posted
Why pick on me? I'm not the only person making hash out of your conspiracy theory here. I'm just having more fun doing it. Because it is such delectable fun when you blow your stack.
I don't have to character assassinate your favorite captain. He's doing that well enough himself, saying "I've been a liar for a long time."
One of the things I learned in jury duty that admitted liars don't have a whole lot of credibility, and that they have to make up for this lack in some extraordinary way if they expect to be believed.
Your boy hasn't done this.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:I don't have to character assassinate your favorite captain. He's doing that well enough himself, saying "I've been a liar for a long time."
Really? When did he say this? Oh, I see, you're referring to the cover up he participated in. Y'know what, at least he has the guts to come forward with the truth.
Now, get the fuck out of this thread since you have nothing to offer to it except your idiotic little mumblings and "oooh, I'm a librarian, respect and fear me or I'll charge you late fees and other lame stuff." Door is STILL on your left.
Well this is pointless if you're going to be an asshole...
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
-Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney, LeMans
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Really? When did he say this? Oh, I see, you're referring to the cover up he participated in. Y'know what, at least he has the guts to come forward with the truth.
And it only took him 36 years. What, did he have repressed memories? The longer the delay, the more dubious the claim.
Maybe he IS telling the truth. Maybe the THIRTEENTH investigation might find this elusive "truth."
quote: Now, get the fuck out of this thread since you have nothing to offer to it except your idiotic little mumblings and "oooh, I'm a librarian, respect and fear me or I'll charge you late fees and other lame stuff." Door is STILL on your left.
Now, see? You know damned well I never said anything of the sort... making you someone who clearly is willing to play fast and loose with the truth if it serves his purposes. (I'm going to refrain from using the inflammatory "L" word, unless you continue to attribute false quotes.) So much like your allies' games.
Besides, you should know me well enough to know that I will never desert a thread which YOU are vehemently insisting that I leave. Not when you so happily spill so much of your own blood in the water.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Oh gosh! The359 is calling me an asshole! I'm stunned.
If you don't want to participate in the thread, the door is on your left.
I've proven my case. Neither you nor Robert can explain why the Liberty was mis-identified. She was flying American colors, with American markings, and NO OTHER SHIP resembled her. You can't explain the numerous overflights by Israeli jets all day, you can't explain Liberty crewmen overhearing the pilots identifying the ship as American except by calling them liars and in Ennes' case, all but anti-semetic. You can't explain the torpedo boats ignoring the Liberty's colors & markings and machine gunning crew & escape craft (including taking one of those craft aboard a torpedo boat). You can't explain away top military and government leaders saying that they believed the attack to be deliberate except by attacking their credibility and memories. You certainly can't explain US Military personnel calling the boards of inquiry 'rigged' except by calling them liars. I don't know what reason you'll dream up for Capt. McGonagall recieving his Congressional Medal of Honor in a Navy Shipyard presented by the Secretary of the Navy as opposed to the White House presented by the president, but I'm sure you'll think of something (you'll probably pull out your favortie rabbit and moan about conspiracies and Hitler living in South America or something).
You HAVE NO CASE. This has bruised Rob's ego, which is surprising considering that he never has a case as to anything.
Door on your left. Don't let it hit you on your ass.
posted
And you still can't come up with a motive for Israel deliberately attacking the Liberty. Not one that makes sense, in any case.
Of course, being you, you fail to conceive that that's a key point of the case. You have to establish motive. (A burden that, you'll note, falls on the prosecution.) If you cannot establish motive, you CANNOT prove intent.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Hey, Rob, guess what? A motive is nice and all, but you don't need to know what it was to know that something happened. If I see Wino #1 stick a broken beer bottle in Wino #2's eye, I don't need to understand Wino's motivation to know that he deliberately attacked Wino #2. It doesn't matter if #2 was anally raping #1's mother, or if #2 slept on #1's favorite hot-air grate.
If your BIGGEST problem with accepting that Israel deliberately attacked a US Navy ship is your lack of understanding a motive, please explain to me how you rationalize all the evidence that points to a deliberate assault, and a cover-up?
quote:If I see Wino #1 stick a broken beer bottle in Wino #2's eye,
You didn't see this. You have all your information secondhand, at best.
I can quote Admirals, too: Admiral "Bud" Edney, former NATO supreme allied commander, Atlantic; and commander in chief, U.S. Atlantic command, stated, "Only those with an ulterior motive can still cling to the conspiracy theories after Judge Jay Cristol's excellent coverage documents each detail that led to the tragic mistaken attack."
You have NOTHING that could not, as the others here have shown, be chalked up to accident and incompetence. NOTHING.
There were no Liberty intercepts. There were no submarice intercepts. The EC-121 intercepts support the claims of misidentification and accident. All the "hard" data says that you are WRONG.
Yes, you have SOME eyewitness accounts. I don't have to tell you that eyewitness accounts are, in reality, of dubious utility in determining what actually happened. Especially as the passage of time increases. Especially since the "eyewitnesses" don't seem to agree.
As for motive... The Liberty Veteran's Association was founded with the assistance of two former United States Congressman, Paul Findley of Illinois, the first U.S. Congressman to espouse the PLO, and Paul N. "Pete" McCloskey, who has spoken at Holocaust denial organization conferences, including the "Institute for Historical Review" (IHR), a California-based Holocaust denial organization founded by Willis Carto of Liberty Lobby, which promotes the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jews fabricated tales of their own genocide to manipulate the sympathies of the non-Jewish world.
Now, if you want to investigate a conspiracy theory, those facts are just as interesting.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: A former navy lawyer who helped lead the military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American servicemen says former president Lyndon Johnson and his defence secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the inquiry conclude the incident was an accident.
In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference, retired captain Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara told those heading the navy's inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
Boston was senior legal counsel to the navy's original 1967 review of the attack. He said in the sworn statement that he stayed silent for years because he's a military man, and "when orders come, I follow them."
He said he felt compelled to "share the truth" following the publication of a recent book, The Liberty Incident, which concluded the attack was unintentional.
(cont'd in link)
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Holy fuck. This thread's so old, Jesus probably posted in with a comment (probably calling MS an ass, no less).
So, while this is an intresting -and neverending- topic, what current action is there on the matter? For good or ill, it's a closed case, is'nt it?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
Regarding something you said earlier. I spoke with a cop friend of mine, but the thread had by that time been locked.
If you come across two people, and one takes a gun and shoots the second person, you don't need the first person's motive to get a conviction, despite what your legal education of "Law & Order" might claim. In this case, one doesn't need to know what the Israelis might have been attempting to gain by the attack on the Liberty - that they attacked a clearly marked US warship which did not look anything like a hostile ship is evidence enough.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
