by seawolf 33 Replies latest social current
I think you must be the only person in the world that doesn't believe that Israel attacked the Liberty, and the US knew about it.
No wonder your having a hard time grasping the fact that the governments are capable of even greater acts of violence against it's own people.
""I think you must be the only person in the world that doesn't believe that Israel attacked the Liberty""
The issue was not if Israel attacked the Liberty. But why?
As to the "Why" part, I am in very good company....
10 official U.S. investigations, including 5 by congress and three official Israeli investigations, all of which concluded the event was a tragic mistake, and 7 U.S. presidents (Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton) have endorsed that position, not one of hundreds of available Americans was presented to state the official U.S. position.
Conspiracy theories are really amusing though....and a sucker is born every day......
Does it really matter? Is the point to prove that Israel is not as "squeaky clean" as the media would have us think?
The only people who think that Israel is a poor innocent victim of the terrorist Palestinians are those who only watch American news. The rest of the world knows the truth about Israel.
Stan
Stan:
What unfounded rubbish. You do not know the History of the area, or, you are a "useful
Idiot" for the "history revisionists."
Before June of 1967, when Egypt controlled Gaza, and Jordan held the West Bank, neither nation gave the land to the Palestinians for a state because the idea was that they would eventually return to the real Palestine: Israel. It was all predicated on Israel being wiped out. The Palestinians, in effect, were told by their neighbors Egypt and Jordan, "Look, don't come here, stay in these camps and then go back to your homeland when we have dealt with the Israelis."
And they're still in those camps being used as political pawns by those countries because the Israelis have not been wiped out. So you have all of these refugees in these camps. Why do they stay? Well, to answer that, you have to ask who supports them. You have to remember that since the Oslo Accords of 1993, everything has changed because the Palestinians have been living under the sovereignty of the Palestinian Authority, not under any Israeli occupation.
In 1948, the United States contributed $25 million and Israel gave $3 million (though the identical number of Jewish refugees who fled Arab states got nothing). All of the Arab nations combined gave $600,000." They gave nothing. And even still today, Europeans and Americans are supporting the Palestinians in these refugee camps and have been for fifty-four years now.
You talk about a people that have been totally sold out. It's just an absolute crime. And to this day we will not officially, as part of this government, declare the leaders of these people to be who and what they are – terrorists. No, we're going to negotiate with them instead.
Hi Thi Chi,
Thanks for the history lesson, but I think you missed the point of my post. No where did I speak of, nor elude to, the causes of the conflict in that area. Let me go over it so you can understand.
I asked if the reason for this discussion had to do with attempts to tarnish the reputation of Israel. I did that by using a modern phrase "squeaky clean". Perhaps that's where I lost you? I also implied rather directly that the media is responsible for manipulating people's perceptions.
My next statement did not, as you mistakenly thought, imply any responsibility as to the origins of the conflict. Therfore the history lesson was unnecessary. It was a statement about the present day continuing violence, and the fact that both sides are perpetrating it. My next statement about American media biasedly reporting on events in the middle east can be personally attested to, as I live in a border city which allows me to receive American news and Canadian news. The American reports minimize the suffering of the Palestinian people as compared to the people of Israel. You can hurl insults at me again for that statement, but I see it daily. You cannot prove me wrong on that one.
I apologize for not spelling it out clearly so that you even you could understand it.
Stan
Thi Chi - In your presentation above, where are you getting what you label as "Fact"
The fact that there are so many versions, so much fog, so much smoke and mirrors, so many statements of "they went thataway" that it seems easy to figure out that something way wrong went wrong and everyone is engaged in some game of lemme cover my own ass and try to cover part of someone else's at the same time.
See Para #1
Thanks for the question. I truly respect your thoughts and viewpoints. I hope this is the information you are asking for:
The film was reviewed by some historians for comment. Viewing the film will confirm the observations.....
PS: When you watch the program, please consider the missing "testimony" of many key people....
Investigation | Date | Conclusion |
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry | June 10-18, 1967 | The attack was a case of mistaken identity. Calm conditions and slow ship speed may have made American flag difficult to identify. No indication the attack was intended against U.S. ship. |
CIA Report | June 13, 1967 | The attack was not made in malice and was a mistake. |
Joint Chiefs of Staff Fact Finding Team (Russ Report) | June 9-20, 1967 | Outlined "findings of fact," bud did not make any findings about the actual attack. |
Clifford Report | July 18, 1967 | No premeditation, but "inexcusable failures" by Israeli forces constituing "gross negligence." |
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations | 1967 | Secretary of Defense McNamara testified he supported conclusion that the attack was not intentional. |
Senate Armed Services Committee | Feb. 1, 1968 | No conclusion. Secretary McNamara makes comparison of attack on Liberty to that on Pueblo with regard to uncertainty about what was happening at the time of the incident. |
House Appropriations Committee | April-May 1968 | Navy communications "foulup" and no conclusion regarding Israeli actions. Much of report remains classified. |
House Armed Services Committee | May 10, 1971 | Critical of Navy communications, no conclusion regarding Israeli actions. |
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence | 1979 | Responding to critical book by Liberty crewman James Ennes, Senate investigation found no merit to his claim attack was intentional. |
National Security Agency | 1981 | Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculations and egregious errors. |
House Armed Services Committee | June 1991 | Responding to request from Liberty Veterans Association, Subcommitte on Investigations launched probe that concluded there was no evidence to support allegations made by the Association and no reason for further investigation. |
Investigation | Date | Conclusion |
Ram Ron Commission | June 12, 1967 | The attack was made "neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as the result of a bona fide mistake. Also notes that the Liberty made a mistake as well by carelessly approaching a war area. |
Preliminary Inquiry | July 1967 | There was no malicious intent and no deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct that would justify a court-martial. |
IDF History | 1982 | The attack was a result of an "innocent error." |
Source: A.J. Cristol, "The Liberty Incident," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Miami, 1997, pp. 86-113.
Jay Cristol, The Liberty Incident, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, 1997, pp. 145-148. Cristol, a federal judge in Miami, is the leading expert on the Liberty incident, having devoted years to its study.
Stan:
Sorry I "Misread" your words. However, you stated:
""The only people who think that Israel is a poor innocent victim of the terrorist Palestinians are those who only watch American news. The rest of the world knows the truth about Israel.""
Your statement truly "begs the question".....words mean things...what is the truth then?
Thi Chi
That's the history channel tonight, right?
And I will see if I can find my copy of Bamford's book, if I decide to stay engaged in this thread at all. Gotta chose your battles carefully you know. Do I want to spend energy researching this or do I not? I don't know yet.
