| Author | Message | | funglefoot | | Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 10:01 am Post subject: Apologists admit guilt by default in Assault on the Liberty |
| In a desperate attempt to cut out the endless diversion and obfuscation in the Liberty case, Fungalfoot - a lay junior 'barrister' of untested ability but some persistence - offered to concede all the defense's evidence offered to date, with the exception of evidence as to state of mind. He says that the only material evidence in the case is that evidence that proves or disproves the Israeli state of mind at the time of the attack. His assertions are:
1.
Israel attacked the Liberty. This is agreed by all sides.
2.
Such attack was a sustained, deliberate, premeditated, unprovoked, knowing, combined air and sea attack on the neutral, unresisting, vessel of an ally sailing peacefully in international waters, bearing the flag of her nationality and the Latin letters of her hull number.
3.
Israel states it was a case of mistaken identity and the Liberty was mistaken for an old Egyptian horse carrier half the size of the Liberty.
4.
Pre-Attack Aerial Reconnaissance of USS Liberty
There were numerous obvious reconnaissance overflights of USS Liberty by delta wing Mirage jets and by a twin fuselage aircraft identified as a Nord Noratlas.
5.
There were NSA transcripts of Israeli pilots communicating with their ground command which identified the Liberty as an American ship. They were commanded to proceed with the attack.
6.
Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_protection
7.
Given all the above prima facie evidence it falls to Israel to prove her defense of mistaken identity. The Apologists previously suggested a standard of proof of 'logical conclusion'. For the sake of expedition I will accept that standard of proof.
8.
In order to prove 'mistaken identity' it is essential that the Apologists lead some Israeli evidence as to what the Israelis were thinking at the time. Thus far they have relied on American evidence only. The Americans cannot possibly testify as to what the Israelis were thinking at the time of the attack and the pre-attack aerial reconnaisance. The obvious exception to this is the reported conversations of Israeli pilots in NSA transcripts (which were ordered destroyed) but to the prior existence of which there is expert testimony.
A US Naval seaman can testify that a torpedo struck the Liberty but he cannot testify as to whether that torpedo was intended for the Liberty or whether it was intended for the El Queseir. This whole case depends on the lack, or presence, of a mistaken state of mind. The only people who can testify to this are the Israelis. Yet the Apologists cannot, will not, lead any Israeli evidence.
The Apologists have therefore conceded defeat by default and for the purposes of WWE Israel is guilty as charged, ie she murdered 34 US Navy seamen and destroyed a US Navy vessel and she caused the wounding of 173 further US Navy seamen.
Israel is supposed to be an ally of America. America is certainly an ally of Israel given the massive economic and military support she gives to Israel. One might have expected Israel in the circumstances to co-operate with a full, independent and open investigation as to the Liberty Incident. But no, this is not the Israeli way. My own personal point of view is that Israel stabs her friends in the back and then runs away.  | |  | | funglefoot | | Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject: |
| How does Israel treat its special friend? By stabbing her friend in the back and running away? For 40 years Israel has been running from a full and fair inquiry in open court. This was not done by Israel herself but by Israel's proxies, the Congressmen 'bought and paid for' by AIPAC.
It is 40 years since the Liberty was attacked. Thousands of Americans in Iraq are dying for Israel. Thousands more will die unless America rids itself of the parasite which infests every nook and cranny of American politics. A good start would be the full exposure of the treacherous betrayal of the Liberty. | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 5:13 am Post subject: |
|  | | | | Ilana_Halevy | | Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 5:41 am Post subject: |
| Yet another topic created by Mooslimes to dance on blood of sailors.
1) Why Israel sent planes without proper anti ship weapons?
2) Why planes were leading conversations in Hebrew on open uncoded frequence.
3) Why planes and boats were clearly marked?
4) Why first were sent Mirage III with exptremely distinguish shape?
5) Why were sent MBTs, when much simple and faster to sink ship with plane bombs? Especially since Israeli pilots are much more experienced and trained than sailors.
No answers.
No motive.
No evidences.
| Quote: | | There were NSA transcripts of Israeli pilots communicating with their ground command which identified the Liberty as an American ship. They were commanded to proceed with the attack. |
Lie. NSA records tell exactly the OPPOSITE.
| Quote: | | Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested. |
Another stupid lie.
| Quote: | | Israel states it was a case of mistaken identity and the Liberty was mistaken for an old Egyptian horse carrier half the size of the Liberty. |
Favorite Mooslime argument. However they "forget" that Liberty was also a horse carrier in the past.
However its fine for them:
That most modern AEGIS cruiser in the world mixed up little two seat fighter with huge 300 passenger airbus???
That Iraqi jet mixed up battle frigate with oil tanker!!
Pathetic degenerates. | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 6:49 am Post subject: |
| | Avoid and divert Ilana. It's all you do. | | | | Barmak | | Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 7:13 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | 1) Why Israel sent planes without proper anti ship weapons? |
Israel, in your version of the story, was attacking a civilian or military Egyptian ship. If the plane was not suited for attacking ships then you should explain why they bothered to attack this ship the at all?
| Quote: | | 2) Why planes were leading conversations in Hebrew on open uncoded frequence. |
The conversations were carried in Hebrew because that's what you idiots speak. It would make no sense to talk in Arabic. Moreover, this was pre-digital age and encrypted channels had not become standard yet. The technology existed for sending encrypted messages but this was not suited for real time communication.
The point which you are getting at is that if Israel wanted to sink the US ship then they would do it secretly, meaning they would be talking in pig latin over encrypted channels. But the source can still be intercepted and identified as Israeli. All encryptions can be decrypted given enough time.
| Quote: | | 3) Why planes and boats were clearly marked? |
It is customary for the military to clearly mark its units to avoid friendly fire. These markings enabled Israelis to avoid friendly fire and focus their effort against the US ship which was also clearly marked.
| Quote: | | 4) Why first were sent Mirage III with exptremely distinguish shape? |
At the time most Israeli fighters were French made, all of these planes were easily distinguishable from Russian Migs. They could have sent a hot air balloon but they didn't. I don't know why.
| Quote: | | 5) Why were sent MBTs, when much simple and faster to sink ship with plane bombs? Especially since Israeli pilots are much more experienced and trained than sailors. |
Attacking targets in the sea is very different than attack targets on the ground. Israeli pilots were trained to attack targets on the ground, they were not trained to attack US ships in the sea and they obviously failed their mission. | | | | Ilana_Halevy | | Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 7:54 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Israel, in your version of the story, was attacking a civilian or military Egyptian ship. If the plane was not suited for attacking ships then you should explain why they bothered to attack this ship the at all? |
Planes were obviously called from another operation. Israelis thought that Liberty is bombarding a coast so they sent first thing they could do to silence it.
| Quote: | | The conversations were carried in Hebrew because that's what you idiots speak. It would make no sense to talk in Arabic. Moreover, this was pre-digital age and encrypted channels had not become standard yet. The technology existed for sending encrypted messages but this was not suited for real time communication. |
When Israelis attacked Egyptian airfields 3 days before they kept radio silence.
| Quote: | | It is customary for the military to clearly mark its units to avoid friendly fire. These markings enabled Israelis to avoid friendly fire and focus their effort against the US ship which was also clearly marked. |
There was not any fear of friendly fire.
| Quote: | | At the time most Israeli fighters were French made, all of these planes were easily distinguishable from Russian Migs. They could have sent a hot air balloon but they didn't. I don't know why. |
Mystere planes are very similar in shape to MiG-19.
| Quote: | | Attacking targets in the sea is very different than attack targets on the ground. Israeli pilots were trained to attack targets on the ground, they were not trained to attack US ships in the sea and they obviously failed their mission. |
Nothing different. Fact is that canisters that planes drped did hit Liberty. If instead canisters there were high explosive bombs Liberty would sink in two minutes.
Thanks for trying. Alas no success
Al jeffy, how could AEGIS ship mix up two seat jet with 300 passengers airbus? Do you know that AEGIS radar has marks of planes in it's memory (it can differ Su-27 from F-15)? It is capable even to see what kind of playload is carrying plane under his wing?  | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 8:11 am Post subject: |
| | Ilana wrote: | That most modern AEGIS cruiser in the world mixed up little two seat fighter with huge 300 passenger airbus???
That Iraqi jet mixed up battle frigate with oil tanker!! |
| fungalfoot wrote: | | Iranian airbus...the Vincennes fired two SM-2MR Surface-to-air missiles only...no aerial attack...no aerial reconnaissance...attack lasted only a minute... |
| fungalfoot wrote: | | Stark attack...lasted only a minute...no previous reconaissance...single Mirage F1...two exocet missiles...no MTB's |
| Ilana wrote: | | What does it matter how long attack lasted?? Dead are dead. |
Simple. The longer you look at something the more clearly you can identify it. The Israelis were looking at the Liberty for 75 minutes plus all the time they spent looking at it during aerial reconnaissance. Lets call it 2 hours. It is just not credible that you can look at something for 2 hours and still not know what you are looking at!!!  | | | | Ilana_Halevy | | Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 8:46 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Simple. The longer you look at something the more clearly you can identify it. The Israelis were looking at the Liberty for 75 minutes plus all the time they spent looking at it during aerial reconnaissance. Lets call it 2 hours. It is just not credible that you can look at something for 2 hours and still not know what you are looking at!!! |
If Israel planned attack in advance it would last no more than couple mins. The fact that it lasted 40 mins only talks about the mess and lack of planning.
SO dont change topic and answer my questions. How could AIGIS ship than can differ between F-16 and F-18 mix up two seat subsonic jet with 300 passenger airbus? | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 9:29 am Post subject: |
|  It is you who is changing the topic. We were talking about how long you need to look at something before you know what you are looking at. The Iranian airbus is a different topic altogether. You should start a new thread: The Iranian Airbus Disaster
So how long do you need to look at something before you know what you are looking at? Quickly before you change the topic again! | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
