War Without End

Jefferson Davis · Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 7:11 am Post subject:

Just more divert and avoid. Your link has nothing to do with the USS Liberty murders.

Typical Liberty apologists.

DanielDives · Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 7:51 am Post subject:

The attack was either carried out by a legion of Ghosts or Cro-Quaidas, becasue the defense fails to fill in a simple, yet very crucial list:

Witnesses’ testimony needed - Attack on USS Liberty, 08 June, 1967

IAF Reconnaissance flight/s Pilot or Pilots

Number unknown:

1-

2-

???????

3 IAF pilots –who strafed the USS Liberty with bullets, rockets and napalm during several runs

1 –

2 –

3 –

3 x ISC - MTB personnel

Number unknown:

1 –

2 –

???????

2 IAF ‘Rescue’ Helicopter pilots

1 –

2 –

Armed and dressed in battle-fatigue men, inside both ‘rescue’ helicopters

Number unknown:

1 –

2 –

???????

Those who gave the order to attack the USS Liberty – 08 June, 1967 [Chain of Command]:

[number unknown]

1 –

2 –

???????

DETECTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE "LIBERTY".

On 8 June, at 0410 hours, an IAF "Nord" aircraft took oft with a naval officer aboard serving as an aerial observer. This air reconnaissance patrol was part of the routine coastal security measures. The patrol set out at first light, parallel to Israel's shores and over the open sea. (An additional patrol of the same type proceeded from 1530 hours until nightfall). The patrol's mission was to detect ship movements before vessels could enter coastal radar detection [page 7] range. The airborne observer would make a brief report of each detection at the moment visual contact was wade; additional information would be transmitted in the debriefing, after the plane's landing. [b]At approximately 0545, an unclear message was received from the plane at Central Coastal Command (CLC-Combat Information Center-Central Coast). After clarification with the Navy representative at Air Commands the observation plane was reported to have sighted a ship, apparently a destroyer, sailing 70 miles west of Gaza.

The ship was designated as "Skunk-C" on the Control Table, and marked red - i.e. an unidentified target. Later, at 0603 hours, an additional report arrived from the plane, which described the vessel as a supply ship of the US Navy. The report was not unusual. Aerial observers had often reported on the presence of this type of craft, but such vessels would always change direction and disappear far from the coast.7 Although the ship had been identified by the aerial observer, the target remained colored in red since the team at Central Coastal Command (hereafter referred to as CCC) were not positively sure of the ship's identity.8

At approximately 0900 hours, following the discovery of the enemy submarine off Atlit, GOC Israel Navy arrived at the (CCC) bridge. During a break in the activity surrounding the submarine, GOC Navy inquired about "Skunk C", and after receiving en explanation concerning the vessel, instructed that the ship be marked green i.e, a neutral craft.

At about the same time, a report arrived at Regional Control 501; the report stated that an IAF pilot, returning from a mission in Sinai, had spotted a ship 20 miles north of E1 Arish and that when he had tried to identify the vessel it had opened fire upon him.9. Reacting to this report, Head of Naval Operations Section/3 (a section in the Naval Operations Department) instructed Israel Navy destroyers "Jaffa" and "Eilat" (who were patrolling along the coast) to turn south and verity the identity of the vessel. However, the destroyers were ordered to return to their patrol sectors at 0940 hours, after an additional report arrived from Regional Control 501, that in the light of the pilot's debriefing, there was no certainty that he had indeed been fired upon by the ship.10 The report likewise stated that, "the ship is colored grey blue, very wide and the bridge is in the middle."

Meanwhile, the "Nord" plane which had been patrolling the sea had landed and the observer was debriefed by Lt. Commander Pinchasi, a navy representative at Air Command, The observer reported spotting the marking GTR-5, [page 8] on the ship's side. Lt. Commander Pinchasi checked the marking in a "Janes" manual and learned that the reference was to the intelligence ship named "Liberty". He reported the information to Naval Operations Section/3 and since the reference was to an intelligence ship he likewise reported to Naval Operations Section/4 (intelligence).11

Commander Lunz had relieved the Head of Naval Operations section/3 (who retired to rest) and was the officer who received the report. However, he did not see anything new in the debriefing but rather a complementary report to the one received at 0500 hours, Since he did not have information as to the present location of the "Liberty" he gave the order (at 1100 hours) to erase the vessel from the CCC control table. This order was given in accordance with the accepted updating procedure for maintaining an up-to the minute picture at the CCC control table.12

By this action, the "Liberty" was, for all practical purposes, removed from the agenda. The detection of the "Liberty" at that location (far from the theatre of battle) was not unusual and did not require special attention or tracking. Certainly no danger was discerned that might have necessitated a response and it was reasonable to assume that the ship would turn round and sail away. In addition, it was common practice to erase targets which had disappeared from range.13 These were almost certainly the considerations which guided Commander Lunz when he ordered the erasure of "Liberty" from the CCC control table[/b].14

A short time after the erasure of "Liberty" from the CCC control table, a series of events transpired which led to the detection of the ship a second time now under circumstances which led to a tragic mistake.

Note: according to CCC "...or even the "Liberty's" log describes only three sorties overhead (at 0850, 1056 and at 1126 hours)."

Overhead

[page 40]

source: Israel Defense Forces History Report of 1982: "Attack on the Liberty Incident" [response to the publication of 'Assault on the Liberty' in 1979], aka the 1982 IDF History Report or IDFHR.

Thus, anyone claiming the IDF/IAFISC didn;' know anything about the USS Liberty is imply lying.

Ilana_Halevy · Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:42 am Post subject:

DanielDives · Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 9:14 am Post subject:

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/9491/elqzn7.jpg

Ahhhhhhh..... sticking to your own image now, are you?

Why upload your pictures to a server in the US?

Doesn't a nookelar physio-therapist have more urgent things to tend to?

Witnesses’ testimony needed - Attack on USS Liberty, 08 June, 1967

IAF Reconnaissance flight/s Pilot or Pilots

Number unknown:

1-

2-

???????

3 IAF pilots –who strafed the USS Liberty with bullets, rockets and napalm during several runs

1 –

2 –

3 –

3 x ISC - MTB personnel

Number unknown:

1 –

2 –

???????

2 IAF ‘Rescue’ Helicopter pilots

1 –

2 –

Armed and dressed in battle-fatigue men, inside both ‘rescue’ helicopters

Number unknown:

1 –

2 –

???????

Those who gave the order to attack the USS Liberty – 08 June, 1967 [Chain of Command]:

[number unknown]

1 –

2 –

???????

DETECTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE "LIBERTY".

source: Israel Defense Forces History Report of 1982: "Attack on the Liberty Incident" [response to the publication of 'Assault on the Liberty' in 1979], aka the 1982 IDF History Report or IDFHR.

On 8 June, at 0410 hours, an IAF "Nord" aircraft took oft with a naval officer aboard serving as an aerial observer. This air reconnaissance patrol was part of the routine coastal security measures. The patrol set out at first light, parallel to Israel's shores and over the open sea. (An additional patrol of the same type proceeded from 1530 hours until nightfall). The patrol's mission was to detect ship movements before vessels could enter coastal radar detection [page 7] range. The airborne observer would make a brief report of each detection at the moment visual contact was wade; additional information would be transmitted in the debriefing, after the plane's landing. [b]At approximately 0545, an unclear message was received from the plane at Central Coastal Command (CLC-Combat Information Center-Central Coast). After clarification with the Navy representative at Air Commands the observation plane was reported to have sighted a ship, apparently a destroyer, sailing 70 miles west of Gaza.

The ship was designated as "Skunk-C" on the Control Table, and marked red - i.e. an unidentified target. Later, at 0603 hours, an additional report arrived from the plane, which described the vessel as a supply ship of the US Navy. The report was not unusual. Aerial observers had often reported on the presence of this type of craft, but such vessels would always change direction and disappear far from the coast.7 Although the ship had been identified by the aerial observer, the target remained colored in red since the team at Central Coastal Command (hereafter referred to as CCC) were not positively sure of the ship's identity.8

At approximately 0900 hours, following the discovery of the enemy submarine off Atlit, GOC Israel Navy arrived at the (CCC) bridge. During a break in the activity surrounding the submarine, GOC Navy inquired about "Skunk C", and after receiving en explanation concerning the vessel, instructed that the ship be marked green i.e, a neutral craft.

At about the same time, a report arrived at Regional Control 501; the report stated that an IAF pilot, returning from a mission in Sinai, had spotted a ship 20 miles north of E1 Arish and that when he had tried to identify the vessel it had opened fire upon him.9. Reacting to this report, Head of Naval Operations Section/3 (a section in the Naval Operations Department) instructed Israel Navy destroyers "Jaffa" and "Eilat" (who were patrolling along the coast) to turn south and verity the identity of the vessel. However, the destroyers were ordered to return to their patrol sectors at 0940 hours, after an additional report arrived from Regional Control 501, that in the light of the pilot's debriefing, there was no certainty that he had indeed been fired upon by the ship.10 The report likewise stated that, "the ship is colored grey blue, very wide and the bridge is in the middle."

Meanwhile, the "Nord" plane which had been patrolling the sea had landed and the observer was debriefed by Lt. Commander Pinchasi, a navy representative at Air Command, The observer reported spotting the marking GTR-5, [page 8] on the ship's side. Lt. Commander Pinchasi checked the marking in a "Janes" manual and learned that the reference was to the intelligence ship named "Liberty". He reported the information to Naval Operations Section/3 and since the reference was to an intelligence ship he likewise reported to Naval Operations Section/4 (intelligence).11

Commander Lunz had relieved the Head of Naval Operations section/3 (who retired to rest) and was the officer who received the report. However, he did not see anything new in the debriefing but rather a complementary report to the one received at 0500 hours, Since he did not have information as to the present location of the "Liberty" he gave the order (at 1100 hours) to erase the vessel from the CCC control table. This order was given in accordance with the accepted updating procedure for maintaining an up-to the minute picture at the CCC control table.12

By this action, the "Liberty" was, for all practical purposes, removed from the agenda. The detection of the "Liberty" at that location (far from the theatre of battle) was not unusual and did not require special attention or tracking. Certainly no danger was discerned that might have necessitated a response and it was reasonable to assume that the ship would turn round and sail away. In addition, it was common practice to erase targets which had disappeared from range.13 These were almost certainly the considerations which guided Commander Lunz when he ordered the erasure of "Liberty" from the CCC control table[/b].14

A short time after the erasure of "Liberty" from the CCC control table, a series of events transpired which led to the detection of the ship a second time now under circumstances which led to a tragic mistake.

Note: according to CCC "...or even the "Liberty's" log describes only three sorties overhead (at 0850, 1056 and at 1126 hours)."

Overhead

source: Israel Defense Forces History Report of 1982: "Attack on the Liberty Incident" [response to the publication of 'Assault on the Liberty' in 1979], aka the 1982 IDF History Report or IDFHR.

Anyway…

funglefoot · Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 4:01 pm Post subject:

Ilana Halevy. Being stupid is one thing. Having things explained to you nicely in various colours and shades and different sizes of font and then persisting with your stupid, stupid comparisons is something so obtuse, so imbecilic, so idiotic, it can hardly be described as human. How can you be such a klutz? How can you be such a moron?

I explained to you very carefully, very slowly and very deliberately that America gives Israel billions of dollars per annum. For this reason, because Israel and America are such close allies, Israel has a duty out of friendship to co-operate with a full and thorough inquiry into the Liberty affair. China, Iraq, Iran and Britain, though you never quoted any examples of Anglo-American friendly fire, do not have the same 'special relationship' that Israel and America enjoy. If your worst enemy throws a stone at you this is something you can understand. If your best friend throws a stone at you, then you want an explanation.

Now do you understand you fucking idiot? Have you got it into your thick Israeli head? I doubt it. Who could be so fucking stupid to attack a ship that they had already identified as a friendly vessel? Only Israel!

I will leave this in black and white without any modifications to size or colour or boldness. I don't want to confuse you...

Ilana_Halevy · Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 4:04 pm Post subject:

Filth if you were reading something beside Koran you would know that US was giving lots of aid to Iraq in 1987 Rolling Eyes

funglefoot · Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:30 pm Post subject:

Imbecile! Idiot! Klutz! Schmuk! Moron! Arsehole! Stupido! Half-wit! Cretin! Loser!

How much aid did America give to Iraq and for how long?

How much aid did America give to the Israelis and for how long?

Please Ilana, this is really enough now, don't bother me with your idiotic statements....

funglefoot

The Liberty case should be reopened. The Israeli defence of 'mistaken identity' has collapsed. Israel can no longer rely on a defense of 'mistaken identity'. Period.

But there is new American evidence.

Over the past year, those who believe that Israel's assault on the Liberty was deliberate have collected important corroborating evidence. As noted in David Walsh's essay in Sunday's Insight section, several former U.S. intelligence officials and analysts, breaking their long silence, say that electronic intercepts of the attacking pilots' radio communications that day prove that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship.

This is direct evidence by expert witnesses that Israel knew she was attacking the Liberty but persisted with the attack nevertheless. This is the 'smoking gun'. This is conclusive evidence that Israel attacked the Liberty intentionally and knowingly and with the express purpose of destroying her capability as an electronic surveillance ship. We have dismissed Israel's defence of 'mistaken identity' but that was a legal victory. What we want, what the Liberty survivors deserve, is a full account by Israel of what happened, how it happened, when it happened, and why it happened. Now we seek the more important moral victory.

Daniel Dives has shown graphically the total lack of Israeli evidence. Upto now Israel has relied exclusively on finding supposed 'holes' in the American evidence. Israel has never once, in the history of WWE, led any Israeli evidence. A full and fair inquiry requires the evidence and testimony of both sides, that means that Israel should produce her story, the events that took place on the Israeli side. The sources exist. There is no excuse for not telling the Israeli side of the incident except for the issue of guilt, guilt of a deliberate, intentional, and knowing attack on an allied vessel for motives to do with gaining a wartime advantage.

Israel may have been caught legally but she still has to be landed morally.

Cowboy · Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 2:18 am Post subject:

funglefoot · Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject:

What did the Israelis know?

1. On the day of the incident, at 04.10 hours, an aircraft with a naval observer on board, set out on an air reconnaissance mission, and reported, at approximately 06.00 hours, the location of a ship 70 miles westward of Tel Aviv. The ship was later identified as a supply vessel of the American Navy. At about 09.00 hours an Israel aircraft flying over the sea, reported that some 20 miles north of El-Arish it had observed a warship which had opened fire on him when he tried to identify it. During the debriefing of the pilot at 09.40 hours, it appeared that the report about the firing was unfounded, and that the ship was "coloured grey, very bulky and the bridge amidships".

At 10.55 hours the Naval Liaison Officer at Air Force H.Q. reported to the Navy H.Q. that the ship about which he had reported earlier in the morning was an electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy, named Liberty, whose marking was G.T.R.-5. At the same time the Acting Chief of Naval Operations was present at Navy H.Q.

http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/evidence/israel/yerushalmi.html

2. Sightnings of the El Quseir.

Strangely enough there were no sightings of the El Quseir. This ship apparently dropped from the heavens the moment the Israelis needed an alibi. There had been no sighting of the El Quseir that day and I suspect for many days previous.

http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/evidence/israel/yerushalmi.html

3. Pretence

Despite the fact of the Naval Liaison Officer at Air Force H.Q. correctly identifying the Liberty as "an electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy, named Liberty, whose marking was G.T.R.-5" the Yerushalmi report plays a game of blind man's bluff with the hull identification variously describing it as CPR-5; CTR-5; G.T.R.-5; CTR-5 and GTR-5. This, given the correct identification in point 2. above, simply proves Israel's pretence at ignorance.

4. Willful blindness

Willful blindness is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness

"At about 11.00 hours, after the Acting Chief of Naval Operations had received the report, as above stated, from the Liaison Officer at Air Force H.Q., and had understood, as he testified, that it referred to the target, the location of which was correct at 06.00 in the morning, he ordered its erasure from the table, since he had no information as to its location at the time of the report."

This was an act of incredible stupidity. Israel as a prosecutor of a war had a duty to ensure that non-combatants were not injured in the fighting. The presence of the Liberty in the 'war zone', though in international waters, should have been permanently marked on the board to indicate its presence and to protect it from attack. Yet this idiot removed it from the board. He was in effect "putting himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable". This stupidity, in the event that Israel did not maliciously intend the attack, rendered Israel guilty of willful blindness.

The law states that Israel in these circumstances will be guilty of criminal recklessness. Israel knew there was a neutral vessel in the area and yet proceeded with an attack on an unidentified vessel regardless of that knowledge.

5.

Israeli Pilot Speaks Up

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htm

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.

Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot's radio report. The attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war room knew that they were attacking an American ship, the major said. He recanted the statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel.

The pilot's protests also were heard by radio monitors in the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter has confirmed this. Porter told his story to syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak and offered to submit to further questioning by authorities. Unfortunately, no one in the U.S. government has any interest in hearing these first-person accounts of Israeli treachery.

Dwight Porter, former US Ambassador to Lebanon, who saw
transcripts of Israeli communications during the attack. "It's
an American ship!" the pilot of an Israeli Mirage fighter-
bomber radioed Tel Aviv as he sighted the USS Liberty on June 8,
1967. Israeli headquarters ordered the pilot to carry out his
mission, he reports. (Syndicated column "Remembering the
Liberty" by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, November 6, 1991.)

This report made by the Israeli pilot is attested to by:

1. The Liberty Survivors

2. A former Congressman, Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey.

3. A dual-citizen Israeli major who was in an Israeli war room and who heard the above pilot's radio report in real time and also could attest to the fact that every other person present in the room must have known that they were attacking an American ship. Obviously nobody did anything to call off the attack.

Israeli telephone threats intimidated the major into recanting his statement. These telephone threats prove Israel's guilt.

4. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter has confirmed the pilot's protests were also heard by radio monitors in the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon.

5. Porter's story was investigated by syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak.

6. Porter offered to submit to further questioning by authorities. Unfortunately, no one in the U.S. government has any interest in hearing these first-person accounts of Israeli treachery.

Exactly, these are first person accounts, heard in real time, of the words spoken over the radio by the Israeli pilot who was subsequently jailed for his refusal to commit murder. Who is he? Wouldn't you like to know? How many pilots were imprisoned on the 8 June 1967? He will have a new identity now, and is out of the reach of the murderous talons of the Israelis. No doubt when the time is right, when AIPAC's influence has collapsed he may reappear and testify again. But there is no need. There are many who can testify to transcripts which prove Israel knew she was attacking the Liberty.

To leap over this hurdle Israel will have to prove that all the following are liars:

1. The Liberty Survivors

2. The pilot in question. Can Israel show beyond doubt that the prison records for 8 June 1967 have not been tampered with?

3. Congressman, Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey.

4. Former U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, Dwight Porter.

5. The many ex-NSA men who saw the transcripts of Israeli pilot conversations.

Over the past year, those who believe that Israel's assault on the Liberty was deliberate have collected important corroborating evidence. As noted in David Walsh's essay in Sunday's Insight section, several former U.S. intelligence officials and analysts, breaking their long silence, say that electronic intercepts of the attacking pilots' radio communications that day prove that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship.

This is direct evidence by expert witnesses that Israel knew she was attacking the Liberty but persisted with the attack nevertheless. This is the 'smoking gun'. This is conclusive evidence that Israel attacked the Liberty intentionally and knowingly and with the express purpose of destroying her capability as an electronic surveillance ship.

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/uss-liberty/2007/05/16/evidence-justifies-reopening-uss-liberty-case-page-2.php

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

Evidence justifies reopening USS Liberty case - page 2