Posted on 04/27/2002 9:37:19 AM PDT by TheLurkerX
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:33:18 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
JERUSALEM
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
You know how to cut and paste, the article is available so show where he says he saw the event. He's just repeating what a kid told him. He had no way of confirming if it was truth or fantasy.
As far as the lifeboats. You claim that I have lied twice. Once when I claimed that the PT boats sank lifeboats lowered by sailors. That is in fact what was testified to by those serving on the Liberty that day.
Testimony by Ensign David G. Lucas, First Lieutenant and Gunnery Officer, USS LIBERTY (AGTR-5).
p13 -"The fire had spread aft of the P-250 cans and the four life rafts were burning on the 01 level."
p15 - "The flames from the liferaft and the P-250 fuel had reached mount 54"
Testimony by Lloyd C. PAINTER, Lieutenant (jg), USNR.
p 56 -We then filed out to our life rafts which were no longer with us because they had been strafed and most of them were burned, so we knocked most of them over the side.
At this time the torpedo boats, three of them, that had torpedoed us, were laying off, waiting for us to sink, I believe. Anyway, they didn't come near us at this time..... All during this time in Repair Three, my men were fighting fires and knocking burning liferafts, etc."
FINDING OF FACTS
p160- 161 5. The immediate confusion milling around astern followed by peaceful overtures by the attacking surface forces after launching only two torpedoes of the six presumed available (two on each PT boat), indicate these craft may well have identified the colors for the first time when they got in close enough.
P171 -Whale boat destroyed in davits by incendiary rockets and many life rafts holed or burned in their stowages. to see clearly through the smoke and flames billowing, at times above the mast head.
There's only some of the testimony - it would seem that those who saw burning liferafts in the water "assumed" that they had been shot up by the PT boats but the fact is that the liferafts were already afire before they went overboard.
The other time you claim I lied was when I said that I had read elsewhere that *manned* lifeboats were straffed. In the same sentence I explain that this claim appears to be exaggerated. In otherwords: false. Never happened.
I said that the claim was a lie not that you are a liar - get over it.
If you believed it was a false claim and an exaggeration why did you bring it up?
you appear to be assuming that even when I am acknowledging facts I believed to be true at one time and now do not, I am somehow forwarding some agenda of dishonesty. That is not the path to understanding.
So why repeat lies - its not the path to understanding but it is the path to propaganda and villification of those concerned.
a. The PT boats were sent to investigate what was thought to be offshore shelling.
b. They spotted a ship which the identified as the El Qasir - an enemy ship. Whether or not it was the supposed source of the shelling is now irrelevant. It was at that point to far away for them to be able to reach before it would get to its Egyptian harbour so they called for airsupport.
c. All that the pilots would know is that they had been told to get to and attack a target ASAP. All they get told is take out a target at the following co-ordinates, they don't get into a debate about it. Their is a hot war going on afterall.
d. Yes, the PT boats only started their attack after the air attack had slowed the Liberty down so they could catch up. In a hot war situation, decisions have to be made on the spot, sometimes the wrong ones are made. This wasn't a pre-planned situation but a chance encounter with a target of opportunity.
Like I said earlier, if the Air Force flew in and attacked without making note that the liberty had no guns to even initiate an attack on the shore, then the pilots were stupid.
Irrelevant, they were ordered to attack so as to slow down the ship - that's all they knew. They didn't know anything about offfshore shelling etc. They were given a target to attack and they did. They just happened to be the closest jets and they weren't armed for ship sinking so they used what they had. If it was a pre-meditated attack the IAF would have sent planes armed with bombs not machine guns and a few rockets.
Try to imagine the culture that extols this as virtuous. Should they both have been smiling?
Of course. It is irrelevant to you because such idiocy supports your pet theory. The only way you can explain the Air Force attacking a virtually unarmed ship before the intel had arrived is to believe that they were not trained in the skill of identifying ship configurations.
In the previous 6 hours the Liberty was in a hot zone just like when it was attacked. And the pilots didn't rush to attack. They identified the ship first.
However the bullet hole that EVERYONE agrees is the one caused when the bullet exited Al Dura's body is visibly smaller than the ones caused by the cameraman shooter and it would be an act of God if his shooting could have caused one of his shots to enter the front of the boy, exit his back and make a little round hole near the base of the wall.
Of course....the IDF took down that wall and thus conveniently destroyed the evidence. They didn't even bother to remove the bullet from that small little hole. Then it was the IDF that initiated an "investigation" which of course found in their own favor. Who would have guessed that the IDF's inquiry would have implicated the Palestinians and concocted a bizarre theory that Al Dura brought his own boy there to sacrifice?
Class Warfare that goes unspoken because of religious ties
Gary Winnick, Marc Rich, Pincus Green, Michael Milken, Larry Ellison, etc.
White-collar criminals that go untouched because of 'unshakeable faith', or is it $$$$$?
The IDF didn't just demolish the wall in question but every other structure including the two tall buildings in the area that were providing cover for the Pali gunmen.
The Palis refused to allow an autopsy on the kid and for all we know there may have been other bullets in the corpse which might have established which gun it came from.
Bullet holes, trajectories etc aside that one picture I posted tells all.
The pilots didn't know it was the virtually unarmed Liberty nor did they have to know that it was the presumed El Qasir. For all they knew it might have had concealed air to air hand held missiles - who knows . They were attacking a target and it wan't their job to identify it first even if they could. They would have come in fast with all guns blazing - that's their job.
You think the US B52 pilots at 30,000 ft try to identify the target. They are just given co-ordinates and when they reach that point its all bombs away. That's what happens in a war.
And by the way, it not my "pet theory" but what the record states happened. The problem is that you are ignorant about the literature on the subject and have picked up bits and pieces from unreliable and tainted sources.
Come back when you have acquainted yourself with the subject not the propaganda spiels you have lapped up.
I do not shoot myself in the foot with the argument. The other bullet holes were alleged to have come from the direction of the cameraman. It is their large and almost perfectly round entry holes which are used as the basis for the report.
It is that fact which the IDF and others in this "investigation" of the forensic evidence rely upon as their "proof" that this was the act of a Palestinian gunman.
The bullet holes appear to be fired from where the camera man is positioned and do not resemble bullets fired at an angle. The smaller hole is alleged to be the hole which was caused by the bullet exiting the boy.
It's not the same size as the camera shooter. The camera shooter could not have shot the boy in the front of his body as he was facing the wrong direction for that to occur. That fact, plus the fact that the only gun identified in the camera man area was a 50 caliber (which looks to be consistent with the holes that appear in the film as Al Dura looks toward the camera) would have caused MUCH more bodily damage and a larger hole in the wall consistent with the other holes.
Both the IDF and the Palestinians agree that the smaller hole at the base of the wall is from the exiting bullet.
All of the hand-wavy arguments about martyrdom and a 30 degree angle of fire not causing those perfect round holes ignore the fact that the bullet hole is visibly smaller, the IDF sniper could very well have hit the boy and it is certainly possible that a bone deflection could have caused the bullet to exit at a different trajectory than it entered.
Not possible with a 50 cal which has a range of a mile and shoots extremely flat over that mile. A 50 cal will destroy a car motor at 800 yards. But the IDF wants you to believe that this particular gun was a weakened version and shot two different sized bullets apparently.
Excepting the fact that Israel claims its pilots circled the ship three times before attacking.
Just FYI, the identifying numbers on the bow were over 4 feet high. They were white letters with a black outline. Whether or not they saw a flag after allegedly circling the ship 3 times (the crew denies this) they most certainly could have seen those markings.
Furthermore, the PT boats I'm sure carry a set of high powered binoculars on them. If not, perhaps the IDF has remedied their procurement issues and they are now standard issue.
Please stop ending every post with this nonsense about who knows more about this situation. That kind of bravado and insult simply creates animosity.
Source for that please. That doesn't coincide with the Liberty court statements.
Furthermore, the PT boats I'm sure carry a set of high powered binoculars on them. The initial ID was from quite a long distance - I can't recall the figure offhand but it was at the extreme of the PT boats radar range. By the time the PT boats got close enough to the Liberty it was shrouded in smoke extending above the masthead. The Captain in his testimony stated that he believed that his signal lamp couldn't penetrate the smoke that's how thick it was.
The fact remains that the PT boats called off the attack as soon as they realised it was a US ship. Their first confirmation that it was US and not a disguised Egyptian ship was when they retrieved a liferaft and saw the US markings.
They could easily have lobbed another torpedo in when they saw the first hadn't been enough. Instead they immediately signalled the Liberty asking if they needed help. Now explain to me why one minute they are trying to sink the Liberty and the next they break off the attack and offer help when the Liberty was a sitting duck.
They pulled back and waited for another attack. Their torpedo having done the trick, they awaited phase three which was a couple of helicopters full of soldiers.
This attack was planned and was in three phases. The only reason the helicopters hadn't dropped their men was because at that time the radio traffic in the Fleet was enough to alert the Israeli's that the gig was up. And by the way, I misspoke about the letters. They were nearly 10 feet tall and the US Navy is one of the rare Navies that marks their ship in this fashion.
In the meantime, on 28 April 1969, 22 months after the attack, Israel paid $3,556,457 in compensation to those men who were wounded.16 This was obtained only after the claimants retained private legal counsel, the latter taking a substantial part of the award. Although the United States submitted a claim of $7,644,146 for the material damage inflicted upon the LIBERTY, the government of Israel has refused to pay it.The whole Israeli attitude toward the LIBERTY incident has been singularly callous. Americans in Israel at the time of the attack remarked with some surprise that no Israelis oftheir regular acquaintance saw fit to offer their personal regrets about the unfortunate attack upon the LIBERTY, even by way of off-hand conversation.17 These Israeli attitudes make an interesting contrast to the only comparable incident which has occurred within recent years, the attack upon the USS PANAY (PR-5) 30 years earlier.
On 13 December 1937, the gunboat PANAY was strafed, bombed and sunk in the Yangtze River by Japanese dive-bombers during the initial weeks of the confused "China Incident" which four years later became an aspect of World War II. Three men, including one civilian, were killed; a dozen were seriously wounded. Many individul Japanese called upon the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo to express their personal regrets; many others telephoned. Japanese schools took up collections for the survivors and next of kin. The admiral in charge of operations in China and the air officer who commanded the squadrons that took part in the attack were relieved of their commands. And Japan remitted its monetary compensation on 22 April 1938, less than five months after the incident."18
Still at your spin, Demi? Did you concoct it yourself, or will I find it when sifting trough Hoffman-info or one of your other haunts?
Fess up, brownshirt.
I see Smith also mentions the explosion that the IDF thought was due to the offshore shelling that started the whole fiasco.... " He called their [the Liberty crew] attention to a great tower of oily black smoke boiling up into the brilliantly blue sky about 20 miles west of El Arish."
If you do the maths you will see that it took the PT boats capable of 42 knots about half an hour + the time taken for despatch of the jets and their flight time to reach the scene - so the visual ID of the Liberty no matter how big the numbers and the most powerful binoculars is problematic. The minimum distance was 15 miles (the horizon) but first radar contact was around 30 miles.
Smith also confirms what I wrote earlier about the smoke and visibility. "At 1428, one of the motor torpedo boats flashed a message to the LIBERTY, but it could not be read because of all the smoke from fires burning on the lower weather decks". If the Liberty could not see the message then how do you expect the PT boats to read the Liberty's markings or the flag when the smoke was according to the evidence higher than the masthead?
What Smith doesn't tell you is that one of the Liberty's machine guns started shooting at the PT boat at just about that time. I guess the Israeli's took that as the answer to their message.
Smith repeats the canard about napalm - the medical officer testified he did not find anybody with evidence of napalm burns. What some sailors saw falling from the planes were long range fuel tanks which they assumed were napalm. The planes were in fact armed for hunting tanks.
Where Smith relates the facts on record he is quite correct - when he speculates he is only making assumptions as to motives etc. But that's all they are speculations or interpretations not facts.
The fact remains that the PT boats called off the attack as soon as they realised it was a US ship. Why when they got close in after the torped attack did they stop after only 1 strafing run by 1 boat. There were a total of 821 bullet holes in the Liberty after the attack. Not much from the combined firepower of 2 jets and 3 MTB's. This indicates that the total engagement time can be measure in seconds.
They pulled back and waited for another attack. Their torpedo having done the trick, they awaited phase three which was a couple of helicopters full of soldiers.
That is speculation - as to what they were waiting for. In fact the Captain's evidence was that they had signalled asking if the Liberty needed help. And what was the trick the torpeded had pulled off? You don't fire a torpedo unless you want to sink something and in this case the torpedo failed - some trick. They still had 4 torpedo left - what was to stop them being used?
There were 2 helicopters which some crew members state looked as if they were looking for bodies in the water. They had been called to the scene in case the Liberty sank and they would be available for resuce work.
They departed for the simple reason that the Liberty looked as if it wouldn't sink. There was a war on and they were needed elsewhere.
There is not a shred of evidence that they contained troops. And why would they want to land soldiers on the Liberty - it would have been easier to sink her with another torpedo if they meant further harm.
Just because somebody decided to label them "troop carrying" helicopters doesn't mean they were full of troops.
This attack was planned and was in three phases.
Oh, you know that for a fact - you were in the IDF HQ.
It wasn't planned because if it was, and they had all day to plan it, they would have sent planes with bombs or have just relied on the torpedo boats which would have had plenty of time to get there without needing air assistance.
The only reason the helicopters hadn't dropped their men was because at that time the radio traffic in the Fleet was enough to alert the Israeli's that the gig was up.
Speculation - but also wrong because there weren't any men to drop nor a reason to drop them. What do you think these men were going to do on a sinking ship?
And by the way, I misspoke about the letters. They were nearly 10 feet tall and the US Navy is one of the rare Navies that marks their ship in this fashion.
Irrelevant - doesn't matter how tall if they are behind a smokescreen.
In the meantime, on 28 April 1969, 22 months after the attack, Israel paid $3,556,457 in compensation to those men who were wounded.16 This was obtained only after the claimants retained private legal counsel, the latter taking a substantial part of the award. Although the United States submitted a claim of $7,644,146 for the material damage inflicted upon the LIBERTY, the government of Israel has refused to pay it.
All claims were paid including the damage to the ship - what's he on about?
And 22 months is probably record time - go see how long the average car accident victim has to wait to get paid.
your ref - http://www.ussliberty.org/rksmith.txt
So are you denying that witnesses saw helicopters approach the ship containing soldiers? Smith says they did. You've already said that when he states the facts he is quite accurate.
1) Cristol says that the Israeli planes circled the ship just before the attack, looking for a flag. Crewmen say the planes came in shooting with no circling.http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0699/9906062.html
Drunk again, I see. Or too much acid-candy. Far as I know, i haven't discussed the removal of the wall with you. And yes, it was removed afterwards in the effort to make further shooting attacks more difficult.
The video sequence remains, though. It condemns you to h*ll.
Excepting that you quoted me talking about the destruction of the wall and then went on to call me a brownshirt. If you can't recall having discussed it then perhaps you need to approach your family physician about telltale signs regarding the onset of Allzheimers. Or you just need to admit you're a liar. Whichever is least expensive is fine with me.
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.