* had sold him the weapons?
(1) All western nations sold weapons to SH; SH was the best friend or
allie shall I say, to the western world at the time. He always fought
islamic fondamentalism, he always promoted women rights and
multi-religious society.
(2) 100% of the stories you hear or read about French weapons being
found or whatever have gone in smoke after a few days, simply because
they are not from reliable sources. They come from a bunch of spin
meisters that like to send false info into the wire, just to
manipulate people and bash France in retaliation for the Iraq invasion
crisis.
Please show me one case of french weapon deal with Iraq that lead to
an investigation, a trial or a guilt sentence ? There are none, simply
because the deals were legal and were part of thousands of other deals
that the US, Germany, Russia, and pretty much everyone was doing with
Iraq. The US actually sold on both sides, to Iran and to Iraq...which
french companies did not do. May be they tried and failed, I don't
know.
So, think twice. Or think once to start with.
Daniel Bernard
>>
>In that respect, it is funny to see how France is constantly accused
>of cowardice when in fact, it is the only nation speaking up against
>the "big boys" and defending the weak ones (Palestinian population).
>
smallest clue about France before the war they would not make such
stupid comments.
It is an easy insult to make but ask anyone to provide evidence and
can they?
Ah but it is not just Bush but it is also the people around him. If
Bush is defeated in the next election, I think in four years time the
same policy units will find another person to front their campaign
running on the same policies.
--
"I could care less about that because it is not my problem"
Kentucky george on NORAID/IRA while kvetching about Yurpeen reluctance to help in Iraq.
Patriot
>> I agree with your claims, but I would appreciate the URL just the same. In
>> the near future I will probably post quite a few "anti-french" articles.
>> Read between the lines and remember the english expression "tongue in
>> cheek". Pardon my spelling: Je ne parle plus couramment maintenant
>> mais, "tongue in cheek"?, je crois que ca s'appelle "deuxieme degre"? :-)
>> Tu comprends maintenant? :-)
>
>The problem is that 90% of the voters in the US (same in Europe) are
>eating shit with great appetite, they don't even realize that they are
>being manipulated. So using "deuxieme degre" and bashing France will
>ony further there ignorance - doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
You may be right. I can assure that deuxieme degre works in some cases,
judging from email, for precisely the reason that you mention. Most of the
"shit eaters" don't care about facts and logic. All they want to hear is
"agreement". Once they understand that you agree with them, they will,
however, listen to what you have to say and take note of details. If done
correctly, which is difficult, the deuxieme degre forces them to "wake up" when
they realize that there's a tremendous gap between the evidence and the
standard conclusions.
Illustration: If we say, "George Bush isn't very intelligent" at least half of
the voters will simply dismiss this conclusion. Now consider something like
this in deuxieme degre: "During his first term as president, Bush has
developed a keen understanding of world geography, and just the other day, told
members of his staff that he was striving to master the art of spelling
A-f-g-a-n-a-s-t-a-n. He should be able to spell it perfectly within another
week or two."
>Not that I want to defend France, I feel at ease and free to criticize
>when need be, but I essentially want to get closer to the truth and
>understand what is *really* going on. The smear campaign against
>France at work in the media since about 18 months is a very good
>example of what mind control and propaganda can be in 2004, 99% of the
>so called info is bogus, unfunded, inacurate, lies, spin, etc...
>
>My deep belief is that americans and french people share the same
>quest
>for freedom and human rights; I believe that they are being divided by
>a misleader, the current US president. I feel sorry for americans to
>have such a bad president and I hope that he will soon disapear from
>the radar screens.
I share your views about France. At this time, I don't share the view that
americans are interested in truth and justice. The current prevailing american
notion of "rights" for example has more in common with the ancient concept of
"rights" than the egalitarian concept put forward by enlightenment thinkers
like Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire and others. Far from being egalitarian, it's
based on special interest groups and the concept of power. This backward trend
has been going on for at least twenty years. Several polls conducted by major
polling organizations have shown that roughly 60% of americans don't believe in
our "Bill of Rights". Worse still, they would accuse political groups whose
SOLE purpose is the defense of the Bill of Rights as un-american.
Relating this to the problem of zionist influence in the USA, most zionists
applaud the idea of blaming muslims -- without evidence -- for a host of
problems in the world, ie the burning of the community center, the "train"
incident, etc. And they also love the fact that fundamentalist christians are
now whole hearted in their support for everything Israel does. What these
zionists don't realize is that the sloppy thinking that allows americans to
blame muslims-as-a-group on flimsy evidence, could easily backfire and lead to
wholesale condemnation of jews. It's revealing that jews play two major roles
in the "armageddon" fantasies conjured up by fundamentalist christians in
conjunction with current turmoil in palestine. These two roles are: 1) dead
jewish bodies; and 2) converts to fundamentalist christianity. Of course
there's a counterpart fantasy among some jews who picture christians as
mindless converts to some kind of primitive "goy" noahide religion. Both sets
of fantasies spell trouble but the dreamers don't see the danger because
they're busy dreaming about power.
Patriot
>
>> Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote...
>> > little_people said...
>
>> > We were talking about those who
>> > gave sworn testimony to the US
>> > Navy Court of Inquiry.
>
>> No, we were talking about ALL the
>> testimony, and not merely the
>> testimony that was allowed into the
>> record.
>
>Fine. Would you care to revisit the "testimony" of Ken Ecker and the
>inconsistencies
>contained therein (i.e., the part of my last post that you completely snipped
>away without adressing whatsoever)?
Not until you agree to maintain a single standard of proof in our "visit".
Any truthful account will contain little "quibble" points. I could find
dozens of quibble points in ANY of your posts by simply adopting a suitable
standard of proof that varies from line to line or point to point.
Your goal is the same as Cristol's goal. You want to defend Israel at all
costs. Ideally, you would love to have the USS Liberty incident simply
disappear from public view like the Lavon affair or the atrocities committed by
Israel in various wars or even the Pollard affair which is largely unknown or
forgotten by the american public. However, if you can't make the incident
disappear, you would be content to simply quibble and quibble and quibble and
quibble until everyone gets bored and goes away. I've got a better idea. I
think all americans should study the evidence available on the
www.ussliberty.org website and then, if they're interested, read Cristol's book
CRITICALLY to see how he deceptively works toward his pre-judged conclusion.
Once they understand what happened to the USS Liberty, they may begin to
understand what's happened to free and open speech in the USA, american civil
liberties, and our former sense of justice and fair play.
America is making some progress in the Liberty debate. For instance, Ward
Boston gives Cristol the credit for forcing him to come forward to share his
account of the coverup. If Cristol hadn't been so adamant in pursuing his
pro-Israeli defense with some particularly outrageous BS, Boston may have
remained silent forever. And I suspect that you and "Weeks" deserve some
credit for exposing the truth because the semi-professional Israeli BS on
internet discussion groups may have prompted former military "intelligence"
staffers to publish signed affadavits concerning CRITICS messages that were
circulated around the globe at the time of the attack. [Prediction: You and
Cristol will dismiss these affadavits because they weren't made verbally in a
court of law, but we don't care because NONE of your testimony was presented in
a court of law either. You see how this works? Same standard for both
sides.] Finally, there's the relatively recent Moorer Commission comprised of
retired public servants with impeccable reputations.
Israel's last line of prevarication, in any debate, is to accuse opponents of
being "jew haters". This tactic was tried on the USS Liberty survivors, but it
backfired... perhaps when a few crew members pointed out their own "jewish"
heritage. It was also attempted, albeit briefly, with Ward Boston, although
it seems that Cristol wised up and switched to the "old man with memory
problems" line of ad hominem attack to dismiss Ward Boston. How is Cristol
dismissing the Moorer Commission findings? Were Moorer and his colleagues
simply "jew haters", "old men", what?
> ...
>I am concerned with the truth, wherever the chips may fall.
No you're not. You and Cristol remind me of criminal "defense" attorneys whose
sole job is to vindicate their clients -- not to promote the truth. If you
were interesting in the truth, you wouldn't adopt standards of proof that
change to suit your convenience.
Patriot
>Uncorroborated by transcripts of fleet communications or any other such
>documentation.
>Uncorroborated by McNamara. Uncorroborrated by any statements directly
>attributable
>to Geis.
I understand your defense tactic. However, you need to understand that
"rational" thinking -- by definition -- requires us to evaluate both sides of
any equation using the same procedure. To put this in simply terms, in
deference to Cristol's "defense lawyer" mentality, let's suppose that youand I
agree to exchange, pound for pound, the carrots raised on your farm in exchange
for potatoes from my farm. Since some scales may be "heavy" and other scales
may be "light", we should weigh your carrots and my potatoes using the SAME
scale. You and Cristol invariably use different scales to weigh the
arguments -- carefully picking the most suitable scale that will suit your
task. Worst case: If all else fails, you attack the characer of Israel's
accusers.
It's important to remember that these discussions are not taking place in a
legal courtroom, and will never take place in a legal courtroom because some of
the guilty parties -- like Moshe Dayan -- are dead. Moreover, Israel has
insisted that there is a 20 year statute on murder charges when it comes to
jewish defendants, albeit not if we're talking about latvian nazis and serbian
nazis or anyone else who may have killed a jewish person at some point in time.
No, this isn't a courtroom at all. Rather it's a forum for fact-finding, and
hopefully, it may inspire more voters to ask their congress critters to demand
a fullscale congressional inquiry.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Cristol has 1) equivocated a couple of
phone calls from congressmen as "congressional investigations" -- expecting us
to believe that a congressman who calls up the pentagon to say "Hey, what was
this Liberty thing all about" is the same thing has a REAL congressional
investigation; and 2) stated that a full scale congressional investigation
would be a waste of tax payers money. Cristol's concern about taxpayers'
money is near and dear to my heart because I want to know why my country is
giving $10 billion this year alone to a country that has sold us down the drain
on several occasions including the Lavon affair, the USS Liberty attack, the
Pollard affair, the ADL spy case in San Francisco, the recent AIPAC case, etc,
etc. Ten billion to Israel, but we can't afford decent health care to many of
our own citizens.
Patriot
>Not that I want to defend France, I feel at ease and free to criticize
>when need be, but I essentially want to get closer to the truth and
>understand what is *really* going on. The smear campaign against
>France at work in the media since about 18 months is a very good
>example of what mind control and propaganda can be in 2004, 99% of the
>so called info is bogus, unfunded, inacurate, lies, spin, etc...
Some americans are learning from the experience of jews in France and Israel.
Here's an example of a jewish PROFESSOR who had created an anti-semitism
"hoax" in California but got caught when two students stepped forward to
testify that they had watched her in amazement as she vandalized her own car.
After she was convicted of filing a false insurance report last week, she
demonstrated that she has learned from french and israeli jews how to escape
justice by means of the "disturbed" label.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040918-0413-ca-professorvandalism.html
Or better yet, go to google news and search with key words: Kerri Dunn
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=Kerri+Dunn&start=20&sa=N
norm...@charter.net
i don't believe that Mike Weeks defended Israel. Norma
Susan Cohen
>
>> Patriot <usapat...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> Last but not least, it's worth
>> mentioning that you appear to have a
>> special axe to grind in this
>> dispute.
As always, bigots are projectionists (see below).
You appear to be concerned
>> about Israel, whereas the crew
>> members, Ward Boston,
>> Dean Rusk, Moorer and many others
>> are appear to be american citizens,
>> and nothing but american citizens,
Disingenuous at best.
>> who're solely concerned with the
>> defense of the USA.
>
> I am concerned with the truth, wherever the chips may fall. That you are
> apparently not so concerned with the truth (i.e., when someone is caught
> in an apparent untruth) is somewhat of a mystery.
It's because *he's* the one whose actually concerned with Israel, & Jews -
or he'd be discussing this not only with greater regard for the truth, but
on the groups relevent to his supposed concerns.
Susan
Susan Cohen
They have?
Well, this must mean that *you* are an unreliable source because YOU just
said that the French sold him weapons.
They come from a bunch of spin
> meisters that like to send false info into the wire, just to
> manipulate people and bash France in retaliation for the Iraq invasion
> crisis.
Oh, is that your motive, then?
>
> Please show me one case of french weapon deal with Iraq that lead to
> an investigation, a trial or a guilt sentence ?
Please tell me why this strawman is relevent?
There are none, simply
> because the deals were legal and were part of thousands of other deals
> that the US, Germany, Russia, and pretty much everyone was doing with
> Iraq. The US actually sold on both sides, to Iran and to Iraq...which
> french companies did not do. May be they tried and failed, I don't
> know.
>
> So, think twice. Or think once to start with.
You start.
Not only is this post nonsese, but I saw your other claptrap about
pretending France isn't antisemitic (when their oewn statistics prove they
are more so than others), & about Israel.
Susan Cohen
<norm...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:9abc4e06.04092...@posting.google.com...
[snip incredible bulk of self-serving lies]
If Israel truly attacked the USS Liberty by
>> accident it seems to me that Israeli politicians and americans with
>> israeli
>> citizenship would welcome an investigation to thoroughly and
>> conclusively
>> prove Israel's innocence.
There has already been one.
What a STUPID little lying lowlife.
>
> i don't believe that Mike Weeks defended Israel.
Yes, he constantly points out that it was an accident.
Susan
norm...@charter.net
OK. Thanks. Norma
>
> Susan
little_people
> Patriot wrote...
> > little_people said...
> > > Patriot wrote...
> > > ...we were talking about ALL the
> > > testimony, and not merely the
> > > testimony that was allowed into
> > > the record.
> > Fine. Would you care to revisit
> > the "testimony" of Ken Ecker and
> > the inconsistencies contained
> > therein (i.e., the part of my last
> > post that you completely snipped
> > away without adressing whatsoever)?
> Not until you agree to maintain a
> single standard of proof in
> our "visit".
I have only ever maintained a single standard throughout this entire discussion
- that the testimony, wherever it comes from, be supported by known facts
or records (or, at least, that it is not contradicted by known facts or records),
or that it doesn't amount to hearsay testimony (as in the case of Boston
and Lewis).
Ecker's affidavit is not supported by the known facts. He stated that he
was ordered not to talk to "the press or anyone else" under threat of court
martial. But the fact is that he did, in fact, talk to "the press", and he
was never court martialed for it. This is not merely a "quibble". This is
a direct contradiction to what he has sworn in his affidavit. And that's
why I'm calling it into question.
Now, you may not want to deal with this unconfortable dilemma. I can understand
that the facts of the matter may be inconvenient to your position, and so
you'd just as soon not address them at all. But the facts do remain in contradiction,
nonetheless.
> Any truthful account will contain
> little "quibble" points. I could
> find dozens of quibble points in ANY
> of your posts by simply adopting a
> suitable standard of proof that
> varies from line to line or point to
> point.
But I don't do that, and you cannot show where I have ever done that.
[...]
> Ideally, you would love to have the
> USS Liberty incident simply
> disappear from public view...
[...]
Actually, I enjoy talking about the USS Liberty, especially with people like
you. Invariably, you begin to reveal your own deep, DEEP biases through your
continual refusal to deal with the evidence and testimony that I bring to
the table. Instead of dealing with what I have to say, you simply snip it
all and then complain ad nauseum about some non-existent double-standard
of which you can provide not a single example (well... there aren't any,
so you *can't*). And you often stick your neck out a little too far.
For instance, you earlier asserted that there existed a general consensus
that I was, in fact A. Jay Cristol. I asked you to provide an example of
someone who believes this (or has spoken to this effect).
No response.
You earlier asserted that Boston had claimed that the USS Liberty's logs
had been altered. I asked you to provide a cite for this claim.
No response.
You earlier suggested that Cristol presents "uncorroborated" evidence in
the pages of his book (which you earlier said you had read cover to cover).
I asked you for a specific example of this.
No response.
And on, and on, and on. Snip, snip, snip... that's your only remaining recourse
when challenged on your unfounded assertions. And this is plain to see for
ANYONE else who has been following this thread.
[...]
> If Cristol hadn't been so adamant in
> pursuing his pro-Israeli defense
> with some particularly outrageous
> BS, Boston may have remained silent
> forever.
Once again, more about Ward Boston here:
http://www.thelibertyincident.com/docs/boston-comments.pdf
> And I suspect that you and "Weeks"
> deserve some credit for exposing the
> truth because the semi-professional
> Israeli BS on internet discussion
> groups may have prompted former
> military "intelligence" staffers to
> publish signed affadavits concerning
> CRITICS messages that were
> circulated around the globe at the
> time of the attack. [Prediction:
> You and Cristol will dismiss these
> affadavits because they weren't made
> verbally in a court of law, but we
> don't care because NONE of your
> testimony was presented in
> a court of law either. You see how
> this works? Same standard for both
> sides.]
No. I dismiss the affidavits because they ultimately tell us nothing beyond
a few people's supposed recollections about the contents of certain, non-existant
documents. It tells us NOTHING about the *actual* transmissions between
the Israeli pilots and their controllers. For that, we have transcripts of
the recordings of the UHF radio communiactions. One can find them here:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1086230742987
And here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/09/uss.liberty.tapes/
> Finally, there's the relatively
> recent Moorer Commission comprised
> of retired public servants with
> impeccable reputations.
Which relied heavily upon hearsay evidence (such as that of Lewis, Boston
and the CRITICS messages) and other statements not supported by the known
facts (such as that of Ecker).
> Israel's last line of prevarication,
> in any debate, is to accuse
> opponents of being "jew haters".
[...]
> Were Moorer and his colleagues
> simply "jew haters", "old men", what?
Straw Man. I have never called anyone a "jew hater" who did not, at one time
or another, profess their hatred of jews. Moorer and his colleagues do not
fall into that category.
> > I am concerned with the truth,
> > wherever the chips may fall.
> No you're not. You and Cristol
> remind me of criminal "defense"
> attorneys whose sole job is to
> vindicate their clients -- not to
> promote the truth. If you
> were interesting in the truth, you
> wouldn't adopt standards of proof
> that change to suit your convenience.
You keep alluding to this supposed double-standard of mine, but you have
yet to provide a specific example of where I've ever applied it.
I challenge you to do so now.
Nay, I DEFY you to do so now.
I await your snippage.
little_people
> Patriot wrote...
> It's important to remember that
> these discussions are not taking
> place in a legal courtroom,
Of course not. But that doesn't necessarily mean that we should not adopt
some of the same legal framework when deciding which among the evidence is
the more credible. After all, and if Jim Ennes and the LVA had its way, the
USS Liberty *would* be thoroughly investigated (and/or tried) in a courtroom
setting. Why not practice adopting the standards now? Why begin accepting
hearsay evidence as proof of a supposed cover-up? Why not rely on direct
testimony?
Do you even know what hearsay is?
http://www.fifthdistrictcourt.com/dictionary/dict-gh.htm
[...
Hearsay: Any evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have
direct knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have
said to them. For example, if Bob heard from Susan about an accident that
Susan witnessed but that Bob had not, and Bob attempted to repeat Susan's
story in court, it could be objected to as "hearsay." The basic rule, when
testifying in court, is that you can only provide information of which you
have direct knowledge. In other words, hearsay evidence is not allowed. Hearsay
evidence is also referred to as "second-hand evidence" or as "rumor." You
are able to tell a
court what you heard, to repeat the rumor, and testify that, in fact, the
story you heard was told to you, but under the hearsay rule, your testimony
would not be evidence of the actual facts of the story but only that you
heard those words spoken.
...]
So when Boston says that once Kidd told him that he was told by Johnson/McNamara
to conduct a cover-up, this is not legally admissable as evidence of what
Johnson/McNamara actually said to Kidd. It's only allowed as testimony of
what Kidd said to Boston.
Same with Lewis. When Lewis relates what Geis told him about his radio telephone
conversation with Johnson/McNamara, this is not legally admissable as evidence
of what Johnson/McNamara actually said to Geis. It's only allowed as testimony
of what Geis said to Lewis.
See how that works?
<shrug> If you can't stand the heat of the limited legal treatment of the
evidence as provided in *this* forum, then I'd tell the Jim Ennes and LVA
to stay the hell out of an actual courtroom.
They'll get torn into *shreds*.
> and will never take place in a legal
> courtroom because some of
> the guilty parties -- like Moshe
> Dayan -- are dead.
So Moshe Dayan is "guilty" *before* his actions are examined in a courtroom
setting. Is that the way it works?
Once again indicative of the deep, DEEP biases with which you approach this
subject.
John of Aix
> "ZW" <zeno...@adres.nl> wrote in message
> news:5c7974fc.04092...@posting.google.com...
>> allie shall I say, to the western world at the time. He always fought
>> islamic fondamentalism, he always promoted women rights and
>> multi-religious society.
>>
>> (2) 100% of the stories you hear or read about French weapons being
>> found or whatever have gone in smoke after a few days, simply because
>> they are not from reliable sources.
>
> They have?
> Well, this must mean that *you* are an unreliable source because YOU
> just said that the French sold him weapons.
Yes dozens of years ago. the fact is NO illegal weapons have been found
in Iraq, not French, not British, not Russian not anybody's.
>
>> Please show me one case of french weapon deal with Iraq that lead to
>> an investigation, a trial or a guilt sentence ?
>
> Please tell me why this strawman is relevent?
It isn't a strawman, the discussion is on Iraq's weapons, you seem to be
pretending that the French continued to supply them you have been
challenged to bring some sort of proof and, as usual, have not done so.
So why not answer the quastion?
> Not only is this post nonsese, but I saw your other claptrap about
> pretending France isn't antisemitic (when their oewn statistics prove
> they are more so than others).
Do they?France isn't particularly anti-Jewish, if it were it wouldn't
have the largest Jewish population in Europe. But being an educated
people they are largely anti-Zionist.