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]
And if not, someone who murders a child to take advantage of a "photo op", and the culture which honors is, is no better.
The IDF initially thought they were being fired upon from offshore after there were a number of large explosions near the coast. When they sent patrol boats to investigate they found a ship steaming towards Egypt and because they had been told by the US that there were no US ships within 100 miles of the coast it was assumed by those on board the patrol boat that it was an Egyptian ship which they misidentified as the El Quasir. End of Story.
As usual you make statements that are erroneous. Are you a glutton for punishment? Are you just too dishonest to consider that disagreement with you is not an indication that somebody is immediately an anti-Semite or wrong?
Leaders of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community have been objecting to this change, in part, because it would mean that the relatively small number of ultra-Orthodox Jews that serve in separate all ultra-Orthodox units might be forced to serve with women. Although, a decision has not been made yet, it appears that the army will consent to restrict women soldiers from serving with ultra-Orthodox Jews. Also, it appears that the army will agree to strictly enforce a new stricter dress code for women in order not to offend the sensibilities of ultra-Orthodox soldiers.
You'd still be wrong.
LOL.
Dumb, lying doggie. I won't bother to paste up the diagrams PROVING that the kid was out of reach of any Israeli bullet. They are here, though. Just go to the Downside legacy.
The shots that killed the boy seems not to have come from any of the pal positions, but from the open field on the left. Where the palestinian photographer were. And the forensic work on the soundtrack places an old 50cal very, very near him. Which tallies with the fact that Jamal is looking straight at the photographer during the event.
Bet you he's screaming "hey careful, it wasn't in the deal that I would be hit..."
If you bother to read the transcript of the Naval Inquiry you will find the exact times of the overflights. There was a considerable time gap between the last flight and the attack. Furthermore although the Liberty had been identified in the morning as being in the area the plot had been taken off the IDF board as it was 6 hours old and it is assumed that no boat will still be in the same place 6 hours later especially in wartime situation.
Furthermore, the TP boats deliberately sank lifeboats as they hit the water.
Outright lie - evidence in the transcript proves that the crew was ordered to throw burning liferafts overboard as they had caught fire during the aircraft strafing and onboard ammunition cooking off. Its true that some crew claim to have seen burning liferafts but they are only assuming that it was due to PT boat fire.
I read elsewhere that they had straffed lifeboats that had sailors in them and apparently that was an exageration.
Another outright lie because no crew abandoned ship.
At any rate, the point was not to get into a debate about the liberty.
So why bring it up?
I am not sure why Ennes says that the Liberty is the only maritime incident of its type without a Congressional inquiry.
What other incident can it be compared to? - not to Pueblo as some would say because there's no comparison. There have in fact been a number of inquiries as has already been pointed out earlier in the thread. This false claim is a required part of the conspiracy/coverup scenario nonsense
The slight of hand that goes on with you and your seminar poster buddies is amazing. If I post a picture of a kid targetted by IDF forces
What credible evidence do you have to substatiate that it was IDF - au contraire the evidence points to him being killed by his own side.
Nevermind that all of the so-called evidence for Al Dura's murder is not conclusive in the slightest as to which side shot him.
You just said he was "targetted by IDF".
The 14 year old boy shot in the back after being taunted by IDF forces to come out and throw rocks? "Uh...that dude who wrote for Harper's is a bafoon and hates Israel..." LOL.
Has it occured to you that the dude is in fact biased and has zilch credibility as documented by CAMERA.. Does he say that "he witnessed" the kids being taunted or is he just reporting what he was told second-hand.?
It borders on the insane. What's even more insane is that you people think you're helping your cause.
And what's your cause DD?
And your evidence for this canard is...?
Service in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is a measure of involvement in the country's life. Most men and single women are inducted into the IDF at age 18, women for two years and men for three, followed by service in the reserves, men up to age 51 and single women to age 24.
Out of respect for their community's religious commitments, Orthodox women may be exempted, although many choose to perform 1-2 years national service in the civilian sector. Most ultra-Orthodox men are granted deferments, and those who serve in the IDF mainly fulfill religious functions.
Again I refer you to the transcript - the explosions and smoke were witnessed by the Liberty crew.
It later turned out to be the Egyptian's blowing up their own ammo dumps as they were retreating.
Here's what we know:
The logical conclusion, since the law is specific, is to conclude that those who are carrying firearms are those allowed by law to do so unless you assume that those mentioned in the articles are law breakers.
Because the Liberty's only defensive weapons were two fifty caliber machine guns mounted fore and aft.
If IDF forces approached the ship (which had an American flag plainly visible and had been flown by several times throughout the day by the Israeli air force [some of the pilots waving to crew members]) and thought it was capable of firing upon the shore, then they would have to be not only acting in error by attacking, but incredibly stupid as well.
It isn't a canard. It is based on the eye-witness account of an American Journalist.
He witnessed the event. 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.
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.
Like some of the others here (while I consider you to be at the very least a helluva lot more rational) 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.
This is meaningless. In order for you to assume that this is significant, you would have to believe that air force pilots didn't radio back to base that this ship was an American ship. Furthermore, you would also have to assume that upon encountering the ship 6 hours later, the surprise was so great that in spite of the fact that IAF knew that this was the last reported location of an American ship (which had no defensive capabilities other than two 50 caliber machine guns) it really wasn't an American ship and they attacked. Preposterous.
This is from your source.
If you look at the diagrams, the bullet that is claimed to have come from the field in a straight line making the small hole near the bottome of the wall, directly intersects the line at which the Israeli fire was coming.
Furthermore, the hole produced by what is agreed to be the fatal shot is noticably smaller than the other holes in that wall.
Knowing that the bullet entered the FRONT of the boys body and exited the rear, it would be odd indeed for a person firing from the field to be able to make a bullet which would have entered the right SIDE of the boys body, enter the front and exit the rear.
However, it is in fact possible for the bullet to have entered the boys body from the front, deflect off of his spine or ribs and enter the wall. It may not have occurred that way. But it is far more likely than a gunman to the side or rear to have shot him.
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.