More pics and history here
Posted on 10/10/2003 9:29:50 AM PDT by yonif
That's an extension to the two second rule, or the three second rule. See also Smart Motorist's very conservative guidance: http://www.smartmotorist.com/tai/tai.htm.
One second at speeds over 15 mph is too close.
30 miles per hour equals 44 feet per second. This is the basis of the old rule to follow behind cars on yhe highway no closer than one car length (about 15 feet) for every 10 mph of speed. So if you are traveling 65 mph you should be 90 feet behind the car in front of you. Your response in one second isn't to come to a complete stop in 90 feet for 60 mph. As you are breaking because of a problem ahead, the car ahead is still traveling forward as it decelerates unless it has hit a tree off the road.
Given my experience on the road, the one car length rule for every 10 mph of speed is routinely violated with many tailgaters.
The application of two and three second rules is dangerous as those passing by just move in to take the space leaving you to continually slow down to get further behind.
If that's what you think, you're more deluded than I thought. As for the personal attack, you are the one who called my character into question for having a different opinion than you.
As for sources, it is not about sources or individual facts. It's about interpretation of the facts. That's the whole problem with debating this subject. No matter which so-called "fact" anyone brings to the table, it is subject to personal interpretation. The debate is pointless and I am not going to waste time going through it all again with you (a statement you will no doubt claim as some kind of victory when you send me your next reply--but that's ok. You go ahead and tell yourself whatever you need to.)
Sorry son, but without a source your interpretation of the facts is worthless.
Your claim to have facts that you cannot have puts you in the position of being a blowhard who screams personal attack when you are forced to put up or shut up.
Some may be conned into believing your background entitles you to setting the rules. I know better.
Now, seriously; sit down and stop degrading yourself in public.
Quote one thing I wrote that fits that characterization. And then, please, tell where this deep-seated fear of people who disagree with you comes from. I gave a pretty clear explanation of how I came to my conclusions on the issue. You've done nothing but question my character, call me names, and accuse me of attacking you personally.
Furthermore, I am not the only one on this thread that made the point on the difficulties of identification in combat, to which you reply:
Some may be conned into believing your background entitles you to setting the rules. I know better.
You know better? How? What is your experience in this area? What "facts" can you offer to counter my line of reasoning?
You also make the following statement: There was no conspiracy. Israeli commanders made a decision to attack everything that was of non-Israeli military value. They knew damn well Liberty was there.
That may be true, but how do you know? Have you seen the order? Were you sitting in the cabinet meeting when the decision was made?
The opinion I expressed is based on practical military experience applied to the facts that are generally known and accepted by all parties in this issue. Do I know for sure what happened? No. That is why I said it was my opinion. Am I not allowed to express an opinion without having my character and motives attacked?
You also say: Sorry son, but without a source your interpretation of the facts is worthless.
First of all, I'm not your son. Second, as a statement, that one is worthless. It is nonsensical. What source does one need to interprete a fact or situation? The source of my interpretation of the facts in the Liberty incident is my own practical experience in threat identification.
A fact is a statement that something is or is not. WHY it is, or is not, is where interpretation comes in. Interpretation is sound, or not, in direct relation to the additional facts that can be brought to bear to support the supposition.
I gave as support of my supposition (supported by JohnHK in post #24), my personal and historical knowledge of threat mis-identification and friendly-fire incindents. Facts that are usually ignored by those who support the Idea that the Isrealis deliberately attacked the Liberty.
But if that is not enough for you, fine. If you can answer one question to my satisfaction, I will throw out all other evidence to the contrary.
What, in time of war, did Isreal have to gain by deliberately attacking their only real ally? I have yet to hear a good answer to that question. Perhaps you'll be the first. Give it your best shot and see if you can do it without any further personal attacks.
More pics and history here
"...abetted by Johnson's ordering the ship into an area we had been warned against entering."
1. Source for Johnson's order. assuming you mean the President, Lyndon B. Johnson.
2. Source for warning
I've not only been through the website top to bottom, I've read two books on the subject, seen at least that many TV documentaries, and beat this dead horse into jerky here and at Liberty Post.
Sorry, I must have missed your breathless prose here and I don't read Liberty Post. org. It is overloaded with crackpots in spite of the management's reasonable attempts to coop the kooks.
Now, if you can't identify the source then stop wasting my time with your huffing and puffing.
My analogy has nothing to do with daylight or not. I was stating what happens after the first shots are fired, and I gave several examples that clearly demostrate the point if you care to re-read them.
One other fact that bothers me is that a US submarine monitoring the area underwater determined the USS Liberty was under attack, reported the event, and was given orders not to interfere.
As I understand the facts, Johnson ordered the Liberty into those waters and then told the Isrealis that we had no ships in the area. As for the sub, there would be little that it could do in that situation short of presenting another target. But it was probably just another case of Johnson indecision in the face of a mistake in judgement. IMHO.
If US seamen can see the 'mistake' from underwater and have enough time to relay the event to higher command and get return orders, I find it incredulous that Israeli pilots and seamen can't even determine that the enemy has no armament even though they have direct sight of the target.
US seamen knew it was a mistake only because they knew who and what the Liberty was. The Isreali forces attacking her had been told that the ship was an Egyptian freighter (normally used for shipping horses and livestock), which had essentially been used as an artillery/mortar platform to shell Isreal, and was escaping the area. Disguising freighters for use as raiders has been quite common in the 20th century, and guns are not hard to conceal/disguise on a ships deck. Not seeing overt signs of armament, firing or not, would have been consistent with their intelligence report.
You talk of the brevity of combat tactics. Millions of people drive cars. On highways, most people are taught to keep behind other cars to to give themselves enough distance to allow them one second to react. Most do this successfully. This rule applies even to old people and inexperienced teenagers. Most accidents are caused by drunks, old people who are severely handicapped by physical deterioration and mental alertness, and teenagers who drive recklessly. One second is generous for an able bodied middle aged driver. An experienced gun shooter can draw and fire hitting a target in a fifth of a second. Now you are going to tell me that well trained seamen approaching on a torpedo boat can’t tell that the target is not shelling Israel? What the torpedo boat was too fast for human reaction?
Nice analysis, but for one thing: At the time the torpedo boats were trying to intercept the ship, the shelling had stopped and the ship was supposed to be retreating from the area, and therefore those sailors would not expect to see it firing at anything. That they did or did not fire has nothing to do with reaction time. It has to do with whether or not they believed the ship was the right target. As I said before, once one starts firing at a perceived threat, all are likely to do so under the assumption that the guy who is firing must know or have seen something they did not.
"Friendly-fire" incidents are rife throughout modern military history. More so than most people think, as most do not get reported unless they involve troops other than our own.
If we are going to demand the benefit of the doubt when our guys accidently drop bombs on our allies, or shoot down civilian airliners when the overfly the Gulf, we should be willing to extend it when the shoe is on the other foot. Condemn me for that if you will, but that is my opinion.
when debating a subject, it is usually incumbent on the challenger to present facts in refutation. I've explained myself thoroughly and tried to be polite, but you keep on with the personal slams. Why?
Second, you keep badgering me for facts and sources, but provide none yourself. I asked you several direct questions which you ignored.
Third, you characterise what I've written as a rant, but your're the one using all of the inflamatory language. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me.
As I said before, there is nothing about the Liberty incident that I take personally (as you seem to). You think they attacked the ship deliberately? Fine. I'll be more than happy to come over to your point of view if you can present me with the evidence. Since you seem to consider yourself such an expert on the subject that you can discount everything I say, that should be easy for you to do.
Convince me and I will ping everyone on the thread and say you are right.
As for Liberty Post, I tend to stay out of the debates there because of the prevalence of "crack-pots" and full-on "conspiracy theorists" who think the end all of argumentation is to make points by flaming the opposition. Kind of like you've been doing here.
Like I said, I'm ready to be convinced if you think you're up to it.
You were asked for the source of the following charge:
"...abetted by Johnson's ordering the ship into an area we had been warned against entering."
Now, I know why you are reluctant to cite a source for your charge. Come clean and we'll address the facts with facts. In lieu of that event you really need to pull back from your creation.
That's an order, son.
Did you read this charge somewhere or did you make it up all by yourself?
Did you know it was false the first time you used it?
So, let's us now cut to the end of the chase:
What you don't make up to suit your agenda, you plagiarize.
You do have one thing right. Everyone is still waiting for you to clean up your act.
How could I possibly have plagarized anything, when, as you say, I never presented any facts or sources? You really should have your medication checked. Your reasoning is so pathetic it has become amusing.
I humbly await your next baseless charge. I know some ten-year-olds who need some fresh playground insult material, and you're a fount of juvenile witicisms.
This is almost as much fun as sparing with libs at DU. ;-]
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.