|
Post by turbonium on Mar 21, 2007 23:52:19 GMT -4
My original points are in italics, followed by spitfire's replies, to which I've responded... It was a plan to blame Egyptian forces of attacking and sinking the Liberty, thus drawing the US in to support Israel in their war against Egypt.No. You are merely uncritically parroting something you've read in Conspiracyland. You are actually accusing the Liberty survivors of living in "Conspiracyland"? Apparently so, because they are among the strongest proponents of this argument. Further, why would the Israelis need to take such an awful risk?? The Egyptians were in full retreat by June 8, and their air force had been almost totally destroyed. Why do it? That's something only the Israelis can truly answer. Maybe the plan was more ambitious than just defeating Egypt. We don't know. But we can only address the facts of the event - Israel attacked the Liberty in a false flag operation. And why would the Johnson Administration have gone along with this plan?? Again, that can only be truly answered by those involved. LBJ can't be questioned, and I don't know if any others are still around that could be. But it's known that Johnson did order the US fighter jets to return to their ship after first being dispatched to help out the Liberty. That's why Israel tried to kill the entire crew, going so far as shooting at them in their lifeboats - so there would be no witnesses surviving to dispute the cover story.The crew never abandoned ship. No kidding! The crew couldn't abandon their ship, because the Israelis destroyed all the lifeboats - those that had already been lowered, and those still onboard. Some survivors claimed that empty life rafts floating in the water were deliberately fired upon--without corroborating evidence, whether this perception was correct or not is unknowable. Excuse me, but are you serious? Among "some" of the survivors who saw the intentional destruction of the lifeboats : Lloyd Painter, who was in charge of the evacuation, Americo Aimetti, Tom Smith, Phil Tourney, Al Easton Richard Carlson, David Lewis, and Terry Halbardier. Gerald R. Surette, a crewmember of the USS Davis (dispatched to help the Liberty), said: "There was nothing left of the lifeboats or the rafts; they were gone." Not a single member of Liberty's crew disputes the accounts of those who witnessed the attack of the ship's lifeboats. And even those who reported the condition of the lifeboats post-attack corroborate the statements of the Liberty's crew. Are you disputing all of these witnesses? Out of the 294 people onboard, 34 were murdered and 172 were wounded. The only reason we don't now believe that Egypt attacked us, is because of those who survived to tell us the truth.Here are historian Michael B. Oren's comments on belief that the Israelis deliberately attacked the Liberty (note that the more common conspiracy theory is that the ship was attacked in order to hide something--not to draw the US into the war). Quote: Michael B. Oren Common sense would also dictate that the Israelis, in the process of handily defeating three Arab armies, could have easily sunk a single, lightly armed ship if they had wanted to. In such a case, they would not have attacked the Liberty in broad daylight with clearly marked boats and planes - submarines could have done the job - In other words, the author's primary claim is: "Israel did not deliberately attack the Liberty, because they would have easily sunk it if that had been their intention." So when Israel attacked an enemy ship completely in broad daylight, that meant they were not really trying to sink it!! They would have used submarines!! This is a completely ridiculous claim. And you actually support it? ...nor would they have ultimately halted their fire and offered the ship assistance. The crew of the Liberty deny any assistance was later offered by the torpedo boats - they just withdrew. Even if the boats did offer to help, it would only have been to feign innocence after the fact. After they had already blitzed the ship for two hours, it remained afloat. Israel knew that American jets and ships were enroute to assist the ship. Only at this point did the Israeli government claim it was all "an accident", and purportedly offered their "assistance". Further, Liberty's captain stated that the Israeli torpedo boats approached flying the Israeli flag, attempted to communicate by blinker, and did not attack until two of his ship's machine gunners mistakenly opened fire on them. Was he lying, turbonium? First of all, you've put your own spin on his true account. Second - was the Captain lying? No. Capt. McGonagle: "A short time after the air attack had been completed, the three torpedo boats approached us from our starboard quarter at high speed and in an apparent torpedo launch attitude." So Israel had already bombarded the Liberty with fighter jets. Then, only 20 minutes later, he spots three torpedo boats bearing down on his ship at high speed in attack formation. You try to make it sound as if the US attacked Israel first. You've ignored the fact that the attack began when Israeli jets stormed the Liberty, which was unmistakably identified as a US ship. But what's truly disgusting is how elements within our own government have continued - even to this day - to cover up this incident. Cold-blooded murder of 34 Americans at the hands of Israeli forces, on the order of the Israeli government. It remains unaddressed by each and every US administration since the day it happened. Those Israelis responsible for the act are murderers. Those US government officials responsible for the cover-up and continued failure to address it are traitors and criminals.You have no real evidence of this--as usual, you are merely proclaiming the existence of a conspiracy Nonsense. Even an Israeli pilot states it was a deliberate attack on a US ship... 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. www.washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htmWhat about the survivors? Their accounts, among many others who corroborate them, are on the Liberty website.... www.ussliberty.org/You challenged my belief in the account of the Captain - "Was he lying?" And I gave you my answer - No, he wasn't lying. So let me ask you - are all the survivors of the Liberty lying, spitfire?
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Mar 22, 2007 16:46:08 GMT -4
You are actually accusing the Liberty survivors of living in "Conspiracyland"? Apparently so, because they are among the strongest proponents of this argument.The Liberty survivors overwhelmingly believe the attack was deliberate. Please provide some evidence that that even a majority of them believe the attack was intended to be blamed on Egypt in order to draw the US into the war. Their web site claims that Israel's motive is irrelevant. Further, the survivors' views can hardly be considered unbiased. But we can only address the facts of the event - Israel attacked the Liberty in a false flag operation.Begging the question. But it's known that Johnson did order the US fighter jets to return to their ship after first being dispatched to help out the Liberty. [emphasis original]Because they were capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Fear of an accidental escalation of the conflict is a reasonable explanation, even if you happen to find it unsatisfying. No kidding! The crew couldn't abandon their ship, because the Israelis destroyed all the lifeboats - those that had already been lowered, and those still onboard. [emphasis original] Failure to admit to your previous erroneous claim noted. Bombing a ship with napalm and raking it with automatic weapons fire will tend to destroy fragile items such as life rafts. There is no evidence other than a few survivors' perceptions that the rafts were deliberately targeted. And no order to abandon ship was ever given; preparations were ordered. Excuse me, but are you serious? Among "some" of the survivors who saw the intentional destruction of the lifeboats : Lloyd Painter, who was in charge of the evacuation, Americo Aimetti, Tom Smith, Phil Tourney, Al Easton Richard Carlson, David Lewis, and Terry Halbardier. This impression cannot be considered conclusive, as it could well have been colored by emotion and perception--that is, the survivors might have been paying more attention to the destruction of the life rafts, and did not notice numerous bullets striking elsewhere. From the War Crimes Report filed by the Liberty survivors: Further, the impression may well have been reinforced over time by growing suspicion that the attack was deliberate. This is normal human psychological behavior--we all tend to remember events in ways that suit our current outlook. Gerald R. Surette, a crewmember of the USS Davis (dispatched to help the Liberty), said: "There was nothing left of the lifeboats or the rafts; they were gone."Affirmed consequent. As noted, the life rafts could have been destroyed as a general result of the attack (including napalm fires). Further, several rafts are known to have gone into the water, so clearly Surette wouldn't have seen those. Not a single member of Liberty's crew disputes the accounts of those who witnessed the attack of the ship's lifeboats.Begging the question that a significant number were in a position to do so. And even those who reported the condition of the lifeboats post-attack corroborate the statements of the Liberty's crew.Again, an affirmed consequent. Are you disputing all of these witnesses?Begging the question that the witnesses could be certain that the life rafts were deliberately targeted. In other words, the author's primary claim is: "Israel did not deliberately attack the Liberty, because they would have easily sunk it if that had been their intention." Straw man. That is one of his claims, and it does have some merit. I believe the claim about submarines is more on point to your allegation of a false-flag operation. So when Israel attacked an enemy ship completely in broad daylight, that meant they were not really trying to sink it!! They would have used submarines!! You have missed the point, for whatever reason. Submarines could not have been identified as Israeli, unlike the torpedo boats and the aircraft. So why not use the submarines? The two available were only used to support minor commando raids on Egyptian ports. This is a completely ridiculous claim. And you actually support it?Straw man, as noted. Even if the boats did offer to help, it would only have been to feign innocence after the fact.Begging the question. After they had already blitzed the ship for two hours, it remained afloatThe air attacks did not include anti-ship ordnance--merely rockets and napalm. Why is this so if sinking the ship was time-critical? And why not send more aircraft if the stakes were so high? Israel knew that American jets and ships were enroute to assist the ship. Only at this point did the Israeli government claim it was all "an accident", and purportedly offered their "assistance". What is your evidence for this? First of all, you've put your own spin on his true account.No. As usual, you've missed my point. You try to make it sound as if the US attacked Israel first.Straw man. My point is that you can't use the torpedo-boat attack as evidence that the Israelis deliberately attempted to sink the ship. The Israelis claim that the torpedo boats moved in and attempted to ascertain whether the ship was hostile before attacking--the fact that her captain himself stated that Liberty accidentally fired on them while they were attempting to communicate means the Israelis get the benefit of the doubt on the torpedo attack. You've ignored the fact that the attack began when Israeli jets stormed the Liberty. . . .Irrelevant to the issue of whether the torpedo boats knew Liberty was American. which was unmistakably identified as a US ship. Begging the question of whether Liberty was unmistakably identified at the time of the attack. Nonsense. Even an Israeli pilot states it was a deliberate attack on a US ship. . . .Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot's radio report. . . .And, of course, you uncritically accept these accounts of two anonymous Israeli officers, with no corroboration, and no proof that they really were who they claimed to be, and no allowance for possible misinterpretation or misremembering by any of the parties involved. The pilot's protests also were heard by radio monitors in the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. Again, no allowance for possible misinterpretation or misremembering, which happen all the time in connection with important events. What about the survivors? Their accounts, among many others who corroborate them, are on the Liberty website.... What personal knowledge do the survivors have about whether the Israelis actually knew the ship was American? What personal knowledge do they have of any actual conspiracy? So let me ask you - are all the survivors of the Liberty lying, spitfire?I have no reason to believe any of them are deliberately being untruthful--however, as stated, their accounts are generally not relevant to the existence or non-existence of a conspiracy. Finally, although you have presented some evidence that might conceivably be considered to point to the attack's being deliberate, you have provided virtually none that the Israelis conspired with the Johnson administration to blame Egypt for the attack. Therefore I renew my assertion that this was not a "false-flag" operation.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 25, 2007 17:38:13 GMT -4
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. I don’t think it would have been possible for the embassy in Beirut to have picked up radio communications from fighters attacking the Liberty. According to most accounts the ship was about 12.5 nautical miles (14.4 statute miles, 23.2 kilometers) north of El Arish in the Sinai. This would have placed it about 205 miles (330 km) from the Lebanese capital. 1 MG map - tinyurl.com/27un95 Since radio signals work on line of sight (LOS), independent of the strengths of transmitter and receiver range is limited by the curvature of the earth because the waves will reach the horizon. Fortunately there is a simple formula for calculating the distance to the horizon, over water or level ground. It is the square root of the height of the antenna (or observer) in feet times 1.06 for nautical miles or times 1.22 for statue miles. In other words radio signals from an antenna 100 feet off the ground (or water) would cross the horizon 12.2 miles away (the sq. root of 100 = 10, 10 x 1.22 = 12.2) and the signals from an antenna 400 feet off the ground 24.4 miles away. But we have to combine the range of both the transmitter and the receiver so if a plane flying 200 above ground level would have to be with in 36.6 miles (24.4 + 12.2) of an airport whose antenna is 100 feet tall (or rather 100 above the altitude of the ground under the plane). This is a theoretical maximum assuming there are no intervening hills or other geographic features blocking the path and that the equipment is good enough. www.auf.asn.au/comms/vhfradio.html I searched in vain for references to the highest point in Beirut (perhaps Lion King can help) and I can’t get GoogleMaps to run on my computer. The city has a beach so the lowest point is sea level and one website lists its elevation as 34 feet (10 meters)*. Photos of the city show it especially populated areas to low lying. Let’s be generous and assume the top of the embassy’s antenna was 1000 feet (328 meters) above sea level and had an uninterrupted LOS in the direction of the Liberty. The LOS would have met the horizon 38.6, let’s say 40 miles away. The planes would had to have been flying high enough for their LOS to cross the horizon 165 miles (205 – 40) away. 165 / 1.22 = 135.2, 135.2 squared = 18,280. The planes would had to have been flying at over 18,000 feet above the Liberty to have their signals picked up by the embassy, highly unlikely it they were attacking the ship. www.lebanonembassy.ca/eng/images/beirut.jpg [/img] * www.stadtklima.de/webklima/CITIES/Asia/lb/Beirut/Beirut.htm Another problem is that the communications would have been in Hebrew and possibly encrypted. Why would the American embassy in Lebanon have Hebrew translators? (I’m sure they had plenty in the embassy in Israel). Why would they have been monitoring the frequency used by the Israeli air force? Presumably if anybody in the embassy was doing so especially if the communication was encrypted it would have been the CIA folks who normally don’t share intelligence with embassy staff except on a ‘need to know’ basis, there was do reason to divulge such sensitive information to the ambassador. Another question is, did anybody else see the transcript? If not, why not? If so why hasn’t anyone else come forward? If there are any errors with my info, data or logic hopefully one of you scientist, engineer, aviator types would be so kind as to point them out, I expect this to come up on another forum. One source claims without providing any citations that “the pilots used short range [UHF] ultra-high frequencies. These signals are only good for short distances and could NOT have been intercepted in the Lebanese capital, which was 205 miles away” pnews.org/art/ussliberty.shtml. Once again I’d like to hear from knowledgeable members about this. I’d like to see the text of the Evans and Novak column if anyone has it, I looked on the Net for a few minutes but couldn’t find it. It seems to put a lie to the notion that the “mainstream media” won’t touch the subject, you can’t get much more mainstream conservative than those two who currently contribute to the same publication as Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich. NBC, the BBC, the History Channel and Thames Television have produced and aired documentaries pushing the theory the attack was intentional as have books published by Random House, Harper Collins, Ballentine and other major publishers, Larry King interviewed survivors on his radio show, Victor Marchetti “reported in a televised talk in Febuary [sic – Len], 1989, apparently in New York” that the attack was intentional. www.ussliberty.org/sources.htm
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 25, 2007 21:36:14 GMT -4
I have no idea if it was the same building as in 1967 but the 1983 Embassy appears to have been a 10 story (100 – 120 foot, 30 – 36 meter) tall building with no sign of a tall radio antenna located in the (low lying) downtown. It is unlikely that if there were a change during that period they would have moved to a smaller more centrally located building or removed an antenna. If anything they would have gone the other way. I’ll wait and see if Lion King or anyone else turns up more precise data but I think it’s safe to say the antenna was at best 200 feet (60 meters) above sea level ASL in which case the plane would had to have been at about 24,000 feet ASL to have an LOS to it.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Apr 26, 2007 10:12:26 GMT -4
the marines were attacked in year 1983 in west beirut, Dahyeh. Dahyeht Beirut [suburb of beirut] is now a security zone for hizbollah. the government can't get into it. they have their own telephone wires,... a state inside a state if you want to call it like this.
I saw a map for altitudes. the faint yellow part, that included beirut, signifies altitude from 0-600 meters
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 26, 2007 14:35:35 GMT -4
I think the most suspicious thing about you, turbonium, is that you believe in multiple conspiracy theories. You don't objectively decide whether a conspiracy theory is valid or not, you just automatically decide that it's true. I can understand somebody honestly looking at the evidence of apollo and deciding it didn't happen without having preformed opinions, but I highly doubt you do that for every single conspiracy theory you tout on this board. I think you would be much more respected on this forum if you didn't flail your arms about every conspiracy theory you've ever heard of.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 26, 2007 22:12:49 GMT -4
the marines were attacked in year 1983 in west beirut, Dahyeh. Dahyeht Beirut [suburb of beirut] is now a security zone for hizbollah. the government can't get into it. they have their own telephone wires,... a state inside a state if you want to call it like this. I saw a map for altitudes. the faint yellow part, that included beirut, signifies altitude from 0-600 meters Do you know if the US Embassy was in the same building in 1983 as it had been in June 67? Am I corect in my presumption the location wasn't very much above sea level?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 27, 2007 4:07:28 GMT -4
I think the most suspicious thing about you, turbonium, is that you believe in multiple conspiracy theories. You don't objectively decide whether a conspiracy theory is valid or not, you just automatically decide that it's true. I can understand somebody honestly looking at the evidence of apollo and deciding it didn't happen without having preformed opinions, but I highly doubt you do that for every single conspiracy theory you tout on this board. I think you would be much more respected on this forum if you didn't flail your arms about every conspiracy theory you've ever heard of. That's sheer nonsense. I have never looked at any conspiracy(ies) and "just automatically decide that it's true". Apollo - I grew up believing Apollo was genuine. I was well aware of the hoax accusations for many years before I even started to look into it. I studied both sides of the argument for over two years, with the best points of each side taken into consideration, before changing my opinion. 9/11 - This hit me like a ton of bricks when I was talking about 9/11 with my brother, a few months after the event. I wasn't aware at the time that it was a topic of debate on the internet, or elsewhere. It happened as we discussed how the planes were able to fly unimpeded into three major targets. No fighters scrambling to intercept, despite numerous air bases merely minutes away. It hit me as totally absurd and impossible. Then I began to research the whole issue in depth, both sides of the argument, and my opinion became solidified. I treat all other events the same way - looking at all the points made on both sides, weighing the evidence, and so on. It would make no sense to have an opinion based on nothing.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Apr 27, 2007 6:24:32 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 27, 2007 7:18:44 GMT -4
Imagine living in Beirut and not being able to pick up radio signals because you were at sea level. Just terrible.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 27, 2007 11:15:12 GMT -4
I think the most suspicious thing about you, turbonium, is that you believe in multiple conspiracy theories. You don't objectively decide whether a conspiracy theory is valid or not, you just automatically decide that it's true. I can understand somebody honestly looking at the evidence of apollo and deciding it didn't happen without having preformed opinions, but I highly doubt you do that for every single conspiracy theory you tout on this board. I think you would be much more respected on this forum if you didn't flail your arms about every conspiracy theory you've ever heard of. That's sheer nonsense. I have never looked at any conspiracy(ies) and "just automatically decide that it's true". Apollo - I grew up believing Apollo was genuine. I was well aware of the hoax accusations for many years before I even started to look into it. I studied both sides of the argument for over two years, with the best points of each side taken into consideration, before changing my opinion. 9/11 - This hit me like a ton of bricks when I was talking about 9/11 with my brother, a few months after the event. I wasn't aware at the time that it was a topic of debate on the internet, or elsewhere. It happened as we discussed how the planes were able to fly unimpeded into three major targets. No fighters scrambling to intercept, despite numerous air bases merely minutes away. It hit me as totally absurd and impossible. Then I began to research the whole issue in depth, both sides of the argument, and my opinion became solidified. I treat all other events the same way - looking at all the points made on both sides, weighing the evidence, and so on. It would make no sense to have an opinion based on nothing. Somehow, I just don't believe your intentions are innocent. Believing in one conspiracy theory, I can accept that as innocent. Believing in two, just maybe. But three or more, I don't think so. It becomes clear once you start believing in multiple conspiracy theories that you are predisposed towards them. You can deny it all you want but you have a disposition to defend conspiracy theories without questioning them fully beforehand. You may think you don't, but it's impossible. You are too emotionally involved in some conspiracy theories to objectively analyze others. You lack skepticism. Nobody here is surprised when you bring up yet another conspiracy theory. Why do you think that is? Because you are a conspiracy theorist. You always choose the side of conspiracy. You rarely choose the side of skepticism.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 27, 2007 18:38:26 GMT -4
Imagine living in Beirut and not being able to pick up radio signals because you were at sea level. Just terrible. That's not what was said now, was it?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 28, 2007 6:17:30 GMT -4
Somehow, I just don't believe your intentions are innocent. Believing in one conspiracy theory, I can accept that as innocent. Believing in two, just maybe. But three or more, I don't think so. It becomes clear once you start believing in multiple conspiracy theories that you are predisposed towards them. You can deny it all you want but you have a disposition to defend conspiracy theories without questioning them fully beforehand. You may think you don't, but it's impossible. You are too emotionally involved in some conspiracy theories to objectively analyze others. You lack skepticism. Nobody here is surprised when you bring up yet another conspiracy theory. Why do you think that is? Because you are a conspiracy theorist. You always choose the side of conspiracy. You rarely choose the side of skepticism. One or two conspiracies, fine. Three or more, unacceptable. Indicates a predisposition to believe any conspiracy without question. I was really quite happy back in the early days, when I just questioned Apollo and 9/11. But later on, after I read some stuff about JFK and the Fed, I just couldn't resist the urge. At first, it was a brief comment here and there. Within a few weeks, I progressed into hardcore - and began to start up my own threads! Now I'm going to CTA - Conspiracy Theorists Anonymous. In time, I know I can get back to believing in just one or two conspiracies. It won't be easy, but hey, what is? There isn't a day that goes by when I'm not tempted by new conspiracy sites that crop up from googling. It's pure hell resisting the urge to "click" onto them! Btw, you say it isn't reasonable to believe in more than two conspiracies. Is that because three conspiracies couldn't exist? Does it matter which two conspiracies I keep believing in? Or can I pick any two of them I want? You lack skepticismSkeptic: One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions. I don't question generally accepted conclusions? Who's the skeptic?
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 28, 2007 7:25:19 GMT -4
Imagine living in Beirut and not being able to pick up radio signals because you were at sea level. Just terrible. That's not what was said now, was it? Probably not. It just seemed you were drawing a really long bow.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 28, 2007 9:08:15 GMT -4
That's not what was said now, was it? Probably not. It just seemed you were drawing a really long bow. How so? The assertion that you seem to have trouble with it that it would not have been possible for the Embassy to have picked up radio signals from planes attacking the Liberty. If you have any reason to doubt that is correct I’d like to hear your reasoning.
|
|