Posted on 10/30/2002 3:37:06 PM PST by yonif
BTW, no "EC-141" was in service in 1967...
Could be, and if so, that may lend credence to the observations that it was computer data transmissions, rather than radio intercepts, that the Israelis were so concerned about. Or maybe, it was Arabic-language reports of the massacre of 100+ Egyptian prisoners by Israeli troops. But the lack of a Hebrew-speaker aboard the Libertyis at odds with Dr. Borne's material *here*. [4th paragraf] Either way, it's certainly a matter worth checking out.
The details of the EC-121 ELINT aircraft intercept [you're right, it was a Warning Star converted Connie- our local Air Guard unit flys C141C aircraft and I just about automatically type out a *4* after *C1...*] are described in James Bamford's book *Body of Secrets* regarding the NSA audio tapes of aircraft intercepts of Israeli pilots describing the American flag on the vessel under attack. Again, whether these were tapes translated later or whether anNSA linguist aboard caught them in realtime is open to question. There've also been some interesting disclosures from a couple of Israeli sources, including Yitzak Rabin...before he was shot to death, though his written autobiography was of course sanitized with the *official line.* And, of course, U.S. Marines pride themselves on never forgetting a fallen fellow Marine, as well...and that too may come back to haunt the Israelis.
This was *1967*, dude. The only "computer data transmissions" that they could have intercepted in-theater were the Link 11 broadcasts associated with the US Navy's Naval Tactical Data System.
"Or maybe, it was Arabic-language reports of the massacre of 100+ Egyptian prisoners by Israeli troops."
Uh...archy...you do realize that this claim was made a long time AFTER the war by Israel-hating jihadists and that there is no evidence whatsoever to back it up?
I know very well when it was; I was with the rest of a U.S. tank battalion putting our M60A1 tanks aboard a ship for a landing in Israel should the Arabs appear to make good on their promise to drive all the Jews into the sea. I had just returned from a tour on the East German/Czech border's 5-km zone with the 14th Armored Cav, and we'd returned to find our barracks and kaserne empty and deserted and our motor pool empty. Even the MPs normally working our front and rear gates were gone. A quick trip to Bad Tolz and some help from 10th SFGs intell staff got us some info and orders as to where to proceed and embark, and I think it was one of the very few times I can recall that the SF guys envied the line infantry and armor guys. We were looking forward to giving the Israelis a hand with their problem, just like a lit of the guys during Desert Storm saw moving the Iraqis out of Kuwait as being neighborly and helpful, even if the people expressed their gratitude more than the political leadership did. And then, of course, we heard about the Liberty, and began to wonder if perhaps the Israelis would bomb a US infantry company and then try to blame it on the Arabs. I'd say we still have to worry about some Israelis who think like that.
As for the possibilities that computer traffic was the desired fruit to be plucked from the air, I was working in a different corner of the spectrum then, so I can only speculate. But I'd think that even you might realize that the Navy wasn't the only computer user at the time. And as for the possibility of a massacre of Egyptians by the Israelis, it may well have been Arab propaganda. Or the Israelis may have simply mistaken them for liferafts.
-archy-/-
In other words, you still can't reconcile the extreme discrepancies between the various American accounts...
But I'd think that even you might realize that the Navy wasn't the only computer user at the time.
They were the only ones using wireless computer networks in that corner of the world. Heck, NTDS was the first serious application of wireless networking anywhere--it was really a couple decades or so ahead of its time (my father spent 30 years of his life working on various aspects of the program, BTW).
And as for the possibility of a massacre of Egyptians by the Israelis, it may well have been Arab propaganda. Or the Israelis may have simply mistaken them for liferafts.
And you continue to read off the script written by the "Death to Israel" crowd.
Hmm.
Why then do you not quote anything from their site in support of your accusations? All of the quotes are from some other site. What gives?
Why? Israel is a socialist democracy, one step away from communism.
Problem is, as has been pointed out your claims are illogical. If the Israeli Navy believed it was outclassed, the IAF wouldn't have been called in until after they had discovered the ship in question posed a military threat.
It is patently obvious by the way the IAF and Israeli Navy acted in concert that the attack was a strategic and planned attack, not merely the reaction of some dumbfounded commanders in the Navy and Airforce coincidentally bringing a communications ship to its knees without having been fired upon themselves.
And we didn't.
What I suspect happened was that some of the Crypto guys knew enough Hebrew to understand enough of what the pilots were saying to know they were identifying us as American.
Warmest regards,
Joe Meadors
To which of my postings are you refering?
Joe
If you are an American citizen you should be ashamed of yourself.
Indicating a planned attack on a ship where the configuration was already known. I can't think of a sorty in history where the target was not even known beforehand which produced such miraculous results.
His research is stunningly biased and full of lies.
An example of this is Cristol’s portrayal of a meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July 1967. Then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara was testifying, and there was a dispute between him and Sen. Bourke Hickenlooper (R-IA).If an observer reads the committee transcript, it is clear that the senators all believed that the attack on the ship was deliberate, and did not believe McNamara’s statements to the contrary. During this exchange, McNamara simply lied to the senators, telling them that a Naval Court had concluded that the attack was accidental. (The court specifically avoided any statement about Israel’s motives.) The senators did not realize that McNamara had lied to them.
Incredibly, Cristol rearranges this debate to make it seem that the committee believed that the attack was accidental. He quotes a statement by McNamara, “the attack was not intentional,” as if it were a report from this committee and so lists it in his group of reports. (The committee issued no report.) Cristol speaks of the “friendly questions” from the senators, when in fact all questions were skeptical or hostile. The debate ends with Hickenlooper complaining angrily that it is apparently not possible to get at the truth.
Perhaps so, perhaps not. At any rate, you don't hit 100% of the radio antennaes on a comminications ship by accident. You must know where they are in advance and give the pilots these small areas of the ship as primary targets. Simply randomly straffing a ship (claimed to be a mistaken horse-carrier) will not miraculously kill 100% of the communications carriers unless perhaps you sink the ship or there is only one antenna.
My understanding is that the battlegroup commander launched his SIOP birds (the alert birds carrying nukes), and that's why the strike got recalled.
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.