It's not so wild.
Becuase the only one who would doubt that the attack on the LIberty was an accident has to be a Moslem, right?
After your statement that the Israelis deliberately planned the attack was demolished, you were forced to use a uniquely Moslem mode of argument: that Israel is both competent at manipulating 2 of the 3 branches of the US government, but that the extremely competent Israeli Air Force didn't know that napalm's worthless for sinking ships, and that they couldn't execute a simple time-on-target mission. You repeat tripe from the Saudi-funded Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs (Wahhabist Wacko Weekly") as fact, and then deny that you did so.
Why don't you tell us what this off-limits topic is? I've never heard of such a thing, and neither, do I suspect, have the vast majority of Catholics.
You're the one who said that you knew everything there was to know about Catholic theology. I handed you a question where the answer couldn't be Googled and cut-n-pasted, and you folded like a cheap suit.
As for my sources on this, I got interested in the Liberty after reading about it in columns by Charley Reese and Bob Novak. I don't think either of them are Moslems, either. Most of my knowledge comes from the material contained in the website of the survivors of the attack, none of whom, so far as I am aware, are Moslems. What is most galling is not the initial attack, as horrific as that was, but the supine and shameful response of Americans to the attack, beginning with the Johnson-McNamara coverup alleged by Captain Boston and continuing to the attacks on anyone who dares raise the topic.
AMDG et BVMH