Posted on 03/04/2006 11:40:50 AM PST by LSUfan
You demonstrated nothing. From a newspaper interview with Americo Aimetti, a USS Liberty crew member, wounded in the attack:
Q. Can you explain why that happened that day? A. Yeah, Israel wanted the Golan Heights and wanted to make it look like Egypt attacked us. That’s why they went after our antennae, so we couldn’t send messages. They wanted to sink us.
What is your agenda? You would rather believe the perpetrators of the crime than the victims, who are your fellow Americans. Why would they lie?
Nonsensical questions like "Why is it absurd" are equivalent to asking "How does buying something make you its owner?"
More circumlocution without answering the question.
You're right, I didn't, primarily because I don't believe their explanation any more than you do. I also don't believe OUR explanation for what the Liberty was doing there.
I DO believe their explanation. And whether you do or not, it doesn't give Israel the license to sink a clearly marked American ship and murder the crew in international waters. The Israelis knew exactly where the ship was and that it was American hours before the attack.
I think it's rather obvious the Israelis attacked the Liberty with cause, and could prove that cause in public if they had to, so both sides determined it was in their best interest to cover it up after the fact.
With cause? So you now admit it was not an accident. So what was that cause? Do you really believe that the USS Liberty was hostile to Israel? Whose side are you on?
The crew members and many prominent US public officials want a Congressional investigation and public airing of what happened. You should be supporting that investigation instead of apologizing for the indefensible.
You shouldn't be waving your fist at the guys on the other side for acting in their own interests. You should be grilling the guys your own side why they accept a dubious excuse.
Did you mean "your" own side or "our" own side. I believe what the survivors of the USS Liberty said. Why would they lie?
But they didn't eliminate all the witnesses, so there goes your theory.
They tried to eliminate them and would have done so had not the Sixth fleet transmitted a message unencrypted that US planes should engage the enemy, An excerpt from a report compiled by USS liberty crew members:
By patching together different systems, the ship’s radio operators had ultimately been able to send a brief distress message that was received and acknowledged by United States Sixth Fleet forces present in the Mediterranean.26 Upon receipt of that message the aircraft carriers USS Saratoga and USS America each launched aircraft to come to the aid of USS Liberty.27 The reported attacking aircraft were declared hostile and the rescue aircraft were authorized to destroy them upon arrival.28 rules of engagement, authorizing destruction of the attackers, were transmitted to the rescue aircraft “in the clear” (i.e., they were not encrypted).
Shortly after the Sixth Fleet transmission of the rules of engagement to its dispatched rescue aircraft, the Israeli torpedo boats suddenly broke off their attack and transmitted messages asking if USS Liberty required assistance.29 At the same time, an Israeli naval officer notified the US Naval Attaché at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv that Israeli forces had mistakenly attacked a United States Navy ship and apologized. The Naval Attaché notified the United States Sixth Fleet30 and the rescue aircraft were recalled before they arrived at the scene of the attack.31
Furthermore, I made no claim the survivors were anything but truthful. You keep wanting to make this between Israel and the Liberty when it's obviously between Israel and Washington.
If you believe the survivors, then Israel is guilty of a merciless attack against a clearly marked US vessel in international waters. It the Government of Israel was responsible, then it is guilty of war crimes.
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts, and in this case you are simply spouting rules no one else ever heard of.
The facts speak for themselves. As someone who has spent over 36 years in the US government and held Top Secret and other clearances above that, I can assure you that I am not basing my observations on mere conjecture.
I have no need to make excuses. I simply do not subscribe to the theory you should put a dog to sleep because every time you kick it, it tries to bite you.
So who is the dog? Israel. And who is doing the kicking? The US. As I stated previously, Israel owes its very existence to the US. They shouldn't bite the hand that feeds them.
years
I don't know how I can make it any simpler than this.
You aren't going to convince me the grand strategy was to swoop in and take out an American ship without anyone being any the wiser.
That's a strategy for a movie, not real life.
Sometimes life is stranger than fiction. Who would have ever thought that four commerical airliners would be hijacked and flown into the WTC, Pentagon, and the Capitol building? Or that an Israeli commando force would go into Entebbe?
The bottom line is this: I am not going to convince you that the attack was deliberate nor are you going to convince me that it was an accident. What we need is a public investigation and let the chips fall where they may. If Israel were truly innocent, then they should be publicly calling for one. The USS Liberty is and will continue to be an irritant in our relationship, along with Pollard.
The unconventional is not the same as idiocy. Imagining one could take out a United States surveillance ship with a conventional attack and leave no fingerprints is idiocy. The Israelis are not idiots.
The bottom line is this: I am not going to convince you that the attack was deliberate nor are you going to convince me that it was an accident.
What is it with you? I already told you I don't think the Israeli attack was an accident. I think the Israelis got a pass from our government, because the attack was 100% justified, and they can prove it. There's nothing else that would explain our acceptance of the "mistake" explaination. It also explains why there has never been, nor will there ever be, a public investigation.
Attacking a clearly marked American ship in international waters, first with jet fighters and then with torpedo boats is either idiocy or a deliberate war crime. They were jamming all communications from the ship and trying to kill everyone on the ship, including straffing the lifeboats. Secretary of State Dean Rusk sent the following to the Israelis in a diplomatic note following the attack:
"At 1450 hours local time on June 8, 1967, two Israeli aircraft circled the U.S.S. Liberty three times, with the evident purpose of identifying the vessel. Accordingly there is every reason to believe that the U.S.S Liberty was identified, or at least her nationality determined, by Israeli aircraft approximately one hour before the attack. In these circumstances, the later military attack by Israeli aircraft on the U.S.S. Liberty is quite literally incomprehensible. As a minimum, the attack must be condemned as an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life."
What is it with you? I already told you I don't think the Israeli attack was an accident. I think the Israelis got a pass from our government, because the attack was 100% justified, and they can prove it. There's nothing else that would explain our acceptance of the "mistake" explaination. It also explains why there has never been, nor will there ever be, a public investigation.
Justified? Did you suck that out of your thumb? The Israeli's themselves claim it was an accident. You are now making up a story out of whole cloth that "the attack was 100% justified." What could possibly be the justification for trying to sink a neutral American ship in international waters? Certainly, the crew members of the USS Liberty don't believe it was justified. They knew the ship's mission. Then as now, the US was Israel's biggest supporter and benefactor. There is no justification for killing 34 innocent Americans and wounding 172 out of a crew of 294--a 70% casualty rate.
An independent commission chaired by former CNO Adm Moorer; with GENERAL RAYMOND G. DAVIS, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, (MOH)* Former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps (Vice Chairman), REAR ADMIRAL MERLIN STARING, UNITED STATES NAVY, (RET.)Former Judge Advocate General of the Navy; and AMBASSADOR JAMES AKINS, (RET.) Former United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia offers some explanations as to why the matter was covered-up by the US:
Survivor James M. Ennes, Jr who was an officer on the bridge at the time of the attack writes,
"Yet despite these things a few Americans seem to accept the preposterous claim that the attack was a mistake and that firing stopped with the torpedo explosion. One can accept and understand this attitude from an Israeli, as he would have a natural tendency to believe his country's version of events and to disbelieve contrary versions -- especially since he has no personal experience to draw upon. But how can an American disbelieve the virtually identical eyewitness reports of scores of surviving fellow Americans and accept instead the undocumented claims of the foreign power that tried to kill them? That is very difficult to understand or to accept."
"The typical Israeli reaction is that we are liars or antiSemites, which of course we are not. We are American sailors honestly reporting an act of treachery at sea. At the very least we deserve your courtesy and understanding"
Which seems entirely plausible as the first thing one sees when following the link from your last post is:
Why did Israel attack?
We are frequently asked, "Why did Israel attack?" The motive is irrelevant. If motive were a factor, then Charles Manson should be released for lack of plausible motive.
Now aside from being an utterly asinine assertion on its face (as if no one ever heard of using "motive," or lack thereof, in determining guilt), it also highlights a facet shared by all "peddlers"; it pretends anything that doesn't support the central premise is irrelevant.
What could possibly be the justification for trying to sink a neutral American ship in international waters?
Obviously, if the "neutrality" of that ship, whether known to the crew or not, were questionable.
The simple fact is it's easier for many, many Americans to believe the American government in general, and the Johnson administration in particular, could and would betray its own fighting forces, and its ostensible ally Israel, than it is to believe Israel would engage in an attack that would not only threaten its own existence, but sounds like, indeed seems to be modelled after, something out of "The Protocols."
Address the substance of the possible motivations, not engage in needless tautology. The point is that whatever the motivation, the result is the same, i.e., 34 killed and 171 injured.
Obviously, if the "neutrality" of that ship, whether known to the crew or not, were questionable.
The simple fact is it's easier for many, many Americans to believe the American government in general, and the Johnson administration in particular, could and would betray its own fighting forces, and its ostensible ally Israel, than it is to believe Israel would engage in an attack that would not only threaten its own existence, but sounds like, indeed seems to be modelled after, something out of "The Protocols."
You can't have it both ways. You have stated categorically that the attack was no accident. Furthermore, you state, "I think the Israelis got a pass from our government, because the attack was 100% justified, and they can prove it." Are you saying the US was involved in hostile activities against Israel and deserved what happened? We weren't "neutral"?
"Many Americans" believe that there was and continues to be a cover-up of what happened, more than likely for political reasons and don't buy the Israeli assertion that it was an accident. They include Secretary of State Rusk, CIA Director Helms, NSA Director Kirby, Clark Clifford, former NSA Director Gen. Odom, NSA/CIA Director Adm. Inman, Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, several US Ambassadors, and the surviving crew of the USS Liberty.
Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy (retired), senior legal counsel to the US Navy Court of Inquiry stated that, "The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack...was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.... It was our shared belief. . .that the attack. . .could not possibly have been an accident.... I am certain that the Israeli pilots [and] their superiors. . .were well aware that the ship was American."
After maintaining 30 years of silence, Captain Boston signed this affadavit on January 8,2004. If you take the time to read it, you will begin to understand why so many prominent American public officials are exercised about what happened. They are unhappy with Israel for the deliberate, murderous attack and with the USG for the cover-up. I wouldn't care whether it was the UK or Australia. If they committed such crimes, I would be calling for a Congressional investigation as well.
As a former naval officer (1965-72) and foreign service officer, I believe the survivors of the USS Liberty and the officials I listed above. It reminds me of Kerry vs the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The supporters of Kerry kept on pointing to the official records to substantiate what happened. The SBVFT countered with the facts based on their personal experience and why the official records were flawed. I believe the SBVFT because I share the same credo of duty, honor, and country. They were and are honorable men.
A failure of comprehension on your part does not prove a tautology on mine.
You're fond of assertions like "... the point is that whatever the motivation, the result is the same...." Now I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that is the exact same mentality as the Taliban. "We don't care if she was raped, she had unmarried sex!"
Thinking people simply can not take statements like that seriously.
Are you saying the US was involved in hostile activities against Israel and deserved what happened? We weren't "neutral"?
That would explain a great deal that otherwise remains inexplicable. And it wouldn't have been the first time the Johnson administration tried to micro-manage a battlefield.
Note I am NOT saying the crew was aware their activities were being used against the Israelis, nor that they even were being used, but that the Israelis had compelling reason to believe they were, and that Washington shares some measure of responsibility for it.
Regardless, pointing out the absurdity of the "it doesn't matter why they did it" explanation does not obligate me to serve up a better one.
However, I do find it very telling that you are so adamant on demonstrating how deliberate the Israeli attack was on the one hand, but utterly disinterested in any kind of "why."
You claim you're no anti-semite, but your entire focus has been encouraging animosity against the Israelis, and discounting anything that might mitigate or lessen that animosity.
If that's not anti-semitism, then the term has no meaning.
Lift something out of context and make a nonsensical point. You don't respond to my questions and go off on some irrelevant tangent. LOL.
That would explain a great deal that otherwise remains inexplicable. And it wouldn't have been the first time the Johnson administration tried to micro-manage a battlefield.
You make these empty statements without responding to the question. Was the US involved in hostile activities against Israel? Yes or no? You seem to imply or insinuate that is the case but have absolutely nothing to base it on except some mysterious feeling you may have because the Israelis can never do anything wrong.
Note I am NOT saying the crew was aware their activities were being used against the Israelis, nor that they even were being used, but that the Israelis had compelling reason to believe they were, and that Washington shares some measure of responsibility for it.
The problem is you are not saying anything factual. What "compelling reason" did the Israelis have and why was it so "compelling." You speak in riddles. In 1967 the US was Israel's biggest supporter and benefactor. What hostile action could we possibly be engaged in against Israel. The more important question may be, "What was Israel doing that it didn't want us to find out about?"
However, I do find it very telling that you are so adamant on demonstrating how deliberate the Israeli attack was on the one hand, but utterly disinterested in any kind of "why."
I have provided you with various possibilities as to why Israel attacked the USS Liberty, which even you admit was no accident. Perhaps you can tell me "why" Israel deliberately attacked a lighly armed American vessel in international waters and tried to systematically murder everyone on board. I can think of no justification or compelling reason for deliberately killing 34 Americans, wounding 172 others, and straffing the life boats.
You claim you're no anti-semite, but your entire focus has been encouraging animosity against the Israelis, and discounting anything that might mitigate or lessen that animosity. If that's not anti-semitism, then the term has no meaning.
I was waiting for you to come up with that anti-semite cannard. It is the last refuge for someone who cannot defend their assertions with logic and reason. It makes no difference to me what country committed such a criminal act against an American vessel. They should still be held accountable and so should the USG officials who participated in the cover-up. I want what the USS Liberty survivors want, a full investigation of what happened for the public record. [FYI: I never wrote I was no anti-semite. Where did you come up with that one?]
It wasn't until 1990 that Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev admitted Soviet involvement in the Katyn forest massacre. The Japanese-Americans interred in prison camps didn't get justice until decades later. Eventually, the full truth will come out. FYI: Israel didn't even issue a reprimand to any of their personnel involved in the attack.
I stand corrected... you quoted it from one of the witnesses, two or three posts back, and I missed the punctuation.
It's not "out of context." It's making an analogy. You argue only the results should be considered. It is not "out of context" when analogizing demonstrates how bankrupt your proposition is.
You make these empty statements without responding to the question. Was the US involved in hostile activities against Israel? Yes or no? You seem to imply or insinuate that is the case but have absolutely nothing to base it on except some mysterious feeling you may have because the Israelis can never do anything wrong.
That is because, unlike you, I do not make positive claims for that which I cannot demonstrate. One would have to be a dribbling moron not to recognize full disclosure is something both sides are studiously avoiding.
I can't say with any kind of certainty why the Israelis attacked. What I can say is whatever that reason was, Washington accepted it. Indeed, this incident occured back when most of our support came in the form of loan guarantees. Direct aid of the scope we see today did not come until AFTER this incident.
As for my "mysterious feeling." I'm sorry you have so much trouble understanding concepts like algebra. You see most people trained in that discipline understand when X+1=3, X must equal 2. It's no great mystery. When the elements of the equations don't add up to the answer you got, there MUST be other elements you didn't consider.
I have provided you with various possibilities as to why Israel attacked the USS Liberty ...
Please point them out. I've only seen one, and that was too proposterous to be taken seriously. Indeed, you've taken pains to assert "why" doesn't matter.
It is the last refuge for someone who cannot defend their assertions with logic and reason.
Oh, please. You know logic and reason like a kid faking the accent knows french.
You gas on about what could possibly be wrong with an foreign intelligence gathering platform adjacent to a WAR ZONE, and expect to be taken seriously?
You ask "What was Israel doing that it didn't want us to find out about?" Did I mention the part about a WAR ZONE!
Finally, you cite historical incidents that have no similarity to the case under consideration other than a) conflict, and b) historical.... Like I'm suppose to counter with all the historical incidents where the truth DIDN'T come out.
I have facts, you have conjecture. If my proposition is so bankrupt, why do some many prominent American officials with firsthand knowledge of the events call for an investigation and state categorically that the attack was deliberate, which runs counter to the official Israeli position that it was an accident or mistake. Secretary of State Rusk, CIA Director Helms, NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby, Special Assistant to the President Clark Clifford, in his report to President Lyndon Johnson, Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy (retired), senior legal counsel to the US Navy Court of Inquiry, Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom, three US Ambassadors, etc. take issue with the Israeli account. The VFW and American Legion have called for a full investigation.
That is because, unlike you, I do not make positive claims for that which I cannot demonstrate. One would have to be a dribbling moron not to recognize full disclosure is something both sides are studiously avoiding.
If by both sides, you mean the heads of state, you would have to be a moron not to believe there is a cover-up. The question is why. On the American side, I believe it has to do with domestic politics and some poor decisions by the highest level of our government. The White House was responsible for recalling the Sixth Fleet aircraft, which had been sent to rescue the USS Liberty. They could have prevented the torpedo attack and saved 25 lives.
I can't say with any kind of certainty why the Israelis attacked. What I can say is whatever that reason was, Washington accepted it.
Who accepted it. Certainly the US Navy did not. The most damning of all, is the sworn statement of Ward Boston, Jr.,Captain, JAGC, USN (Ret.) Counsel to the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry’s investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty Some excerpts:
For more than 30 years, I have remained silent on the topic of USS Liberty. I am a military man and when orders come in from the Secretary of Defense and President of the United States, I follow them. However, recent attempts to rewrite history compel me to share the truth.
In June of 1967, while serving as a Captain in the Judge Advocate General Corps, Department of the Navy, I was assigned as senior legal counsel for the Navy’s Court of Inquiry into the brutal attack on USS Liberty, which had occurred on June 8th.
The late Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, president of the Court, and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the Navy’s official investigation into the attack, despite the fact that we both had estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry into an attack of this magnitude would take at least six months to conduct.
Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., then Commander-in-chief, Naval Forces Europe (CINCUSNAVEUR), at his headquarters in London, had charged Admiral Kidd (in a letter dated June 10, 1967) to “inquire into all the pertinent facts and circumstances leading to and connected with the armed attack; damage resulting therefrom; and deaths of and injuries to Naval personnel.”
Despite the short amount of time we were given, we gathered a vast amount of evidence, including hours of heartbreaking testimony from the young survivors.
The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. Each evening, after hearing testimony all day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as “murderous bastards.” It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident.
I am certain that the Israeli pilots that undertook the attack, as well as their superiors, who had ordered the attack, were well aware that the ship was American.
I saw the flag, which had visibly identified the ship as American, riddled with bullet holes, and heard testimony that made it clear that the Israelis intended there be no survivors. 10. Not only did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that had been launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most seriously wounded — a war crime.
I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of “mistaken identity” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the court’s findings.
Admiral Kidd also told me that he had been ordered to “put the lid” on everything having to do with the attack on USS Liberty. We were never to speak of it and we were to caution everyone else involved that they could never speak of it again.
I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement as I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent off to Washington.
I know this because it was necessary, due to the exigencies of time, to hand correct and initial a substantial number of pages. I have examined the released version of the transcript and I did not see any pages that bore my hand corrections and initials. Also, the original did not have any deliberately blank pages, as the released version does. Finally, the testimony of Lt. Painter concerning the deliberate machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews, which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and included in the original transcript, is now missing and has been excised.
Following the conclusion of the Court of Inquiry, Admiral Kidd and I remained in contact. Though we never spoke of the attack in public, we did discuss it between ourselves, on occasion. Every time we discussed the attack, Admiral Kidd was adamant that it was a deliberate, planned attack on an American ship.
You can't state with any certainty why the Israelis attacked because you don't have any facts. You are speculating that there must have been some good reason despite overwhelming evidence from the survivors and many key USG officials that there was no justification for such an attack. I don't understand how you can state on the one hand that the attack was deliberate and still defend the Israeli actions. There is no possible justification for the wanton murder of US military personnel in international waters.
Indeed, this incident occured back when most of our support came in the form of loan guarantees. Direct aid of the scope we see today did not come until AFTER this incident.
Are you an Israeli?
The US was the first country to recognize Israel. We supported the country from its very beginning. There is no doubt that the bulk of the official $99 billion of US assistance to Israel came primarily from the 1970's onwards, but we did provide the most aid, official and private, of any other country in the world. The Germans have provided about $61 billion in reparations. U.S. Assistance to Israel (FY1949 - FY2006)
Please point them out. I've only seen one, and that was too proposterous to be taken seriously. Indeed, you've taken pains to assert "why" doesn't matter.
You continue to distort my positions and now have added some ad hominen attacks. The "why" matters only to explain a causal relationship. If you accept the position that the attack was deliberate, then that is sufficient to charge Israel with a war crime. There is no possible justification for the attack. The US was not conducting hostile activities against Israel.
Chew on this article by James Akins, former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia: The Attack on the USS Liberty and its Cover-up
You gas on about what could possibly be wrong with an foreign intelligence gathering platform adjacent to a WAR ZONE, and expect to be taken seriously?
You ask "What was Israel doing that it didn't want us to find out about?" Did I mention the part about a WAR ZONE!
I understand WAR ZONE. I served a year in Vietnam and 8 months off the coast on a ship. We didn't sink Russian intelligence vessels off the coast of Vietnam. You don't sink neutral foreign vessels in international waters, especially one belonging to your closest ally and supporter.
You have facts: true enough. The problem is you don't seem to understand exactly what it is those facts support. They certainly don't support the absurd proposition that Israel attacked as part of some sci-fi channel plot to draw us into the war on their side.
You continue to posture as if I've disputed the "deliberate" nature of the attack, because that's the only argument you have answers for. It's like you're a living example of the old adage "when your only tool is a hammer, all your problems begin to look like nails."
If by both sides, you mean the heads of state, you would have to be a moron not to believe there is a cover-up.
Ya Think?
The question is why. On the American side, I believe it has to do with domestic politics and some poor decisions by the highest level of our government. The White House was responsible for recalling the Sixth Fleet aircraft, which had been sent to rescue the USS Liberty. They could have prevented the torpedo attack and saved 25 lives.
I agree. The question is "why." The difference between us is you're perfectly willing to admit White House involvement and perfidity "after" the fact, but you refuse to admit it before the fact, because it would cost you your causus belli.
I laugh at the hypocrisy of your "conjecture" about "domestic politics" (as if you've shrewdly disguised what you mean by THAT) when you claim asking "why" the Israelis would stage an attack that would be arguably suicidal for their nation is irrelevant.
Indeed, you quote: "I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of “mistaken identity” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. thus admitting active involvement at a level higher than ANYONE you quote, yet you want judgment rendered solely on the basis of the testimony of those you quote.
Who accepted it. Certainly the US Navy did not.
Now you're just being a drama queen.
The U.S. Navy DID accept it! They didn't like it, but they did accept it.
You are speculating that there must have been some good reason despite overwhelming evidence from the survivors and many key USG officials that there was no justification for such an attack.
Please cite that overwhelming evidence. I've seen nothing from you except overwhelming evidence there was an attack, and that it was deliberate. You continually rant "There is no possible justification" like an atheist railing "there is no god!" when in point of fact, like the atheist, you really lack any practical means to prove such a claim.
There is no doubt that the bulk of the official $99 billion of US assistance to Israel came primarily from the 1970's onwards...
Well fancy that! You mean our (yes I'm American) support for Israel actually INCREASED after the Liberty incident?
The "why" matters only to explain a causal relationship. If you accept the position that the attack was deliberate, then that is sufficient to charge Israel with a war crime.
I refer you back to my "Taliban" comment.
I will give you this... Akins quoting Bell gives the first somewhat plausible rationale I've seen for such an attack in bringing up the Golan Heights, but even there, like a broken record, the ultimate motivator is claimed to be "greed."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.