Pilot who bombed 'Liberty' talks to 'Post
Otis Willie
(EXCERPT) Arieh O'Sullivan Oct. 10, 2003
An Israeli pilot who mistakenly attacked the American intelligence
ship USS Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War said they were lucky he
had no bombs – otherwise he would have sunk her.
"There was a mistake. Mistakes happen. As far as I know, the mistake
was of the USS Liberty being there in the first place," said
Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yiftah Spector.
After 36 years Spector, who this week was dismissed by the IAF for
signing the pilots' refusal letter protesting the policy of targeted
killings, agreed to speak to a reporter for the first time on his role
in the attack on the Liberty, an American spy ship strafed on the
fourth day of the war.
Flying a Mirage III fighter jet code named "Kursa" or couch, Spector
was the first pilot to reach the...
U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully reproducing
copyrighted material. In abidance with our laws this report
cannot be provided in its entirety. However, you can read it
in full today, 10 Oct 2003, at the following URL. (COMBINE
the following lines into your web browser.) The
subject/content of this report is not necessarily the
viewpoint of the distributing Library. This report is provided
for your information and discussion.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1065773796483
---------------------------
Otis Willie
Associate Librarian
The American War Library
http://www.americanwarlibrary.com
Kevin Brooks
> Pilot who bombed 'Liberty' talks to 'Post
>
> (EXCERPT) Arieh O'Sullivan Oct. 10, 2003
>
> An Israeli pilot who mistakenly attacked the American intelligence
> ship USS Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War said they were lucky he
>
> "There was a mistake. Mistakes happen. As far as I know, the mistake
> was of the USS Liberty being there in the first place," said
> Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yiftah Spector.
Holy crap, of all the unmitigated gall; now they are claiming "the
mistake" was on the part of the US?! Gee, what are Mike and Company
(chief Israeli apologists extraordinaire when it comes to all things
Liberty) gonna make of this crap? I guess international waters in the
Med are off-limits to non-Israeli traffic, huh? Not to mention that we
have to wonder how the guy who made the attack managed to make it to
BG (so much for the Israeli "accountability" that has been repeatedly
mentioned, but rarely detailed...).
Brooks
<snip>
Jack Love
wrote:
>Otis Willie <war...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<b00fovsal6qp5a3kn...@4ax.com>...
>> Pilot who bombed 'Liberty' talks to 'Post
>>
>> (EXCERPT) Arieh O'Sullivan Oct. 10, 2003
>>
>> An Israeli pilot who mistakenly attacked the American intelligence
>> ship USS Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War said they were lucky he
>> had no bombs ? otherwise he would have sunk her.
>>
>> "There was a mistake. Mistakes happen. As far as I know, the mistake
>> was of the USS Liberty being there in the first place," said
>> Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yiftah Spector.
>
>Holy crap, of all the unmitigated gall; now they are claiming "the
>mistake" was on the part of the US?! '
According to some articles part of the confusion stemmed from the fact
that WE didn't really know where the Liberty was (chain of command
communications lag) and assured the Israelis that we had no ships in
their area of concern...They asked.
Kevin Brooks
> On 11 Oct 2003 08:18:44 -0700, broo...@yahoo.com (Kevin Brooks)
> wrote:
>
> >Otis Willie <war...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<b00fovsal6qp5a3kn...@4ax.com>...
> >> Pilot who bombed 'Liberty' talks to 'Post
> >>
> >> (EXCERPT) Arieh O'Sullivan Oct. 10, 2003
> >>
> >> An Israeli pilot who mistakenly attacked the American intelligence
> >> ship USS Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War said they were lucky he
> >> had no bombs ? otherwise he would have sunk her.
> >>
> >> "There was a mistake. Mistakes happen. As far as I know, the mistake
> >> was of the USS Liberty being there in the first place," said
> >> Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yiftah Spector.
> >
> >Holy crap, of all the unmitigated gall; now they are claiming "the
> >mistake" was on the part of the US?! '
>
> According to some articles part of the confusion stemmed from the fact
> that WE didn't really know where the Liberty was (chain of command
> communications lag) and assured the Israelis that we had no ships in
> their area of concern...They asked.
The same article mentions that it was twenty miles off Gaza when the
pilot attacked...not too much room for claiming it was anywhere near
their territorial waters in that statement. When they start plugging
vessels in international waters, the burden of proof of the target
status resides squarely in *their* court.
Brooks
Mike Weeks
>Date: 10/11/2003 08:18 Pacific Daylight Time
>Otis Willie <war...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:<b00fovsal6qp5a3kn...@4ax.com>...
>> Pilot who bombed 'Liberty' talks to 'Post
>>
>> (EXCERPT) Arieh O'Sullivan Oct. 10, 2003
>>
>> An Israeli pilot who mistakenly attacked the American intelligence
>> ship USS Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War said they were lucky he
>> had no bombs ? otherwise he would have sunk her.
>>
>> "There was a mistake. Mistakes happen. As far as I know, the mistake
>> was of the USS Liberty being there in the first place," said
>> Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yiftah Spector.
>
>Holy crap, of all the unmitigated gall; now they are claiming "the
>mistake" was on the part of the US?!
Gee, where is there anything indicating "they"??? Spector, it appears, it
speaking as to what he understands to have been the situation; that is, Liberty
at 1400 Sinai wasn't suppose to operating w/ eye-site of the Sinai coast ...
>Gee, what are Mike and Company
>(chief Israeli apologists extraordinaire when it comes to all things
>Liberty) gonna make of this crap?
Gee, that despite of all the non-Israeli claims from over the years, that
indeed the attack wasn't pre-planned and deliberate against a target that the
attacking pilots knew to be U.S.?
>I guess international waters in the
>Med are off-limits to non-Israeli traffic, huh?
Gee, "are"??? Ah, it isn't 1967 anymore, and it's certainly not 8 June 1967,
the fourth day of the third Arab-Israeli war ...
>Not to mention that we
>have to wonder how the guy who made the attack managed to make it to
>BG (so much for the Israeli "accountability" that has been repeatedly
>mentioned, but rarely detailed...).
Gee, as stated:
<start>
"Every order is given by commanders and the last one to receive it has to
decide whether he will pull the trigger or not. In this instance I was the
fighter. I checked what I had to check [i.e. that it was a military ship and
not one of ours] and pulled the trigger," Spector said.
<end>
It's really a stretch to assume otherwise of a jet jock not trained in maritime
warfare during a war who is given specific instructions ...
MW
-------------------------------------
"As soon as movement begins, so does the fog of war" - Edward N. Luttwak
Mike Weeks
>Date: 10/11/2003 20:22 Pacific Daylight Time
>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:24:44 GMT, Jack Love
><jackxx...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>According to some articles part of the confusion stemmed from the fact
>>that WE didn't really know where the Liberty was (chain of command
>>communications lag) and assured the Israelis that we had no ships in
>>their area of concern...They asked.
>>><snip>
>
>What's more significant is that the USS Liberty HAD been sent orders
>to move to 100 miles off the coast - and thus Pentagon planners
>*thought* she was far from the scene.
>
>However, the repositioning order never arrived onboard Liberty.
>These things happen - the warning to Pearl Harbor in 1941 wasn't read
>till AFTER the attack.
>
>So the Israeli pilot, Brig.-Gen. Spector, was literally correct - the
>USS Liberty WAS there by mistake - or rather, a series of mistakes.
And it was of concern even before Liberty transmitted her first detailed SitRep
...
<start>
O 081711Z JUN 67
FM CINCUSNAVEUR
TO NAVCOMMSTA ASMARA
WIRENOTE FOR CDR BAKER
BT
UNCLAS EFTO
A. JCS 080110Z JUN 67
[B. COMSIXTHFLT 080917Z JUN 67]
1. REF A WAS ADDRESSED TO SEVERAL ADDEES INCLUDING USS LIBERTY BUT INCORRECTLY
ROUTED TO PHIL. IMPORTANT TO ASCERTAIN IF THIS MESSAGE WAS IN FACT RECEIVED BY
LIBERTY. ASSUME DELIVERY WOULD HAVE BEEN OVER JRTT BROADCAST IF PHIL
READDRESSED TO YOU. REQUEST CHECK AND ASCERTAIN IF MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED AND
PLACED ON BROADCAST AND ADVISE IF YOU HAVE ANY INDICATION LIBERTY ACTUALLY
RECEIVED.
2. ADVISE ALSO IF REF B RECEIVED FOR RELAY TO USS LIBERTY AND IF DELIVERED.
EXPEDIATE REPLY. BEST REGARDS CAPT RAISH.
BT
<end>
For a detailed review of the recall orders and the various paths they took,
suggest:
http://libertyincident.com/timeline.htm
and after downloading the PDF file, search on key word "standoff."
Mike Weeks
>Date: 10/11/2003 20:27 Pacific Daylight Time
>The same article mentions that it was twenty miles off Gaza when the
>pilot attacked...
Less than twenty, more like 15, and off the Sinai's El Arish -- not Gaza ...
>not too much room for claiming it was anywhere near
>their territorial waters in that statement.
Ah, naval warfare doesn't take place only within territorial waters. And when
did the GOI EVER claim that the attack took place w/in Israeli territorial
waters ...?????
> When they start plugging
>vessels in international waters, the burden of proof of the target
>status resides squarely in *their* court.
Yup. And at the same time it was, is today, fully understood that the sailing
of a third-party vessel into an active war zone can entail certain risks, no
matter the legal responsibilities of the warring parties.
<start>
(C-CCO) In view of the sensitivity regarding the U.A.R. charges of U.S.
complicity with Israel and following a question from the U.S. Chief of Naval
Operations about the wisdom of Liberty' assignment in the war zone ...
<end>
From pg. 21, the NSA 1981c Report "Attack on a Sigint Collector, the U.S.S.
Liberty (S-CCO)"
http://libertyincident.com/nsa.htm
or
http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/liberty.html
What's the saying? "You can be right, but you can also be dead right." ?
Jim Watt
> I was the
>fighter. I checked what I had to check [i.e. that it was a military ship and
>not one of ours] and pulled the trigger," Spector said.
><end>
>
>It's really a stretch to assume otherwise of a jet jock not trained in maritime
>warfare during a war who is given specific instructions ...
Thats why there were survellance flights over the ship previously.
If the Jeruselem post reported that that it was anything but a 'tragic
mistake' it might be remarkable.
--
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
Steve Richter
was of >the USS Liberty being there in the first place," said
Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yiftah >Spector.
Its the ol', if only us Jews didnt have to deal with the stupid non
Jews, lament. Spector is being defensive ( and offensive ). Sounds
like the words of someone who knows he did the wrong thing.
>"I did not fire on the Liberty as a human target. I was sent to
attack a >sailing vessel. This ship was on an escape route from the El
Arish area, which >at that same moment had heavy smoke rising from
it," Spector said.
That is pretty close to being a lie. Israeli apologist Cristol
recounts US Navy Court of Inquiry testimony on pg 33 and 34 of his
book "the still unexplained attack on the liberty". From the book:
"...at 1130 the ship arrived at point bravo ... suddenly a large
explosion rocked the town of El Arish ... at noon, thick black smoke
extended for miles along the beach ..."
McGonagle then details a "large billowing cloud of smoke rising from
15 to 20 miles to the west of El Arish on the beach". A final
explosion and smoke are reported by McGonagle at 1330: "...At about
1330 a smaller cloud of black smoke was noted to the west of El Arish
estimated 5 to 6 miles along the coastline."
Spector attacks the Liberty at 1355. With the first explosion taking
place at 1130, that means this Egyptian naval flotilla has been
shelling the beach for 2 1/2 hours by the time Israeli forces spring
into action. And with the last, smaller explosion taking place at
1330, you have to question how much "heavy smoke" would be rising from
the explosion site 15 to 20 minutes afterward.
>"It was thought to be an Egyptian vessel. This ship positively did
not have >any symbol or flag that I could see. What I was concerned
with was that it was >not one of ours. I looked for the symbol of our
navy, which was a large white >cross on its deck," he told The
Jerusalem Post. "This was not there, so it >wasn't one of ours."
Note that the reporter from the Israeli newspaper does not ask if
Spector saw the many "weird antenna" on the Liberty that Micha Limor,
MTB crewman, says everyone on the MTBs (except the captains of the
boats and CDR Oren) saw.
Also, Spector is also not asked why he did not see the men sunning
themselves on the ships deck while he was checking for the white cross
on that same deck. These are the same men that he killed on his first
straffing run.
>Speaking of the event 36 years later may have caused Spector to mix
what he >remembered with what he may have read and his testimony does
not always match >archival facts.
note to reader: here comes something we, the Israeli coverup machine,
cant explain, so we have to discredit the witness.
>"I circled it twice and it did not fire on me. My assumption was that
it was >likely to open fire at me and nevertheless I slowed down and I
looked and >there was positively no flag. Just to make sure I
photographed it," said >Spector, who retired from active duty as a
brigadier-general in 1984.
First of all, on the "circled twice" claim:
McGonagle does not report being circled twice before the attack.
McGonagle says in the testimony that the initial attack planes were
sighted by the ships radar as they passed over the approaching MTB
fleet. Then, ( I think ) as McGonagle is watching one jet as it
approaches the ship, the attack is started by the 2nd plane that
appears to approach from behind and catches McGonagle, the sun bathing
officers, and the rest of the crew, by surprise.
Remember, Spector says he circled twice and slowed down to look the
ship over. You have to assume he sees the sun bathing sailors. Esp
since they were gunned down on the first attack run. Question 1 is,
are Egyptian sailors known to sun bath on deck, esp while the ship is
on an escape run after shelling the beach? The 2nd question our
reported does not ask at this point is if Spector saw the 10' high bow
markings on either side of the Liberty. MTB fleet CDR Oren saw them
at some unknown point, but they meant nothing to that mariner. The
pilot of Royal flight, the 2nd set of attack planes, saw the bow
markings and they did mean something to him. Did Spector see the bow
markings?
>Experts intimately acquainted with the incident said that the only
photos >Spector took were from his gun-sight camera during his
strafing run. >Regardless of whether the 455-foot ship bristling with
eavesdropping antennas >flew a US flag, which it evidently did from
its starboard halyard, that banner >was shot off in Spector's first
strafing pass.
So the old guy says he took the phone pre attack, but surely, the
unnamed experts say, he must be mistaken. Spector must have
testified, whitewash or not, at the Israeli aftermath investigations.
We need to see that testimony. Maybe this is one of the reasons that
the GOI will not release it.
>"Every order is given by commanders and the last one to receive it
has to >decide whether he will pull the trigger or not. In this
instance I was the >fighter. I checked what I had to check [i.e. that
it was a military ship and >not one of ours] and pulled the trigger,"
Spector said.
Hard to believe. If the Liberty was a Russian ship, the fallout for
Israel had the potential to be very serious.
>"I know that after the war one of the first things that was done was
the >establishment of a [US] senator's inquiry. I know this
personally, because I >was called upon to testify before it. They came
to the country and I was >questioned. I told them what I told you just
now – that there was a mistake. I >am sorry for the mistake. In war
mistakes happen," Spector said.
Stop the tape! The US Congress interviewed Spector and others in
Israel? Where is that testimony?
>"They must understand that a mistake was made here," Spector said.
"The fool >is one who wanders about in the dark in dangerous places,
so they should not >come with any complaints."
Well, offensive or not, at least the guy will speak his mind.
-Steve
Kevin Brooks
> >From: broo...@yahoo.com (Kevin Brooks)
> >Date: 10/11/2003 08:18 Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >Otis Willie <war...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >news:<b00fovsal6qp5a3kn...@4ax.com>...
> >> Pilot who bombed 'Liberty' talks to 'Post
> >>
> >> (EXCERPT) Arieh O'Sullivan Oct. 10, 2003
> >>
> >> An Israeli pilot who mistakenly attacked the American intelligence
> >> ship USS Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War said they were lucky he
> >> had no bombs ? otherwise he would have sunk her.
> >>
> >> "There was a mistake. Mistakes happen. As far as I know, the mistake
> >> was of the USS Liberty being there in the first place," said
> >> Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yiftah Spector.
> >
> >Holy crap, of all the unmitigated gall; now they are claiming "the
> >mistake" was on the part of the US?!
>
> Gee, where is there anything indicating "they"??? Spector, it appears, it
> speaking as to what he understands to have been the situation; that is, Liberty
> at 1400 Sinai wasn't suppose to operating w/ eye-site of the Sinai coast ...
He indicates it took place twenty miles off the coast (whether he is
correct or not is another issue, as was his claim that he
"photographed" the Liberty before attacking it); hardly "within
sight". Not that this has a darned thing to do with the the crass
claim that it was our fault--it was in international waters
*regardless* of which accouint you believe.
>
> >Gee, what are Mike and Company
> >(chief Israeli apologists extraordinaire when it comes to all things
> >Liberty) gonna make of this crap?
>
> Gee, that despite of all the non-Israeli claims from over the years, that
> indeed the attack wasn't pre-planned and deliberate against a target that the
> attacking pilots knew to be U.S.?
Nice sidestep attempt...uhmmm, now back to the point--was this guy
right in blaming the US for making "the mistake" that resulted in
those dead sailors?
>
> >I guess international waters in the
> >Med are off-limits to non-Israeli traffic, huh?
>
> Gee, "are"??? Ah, it isn't 1967 anymore, and it's certainly not 8 June 1967,
> the fourth day of the third Arab-Israeli war ...
Oh, so freakin' sorry..."were"? Yes or no?
>
> >Not to mention that we
> >have to wonder how the guy who made the attack managed to make it to
> >BG (so much for the Israeli "accountability" that has been repeatedly
> >mentioned, but rarely detailed...).
>
> Gee, as stated:
>
> <start>
> "Every order is given by commanders and the last one to receive it has to
> decide whether he will pull the trigger or not. In this instance I was the
> fighter. I checked what I had to check [i.e. that it was a military ship and
> not one of ours] and pulled the trigger," Spector said.
> <end>
>
> It's really a stretch to assume otherwise of a jet jock not trained in maritime
> warfare during a war who is given specific instructions ...
A jet jock who goes on to (based upon other past Israeli claims) is
now lying by claiming that he photographed the vessel *before* his
attack to document his claim that no flag was flying? Again--where was
the accountability? Who had exactly *what* done to them? You always
get a bit wishy-washy when it comes to this question. Here is your
chance to set the record straight and tell us what officers were
disciplined, and how, and the effect on their later careers. Well?
Brooks
>
> MW
> -------------------------------------
Kevin Brooks
> >From: broo...@yahoo.com (Kevin Brooks)
> >Date: 10/11/2003 20:27 Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >The same article mentions that it was twenty miles off Gaza when the
> >pilot attacked...
>
> Less than twenty, more like 15, and off the Sinai's El Arish -- not Gaza ...
Well, that differs from what this article indicates--not that it
matters much either way--it wwas still in international waters the
entire time.
>
> >not too much room for claiming it was anywhere near
> >their territorial waters in that statement.
>
> Ah, naval warfare doesn't take place only within territorial waters. And when
> did the GOI EVER claim that the attack took place w/in Israeli territorial
> waters ...?????
It is the attacker's responsibility to ensure correct ID outside
territoraial waters.
>
> > When they start plugging
> >vessels in international waters, the burden of proof of the target
> >status resides squarely in *their* court.
>
> Yup. And at the same time it was, is today, fully understood that the sailing
> of a third-party vessel into an active war zone can entail certain risks, no
> matter the legal responsibilities of the warring parties.
It is the attacker's responsibility to ensure correct ID outside
territoraial waters (hate to be repetitive, but when the shoe
fits...).
>
> <start>
> (C-CCO) In view of the sensitivity regarding the U.A.R. charges of U.S.
> complicity with Israel and following a question from the U.S. Chief of Naval
> Operations about the wisdom of Liberty' assignment in the war zone ...
> <end>
>
> From pg. 21, the NSA 1981c Report "Attack on a Sigint Collector, the U.S.S.
> Liberty (S-CCO)"
>
> http://libertyincident.com/nsa.htm
>
> or
>
> http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/liberty.html
>
> What's the saying? "You can be right, but you can also be dead right." ?
Nice sidestep. Now, backk to the point at hand--was "the mistake" on
the part of the US as this pilot indicated, or not?
It is amazing how far you will go in trying to whitewash the Israeli
screwups that led to this disaster.
Brooks
>
> MW
Kevin Brooks
> >From: broo...@yahoo.com (Kevin Brooks)
> >Date: 10/11/2003 08:18 Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >Otis Willie <war...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >news:<b00fovsal6qp5a3kn...@4ax.com>...
> >> Pilot who bombed 'Liberty' talks to 'Post
> >>
> >> (EXCERPT) Arieh O'Sullivan Oct. 10, 2003
> >>
> >> An Israeli pilot who mistakenly attacked the American intelligence
> >> ship USS Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War said they were lucky he
> >> had no bombs ? otherwise he would have sunk her.
> >>
> >> "There was a mistake. Mistakes happen. As far as I know, the mistake
> >> was of the USS Liberty being there in the first place," said
> >> Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yiftah Spector.
> >
> >Holy crap, of all the unmitigated gall; now they are claiming "the
> >mistake" was on the part of the US?!
>
> Gee, where is there anything indicating "they"??? Spector, it appears, it
> speaking as to what he understands to have been the situation; that is, Liberty
> at 1400 Sinai wasn't suppose to operating w/ eye-site of the Sinai coast ...
He indicates it took place twenty miles off the coast (whether he is
correct or not is another issue, as was his claim that he
"photographed" the Liberty before attacking it); hardly "within
sight". Not that this has a darned thing to do with the the crass
claim that it was our fault--it was in international waters
*regardless* of which accouint you believe.
>
> >Gee, what are Mike and Company
> >(chief Israeli apologists extraordinaire when it comes to all things
> >Liberty) gonna make of this crap?
>
> Gee, that despite of all the non-Israeli claims from over the years, that
> indeed the attack wasn't pre-planned and deliberate against a target that the
> attacking pilots knew to be U.S.?
Nice sidestep attempt...uhmmm, now back to the point--was this guy
right in blaming the US for making "the mistake" that resulted in
those dead sailors?
>
> >I guess international waters in the
> >Med are off-limits to non-Israeli traffic, huh?
>
> Gee, "are"??? Ah, it isn't 1967 anymore, and it's certainly not 8 June 1967,
> the fourth day of the third Arab-Israeli war ...
Oh, so freakin' sorry..."were"? Yes or no?
>
> >Not to mention that we
> >have to wonder how the guy who made the attack managed to make it to
> >BG (so much for the Israeli "accountability" that has been repeatedly
> >mentioned, but rarely detailed...).
>
> Gee, as stated:
>
> <start>
> "Every order is given by commanders and the last one to receive it has to
> decide whether he will pull the trigger or not. In this instance I was the
> fighter. I checked what I had to check [i.e. that it was a military ship and
> not one of ours] and pulled the trigger," Spector said.
> <end>
>
> It's really a stretch to assume otherwise of a jet jock not trained in maritime
> warfare during a war who is given specific instructions ...
A jet jock who goes on to (based upon other past Israeli claims) is
Paul J. Adam
Brooks <broo...@yahoo.com> writes
>When they start plugging
>vessels in international waters, the burden of proof of the target
>status resides squarely in *their* court.
That's a novel point of view, Kevin, and one considered downright
unpatriotic by some of your countrymen.
(Iran Air 655, to jog your memory. Lots of rhetoric expended about how
the USN couldn't be expected to accept a potential threat, and it was
the Iranian's fault for flying a scheduled flight in an ICAO lane with
correct IFF past a USN ship...)
No idea where _you_ stand on the matter (probably more sensibly than
most) but the US did a lot of chest-pounding "absolute right of
self-defence" after IA655 and many posters have defined rules of
engagement that would make the LIBERTY entirely fair game by US rules.
The Israelis were in a shooting war, the LIBERTY was offering means of
identification but they weren't obvious, she wasn't exactly where she
was meant to be... and so she was attacked in a "regrettable mistake".
What did the Israelis do wrong that the US has not claimed as correct
sensible measures for ships in combat?
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Kevin Brooks
> >From: broo...@yahoo.com (Kevin Brooks)
> >Date: 10/11/2003 20:27 Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >The same article mentions that it was twenty miles off Gaza when the
> >pilot attacked...
>
> Less than twenty, more like 15, and off the Sinai's El Arish -- not Gaza ...
Well, that differs from what this article indicates--not that it
matters much either way--it wwas still in international waters the
entire time.
>
> >not too much room for claiming it was anywhere near
> >their territorial waters in that statement.
>
> Ah, naval warfare doesn't take place only within territorial waters. And when
> did the GOI EVER claim that the attack took place w/in Israeli territorial
> waters ...?????
It is the attacker's responsibility to ensure correct ID outside
territoraial waters.
>
> > When they start plugging
> >vessels in international waters, the burden of proof of the target
> >status resides squarely in *their* court.
>
> Yup. And at the same time it was, is today, fully understood that the sailing
> of a third-party vessel into an active war zone can entail certain risks, no
> matter the legal responsibilities of the warring parties.
It is the attacker's responsibility to ensure correct ID outside
territoraial waters (hate to be repetitive, but when the shoe
fits...).
>
> <start>
> (C-CCO) In view of the sensitivity regarding the U.A.R. charges of U.S.
> complicity with Israel and following a question from the U.S. Chief of Naval
> Operations about the wisdom of Liberty' assignment in the war zone ...
> <end>
>
> From pg. 21, the NSA 1981c Report "Attack on a Sigint Collector, the U.S.S.
> Liberty (S-CCO)"
>
> http://libertyincident.com/nsa.htm
>
> or
>
> http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/liberty.html
>
> What's the saying? "You can be right, but you can also be dead right." ?
Nice sidestep. Now, backk to the point at hand--was "the mistake" on
Kevin Brooks
> >Date: 10/11/2003 20:27 Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >The same article mentions that it was twenty miles off Gaza when the
> >pilot attacked...
>
> Less than twenty, more like 15, and off the Sinai's El Arish -- not Gaza ...
Well, that differs from what this article indicates--not that it
matters much either way--it wwas still in international waters the
entire time.
>
> >not too much room for claiming it was anywhere near
> >their territorial waters in that statement.
>
> Ah, naval warfare doesn't take place only within territorial waters. And when
> did the GOI EVER claim that the attack took place w/in Israeli territorial
> waters ...?????
It is the attacker's responsibility to ensure correct ID outside
territoraial waters.
>
> > When they start plugging
> >vessels in international waters, the burden of proof of the target
> >status resides squarely in *their* court.
>
> Yup. And at the same time it was, is today, fully understood that the sailing
> of a third-party vessel into an active war zone can entail certain risks, no
> matter the legal responsibilities of the warring parties.
It is the attacker's responsibility to ensure correct ID outside
territoraial waters (hate to be repetitive, but when the shoe
fits...).
>
> <start>
> (C-CCO) In view of the sensitivity regarding the U.A.R. charges of U.S.
> complicity with Israel and following a question from the U.S. Chief of Naval
> Operations about the wisdom of Liberty' assignment in the war zone ...
> <end>
>
> From pg. 21, the NSA 1981c Report "Attack on a Sigint Collector, the U.S.S.
> Liberty (S-CCO)"
>
> http://libertyincident.com/nsa.htm
>
> or
>
> http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/liberty.html
>
> What's the saying? "You can be right, but you can also be dead right." ?
Nice sidestep. Now, backk to the point at hand--was "the mistake" on
Fred J. McCall
:In message <1e6ea40d.03101...@posting.google.com>, Kevin
:Brooks <broo...@yahoo.com> writes
:>When they start plugging
:>vessels in international waters, the burden of proof of the target
:>status resides squarely in *their* court.
:
:That's a novel point of view, Kevin, and one considered downright
:unpatriotic by some of your countrymen.
:
:(Iran Air 655, to jog your memory. Lots of rhetoric expended about how
:the USN couldn't be expected to accept a potential threat, and it was
:the Iranian's fault for flying a scheduled flight in an ICAO lane with
:correct IFF past a USN ship...)
:
:No idea where _you_ stand on the matter (probably more sensibly than
:most) but the US did a lot of chest-pounding "absolute right of
:self-defence" after IA655 and many posters have defined rules of
:engagement that would make the LIBERTY entirely fair game by US rules.
:
:The Israelis were in a shooting war, the LIBERTY was offering means of
:identification but they weren't obvious, she wasn't exactly where she
:was meant to be... and so she was attacked in a "regrettable mistake".
:What did the Israelis do wrong that the US has not claimed as correct
:sensible measures for ships in combat?
I'll ask the simple question, Paul. Who or what was the Liberty an
immediate and urgent threat to? If the answer is, as it seems it must
be, "no one", then attempting to compare to Iran Air is much too large
a stretch.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Jim Watt
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The Israelis were in a shooting war, the LIBERTY was offering means of
>identification but they weren't obvious
Take a look at the picture of the ship
I get to see some strange ships passing down the straits, but that
one is unique and only nation had anything like it at the time.
It was too big to be a russian trawler.
Joshua Mathias
overrated. Its record of victories is due to the fact of its inferior
enemies not its skill in battle. In reality they would be defeated
faster than the Iraqis in a battle with the US.
Ron Gotcher
> >mistake" was on the part of the US?!
>
> Gee, where is there anything indicating "they"??? Spector, it appears, it
> speaking as to what he understands to have been the situation; that is, Liberty
> at 1400 Sinai wasn't suppose to operating w/ eye-site of the Sinai coast ...
Mike, its comforting to know that some things never change, like your
selective memory. On June 9th, Israeli Lt. Col. Bloch, acting on
behalf of the Israeli government, telephoned the Naval Attaché at the
United States Embassy and read a prepared statement:
1. Ship was sighted and recognized as a naval ship, 13 miles from the
coast. [A lie, the ship never came within 17 miles of the EGYPTIAN
coast and about 40 miles of the Israeli coast]
2. Presence in a fighting area is against international custom.
[Another lie, perhaps on the planet Bloch came from that is the case,
but on this one we have international laws to protect neutrals.]
3. The area is not a common passage for ships. [What a stretch, this
has absolutely nothing to do with Israel's legal obligations toward
neutrals.]
4. Egypt had declared the area closed to neutrals. [Another lie, never
happened.]
5. Liberty resembles the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir. [About as
closely as Ariel Sharon resembles Mother Teresa.]
6. Ship was not flying flag when sighted. She moved at quote high
speed unquote westward toward enemy coast. [Both lies.]
Then there is the infamous "Yarushelmi Report," which offered up
another big lie::
"There is no doubt to the fact, that the refusal of the "Liberty" to
identify herself to the torpedo boats, largely contributed to the
error of identification. The Division Commander testified that he
signaled the "Liberty" after the aircraft attack and requested its
identification, and was answered ‘identify yourself first'".
> Gee, that despite of all the non-Israeli claims from over the years, that
> indeed the attack wasn't pre-planned and deliberate against a target that the
> attacking pilots knew to be U.S.?
The term "lying pack of SOBs" certainly comes to mind.
> >I guess international waters in the
> >Med are off-limits to non-Israeli traffic, huh?
>
> Gee, "are"??? Ah, it isn't 1967 anymore, and it's certainly not 8 June 1967,
> the fourth day of the third Arab-Israeli war ...
Again, some things never change:
"An Israeli "Jericho" surface-to-surface ballistic missile landed near
a U.S. Navy Aegis cruiser in the eastern Mediterranean last month,
according to a Washington Post report. During most of its flight, the
missile appeared on the cruiser's air-warning sensors as aiming for
the U.S. ship. However, the missile landed some 65 kilometers away
from the USS Anzio, which was cruising 350 kilometers west of the
Israeli coast.
According to the U.S. Department of Defense, the incident occured when
Israel carried out a test launch of a Jericho-1 medium-range missile
on April 6. The USN Aegis cruiser, a dedicated air-defense ship, was
at the time accompanying the aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower and
another cruiser on their way to conducting joint exercises with
Israeli forces. One Defense Department official said that the
customary "Notice to Aviators and Mariners" was not given prior to the
test. According to the Americans, this marked the third time that no
such warning was given to a U.S. warship during the last two years."
[http://www.fas.org/news/israel/000503-kat9_6.htm]
> >Not to mention that we
> >have to wonder how the guy who made the attack managed to make it to
> >BG (so much for the Israeli "accountability" that has been repeatedly
> >mentioned, but rarely detailed...).
>
> Gee, as stated:
>
> <start>
> "Every order is given by commanders and the last one to receive it has to
> decide whether he will pull the trigger or not. In this instance I was the
> fighter. I checked what I had to check [i.e. that it was a military ship and
> not one of ours] and pulled the trigger," Spector said.
> <end>
>
> It's really a stretch to assume otherwise of a jet jock not trained in maritime
> warfare during a war who is given specific instructions ...
I don't know if you received the same training as those of us who
served on active duty, but I was taught that "just following orders"
was no longer valid as a defense, particularly when it involves a war
crime. Spector had to know that he was attacking a ship on the high
seas. He went ahead and attacked an unidentified ship on the high seas
that had no obvious offensive armament. That was his decision. The
cowardly piece of shit should be snatched by US special ops personnel,
brought here and tried as the war criminal that he is.
Kevin Brooks
> In message <1e6ea40d.03101...@posting.google.com>, Kevin
> Brooks <broo...@yahoo.com> writes
> >When they start plugging
> >vessels in international waters, the burden of proof of the target
> >status resides squarely in *their* court.
>
> That's a novel point of view, Kevin, and one considered downright
> unpatriotic by some of your countrymen.
>
> (Iran Air 655, to jog your memory. Lots of rhetoric expended about how
> the USN couldn't be expected to accept a potential threat, and it was
> the Iranian's fault for flying a scheduled flight in an ICAO lane with
> correct IFF past a USN ship...)
>
> No idea where _you_ stand on the matter (probably more sensibly than
> most) but the US did a lot of chest-pounding "absolute right of
> self-defence" after IA655 and many posters have defined rules of
> engagement that would make the LIBERTY entirely fair game by US rules.
(Google and Adelphia are killing me---"no network server"...trying
once again...)
The issue here is a pilot who claims that "THE mistake" (emphasis
added to singular "the") was USian in regards to Liberty. BTW, if you
have missed it, the US accepted responsibility for the IranAir
disaster--kind of makes that point of obfuscation of yours moot.
>
> The Israelis were in a shooting war, the LIBERTY was offering means of
> identification but they weren't obvious, she wasn't exactly where she
> was meant to be... and so she was attacked in a "regrettable mistake".
> What did the Israelis do wrong that the US has not claimed as correct
> sensible measures for ships in combat?
THE mistake. You buy that interpretation?
Brooks
Brian Allardice
I can also accept that it was deliberate - for whatever bizarre Israeli reason
- but that the American administration decided to look the other way in pursuit
of greater objectives; nasty, to be sure, but it happens. What I cannot
understand are the Americans who continue to cover-up, obfuscate, and deny for
no other purpose than to shield Israel from any criticism whatsoever. Seems
Pollard is far from alone...
Cheers,
dba
Mike Weeks
>Date: 10/12/2003 18:03 Pacific Daylight Time
>mic...@aol.comnojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote in message
>news:<20031012015223...@mb-m03.aol.com>...
>> >From: broo...@yahoo.com (Kevin Brooks)
>> >Date: 10/11/2003 08:18 Pacific Daylight Time
>>
>> >Holy crap, of all the unmitigated gall; now they are claiming "the
>> >mistake" was on the part of the US?!
>>
>> Gee, where is there anything indicating "they"??? Spector, it appears, it
>> speaking as to what he understands to have been the situation; that is,
>Liberty
>> at 1400 Sinai wasn't suppose to operating w/ eye-site of the Sinai coast
>...
>
>Mike, its comforting to know that some things never change, like your
>selective memory.
Really? Let's see what to make of the selective gems mentioned below ...
>On June 9th, Israeli Lt. Col. Bloch, acting on
>behalf of the Israeli government, telephoned the Naval Attaché at the
>United States Embassy and read a prepared statement:
>
>1. Ship was sighted and recognized as a naval ship, 13 miles from the
>coast. [A lie, the ship never came within 17 miles of the EGYPTIAN
>coast and about 40 miles of the Israeli coast]
A lie? Really? It's known to be a lie because...??? Then, when the USN
declared, and DoD released:
"... At one point the ship was, in fact, 13.6 miles from the coast. ..."
Or when the DoD released in NR 542-67
"A U.S. Navy technical research ship, the USS LIBERTY (AGTR-5), was attacked at
about 9:00 A.M. (EDT) today approximately 15 miles north of the Sinai Peninsula
in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea."
we all should instead take the word that the distance was in fact never less
than 17 miles ... Now, is that statement perhaps a mistake, or was it in fact
a lie; hmmm, one does wonder ...
Do luv also the red herring relating to which coast, as if it mattered one bit
on 8 June 1967.
>2. Presence in a fighting area is against international custom.
>[Another lie, perhaps on the planet Bloch came from that is the case,
>but on this one we have international laws to protect neutrals.]
A lie? Really? It's a lie because the GOI knew for a fact that it was
customary for neutral nations to rush ships, unannounced, into areas such as
w/in eyesight of where it was known warfare was taking place ...
Now, if one wishes to have some fun w/ apparently this favorite word ("lie")
then perhaps the GOI dubious point can be compared w/ the USN response:
" ...A neutral nation, in this respect alone, thus has a legitimate reason and
a legal right to dispatch a ship into international waters adjacent to an area
of hostilities, in fulfillment of its obligation to protect its nationals and
to evacuate those who desire evacuation. It was in fulfillment of such a
mission that USS LIBERTY was engaged. ..."
Again, what was Liberty's mission? And w/in sight of El Arish on 8 June 1967;
what had been taking place in the immediate vicinity since 5 June?
It's rather silly to make much of the earlier efforts by the GOI to do damage
control for its screw up by the misuse of a certain word ...
>3. The area is not a common passage for ships. [What a stretch, this
>has absolutely nothing to do with Israel's legal obligations toward
>neutrals.]
>4. Egypt had declared the area closed to neutrals. [Another lie, never
>happened.]
A lie? It can be proven that the GOI knew for a fact that Egypt had not made
ANY type of declaration relating to shipping? After all, Egypt had declared
the Suez Canal closed ...
Look, it's becoming very clear; this overuse of the word "lie" simply negates
the message, whatever it might be.
>5. Liberty resembles the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir. [About as
>closely as Ariel Sharon resembles Mother Teresa.]
Even the USN declared: "...While EL QUSEIR bears a highly superficial
resemblance to LIBERTY, she more closely resembles the majority of older tramp
steamers operating in ocean shipping. ..."
when taking Israel to task for confusing the two vessels.
>6. Ship was not flying flag when sighted. She moved at quote high
>speed unquote westward toward enemy coast. [Both lies.]
Lies?? Gee, what a declaration. It can no doubt be proven that the GOI (or
even Bloch) knew for an established fact otherwise.
These type of comments get real old, real fast.
>Then there is the infamous "Yarushelmi Report," which offered up
>another big lie::
>
>"There is no doubt to the fact, that the refusal of the "Liberty" to
>identify herself to the torpedo boats, largely contributed to the
>error of identification. The Division Commander testified that he
>signaled the "Liberty" after the aircraft attack and requested its
>identification, and was answered ‘identify yourself first'".
Once again boys and girls, this favorite word. Awaiting a demonstration which
will show that Yarushelmi knew for a fact that what he wrote was not only
inaccurate, but was in fact truly a lie.
>> Gee, that despite of all the non-Israeli claims from over the years, that
>> indeed the attack wasn't pre-planned and deliberate against a target that
>the
>> attacking pilots knew to be U.S.?
>
>The term "lying pack of SOBs" certainly comes to mind.
Only to a mind which truly is very selective ...
>> >I guess international waters in the
>> >Med are off-limits to non-Israeli traffic, huh?
>>
>> Gee, "are"??? Ah, it isn't 1967 anymore, and it's certainly not 8 June
>1967,
>> the fourth day of the third Arab-Israeli war ...
>
>Again, some things never change:
Wow, a press report of missile tests some 30 years later - wow, that's really
something there. What's the term? A mountain out of a mole hill??
>"An Israeli "Jericho" surface-to-surface ballistic missile landed near
>a U.S. Navy Aegis cruiser in the eastern Mediterranean last month,
>according to a Washington Post report. ...
>> >Not to mention that we
>> >have to wonder how the guy who made the attack managed to make it to
>> >BG (so much for the Israeli "accountability" that has been repeatedly
>> >mentioned, but rarely detailed...).
>>
>> Gee, as stated:
>>
>> <start>
>> "Every order is given by commanders and the last one to receive it has to
>> decide whether he will pull the trigger or not. In this instance I was the
>> fighter. I checked what I had to check [i.e. that it was a military ship
>and
>> not one of ours] and pulled the trigger," Spector said.
>> <end>
>>
>> It's really a stretch to assume otherwise of a jet jock not trained in
>maritime
>> warfare during a war who is given specific instructions ...
>
>I don't know if you received the same training as those of us who
>served on active duty, but I was taught that "just following orders"
>was no longer valid as a defense, particularly when it involves a war
>crime.
Ah, the term was "illegal orders" ...
And when it comes to the overuse of "war crime"; why not name the grave
breech(es) (that is, serious violation) that it's thought Spector, a legal
combatant, violated on 8 June 1967? Especially as it applies to war-at-sea and
the law which allows, for example, the use of "ruses" ....
>Spector had to know that he was attacking a ship on the high
>seas.
"Had to know"??? Like he had GPS aboard his Mirage?? But even if he assumed
such, so what? He was a legal combatant on 8 June 1967.
>He went ahead and attacked an unidentified ship on the high seas
>that had no obvious offensive armament.
Ah, what has been missed?
"KURSA {Spector]: She's running from you in the direction of El-Arish, excuse
me, Port-Said. What is it? What is it? A destroyer? a patrol boat? What is it?"
"Obvious"??? This is truly a stretch.
>That was his decision. The
>cowardly piece of shit should be snatched by US special ops personnel,
>brought here and tried as the war criminal that he is.
Truly in denial. The norm, unfortunately.
Mike Weeks
>Date: 10/12/2003 12:58 Pacific Daylight Time
>mic...@aol.comnojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote in message
>news:<20031012020744...@mb-m03.aol.com>...
>> >From: broo...@yahoo.com (Kevin Brooks)
>> >Date: 10/11/2003 20:27 Pacific Daylight Time
>> >not too much room for claiming it was anywhere near
>> >their territorial waters in that statement.
>>
>> Ah, naval warfare doesn't take place only within territorial waters. And
>when
>> did the GOI EVER claim that the attack took place w/in Israeli territorial
>> waters ...?????
>
>It is the attacker's responsibility to ensure correct ID outside
>territoraial waters.
Nice sidestep; where's that claim again?
So here's a quiz; what if a ship (which is in fact an enemy vessel) has in fact
hoisted false colors? It can't be attacked, even in international waters?
>> > When they start plugging
>> >vessels in international waters, the burden of proof of the target
>> >status resides squarely in *their* court.
>>
>> Yup. And at the same time it was, is today, fully understood that the
>sailing
>> of a third-party vessel into an active war zone can entail certain risks,
>no
>> matter the legal responsibilities of the warring parties.
>
>It is the attacker's responsibility to ensure correct ID outside
>territoraial waters (hate to be repetitive, but when the shoe
>fits...).
And since the ship wasn't correctly ID'd, Israel apologized, paid compensation
and restructured it's military forces.
>> <start>
>> (C-CCO) In view of the sensitivity regarding the U.A.R. charges of U.S.
>> complicity with Israel and following a question from the U.S. Chief of
>Naval
>> Operations about the wisdom of Liberty' assignment in the war zone ...
>> <end>
>>
>> From pg. 21, the NSA 1981c Report "Attack on a Sigint Collector, the U.S.S.
>> Liberty (S-CCO)"
>>
>> http://libertyincident.com/nsa.htm
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/liberty.html
>>
>> What's the saying? "You can be right, but you can also be dead right." ?
>
>Nice sidestep. Now, backk to the point at hand--was "the mistake" on
>the part of the US as this pilot indicated, or not?
Nice ignore as to life in the real world.
As to it being "the mistake", no.
>It is amazing how far you will go in trying to whitewash the Israeli
>screwups that led to this disaster.
No whitewash, just a few ounces of sorely-lacking common sense when it comes to
what happens during warfare.
Mike Weeks
>Date: 10/12/2003 13:57 Pacific Daylight Time
>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:05:50 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
><ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The Israelis were in a shooting war, the LIBERTY was offering means of
>>identification but they weren't obvious
>
>Take a look at the picture of the ship
Ah, which photo of Liberty did Spector have in his cockpit ...???
Mike Weeks
>Date: 10/12/2003 01:05 Pacific Daylight Time
>On 12 Oct 2003 05:52:23 GMT, mic...@aol.comnojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote:
>
>> I was the
>>fighter. I checked what I had to check [i.e. that it was a military ship and
>>not one of ours] and pulled the trigger," Spector said.
>><end>
>>
>>It's really a stretch to assume otherwise of a jet jock not trained in
>maritime
>>warfare during a war who is given specific instructions ...
>
>Thats why there were survellance flights over the ship previously.
You're more than welcome to provide material which will show Spector was aware
of ANY previous "survellance" flights. Or that Spector received any type of
info as a result of these "survellance" flight you claim took place ...
>If the Jeruselem post reported that that it was anything but a 'tragic
>mistake' it might be remarkable.
>If the Jeruselem post reported that that it was anything but a 'tragic
>mistake' it might be remarkable.
Which goes right in line for example w/ "if the Washington Report on Middle
East Affairs reported that it was anything but a 'deliberate, pre-planned
attack' it might be remarkable."
So what's your point besides the clear indication that you believe the JP
wouldn't print a story which would state otherwise?
Mike Weeks
>Date: 10/12/2003 12:49 Pacific Daylight Time
>mic...@aol.comnojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote in message
>> >From: broo...@yahoo.com (Kevin Brooks)
>> >Date: 10/11/2003 08:18 Pacific Daylight Time
>>
>> >Otis Willie <war...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> >news:<b00fovsal6qp5a3kn...@4ax.com>...
>> >> Pilot who bombed 'Liberty' talks to 'Post
>> >>
>> >> (EXCERPT) Arieh O'Sullivan Oct. 10, 2003
>> >>
>> >> An Israeli pilot who mistakenly attacked the American intelligence
>> >> ship USS Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War said they were lucky he
>> >> had no bombs ? otherwise he would have sunk her.
>> >>
>> >> "There was a mistake. Mistakes happen. As far as I know, the mistake
>> >> was of the USS Liberty being there in the first place," said
>> >> Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yiftah Spector.
>> >
>> >Holy crap, of all the unmitigated gall; now they are claiming "the
>> >mistake" was on the part of the US?!
>>
>> Gee, where is there anything indicating "they"??? Spector, it appears, it
>> speaking as to what he understands to have been the situation; that is,
>Liberty
>> at 1400 Sinai wasn't suppose to operating w/ eye-site of the Sinai coast
>...
>
>He indicates it took place twenty miles off the coast (whether he is
>correct or not is another issue, as was his claim that he
>"photographed" the Liberty before attacking it); hardly "within
>sight".
And guess what; the article provided a context to his comment.
Clearly, based on serious research, there's details which don't match period
documentation.
>Not that this has a darned thing to do with the the crass
>claim that it was our fault--it was in international waters
>*regardless* of which accouint you believe.
>
>>
>> >Gee, what are Mike and Company
>> >(chief Israeli apologists extraordinaire when it comes to all things
>> >Liberty) gonna make of this crap?
>>
>> Gee, that despite of all the non-Israeli claims from over the years, that
>> indeed the attack wasn't pre-planned and deliberate against a target that
>the
>> attacking pilots knew to be U.S.?
>
>Nice sidestep attempt...uhmmm, now back to the point--was this guy
>right in blaming the US for making "the mistake" that resulted in
>those dead sailors?
Ah, right on target when it comes to certain claims from certain folks as to
what the attacking pilots reportedly knew, and radioed back to HDQs ...
And if you noticed Spector did state: "I'm sorry for the mistake."
Yeah, I know you'd feel so much better towards the Israelis if Spector had not
first used "the mistake", and then used "our mistake." above. But he didn't.
Ever spend time around arrogant jet jocks?
>> >I guess international waters in the
>> >Med are off-limits to non-Israeli traffic, huh?
>>
>> Gee, "are"??? Ah, it isn't 1967 anymore, and it's certainly not 8 June
>1967,
>> the fourth day of the third Arab-Israeli war ...
>
>Oh, so freakin' sorry..."were"? Yes or no?
You guess wrong, naturally.
>> >Not to mention that we
>> >have to wonder how the guy who made the attack managed to make it to
>> >BG (so much for the Israeli "accountability" that has been repeatedly
>> >mentioned, but rarely detailed...).
>>
>> Gee, as stated:
>>
>> <start>
>> "Every order is given by commanders and the last one to receive it has to
>> decide whether he will pull the trigger or not. In this instance I was the
>> fighter. I checked what I had to check [i.e. that it was a military ship
>and
>> not one of ours] and pulled the trigger," Spector said.
>> <end>
>>
>> It's really a stretch to assume otherwise of a jet jock not trained in
>maritime
>> warfare during a war who is given specific instructions ...
>
>A jet jock who goes on to (based upon other past Israeli claims) is
>now lying by claiming that he photographed the vessel *before* his
>attack to document his claim that no flag was flying?
What part from the JP article:
Speaking of the event 36 years later may have caused Spector to mix what he
remembered with what he may have read and his testimony does not always match
archival facts.
wasn't clear? It's truly amazing to see such claims as yours; i.e., "now
lying." No doubt in your mind at all that there could not be another
possibility? Like simply "mistaken"?? Well?
>Again--where was
>the accountability? Who had exactly *what* done to them? You always
>get a bit wishy-washy when it comes to this question. Here is your
>chance to set the record straight and tell us what officers were
>disciplined, and how, and the effect on their later careers. Well?
Well, what? I've posted in this NG what I know of what happened in the
aftermath. I guess you can threaten to turn blue, but it won't change
anything.
rgol...@bellsouth.net
--
"Mike Weeks" <mic...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20031013151242...@mb-m15.aol.com...
Mike
it looks like this place is where all the don Oceans of the world end up
when the wale shit settles to the bottom. Each one of these guys post the
same stuff like it came from the Israel and the Jews are guilty cookie
cutter web site........ what a bunch of tools these guys are, Art Bell must
be proud ........ the sickness and hate and fear runs deep in them...
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman
Jim Watt
>>>The Israelis were in a shooting war, the LIBERTY was offering means of
>>>identification but they weren't obvious
>>
>>Take a look at the picture of the ship
>
>Ah, which photo of Liberty did Spector have in his cockpit ...???
More likely one of his girlfriend, but its irrelevent.
I suggest looking at a picture of the ship because its hard to look
at the real thing which Mr Spector would have seen from his aircraft.
Its unreasonable to call the guy a 'war criminal' for following orders
and doing what he was trained to do, Its also unfair to him to
suggest he was blind or stupid, as he would need to be to not
recognise a special purpose ship. With a large dish and the
other antenna arrays.
Jim Watt
>So what's your point besides the clear indication that you believe the JP
>wouldn't print a story which would state otherwise?
Do you assert it would?
Jim Watt
>Mike
>it looks like this place is where all the don Oceans of the world end up
>when the wale shit settles to the bottom. Each one of these guys post the
>same stuff like it came from the Israel and the Jews are guilty cookie
>cutter web site........ what a bunch of tools these guys are, Art Bell must
>be proud ........ the sickness and hate and fear runs deep in them...
>
>"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
>R.J. Goldman
0/10 for content. 8/10 for diversion.
There are no marks awarded for repetition, so close the
door on the way out.
Mike Weeks
>Date: 10/13/2003 15:41 Pacific Daylight Time
>Mike
>it looks like this place is where all the don Oceans of the world end up ...
Hardly; the DO types are into a "world" of their own, and don't contribute
anything.
That is not the norm here.
Mike Weeks
>Date: 10/13/2003 18:02 Pacific Daylight Time
>>So what's your point besides the clear indication that you believe the JP
>>wouldn't print a story which would state otherwise?
>
>Do you assert it would?
W/o a doubt; if it was news worthy of course.
It's printed prior stories, for example, which have been critical of IDF
actions ...
rgol...@bellsouth.net
--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman
http://www.usidfvets.com
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:ntimov8p21bv53umv...@4ax.com...
rgol...@bellsouth.net
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5ODkHQYeQbi$Ewj$@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
Well said.
rgol...@bellsouth.net
seems that the USMC is doing Urban warfare training with the IDF .(IDF
TEACHING) in Israel. IDF is giving the US military software and other
goodies for dealing with the Iraqis. and as for your underrated crack? you
need to learn what goes on in the military. who got the first shoot down
with the F16. F15 etc. where did all the new Variants come from till America
got it into combat........ Your statement about the enemies is also not on
target
learn before you open a mouth, you don't know what you are talking about,
--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman
http://www.usidfvets.com
"Joshua Mathias" <Red...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12029-3F8...@storefull-2272.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Mike Weeks
>Date: 10/13/2003 17:47 Pacific Daylight Time
>On 13 Oct 2003 19:15:29 GMT, mic...@aol.comnojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote:
>
>>>>The Israelis were in a shooting war, the LIBERTY was offering means of
>>>>identification but they weren't obvious
>>>
>>>Take a look at the picture of the ship
>>
>>Ah, which photo of Liberty did Spector have in his cockpit ...???
>
>More likely one of his girlfriend, but its irrelevent.
>
>I suggest looking at a picture of the ship because its hard to look
>at the real thing which Mr Spector would have seen from his aircraft.
Is it understood that an aircraft is moving, and a photo isn't?
>Its unreasonable to call the guy a 'war criminal' for following orders
>and doing what he was trained to do, Its also unfair to him to
>suggest he was blind or stupid, as he would need to be to not
>recognise a special purpose ship. With a large dish and the
>other antenna arrays.
1356
KURSA [Spector communicating w/ one of the MTBs]: She's running from you in the
direction of El-Arish, excuse me, Port-Said. What is it? What is it? A
destroyer? a patrol boat? What is it?
MIGDAL [one of the MTBs]: KURSA, can you manage to identify it?
KURSA: I can't identify it but in any case it's a military ship.
MIGDAL: Okay, what is it?
KURSA: Its has one mast and one smokestack.
MIGDAL: Roger.
KURSA: It's has one mast up front.
Now, why would Spector understand this vessel to be a "special purpose" ship??
What was his training again ...????
It's truly a stretch to suggest that Spector was claiming to be stupid or blind
in that interview ...
Kevin Brooks
> >From: broo...@yahoo.com (Kevin Brooks)
> >Date: 10/12/2003 12:58 Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >mic...@aol.comnojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote in message
> >news:<20031012020744...@mb-m03.aol.com>...
> >> >From: broo...@yahoo.com (Kevin Brooks)
> >> >Date: 10/11/2003 20:27 Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >> >not too much room for claiming it was anywhere near
> >> >their territorial waters in that statement.
> >>
> >> Ah, naval warfare doesn't take place only within territorial waters. And
> when
> >> did the GOI EVER claim that the attack took place w/in Israeli territorial
> >> waters ...?????
> >
> >It is the attacker's responsibility to ensure correct ID outside
> >territoraial waters.
>
> Nice sidestep; where's that claim again?
No sidestep; you must be having problems reading the article in
question. The claim that it was the US's fault? Read the article--the
guy says "the mistake" was on the US side.
>
> So here's a quiz; what if a ship (which is in fact an enemy vessel) has in fact
> hoisted false colors? It can't be attacked, even in international waters?
Not what I said--I said it is the attackers reponsibility to determine
the ID. Simple concept, really.
>
> >> > When they start plugging
> >> >vessels in international waters, the burden of proof of the target
> >> >status resides squarely in *their* court.
> >>
> >> Yup. And at the same time it was, is today, fully understood that the
> sailing
> >> of a third-party vessel into an active war zone can entail certain risks,
> no
> >> matter the legal responsibilities of the warring parties.
> >
> >It is the attacker's responsibility to ensure correct ID outside
> >territoraial waters (hate to be repetitive, but when the shoe
> >fits...).
>
> And since the ship wasn't correctly ID'd, Israel apologized, paid compensation
> and restructured it's military forces.
The issue here was the stupid remark from the pilot in the interview.
As usual, you have emerged at the mere mention of "Liberty" with your
pro-Israel goggles so firmly in place that you can't even acknowledge
that this goon was waaaay off base with his remarks. You like to pick
out discrepancies (regarding the accepted historical records) in the
various anti-Israel posts we see in this forum, but you ignore those
discrepancies in this clown's account (i.e., where are those photos he
claimed to have taken before the attack?).
>
> >> <start>
> >> (C-CCO) In view of the sensitivity regarding the U.A.R. charges of U.S.
> >> complicity with Israel and following a question from the U.S. Chief of
> Naval
> >> Operations about the wisdom of Liberty' assignment in the war zone ...
> >> <end>
> >>
> >> From pg. 21, the NSA 1981c Report "Attack on a Sigint Collector, the U.S.S.
> >> Liberty (S-CCO)"
> >>
> >> http://libertyincident.com/nsa.htm
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/liberty.html
> >>
> >> What's the saying? "You can be right, but you can also be dead right." ?
> >
> >Nice sidestep. Now, backk to the point at hand--was "the mistake" on
> >the part of the US as this pilot indicated, or not?
>
> Nice ignore as to life in the real world.
>
> As to it being "the mistake", no.
Hallelujah! FINALLY, you address the point in question, and now
despite your hand-wringing you admit that this Israeli pilot was
wrong. Now that was not that hard, was it?
Brooks
Kevin Brooks
LOL! You have hung posters, and authors, for "details that don't match
period documentation", but they all were arguing the other side,
right? But hey, if you can excuse Israel for this disaster, and every
Israeli who made decisions that led to it, I guess it is OK to excuse
these "details that don't match, etc." from the Israeli side?
>
> >Not that this has a darned thing to do with the the crass
> >claim that it was our fault--it was in international waters
> >*regardless* of which accouint you believe.
> >
> >>
> >> >Gee, what are Mike and Company
> >> >(chief Israeli apologists extraordinaire when it comes to all things
> >> >Liberty) gonna make of this crap?
> >>
> >> Gee, that despite of all the non-Israeli claims from over the years, that
> >> indeed the attack wasn't pre-planned and deliberate against a target that
> the
> >> attacking pilots knew to be U.S.?
> >
> >Nice sidestep attempt...uhmmm, now back to the point--was this guy
> >right in blaming the US for making "the mistake" that resulted in
> >those dead sailors?
>
> Ah, right on target when it comes to certain claims from certain folks as to
> what the attacking pilots reportedly knew, and radioed back to HDQs ...
He said "THE mistake" was a US one. That is the point here. "As far as
I know, the mistake was of the USS Liberty being there in the first
place..."
>
> And if you noticed Spector did state: "I'm sorry for the mistake."
Well, being as he was claiming that it was a US mistake, is that
really saying much?
>
> Yeah, I know you'd feel so much better towards the Israelis if Spector had not
> first used "the mistake", and then used "our mistake." above. But he didn't.
Uhmmm...you don't mention an "our" above; the quote you provided was
ANOTHER "the mistake".
> Ever spend time around arrogant jet jocks?
None who attacked a USN vessel in international waters, thinking the
old transport/ELINT vessel which WAS flying a US flag was a freakin'
Egyptian warship, and then claimed it was OUR sole fault.
>
> >> >I guess international waters in the
> >> >Med are off-limits to non-Israeli traffic, huh?
> >>
> >> Gee, "are"??? Ah, it isn't 1967 anymore, and it's certainly not 8 June
> 1967,
> >> the fourth day of the third Arab-Israeli war ...
> >
> >Oh, so freakin' sorry..."were"? Yes or no?
>
> You guess wrong, naturally.
But gee, they could attack anybody and the fault would lie with the
vessel's nation, based upon Mr. Spector's analysis. Why would you
defend that premise?
A BG recently retired, speaking of an event as tragic and noteworthy
as this, and he describes the event as being a result solely of "the
mistake" by the US, and then tries to cover his own butt by claiming
that by golly, he took photos of the vessel before he attacked? Unless
the guy has completely lost his senses, he is lying, on both accounts.
>
> >Again--where was
> >the accountability? Who had exactly *what* done to them? You always
> >get a bit wishy-washy when it comes to this question. Here is your
> >chance to set the record straight and tell us what officers were
> >disciplined, and how, and the effect on their later careers. Well?
>
> Well, what? I've posted in this NG what I know of what happened in the
> aftermath. I guess you can threaten to turn blue, but it won't change
> anything.
LOL! So, once again, no evidence to support these disciplinary
actions, huh? Must have been pretty tough measures, if this pilot made
it to BG...
Brooks
>
> MW
Mike Weeks
>Date: 10/13/2003 20:21 Pacific Daylight Time
>mic...@aol.comnojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote in message
>news:<20031013151242...@mb-m15.aol.com>...
>> >From: broo...@yahoo.com (Kevin Brooks)
>> >Date: 10/12/2003 12:58 Pacific Daylight Time
>>
>> >mic...@aol.comnojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote in message
>> >news:<20031012020744...@mb-m03.aol.com>...
>> >> >From: broo...@yahoo.com (Kevin Brooks)
>> >> >Date: 10/11/2003 20:27 Pacific Daylight Time
>>
>> >> >not too much room for claiming it was anywhere near
>> >> >their territorial waters in that statement.
>> >>
>> >> Ah, naval warfare doesn't take place only within territorial waters.
>And
>> when
>> >> did the GOI EVER claim that the attack took place w/in Israeli
>territorial
>> >> waters ...?????
>> >
>> >It is the attacker's responsibility to ensure correct ID outside
>> >territoraial waters.
>>
>> Nice sidestep; where's that claim again?
>
>No sidestep; you must be having problems reading the article in
>question. The claim that it was the US's fault? Read the article--the
>guy says "the mistake" was on the US side.
Nice dodge. Once again, here's that claim of yours above: "not too much room
for claiming it was anywhere near their territorial waters in that statement."
>> So here's a quiz; what if a ship (which is in fact an enemy vessel) has in
>fact
>> hoisted false colors? It can't be attacked, even in international waters?
>
>Not what I said--I said it is the attackers reponsibility to determine
>the ID. Simple concept, really.
>
>>
>> >> > When they start plugging
LOL; no, not so simple, really.
>> >> >vessels in international waters, the burden of proof of the target
>> >> >status resides squarely in *their* court.
>> >>
>> >> Yup. And at the same time it was, is today, fully understood that the
>> sailing
>> >> of a third-party vessel into an active war zone can entail certain
>risks,
>> no
>> >> matter the legal responsibilities of the warring parties.
>> >
>> >It is the attacker's responsibility to ensure correct ID outside
>> >territoraial waters (hate to be repetitive, but when the shoe
>> >fits...).
>>
>> And since the ship wasn't correctly ID'd, Israel apologized, paid
>compensation
>> and restructured it's military forces.
>
>The issue here was the stupid remark from the pilot in the interview.
>As usual, you have emerged at the mere mention of "Liberty" with your
>pro-Israel goggles so firmly in place that you can't even acknowledge
>that this goon was waaaay off base with his remarks. You like to pick
>out discrepancies (regarding the accepted historical records) in the
>various anti-Israel posts we see in this forum, but you ignore those
>discrepancies in this clown's account (i.e., where are those photos he
>claimed to have taken before the attack?).
LOL; ah, you're having that problem again; reading.
>> >> <start>
>> >> (C-CCO) In view of the sensitivity regarding the U.A.R. charges of U.S.
>> >> complicity with Israel and following a question from the U.S. Chief of
>> Naval
>> >> Operations about the wisdom of Liberty' assignment in the war zone ...
>> >> <end>
>> >>
>> >> From pg. 21, the NSA 1981c Report "Attack on a Sigint Collector, the
>U.S.S.
>> >> Liberty (S-CCO)"
>> >>
>> >> http://libertyincident.com/nsa.htm
>> >>
>> >> or
>> >>
>> >> http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/liberty.html
>> >>
>> >> What's the saying? "You can be right, but you can also be dead right."
>?
>> >
>> >Nice sidestep. Now, backk to the point at hand--was "the mistake" on
>> >the part of the US as this pilot indicated, or not?
>>
>> Nice ignore as to life in the real world.
>>
>> As to it being "the mistake", no.
>
>Hallelujah! FINALLY, you address the point in question, and now
>despite your hand-wringing you admit that this Israeli pilot was
>wrong. Now that was not that hard, was it?
Only to let you feel warm and fuzzy about a point you seem really hung up on
while ignoring his later statement expressing regret (ie. he's sorry). Hope it
helps relax you. <g>
Mike Weeks
>Date: 10/13/2003 20:39 Pacific Daylight Time
ROTFLOL; thanks for being confused about what various folks are claiming and
what significance should be placed on them. Truly rare form there Kevin ...
>> >Not that this has a darned thing to do with the the crass
>> >claim that it was our fault--it was in international waters
>> >*regardless* of which accouint you believe.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >Gee, what are Mike and Company
>> >> >(chief Israeli apologists extraordinaire when it comes to all things
>> >> >Liberty) gonna make of this crap?
>> >>
>> >> Gee, that despite of all the non-Israeli claims from over the years,
>that
>> >> indeed the attack wasn't pre-planned and deliberate against a target
>that
>> the
>> >> attacking pilots knew to be U.S.?
>> >
>> >Nice sidestep attempt...uhmmm, now back to the point--was this guy
>> >right in blaming the US for making "the mistake" that resulted in
>> >those dead sailors?
>>
>> Ah, right on target when it comes to certain claims from certain folks as
>to
>> what the attacking pilots reportedly knew, and radioed back to HDQs ...
>
>He said "THE mistake" was a US one. That is the point here. "As far as
>I know, the mistake was of the USS Liberty being there in the first
>place..."
No, it's only a *point* you seem hung up on. What was there? "As far as I know
..."
>> And if you noticed Spector did state: "I'm sorry for the mistake."
>
>Well, being as he was claiming that it was a US mistake, is that
>really saying much?
ROTFLOL; you've lost it now Kevin. You truly think Spector in that comment
later in the article is talking only about a U.S. mistake??
>> Yeah, I know you'd feel so much better towards the Israelis if Spector had
>not
>> first used "the mistake", and then used "our mistake." above. But he
>didn't.
>
>Uhmmm...you don't mention an "our" above; the quote you provided was
>ANOTHER "the mistake".
Not in the real world Kevin. Thanks for the giggles.
>> Ever spend time around arrogant jet jocks?
>
>None who attacked a USN vessel in international waters,
So the answer to the question is no?
>thinking the
>old transport/ELINT vessel which WAS flying a US flag was a freakin'
>Egyptian warship, and then claimed it was OUR sole fault.
LOL; trouble understanding?
"KURSA: She's running from you in the direction of El-Arish, excuse me,
Port-Said. What is it? What is it? A destroyer? a patrol boat? What is it?"
And just to give you a snip from 1967:
<start>
In apologizing for the incident, an Israeli spokesman said the Liberty was not
flying a flag. This was denied by the Defense Department. But the Pentagon
later said the Israelis might not have seen the flag since it could have been
hanging limp on the virtually windless day.
<end>
From the UPI, dated June 12, 1967 ...
>> >> >I guess international waters in the
>> >> >Med are off-limits to non-Israeli traffic, huh?
>> >>
>> >> Gee, "are"??? Ah, it isn't 1967 anymore, and it's certainly not 8 June
>> 1967,
>> >> the fourth day of the third Arab-Israeli war ...
>> >
>> >Oh, so freakin' sorry..."were"? Yes or no?
>>
>> You guess wrong, naturally.
>
>But gee, they could attack anybody and the fault would lie with the
>vessel's nation, based upon Mr. Spector's analysis. Why would you
>defend that premise?
LOL; that's you premise. Spector's discussing what he did. Reasonable folks
understand that a multiple number of mistakes/errors/screw ups took place.
Again ROTFLOL -- you're really a piece here Kevin; by golly "solely" is what
you take from the article. How sad.
>> >Again--where was
>> >the accountability? Who had exactly *what* done to them? You always
>> >get a bit wishy-washy when it comes to this question. Here is your
>> >chance to set the record straight and tell us what officers were
>> >disciplined, and how, and the effect on their later careers. Well?
>>
>> Well, what? I've posted in this NG what I know of what happened in the
>> aftermath. I guess you can threaten to turn blue, but it won't change
>> anything.
>
>LOL! So, once again, no evidence to support these disciplinary
>actions, huh? Must have been pretty tough measures, if this pilot made
>it to BG...
ROTFLOL; Kevin, you take the cake once again. Thanks for the giggles.
Paul J. Adam
<fmc...@earthlink.net> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>:The Israelis were in a shooting war, the LIBERTY was offering means of
>:identification but they weren't obvious, she wasn't exactly where she
>:was meant to be... and so she was attacked in a "regrettable mistake".
>:What did the Israelis do wrong that the US has not claimed as correct
>:sensible measures for ships in combat?
>
>I'll ask the simple question, Paul. Who or what was the Liberty an
>immediate and urgent threat to?
As the LIBERTY? Unless the US starts forwarding her take to Israel's
enemies (around the time that pig farms become airports?), very little.
However, the Israelis misidentified her as a decent-sized enemy military
vessel, according to the transcripts, and she was twenty minutes' fast
steaming from the Israeli coast: this has rather more potential for
harm.
>If the answer is, as it seems it must
>be, "no one", then attempting to compare to Iran Air is much too large
>a stretch.
Fred, what immediate threat did a climbing Airbus 300 with the right
IFF, in the right lane, pose to anyone? But that's not what the
VINCENNES thought they saw. (Unless you're suggesting that the VINCENNES
actually *knew* they were shooting at a COMAIR target, which I find
unlikely)
Jim Watt
>Now, why would Spector understand this vessel to be a "special purpose" ship??
>What was his training again ...????
Nobody flies jets who is blind and stupid.
>It's truly a stretch to suggest that Spector was claiming to be stupid or blind
>in that interview ...
I'm not saying he was, but you seem to want to use that as an excuse.
Jim Watt
>In apologizing for the incident, an Israeli spokesman said the Liberty was not
>flying a flag. This was denied by the Defense Department. But the Pentagon
>later said the Israelis might not have seen the flag since it could have been
>hanging limp on the virtually windless day.
They also missed the dish and the antennas, but not when it came to
shooting.
Jim Watt
>ROFLOL Oh right LOL You are way over your head here son.
>seems that the USMC is doing Urban warfare training with the IDF .(IDF
>TEACHING) in Israel. IDF is giving the US military software and other
>goodies for dealing with the Iraqis.
Does that include lessons on bulldozing farms ?
For the amount of money and support the US government
gives Israel they certainly should get something in return.
But you are trying to distract attention from the argument
about the reasons for attacking the Liberty and the cover
up.
rgol...@bellsouth.net
seems like you need a change of diet from the ISM and AlJezeria
I'm trying to detract? did I post his little idiotic drug induced rant for
him?
No. I answered him, with fact and then you piped in because you needed to
take a swing at someone. (seen your type before)
--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:ilanovgd7m1h166f5...@4ax.com...
Steve Richter
> >> >> An Israeli pilot who mistakenly attacked the American intelligence
> >> >> ship USS Liberty during the 1967 Six Day War said they were lucky he
> >> >> had no bombs ? otherwise he would have sunk her.
> >> >>
> >> >> "There was a mistake. Mistakes happen. As far as I know, the mistake
> >> >> was of the USS Liberty being there in the first place," said
> >> >> Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yiftah Spector.
> >> >
> >> >Holy crap, of all the unmitigated gall; now they are claiming "the
> >> >mistake" was on the part of the US?!
> >>
> >> Gee, where is there anything indicating "they"??? Spector, it appears, it
> >> speaking as to what he understands to have been the situation; that is,
> Liberty
> >> at 1400 Sinai wasn't suppose to operating w/ eye-site of the Sinai coast
> >...
> >
> >He indicates it took place twenty miles off the coast (whether he is
> >correct or not is another issue, as was his claim that he
> >"photographed" the Liberty before attacking it); hardly "within
> >sight".
>
> And guess what; the article provided a context to his comment.
>
> Clearly, based on serious research, there's details which don't match period
> documentation.
What serious research? The GOI has not released the results of any of
its aftermath investigations? Why did the reporter from the Israeli
newspaper not ask Spector what he did with the pre attack photo?
> >Nice sidestep attempt...uhmmm, now back to the point--was this guy
> >right in blaming the US for making "the mistake" that resulted in
> >those dead sailors?
>
> Ah, right on target when it comes to certain claims from certain folks as to
> what the attacking pilots reportedly knew, and radioed back to HDQs ...
>
> And if you noticed Spector did state: "I'm sorry for the mistake."
>
> Yeah, I know you'd feel so much better towards the Israelis if Spector had not
> first used "the mistake", and then used "our mistake." above. But he
> didn't.
> Ever spend time around arrogant jet jocks?
Did Spector, the "arrogant jet jock" see the sun bathing sailors on
deck of the Liberty as he, as he says, circled the ship twice, looking
for the white cross painted on deck that identified the ship as
Israeli, slowing down because there was no hostile fire from the
Liberty? On the 400+ foot long ship, the straffing fire appears to
have been directed right at those men since they, I believe, were the
first to die.
> >A jet jock who goes on to (based upon other past Israeli claims) is
> >now lying by claiming that he photographed the vessel *before* his
> >attack to document his claim that no flag was flying?
>
> What part from the JP article:
>
> Speaking of the event 36 years later may have caused Spector to mix what he
> remembered with what he may have read and his testimony does not always match
> archival facts.
>
> wasn't clear? It's truly amazing to see such claims as yours; i.e., "now
> lying." No doubt in your mind at all that there could not be another
> possibility? Like simply "mistaken"?? Well?
Who was the pilot of the 2nd plane in the attack that Spector was a
part of? I am sure he knows if Spector took a photo of the Liberty pre
attack or not.
Was Spector the pilot who attacked first or was it this other pilot.
I am curious about that because McGonagle says he was watching one
plane approach the Liberty ( and another officer on the Liberty
testified that McGonagle said to him, something to the affect of "do
you see that plane ... I think it is going to attack us". But that
was not the plane that attacked first. McGonagle seems to be unaware
that a 2nd plane was also approaching from the opposite direction.
That is the plane that opened fire first, killing the sun bathing
officers.
> >Again--where was
> >the accountability? Who had exactly *what* done to them? You always
> >get a bit wishy-washy when it comes to this question. Here is your
> >chance to set the record straight and tell us what officers were
> >disciplined, and how, and the effect on their later careers. Well?
>
> Well, what? I've posted in this NG what I know of what happened in the
> aftermath. I guess you can threaten to turn blue, but it won't change
> anything.
You dont know because the GOI is not forthcoming on this issue. This
is the first interview that Spector has given since the attack because
now he is out of the Israeli military. Doesnt it follow that the GOI
told him he was not to give interviews while they had authority over
him?
What is Israel covering up? Why will it not release everything from
its aftermath investigations? Why will it not allow participants in
the attack to speak publicly?
-Steve
Kevin Brooks
Unbelieveable; in another post you acknowledge (reluctantly, I note)
that the statement he made was wrong, but here you go again...
>
> >> >Not that this has a darned thing to do with the the crass
> >> >claim that it was our fault--it was in international waters
> >> >*regardless* of which accouint you believe.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >Gee, what are Mike and Company
> >> >> >(chief Israeli apologists extraordinaire when it comes to all things
> >> >> >Liberty) gonna make of this crap?
> >> >>
> >> >> Gee, that despite of all the non-Israeli claims from over the years,
> that
> >> >> indeed the attack wasn't pre-planned and deliberate against a target
> that
> the
> >> >> attacking pilots knew to be U.S.?
> >> >
> >> >Nice sidestep attempt...uhmmm, now back to the point--was this guy
> >> >right in blaming the US for making "the mistake" that resulted in
> >> >those dead sailors?
> >>
> >> Ah, right on target when it comes to certain claims from certain folks as
> to
> >> what the attacking pilots reportedly knew, and radioed back to HDQs ...
> >
> >He said "THE mistake" was a US one. That is the point here. "As far as
> >I know, the mistake was of the USS Liberty being there in the first
> >place..."
>
> No, it's only a *point* you seem hung up on. What was there? "As far as I know
> ..."
Are you now saying that he was not wrong?
>
> >> And if you noticed Spector did state: "I'm sorry for the mistake."
> >
> >Well, being as he was claiming that it was a US mistake, is that
> >really saying much?
>
> ROTFLOL; you've lost it now Kevin. You truly think Spector in that comment
> later in the article is talking only about a U.S. mistake??
His words indicate that.
>
> >> Yeah, I know you'd feel so much better towards the Israelis if Spector had
> not
> >> first used "the mistake", and then used "our mistake." above. But he
> >didn't.
> >
> >Uhmmm...you don't mention an "our" above; the quote you provided was
> >ANOTHER "the mistake".
>
> Not in the real world Kevin. Thanks for the giggles.
Yes, in the "real world". Your wording of the second quote was: "...if
you noticed Spector did state: "I'm sorry for the mistake."" That
t-h-e does still spell "the", right? The as in singular, one, not
plural; the as in "the mistake" made by the US. Hard to come up with a
different interpretation IMO, but what the hey, you seem to be able to
come up with creative interpretations whenever it comes to defending
Israeli actions.
>
> >> Ever spend time around arrogant jet jocks?
> >
> >None who attacked a USN vessel in international waters,
>
> So the answer to the question is no?
More problems with simple reading, Mike? Yes, I have been around a few
jet-type jockeys--they were the predominant class that made up our
TACAIR liaison parties, a few classmates went that route, and I spent
my formative years in the shadow of langley AFB and Langley Research
Center. Since this is sooo important to you (I still fail to see the
veracity of your inference in this case), would you care to enlighten
us as to your *extensive* experience in the field?
>
> >thinking the
> >old transport/ELINT vessel which WAS flying a US flag was a freakin'
> >Egyptian warship, and then claimed it was OUR sole fault.
>
> LOL; trouble understanding?
>
> "KURSA: She's running from you in the direction of El-Arish, excuse me,
> Port-Said. What is it? What is it? A destroyer? a patrol boat? What is it?"
>
> And just to give you a snip from 1967:
>
> <start>
> In apologizing for the incident, an Israeli spokesman said the Liberty was not
> flying a flag. This was denied by the Defense Department. But the Pentagon
> later said the Israelis might not have seen the flag since it could have been
> hanging limp on the virtually windless day.
> <end>
It was flying a flag. It was far from being a front-line combat
vessel. How many shore bombardment missions were conducted by that
Egyptian transport that it was supposedly mistaken for? But hey, I
forget--you are willing to stratch as far from reason as required in
order to excuse any Israeli actions that day, right?
>
> From the UPI, dated June 12, 1967 ...
>
> >> >> >I guess international waters in the
> >> >> >Med are off-limits to non-Israeli traffic, huh?
> >> >>
> >> >> Gee, "are"??? Ah, it isn't 1967 anymore, and it's certainly not 8 June
> 1967,
> >> >> the fourth day of the third Arab-Israeli war ...
> >> >
> >> >Oh, so freakin' sorry..."were"? Yes or no?
> >>
> >> You guess wrong, naturally.
> >
> >But gee, they could attack anybody and the fault would lie with the
> >vessel's nation, based upon Mr. Spector's analysis. Why would you
> >defend that premise?
>
> LOL; that's you premise. Spector's discussing what he did. Reasonable folks
> understand that a multiple number of mistakes/errors/screw ups took place.
I don't disagree, which is why I find Mr. Spector's repeated use of
the singular 'the", with it beiong applied solely to the US, so
disgusting.
THE mistake. Are you backtracking now on your agreement that this
assertion of his was incorrect?
>
> >> >Again--where was
> >> >the accountability? Who had exactly *what* done to them? You always
> >> >get a bit wishy-washy when it comes to this question. Here is your
> >> >chance to set the record straight and tell us what officers were
> >> >disciplined, and how, and the effect on their later careers. Well?
> >>
> >> Well, what? I've posted in this NG what I know of what happened in the
> >> aftermath. I guess you can threaten to turn blue, but it won't change
> >> anything.
> >
> >LOL! So, once again, no evidence to support these disciplinary
> >actions, huh? Must have been pretty tough measures, if this pilot made
> >it to BG...
>
> ROTFLOL; Kevin, you take the cake once again. Thanks for the giggles.
As usual, no evidence from Mikey as to these disciplinary action taken
against Israelis who screwed the pooch (and the USN) that day. par for
the course, from what i have observed from Mike to date.
Brooks
>
> MW
Fred J. McCall
:In message <p6fjov44c8mqbo3dk...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> writes
:>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:>:The Israelis were in a shooting war, the LIBERTY was offering means of
:>:identification but they weren't obvious, she wasn't exactly where she
:>:was meant to be... and so she was attacked in a "regrettable mistake".
:>:What did the Israelis do wrong that the US has not claimed as correct
:>:sensible measures for ships in combat?
:>
:>I'll ask the simple question, Paul. Who or what was the Liberty an
:>immediate and urgent threat to?
:
:As the LIBERTY? Unless the US starts forwarding her take to Israel's
:enemies (around the time that pig farms become airports?), very little.
:
:However, the Israelis misidentified her as a decent-sized enemy military
:vessel, according to the transcripts,
And just which enemy vessel did they misidentify her as, Paul? And
what were that vessel's capabilities?
:and she was twenty minutes' fast
:steaming from the Israeli coast: this has rather more potential for
:harm.
That would indeed be fast steaming. Faster than possible, in point of
fact, since it would have required speeds in excess of 50 knots.
:>If the answer is, as it seems it must
:>be, "no one", then attempting to compare to Iran Air is much too large
:>a stretch.
:
:Fred, what immediate threat did a climbing Airbus 300 with the right
:IFF, in the right lane, pose to anyone? But that's not what the
:VINCENNES thought they saw. (Unless you're suggesting that the VINCENNES
:actually *knew* they were shooting at a COMAIR target, which I find
:unlikely)
You're ignoring the F-14 track that merged with the Airbus. You're
also ignoring the Airbus persistently ignoring repeated calls to
identify itself. You're also ignoring the flight time remaining to a
launch point if the Airbus had indeed been a hostile attack aircraft
(and we're talking times measured in seconds, not in appreciable parts
of an hour).
Yes, Robocruiser screwed the pooch. However, it was hardly the same
magnitude of error, nor did the same amounts of time exist to verify
the target, nor were any attempts made by the Israelis (apparently) to
contact their intended target. All of these are MAJOR differences
between the two incidents.
You'd have a lot more credibility if you would avoid these sorts of
inappropriate and inapt comparisons.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Paul J. Adam
<fmc...@earthlink.net> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>:As the LIBERTY? Unless the US starts forwarding her take to Israel's
>:enemies (around the time that pig farms become airports?), very little.
>:
>:However, the Israelis misidentified her as a decent-sized enemy military
>:vessel, according to the transcripts,
>
>And just which enemy vessel did they misidentify her as, Paul? And
>what were that vessel's capabilities?
"Something military" according to the transcripts, which leaves a large
margin open.
>:and she was twenty minutes' fast
>:steaming from the Israeli coast: this has rather more potential for
>:harm.
>
>That would indeed be fast steaming. Faster than possible, in point of
>fact, since it would have required speeds in excess of 50 knots.
She was, what, fifteen miles from the coast? For many values of military
craft that's hardly a long haul, even if it's more of a slog for an old
Liberty freighter.
>:Fred, what immediate threat did a climbing Airbus 300 with the right
>:IFF, in the right lane, pose to anyone? But that's not what the
>:VINCENNES thought they saw. (Unless you're suggesting that the VINCENNES
>:actually *knew* they were shooting at a COMAIR target, which I find
>:unlikely)
>
>You're ignoring the F-14 track that merged with the Airbus.
No F-14 track "merged with the Airbus", operator error confused track
numbers.
>You're
>also ignoring the Airbus persistently ignoring repeated calls to
>identify itself.
Calls directed to "Iranian F-14" and to "Aircraft descending towards me"
are unlikely to get answers from a climbing Airbus.
>You're also ignoring the flight time remaining to a
>launch point if the Airbus had indeed been a hostile attack aircraft
>(and we're talking times measured in seconds, not in appreciable parts
>of an hour).
If that contact _had_ been a F-14, it was either a threat from the
moment it took off (jury-rigged Harpoons were alleged) or else it was
limited to a strafing pass with 20mm, with a good two minutes to go.
Of course, hindsight is always easy.
>
>Yes, Robocruiser screwed the pooch. However, it was hardly the same
>magnitude of error,
An order greater, if you count the bodies.
>nor did the same amounts of time exist to verify
>the target,
Self-inflicted, note.
> nor were any attempts made by the Israelis (apparently) to
>contact their intended target.
They signalled to the LIBERTY and got machine-gun fire in return:
understandable but unlikely to improve the combat ID situation.
>You'd have a lot more credibility if you would avoid these sorts of
>inappropriate and inapt comparisons.
I find the reactions extremely interesting, Fred.
Jim Watt
>The USMC is actually learning how to find tunnels using the Armored D9.
>seems like you need a change of diet from the ISM and AlJezeria
>
>I'm trying to detract? did I post his little idiotic drug induced rant for
>him?
>No. I answered him, with fact and then you piped in because you needed to
>take a swing at someone. (seen your type before)
I guess the truth hurts. As you can't argue with that you resort to
attacking the individual. Your 'answers' are nonsense, you
clearly have nothing of substance to add, or at least not a
flushable substance.
Shalom
Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because
they almost always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous
sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
... Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
Mike Weeks
>Date: 10/14/2003 07:13 Pacific Daylight Time
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>:In message <p6fjov44c8mqbo3dk...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
>:<fmc...@earthlink.net> writes
>:>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>:>:The Israelis were in a shooting war, the LIBERTY was offering means of
>:>:identification but they weren't obvious, she wasn't exactly where she
>:>:was meant to be... and so she was attacked in a "regrettable mistake".
>:>:What did the Israelis do wrong that the US has not claimed as correct
>:>:sensible measures for ships in combat?
>:>
>:>I'll ask the simple question, Paul. Who or what was the Liberty an
>:>immediate and urgent threat to?
>:
>:As the LIBERTY? Unless the US starts forwarding her take to Israel's
>:enemies (around the time that pig farms become airports?), very little.
>:
>:However, the Israelis misidentified her as a decent-sized enemy military
>:vessel, according to the transcripts,
>
>And just which enemy vessel did they misidentify her as, Paul? And
>what were that vessel's capabilities?
"They", as in different elements of the IDF? Well first it's:
"KURSA: She's running from you in the direction of El-Arish, excuse me,
Port-Said. What is it? What is it? A destroyer? a patrol boat? What is it?"
What are the IAF helos told?
"PAY ATTENTION: THERE WAS A WARSHIP THERE WHICH WE ATTACKED" at approx. 1230Z.
What did the approaching MTBs record of the on fire vessel when they came up on
her? First: "Our identification indicates it may be a commercial"
followed by: "T-203 identified the EL QUISER, a supply ship. We checked and it
seems to be reasonable."
So it would appear to depend on which element of the IDF is meant by "they."
>:and she was twenty minutes' fast
>:steaming from the Israeli coast: this has rather more potential for
>:harm.
>
>That would indeed be fast steaming. Faster than possible, in point of
>fact, since it would have required speeds in excess of 50 knots.
>
>:>If the answer is, as it seems it must
>:>be, "no one", then attempting to compare to Iran Air is much too large
>:>a stretch.
>:
>:Fred, what immediate threat did a climbing Airbus 300 with the right
>:IFF, in the right lane, pose to anyone? But that's not what the
>:VINCENNES thought they saw. (Unless you're suggesting that the VINCENNES
>:actually *knew* they were shooting at a COMAIR target, which I find
>:unlikely)
>
>You're ignoring the F-14 track that merged with the Airbus. You're
>also ignoring the Airbus persistently ignoring repeated calls to
>identify itself.
IIRC, weren't those calls made to "unidentified aircraft", when in fact Iran
Air 655 was properly "squawking"?
>You're also ignoring the flight time remaining to a
>launch point if the Airbus had indeed been a hostile attack aircraft
>(and we're talking times measured in seconds, not in appreciable parts
>of an hour).
>
>Yes, Robocruiser screwed the pooch. However, it was hardly the same
>magnitude of error,
Well, the Vincennes ended up killing 290 civilians, and the IDF killed 34 ...
>nor did the same amounts of time exist to verify
>the target, nor were any attempts made by the Israelis (apparently) to
>contact their intended target.
Once again, which IDF element is being referenced? It's clearly on the record
that the MTBs, having come up on the vessel, attempted to signal.
>All of these are MAJOR differences
>between the two incidents.
...
Mike Weeks
>Date: 10/14/2003 09:59 Pacific Daylight Time
>In message <li0oov0u7g27ukddg...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
><fmc...@earthlink.net> writes
...
>>You'd have a lot more credibility if you would avoid these sorts of
>>inappropriate and inapt comparisons.
>
>I find the reactions extremely interesting, Fred.
Indeed so.
Mike Weeks
>Date: 10/14/2003 06:02 Pacific Daylight Time
>As usual, no evidence from Mikey as to these disciplinary action taken
>against Israelis who screwed the pooch (and the USN) that day. par for
>the course, from what i have observed from Mike to date.
LOL; well Kevie your memory seems to have failed, or you're being very
selective in what you wish to observe and remember.
FoY, in Jan., there was a series of exchanges, and I posted what I knew of the
aftermath. And what's known has also been published. That's a hint.
Mike Weeks
>Date: 10/14/2003 00:38 Pacific Daylight Time
>>It's truly a stretch to suggest that Spector was claiming to be stupid or
>blind
>>in that interview ...
>
>I'm not saying he was, but you seem to want to use that as an excuse.
It appears to be what you believe given what you believe Spector should have
known and observed, and ignore what he in fact reported ...
rgol...@bellsouth.net
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
I answered. and added a swipe. but you seem to ignore the answers and just
make a swipe. hence you are worse then he.
Steve Richter
> > >
> > >LOL! So, once again, no evidence to support these disciplinary
> > >actions, huh? Must have been pretty tough measures, if this pilot made
> > >it to BG...
> >
> > ROTFLOL; Kevin, you take the cake once again. Thanks for the giggles.
>
> As usual, no evidence from Mikey as to these disciplinary action taken
> against Israelis who screwed the pooch (and the USN) that day. par for
> the course, from what i have observed from Mike to date.
>
> Brooks
Hi Brooks,
You are right on target asking who was disciplined. The answer is
that the closest anyone came to being held accountable was the
resignation of Captain Issy Rehav, 2nd in command of the Israeli Navy.
Jay Cristol say so on pg 170 of his book "telling one side of the
story of the attack on the USS Liberty".
The more one learns of the attack, the more incredible the excuses
become. The reported shelling of the beach near El Arish for example.
It is the US Navy which is the source of reliable info to explain
what the "shelling" was all about. CDR McGonagle reports seeing
explosions from 1130 to 1330 on the day the ship was attacked.
Cristol and the GOI tell us that those explosions were the reason the
Liberty was identified as a warship. But they provide no more info,
such as what the explosions truly were, who caused them, and if there
was confusion as to their cause, when was that confusion cleared up.
With the explosions taking place at 1130 and the Liberty attacked
starting at 1353, there was plenty of time for the IDF to identify
what was exploding and know that it was not a naval bombardment. Yet
the attack, controled by the 2nd in command of the Israeli Navy and
the top leadership of the IAF, went ahead anyway.
-Steve
Jim Watt
>>From: Jim Watt jim...@aol.no_way
>>Date: 10/14/2003 00:38 Pacific Daylight Time
>
>>>It's truly a stretch to suggest that Spector was claiming to be stupid or
>>blind
>>>in that interview ...
>>
>>I'm not saying he was, but you seem to want to use that as an excuse.
>
>It appears to be what you believe given what you believe Spector should have
>known and observed, and ignore what he in fact reported ...
I stopped believing everything I hear at an early age; If you believe
everything you read in newspapers, you have never been out drinking
with journalists.
Much of what we are presented about the world is totally false and the
secret is making up ones own mind on what is and is not real.
Kevin Brooks
Didn't say they did. I believe YOU are the one in this thread who has
been ranting about how "close" she came--not that it matters a bit,
since it was STILL the israelis responsibility to identify their
target correctly.
>
> >> So here's a quiz; what if a ship (which is in fact an enemy vessel) has in
> fact
> >> hoisted false colors? It can't be attacked, even in international waters?
> >
> >Not what I said--I said it is the attackers reponsibility to determine
> >the ID. Simple concept, really.
> >
> >>
> >> >> > When they start plugging
>
> LOL; no, not so simple, really.
Oh. Then please tell us whose responsibility it is to identify a
target in international waters? Gee, your willingness to excuse the
Israelis from ANY responsibility is growing ever greater...
>
> >> >> >vessels in international waters, the burden of proof of the target
> >> >> >status resides squarely in *their* court.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yup. And at the same time it was, is today, fully understood that the
> sailing
> >> >> of a third-party vessel into an active war zone can entail certain
> risks,
> no
> >> >> matter the legal responsibilities of the warring parties.
> >> >
> >> >It is the attacker's responsibility to ensure correct ID outside
> >> >territoraial waters (hate to be repetitive, but when the shoe
> >> >fits...).
> >>
> >> And since the ship wasn't correctly ID'd, Israel apologized, paid
> compensation
> >> and restructured it's military forces.
> >
> >The issue here was the stupid remark from the pilot in the interview.
> >As usual, you have emerged at the mere mention of "Liberty" with your
> >pro-Israel goggles so firmly in place that you can't even acknowledge
> >that this goon was waaaay off base with his remarks. You like to pick
> >out discrepancies (regarding the accepted historical records) in the
> >various anti-Israel posts we see in this forum, but you ignore those
> >discrepancies in this clown's account (i.e., where are those photos he
> >claimed to have taken before the attack?).
>
> LOL; ah, you're having that problem again; reading.
Where are those photos? If they don't exist, he made a false
statement; if they do exist, then why have they never been brought
out?
>
> >> >> <start>
> >> >> (C-CCO) In view of the sensitivity regarding the U.A.R. charges of U.S.
> >> >> complicity with Israel and following a question from the U.S. Chief of
> Naval
> >> >> Operations about the wisdom of Liberty' assignment in the war zone ...
> >> >> <end>
> >> >>
> >> >> From pg. 21, the NSA 1981c Report "Attack on a Sigint Collector, the
> U.S.S.
> >> >> Liberty (S-CCO)"
> >> >>
> >> >> http://libertyincident.com/nsa.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> or
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/liberty.html
> >> >>
> >> >> What's the saying? "You can be right, but you can also be dead right."
> ?
> >> >
> >> >Nice sidestep. Now, backk to the point at hand--was "the mistake" on
> >> >the part of the US as this pilot indicated, or not?
> >>
> >> Nice ignore as to life in the real world.
> >>
> >> As to it being "the mistake", no.
> >
> >Hallelujah! FINALLY, you address the point in question, and now
> >despite your hand-wringing you admit that this Israeli pilot was
> >wrong. Now that was not that hard, was it?
>
> Only to let you feel warm and fuzzy about a point you seem really hung up on
> while ignoring his later statement expressing regret (ie. he's sorry). Hope it
> helps relax you. <g>
LOL! That is like saying, "I'm sorry that other guy ran over your
mother"--kind of removes a lot of the sincerity when this "expression
of regret" follows on the heels of a snide, "Hey, it was after all
YOUR fault!" Not a bit surprising that you strive to defend
Spector--he just joins the long list those Israelis who you refuse to
find fault with over this action.
Brooks
>
> MW
Kevin Brooks
> >From: broo...@yahoo.com (Kevin Brooks)
> >Date: 10/14/2003 06:02 Pacific Daylight Time
>
> >As usual, no evidence from Mikey as to these disciplinary action taken
> >against Israelis who screwed the pooch (and the USN) that day. par for
> >the course, from what i have observed from Mike to date.
>
> LOL; well Kevie your memory seems to have failed, or you're being very
> selective in what you wish to observe and remember.
>
> FoY, in Jan., there was a series of exchanges, and I posted what I knew of the
> aftermath. And what's known has also been published. That's a hint.
ISTR your recollection was limited to a reprimand allegedly handed out
to some Israeli naval type, but when pressed as to how severe it was,
you started mumbling and scuffling your feet. Now those of us who have
ever been around military justice know that a "reprimand" can come in
various flavors (some are even so restricted that promotion boards are
not even made aware of their existance, others have sunset-provisions,
etc.). So...we are left without much evidence of the Israelis ever
having done *anything* of real import to *anyone* involved--and when
the lead pilot is allowed to make it to BG before retiring, the smell
of fish becomes overwhelming (i.e., those US pilots implicated in the
mistaken bombing of the PPLI in Afghanistan are hardly looking forward
to stars in their future).
Mike, if you ever get some real evidence that the Israelis did
anything of substance to anybody involved, let us know--until then,
you are just recycling the same old unsubstantiated garbage you like
to toss out regarding this aspect of the case.
And BTW--did you snip your hilarious query regarding whether I had
ever known an "arrogant jet jockey"? If so, (and I wonder why, since
for some odd reason you thought it germane to the issue at hand) I'd
be mighty interested in hearing your own "experience" in that regard?
Brooks
>
> MW
Kevin Brooks
Don't worry, I am sure Mikey will have an excuse tailor made for them.
My own gut instinct is that the Israelis screwed up and had some
serious command short-circuits; but even given that, you would expect
that (more than one) substantive disciplinary/admin actions would have
resulted (and you have to wonder how the lead pilot subsequently made
it to BG). Where did the Israeli captain who resigned go
afterwards--into some cushy civilian position afforded him by his
compatriots? Haven't seen an answer to that one (Mikey never answered
it), nor can I believe that a single naval captain was really the sole
*responsible* Israeli in this joint forces attack that followed
previous slow aerial recons of a vessel that would hardly be expected
by reasonable individuals to have conducted *any* kind of shore
bombardment mission (I love the Ma Deuce, but a major shore
bombardment weapon system capable of wreaking the havoc reputed to
have been visited upon the El Arish area it surely ain't).
Brooks
rgol...@bellsouth.net
"Kevin Brooks" <broo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1e6ea40d.03101...@posting.google.com...
Then please explain all the "Friendly fire" accidents that have happened
since 1967.......
Fred J. McCall
:In message <li0oov0u7g27ukddg...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> writes
:>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:>:As the LIBERTY? Unless the US starts forwarding her take to Israel's
:>:enemies (around the time that pig farms become airports?), very little.
:>:
:>:However, the Israelis misidentified her as a decent-sized enemy military
:>:vessel, according to the transcripts,
:>
:>And just which enemy vessel did they misidentify her as, Paul? And
:>what were that vessel's capabilities?
:
:"Something military" according to the transcripts, which leaves a large
:margin open.
Gee, "something military". And what did their opposition have in the
way of "something military" that floated? How much of it would have
been an immediate threat to anyone AND could be mistaken for the
Liberty?
:>:and she was twenty minutes' fast
:>:steaming from the Israeli coast: this has rather more potential for
:>:harm.
:>
:>That would indeed be fast steaming. Faster than possible, in point of
:>fact, since it would have required speeds in excess of 50 knots.
:
:She was, what, fifteen miles from the coast? For many values of military
:craft that's hardly a long haul, even if it's more of a slog for an old
:Liberty freighter.
More like 17-25, depending on which accounts you read. Even taking
your numbers, it takes her a speed of 45 knots to hit the beach.
:>Yes, Robocruiser screwed the pooch. However, it was hardly the same
:>magnitude of error,
:
:An order greater, if you count the bodies.
You don't measure 'mistake size' by body count; you measure it by how
badly you have to screw up for it to happen ('reasonable man' sort of
test).
:>nor did the same amounts of time exist to verify
:>the target,
:
:Self-inflicted, note.
Yes, the Vincennes dictated that aircraft move faster and are more of
a threat than ships over the horizon. Self-inflicted, indeed.
:> nor were any attempts made by the Israelis (apparently) to
:>contact their intended target.
:
:They signalled to the LIBERTY and got machine-gun fire in return:
:understandable but unlikely to improve the combat ID situation.
Well, signaling them AFTER you blow the shit out of them seems like
the wrong order to me....
:>You'd have a lot more credibility if you would avoid these sorts of
:>inappropriate and inapt comparisons.
:
:I find the reactions extremely interesting, Fred.
In other words, you're just another troll wasting peoples' time. I
suspected as much when I saw you mix in on this subject with the
remarks that you chose to make (which is why I poked you).
So now you can share the usual fate of trolls.
See you in 30 days, Paul. Perhaps by then you'll have passed back out
of your cyclical troll phase.
Fred J. McCall
:>From: "Paul J. Adam" ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
:>Date: 10/14/2003 09:59 Pacific Daylight Time
:
:>In message <li0oov0u7g27ukddg...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
:><fmc...@earthlink.net> writes
:...
:>>You'd have a lot more credibility if you would avoid these sorts of
:>>inappropriate and inapt comparisons.
:>
:>I find the reactions extremely interesting, Fred.
:
:Indeed so.
In other words, you're just another stupid troll. You can join Paul
in the 'cooling off tank'.
Steve Richter
It would not be surprising to learn that Rehav was resigned due to the
poor performance of the Israeli Navy. If they truly thought the
explosions on the beach were due to naval bombardment, then a 2 hr
response time is pretty poor. And if they actually were ordered to
sink the ship, then the undisciplined attack formation and missing the
point blank range target with 4 out of 5 torpedos is worse still.
Spector says he was interviewed by representatives of the US Congress.
I wonder why Jay Cristol does not mention this in his book? How does
one go about tracking down that interview?
-Steve
Jim Watt
>Then please explain all the "Friendly fire" accidents that have happened
>since 1967.......
EASY, whatever happened they were nothing to do with the attack on the
Liberty, except its useful for people who want to avoid discussing it.
rgol...@bellsouth.net
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:jvfqovcviu4l53498...@4ax.com...
Do you really think so? it seems that Friendly fire has happened since the
beginning of warfare, and one accident can be used to explain the other.
it happens. people make mistakes. It happened in Desert storm. with all the
amazing technology that was not around in 67 or in 73 or 80. But is it just
because it was the Israelis? Is it because the Jews were flying the jets?
What makes it the thing that stands out beyond all other Friendly fire
accidents? makes me wonder......
tw
<rgol...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:gIbjb.32625$Mp6....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
> "Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> news:jvfqovcviu4l53498...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:08:06 -0400, <rgol...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Then please explain all the "Friendly fire" accidents that have
happened
> > >since 1967.......
> >
> > EASY, whatever happened they were nothing to do with the attack on the
> > Liberty, except its useful for people who want to avoid discussing it.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
>
>
> Do you really think so? it seems that Friendly fire has happened since the
> beginning of warfare, and one accident can be used to explain the other.
> it happens. people make mistakes. It happened in Desert storm. with all
the
> amazing technology that was not around in 67 or in 73 or 80. But is it
just
> because it was the Israelis? Is it because the Jews were flying the jets?
Woaahh there, nice substitution of "Jew" for "Israeli" there - those two
nouns are not interchangeable
> makes me wonder......
As does your little extrapolation above...
rgol...@bellsouth.net
reason why so many people are devoting every minute of the day to the
Liberty and no one spends a second on the other accidents.....
--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman
http://www.usidfvets.com
"tw" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:bmjk5j$klt$1...@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
Peter Skelton
Richter) wrote:
What's the point to tracking down the operational details? Either
it was a screw-up of the shoot down somebody else's innocent
airliner variety, or it was the result of something at a quite
high level.
Suppose the US was using the threat of passing on operational
intelligence to constrain Isreal & the Israeli's lost their
patience and sank a US asset. What happens next? Would both
nations recognize that they were headed somewhere they *really*
didn't want to go? Then they back down. Then they put the clamps
on any ionformation that might put politicians in a position
where they couldn't back down.
That's only one of several scenarios but one thing they have in
common is that a pair of allies backed down from a confrontation
(this happens, I've watched it but never under this sort of
pressure.) Another is that they can't be untangled from operating
details.
Peter Skelton
tw
<rgol...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:kIcjb.15493$C26....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> I am an American/Israel...
What's that?
> I'm just asking the question so we might find the
> reason why so many people are devoting every minute of the day to the
> Liberty and no one spends a second on the other accidents.....
Who's devoting every minute of the day to it? I will hazard a wild guess
that the only reason people are devoting any time to it in this thread is
due to the thread title..
rgol...@bellsouth.net
have served in . two homes.. one in the states one in Israel. two countries
I pay taxes in
now you understand it?.;-)
as for those that spends every waking minute on it. you should also know who
I'm talking about.
--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman
http://www.usidfvets.com
"tw" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:bmjovo$nal$1...@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
Paul J. Adam
<fmc...@earthlink.net> writes
Fred's got this persistent habit of killfilling anyone who disagrees
with him, usually after a long rant.
A useful hint - check the *bottom* of his messages before replying :)
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>:In message <li0oov0u7g27ukddg...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
>:<fmc...@earthlink.net> writes
>:"Something military" according to the transcripts, which leaves a large
>:margin open.
>
>Gee, "something military".
Destroyer, cargo ship, they weren't sure.
>And what did their opposition have in the
>way of "something military" that floated? How much of it would have
>been an immediate threat to anyone AND could be mistaken for the
>Liberty?
A respectable force of elderly destroyers; Soviet Skory-class, Z-class,
old Hunts. Quite able to be obnoxious in a shore bombardment role.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/380/fo3.htm
gives some information about Egyptian naval operations during the 1967
war: the Israelis had considerable cause to be worried about big grey
ships off their coast.
>:An order greater, if you count the bodies.
>
>You don't measure 'mistake size' by body count;
It seems you do risk assessment differently to us, then.
>you measure it by how
>badly you have to screw up for it to happen ('reasonable man' sort of
>test).
Probability of occurrence x severity of incident = risk classification.
>:Self-inflicted, note.
>
>Yes, the Vincennes dictated that aircraft move faster and are more of
>a threat than ships over the horizon. Self-inflicted, indeed.
I was more thinking of her half-hour charge at flank speed into Iranian
waters, thus compressing the battlespace and her engagement timelines.
Without that aggressive reaction, IA655 would have passed well clear,
there'd have been no surface gun action to distract, and the incident
would have gone unreported in the way hundreds or thousands of other
interactions between US vessels and civilian traffic did.
>:>You'd have a lot more credibility if you would avoid these sorts of
>:>inappropriate and inapt comparisons.
>:
>:I find the reactions extremely interesting, Fred.
>
>In other words, you're just another troll wasting peoples' time.
No, I just find the reactions interesting; particularly when respondents
work themselves into a righteous fury when their prejudices are
challenged.
>I
>suspected as much when I saw you mix in on this subject with the
>remarks that you chose to make (which is why I poked you).
>
>So now you can share the usual fate of trolls.
You mean, "the usual fate of anyone who disagrees with Fred."
>
>See you in 30 days, Paul. Perhaps by then you'll have passed back out
>of your cyclical troll phase.
No, Fred, I won't have stopped arguing with ill-informed claims. Will
you have grown out of publicly masturbating with your killfile?
Kevin Brooks
Simple--they have nothing to do with the USS Liberty. Good enough?
Stick to the subject at hand; tell us how many Israelis faced a courts
martial for the Liberty incident? If you really *must* compare to US
friendly fire incidents, then look no further than the PPLI case--two
pilots were facing CM, right? So how does that compare to the IDF...?
Again, how many IDF folks were CM'd? Or since you like to leap to
other levels, tell us how many IDF folks have been CM'd for shooting
Palestinian children over the years? If I were you, I'd try to stick
to the Liberty affair--the IDF comes up rather poorly when you start
dragging in all of the other deaths over the years...
Brooks
Kevin Brooks
No idea, but a good point. Heck, I am still waiting for ol' Mikey to
tell me of his vast experience in dealing with "arrogant jet jockeys",
since he made such a big deal of it. Odd how he gets rather quiet when
called upon his own "qualifications".
Brooks
Jim Watt
>I am an American/Israel... I'm just asking the question so we might find the
>reason why so many people are devoting every minute of the day to the
>Liberty and no one spends a second on the other accidents.....
That's the sole topic of this thread, that's why digression is not
appropriate. Its also noticeable that any suggestion that Israel
was in the wrong brings people out of the woodwork with less
than rational views on the subject, ranting.
If you have something useful to add, please do, but your posting
to date does the state of Israel no good whatsoever.
As for 'the Jews', someone recently said that anyone who has been
persecuted for so long must be doing something seriously wrong.
But that is another discussion altogether.
rgol...@bellsouth.net
"Kevin Brooks" <broo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1e6ea40d.0310...@posting.google.com...
I am sticking to the subject . I just wanted to know if other such accidents
get as much attention as the liberty. but you get mad at me for asking?
makes a guy wonder ....
rgol...@bellsouth.net
"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:ov0rov0vk15s4j0jf...@4ax.com...
I've noticed that you wave a flag pretty wildly or is that a sheet I
see...... LOL
asking a question that is right on target like why just the liberty and not
other friendly fires makes since but because the question came from me. then
I see why I got the answers I did.
Brian Allardice
rgol...@bellsouth.net says...
>Do you really think so? it seems that Friendly fire has happened since the
>beginning of warfare, and one accident can be used to explain the other.
>it happens. people make mistakes. It happened in Desert storm. with all the
>amazing technology that was not around in 67 or in 73 or 80. But is it just
>because it was the Israelis? Is it because the Jews were flying the jets?
>What makes it the thing that stands out beyond all other Friendly fire
>accidents? makes me wonder......
Wonder away... We created a bit of a fuss when the Yanks blasted our guys; no
jews involved there, as far as I know. So much for that theory...
Cheers,
dba
rgol...@bellsouth.net
--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman
http://www.usidfvets.com
"Brian Allardice" <d...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:ckjjb.102849$9l5.72629@pd7tw2no...
Brian Allardice
says...
>
>but have you been doing it since 1967?
Well, no... but we'll probably be making the occasional snide remark for the
next century or so...
Also, it was dealt with quickly and reasonably openly, whereas 'Liberty' seems
to have been subject of cover-up &c. from the begining...
Cheers,
dba
Alan Minyard
>
>
>
>"Jim Watt" <jim...@aol.no_way> wrote in message
>news:jvfqovcviu4l53498...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:08:06 -0400, <rgol...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Then please explain all the "Friendly fire" accidents that have happened
>> >since 1967.......
>>
>> EASY, whatever happened they were nothing to do with the attack on the
>> Liberty, except its useful for people who want to avoid discussing it.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com
>
>
>Do you really think so? it seems that Friendly fire has happened since the
>beginning of warfare, and one accident can be used to explain the other.
>it happens. people make mistakes. It happened in Desert storm. with all the
>amazing technology that was not around in 67 or in 73 or 80. But is it just
>because it was the Israelis? Is it because the Jews were flying the jets?
>What makes it the thing that stands out beyond all other Friendly fire
>accidents? makes me wonder......
The attack on the Liberty was not "friendly fire", it was a deliberate
attack on a US ship. I do not care what the religion of the attackers
was. It is interesting that you immediately call them Jews, is that
because Israel is so theocratic that no one else could serve?
Al Minyard
Alan Minyard
>American/Israeli.= Two passports. two citizenships. 2 armed forces that I
>have served in . two homes.. one in the states one in Israel. two countries
>I pay taxes in
>now you understand it?.;-)
>
>
>as for those that spends every waking minute on it. you should also know who
>I'm talking about.
In other words you are too "wishy washy" to own up to one citizenship.
You cannot owe allegiance to two countries. Go and live in Israel,
since you seem to believe that they can do no wrong and the US can do
no right.
Al Minyard
Vince Brannigan
why do you think a person cannot owe "allegiance" to more than one
country? As just one example Many foreigners enlist in the US military.
Vince
rgol...@bellsouth.net
Jew as a child?
--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman
http://www.usidfvets.com
"Alan Minyard" <aminy...@netdoor.com> wrote in message
news:0garovg65drhg042t...@4ax.com...
rgol...@bellsouth.net
--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman
http://www.usidfvets.com
"Vince Brannigan" <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote in message
news:3F8DD40E...@pressroom.com...
Steve Richter
I dont follow Peter. Why make things more complicated than they
already are? All parties involved should simply tell the truth,
disclose all the facts and stop the spinning, excusing and name
calling.
Your take is interesting. From my reading of the Michael Oren book on
the 6 day war, Israel's forces could attack and take territory at will
at any time. The only constraint on it was the UN, with the US having
to back it, calling for cease fires on each front. The less confirmed
info on what was happening, who was attacking who, the better for
Israel. On June 9, the day after the Liberty was taken out, Israel
seized the Golan Heights from Syria. What is important to know about
that attack is that ( according to Oren ) when Israel started its
attack, Syria had already withdrawn its forces! The US and the UN did
not know this. If it did, the UN sec council would have called for an
immed cease fire and the US would have had to side with the UN. By the
world powers being in the dark, Israel bought the time it needed to
take the Heights.
-Steve
Peter Skelton
Richter) wrote:
That won't happen if somebody thinks it might affect current
politics.
>Your take is interesting. From my reading of the Michael Oren book on
>the 6 day war, Israel's forces could attack and take territory at will
>at any time. The only constraint on it was the UN, with the US having
>to back it, calling for cease fires on each front. The less confirmed
>info on what was happening, who was attacking who, the better for
>Israel. On June 9, the day after the Liberty was taken out, Israel
>seized the Golan Heights from Syria. What is important to know about
>that attack is that ( according to Oren ) when Israel started its
>attack, Syria had already withdrawn its forces! The US and the UN did
>not know this. If it did, the UN sec council would have called for an
>immed cease fire and the US would have had to side with the UN. By the
>world powers being in the dark, Israel bought the time it needed to
>take the Heights.
>
I thought I'd been clear that this is only one of several
scenarios and that we aren't going to find out what the truth
was. Chasing the operating details is merely picking at the scab.
Peter Skelton
Kevin Brooks
Your inability (once again), or unwillingness, to answer the questions
posed is answer enough.
Brooks
Fred J. McCall
:Wow you are a bit on edge aren't you . what's a matter you get scared by a
:Jew as a child?
No, but apparently you were dropped on your head. Repeatedly.
We take a fairly dim view of religious bigotry in this country. We
don't even much care what religions are involved.
You are such a bigot.
--
"This philosophy of hate, of religious and racial intolerance,
with its passionate urge toward war, is loose in the world.
It is the enemy of democracy; it is the enemy of all the
fruitful and spiritual sides of life. It is our responsibility,
as individuals and organizations, to resist this."
-- Mary Heaton Vorse
Fred J. McCall
:it's because I'm Jewish. and he hates us because of the liberty.
What the fuck are you smoking?
You're a religious bigot. Go away. And that's nothing for or against
Jews. It's all about you.
Alan Minyard
I believe that to be a false allegiance. You are either a patriot or
you are not.
Al Minyard
Alan Minyard
>Wow you are a bit on edge aren't you . what's a matter you get scared by a
>Jew as a child?
PLONK
Al Minyard
rgol...@bellsouth.net
--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman
http://www.usidfvets.com
"Alan Minyard" <aminy...@netdoor.com> wrote in message
news:7pgtovclhsf6ofeq3...@4ax.com...
William Black
> I believe that to be a false allegiance. You are either a patriot or
> you are not.
What about fighting for principles?
The people from all over the world who fought on both sides in the Spanish
Civil War fought for a cause.
The US pilots who fought in the RAF Eagle Squadrons before the USA entered
WWII did so because they thought it was right.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
rgol...@bellsouth.net
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bmmuad$o53$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
William
they are blind to the fact. either historic or otherwise.
Alan Minyard
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Alan Minyard" <aminy...@netdoor.com> wrote in message
>news:lmgtov4pk2i4q22cs...@4ax.com...
>
>> I believe that to be a false allegiance. You are either a patriot or
>> you are not.
>
>What about fighting for principles?
>
>The people from all over the world who fought on both sides in the Spanish
>Civil War fought for a cause.
>
>The US pilots who fought in the RAF Eagle Squadrons before the USA entered
>WWII did so because they thought it was right.
I certainly agree with that point, but I think they were still
fighting as Americans, Brits, Poles, etc. You would not necessarily
change/lose your allegiance.
Al Minyard
Keith Willshaw
The official policy of the USA at the time the Eagle Squadrons
were formed was one of neutrality so they were hardly following
the wishes of the US Government. The Poles could of course claim
they were fighting for the Polish Government in exile.
Of course since there was at least one serving USN officer flying
combat missions with RAF coastal command things get a
bit murky.
Keith
Vince Brannigan
Alan Minyard wrote:
>
>>>In other words you are too "wishy washy" to own up to one citizenship.
>>>You cannot owe allegiance to two countries. Go and live in Israel,
>>>since you seem to believe that they can do no wrong and the US can do
>>>no right.
>>
>>why do you think a person cannot owe "allegiance" to more than one
>>country? As just one example Many foreigners enlist in the US military.
>>
>>Vince
>
>
> I believe that to be a false allegiance. You are either a patriot or
> you are not.
It may be "limited" but it is not "false" Perhaps you have a different
concept of "allegiance"
allegiance
Etymology: Middle English allegeaunce, modification of Middle French
ligeance, from Old French, from lige liege
Date: 14th century
1 a : the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord
b (1) : the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or
government
(2) : the obligation of an alien to the government under which the alien
resides
2 : devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause
synonym see FIDELITY
an "allegiance" is a legal duty. The precise conneciton to "patriotism"
is complex.
Vince
Vince Brannigan
rgol...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Nice tactic. but now everyone knows you as a lying fake,
>
I for one disagree with your characterization of Mr. Minyard, who is a
diligent and relentless disputer of many issues, but who clearly posts
the truth as he sees it.
Vince Brannigan
rgol...@bellsouth.net
what does that make him?
--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman
"Vince Brannigan" <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote in message
news:3F8F2B8A...@pressroom.com...