After the weekend sucide bombings in Jerusalem, Israeli Prime Minister Sharom has stated that Arafat has apparently decide to side with the terrorists and what not. Ah hell. Just watch MSNBC for a half-hour. Then you'll what I'm talking about.
Your thoughts?
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Bad idea.
The last thing people want is for this to blossom into a full scale war. Combined with 9/11, this may be a very problematic conflict.
Palestinians attack Israel, Israel strikes back. Palestinians strike harder, Israel strikes back harder... etc. you know the rest.
Bush should have asked Israel to execute some form of constraint. Why Bush decided to let this conflict boil over is beyond me.
Bush may well see that his Arab allies will abandon him if he continues with this stance. This may affect the war against the Taliban and Bin Laden.
[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Er...Israel will do as Israel does. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with their actions, you vastly overestimate the level of control the U.S. has.
[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: Sol System ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well, dammit, if they don't listen, I'm going to send an army of Imperial Stormtroopers on Dewbacks to restore order.
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
Why should we tell Israel to show restraint? We would be hypocrites if we did. We've been attacked and we are striking back hard. Israel gets attacked, and they should just take it and continue to waste time negotiating with people that won't be happy untill they rule all of Israel? Please. Maybe it's about time that Israel shows Arafat that they aren't gonna take much more of his sh*t.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Bush couldn't ask Sharon to exercise restraint w/o looking like (more of) a complete moron, IMO.
After all, what's Sharon doing? His country is being attacked by terrorists who live in Palestine. The Palestinian government isn't stopping it. So Israel attacks Palestine.
And what's Bush done? His country was attacked by terrorists who live in Afghanistan. The Afghan government isn't stopping it. So the US attacks Afghanistan.
Sharon's just doing the same nonsense Bush is. But, then again, I doubt that that would really stop President Pot from commenting on Prime Minister Kettle's chromatic condition, if popular opinion dictated so...
The reason Bush is *not* a hipocrite (on this issue) is that the Israelis and the Palestines committed to working towards peace with each other *long before* these bombings.
No such agreement was made between the U.S. and Bin Laden's terrorists.
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
Yes. It is clear that those "peace agreements" worked out quite well, IMHO.
[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Sharon offered the Palestinians over HALF OF ISRAEL'S TERRITORY in exchange for peace. They wouldn't take it, opting instead for continued war. Israel's enemies have no interest in peace. Sharon therefore has two options: sit back and take it, or destroy them utterly. He had the same options we have, and he made the only choice he could make. What intelligent leader would do otherwise?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Omega, check your fucking facts before I hit you over the head with a current events anthology.
Sharon has never, ever, ever, ever, ever offered the Palestineans over half of Israel's territory.
Er, that's in regards to recent events.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Are you sure on that, Tom? I recall it quite clearly. It was reasonably shortly after he was elected, and I believe it may have been Clinton's idea. But then, that was a while ago... something about a public negotiation session?
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
That may have been Barak. Sharon is far too.... crazed to even have the decency to offer "half the territory" for peace. Remember, Sharon is all for a undivided and unpartitioned Israel, and has basically opposed Barak's every attempt to deal land for peace. That's why Barak was turfed so easily after Sharon's infamous "visit".
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
It wasn't half the territory. It was half of Jerusalem... (he'd offered to divide control over the city) which was stil WAY more than any other leader had ever offered.
This is the mind-set of the Palestinian Leadership:
Give us A, and we'll stop blowing stuff up. *they get A* Okay, you gave us A. *Blows something up* Now, give us B, and we'll stop blowing stuff up. *repeat indefinitely*
This is the mindset of the Israeli Leadership: Stop blowing stuff up, and we'll talk. *Stuff blows up* What part of 'STOP' didn't you understand? *Stuff blows up* We've been very paitient with you... *Stuff blows up* Listen, just stop blowing stuff up for one week, and we'll discuss this like rational people... *Stuff blows up* Fine. *Blows some Palestinian stuff up* *Rest of Arab world: WAAAAH! Israel is being MEAN!* Oh, come ON!
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
Maybe not the Palestinian Leadership, but definitely extremists and other fringe groups like Hamas, or Islamic Jihad, or Hezbollah, etc. etc.
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
I'm going with Omega and First of Two on this issue.
This is evidence that Hell has indeed frozen over.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:definitely extremists and other fringe groups like Hamas, or Islamic Jihad, or Hezbollah
Oh, definitely.
And definitely Arafat knows who these guys' leaders are, and probably where they are, too. He doesn't have to tolerate their actions if he doesn't want to... unless he's powerless to prevent them... in which case, he's not being that effective as a leader, is he?
It's like I tell these religious fans in our own country... start policing your OWN extremists, before you start worrying about what _I_ do.
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
The American government is freezing financial assets of Hamas in our country and shutting down centers of funding for this group. The Israelis indirectly can thank the FUBARs who crashed into our buildings and fields on Sept 11 for this change of policy. For you see, our government knew of these assets and centers before the 11th and did nothing.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:the FUBARs who
Is that an appropriate use of the acronym? The 'fucked up beyond all recognition'ers who ... ? Why not just say 'the fucks who'?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
But then you run into problems with inappropriate use of verbs...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Except that "fuck" is, in fact, a noun as well. "FUBAR", however, is not.
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
Yes, I use FUBARs as a noun. You don't like it-tough!!!
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
I agree with Fo2 and several of the others.
The Israelies have been very nice to the point of "appeasement".
What the fu*k more does the Palestinians want?
With Arafat's so-call "action against terrorism" there can be only two explanation.
1. He's got the power to stop it, but instead he sit on his ass and enjoy the view of Israelies getting blown apart by bombs.
2. He's got no power to stop it, but keep on yapping away on how he's the supposing leader of Palestinians.
Either way, he's an incompetent fu*k, and Sharon is right not to deal with a FUBAR like him
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
FUBAR applies to a situation ... not a person. Yeeesh.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:The Israelies have been very nice to the point of "appeasement
Last time I heard, Israelies were in the process of granting FULL independence to the Palestinians before the Palestinians unleashed hell.
I think with the above conditions, Israelies were pretty damn close trying to applease Palestinians.
[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Take a history course before you start waving around coloured maps and coming up with theories of who was giving what to who.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
ANYONE with half a brain knows the history behind the land disbute.
But guess what, don't blame it on the Israelies, it was caused by Brit's "infinite wisdom". Also, it's been 50 years, deal with it, suck it up, etc. It's impossible to kick out every single Israelies to recovered the entire "homeland" back then, and it's impossible now.
And Palestinian ain't exactly the only people that have historic claim to the land, Israelies have just the same, if not more justifiable history for the claim.
History is in the past, while we cannot deny the significance of the past, the present situation is far more important for now and into the future. And the present demands a peaceful co-existence without the squabble about "history claim".
Now, Israelies shows faith in patching up "old wound" with Palestinian by offering a sweet deal to "share" the land and live in peace.
And we all know how do the Palestinian react to that, they unleashed hell in hope to achieve unfair and impossible compremises from the Israelies.
Well, if it is war Palestinians want, fu*k them, bring it on!
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:And Palestinian ain't exactly the only people that have historic claim to the land, Israelies have just the same, if not more justifiable history for the claim.
And so when they ask for a peace settlement based on the 1947 UN partition plan (which they had orignally rejected and the Jews supported) the Israelis scream that the viability of the all important Jewish state is threatened and refuse to talk.
quote:History is in the past, while we cannot deny the significance of the past, the present situation is far more important for now and into the future. And the present demands a peaceful co-existence without the squabble about "history claim".
Unfortunately, history can never be written off an influence on the present. Ever. Anywhere. By anyone.
Building government-subsidized settlements in UN-declared occupied territories, filling them to 10% capacity and then moving on and building more, using innocent Jewish people as human boundary demarcators, isn't peaceful coexistence. It's imperialism. Maintaining a supposedly democratic state that extends citizenship rights along religious lines and assasinates its opponents without trial isn't going to lead to peaceful existence, either.
quote:Now, Israelies shows faith in patching up "old wound" with Palestinian by offering a sweet deal to "share" the land and live in peace.
Yes. The same Israelis that overwhelmingly opposed Barak's peace plan he brought to Camp David in the fall of 2000. The same Israelis that turfed Barak a month or so after the Camp David talks ended without an agreement and replaced him with Sharon by a margin of 3 to 1.
quote:And we all know how do the Palestinian react to that, they unleashed hell in hope to achieve unfair and impossible compremises from the Israelies
You keep using "the Palestineans" like they're some kind of army. Would it be fair to say that "the Catholics" "unleashed hell" in the Omagh bombing in Northern Ireland? A sizable portion but by no means a majority of young Palestineans protested and threw rocks. A tiny minority of super-Islamic nutbars went around blowing civilians up. And guess what, how about we accept that idea that these super-crazed nutbars in Hamas will most likely still be around even if Israel allows the Palestineans to set up their own state. They're not going to stop fighting because they're a racist bunch or lunatic terrorists. All we can hope for is that in such a situation popular support would fall away from them and they'll atrophy away. Right now they're essentially unbeatable. The Palestinean Authority, on the other hand, is beatable, and that's why Sharon is targetting it.
quote:Well, if it is war Palestinians want, fu*k them, bring it on!
I hear the Pol Pot society executive is taking on new employees. They're an equal-opportunity employer and have a good pension plan. Might I suggest you direct yourself and your boneheaded disregard for the primacy of peace to their offices?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"1. He's got the power to stop it, but instead he sit on his ass and enjoy the view of Israelies getting blown apart by bombs.
"2. He's got no power to stop it, but keep on yapping away on how he's the supposing leader of Palestinians.
"Either way, he's an incompetent fu*k, and Sharon is right not to deal with a FUBAR like him"
Um... You do realize that a political leader can't be responsible for every action his citizens take, right? I mean, should Bill Clinton be declared an "incompetent fuck" solely on the basis that Timothy McVeigh blew up that building while he was in office? I mean, if we can expect the leader of a small non-country in the midst of an ongoing war to keep his fanatics from blowing people up, surely we should expect the leader of the so-called "most powerful nation" in the world to do the same w/ his citizens?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I mean, should Bill Clinton be declared an "incompetent fuck" solely on the basis that Timothy McVeigh blew up that building while he was in office?
Solely? Posted by Mojo Jojo (Member # 256) on :
Well gee Omega, that was a totally unexpected response.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
I found this on another message board, thought it might interest those in this debate. October 2001 Special Report
History Channel?s ?Cover Up: Attack on the USS Liberty? Gives Crew Chance to Tell Their Story
By Delinda C. Hanley
After 34 years, USS Liberty survivors finally were given the opportunity, long denied them by the government they served, to tell their story to their countrymen?at least those with cable TV. Viewers across the nation gathered Aug. 9 to watch The History Channel?s program, ?Cover Up: Attack on the USS Liberty.?
The long-anticipated show, an episode of The History Channel?s popular ?History Undercover? series with host Arthur Kent, originally had been scheduled to air Feb. 25. With The History Channel unforthcoming about the reason for the delay, rumors circulated that, having failed to completely block the program, Israel had demanded that additional footage defending its version of the attack be interpolated.
When it finally aired, the well-do***ented and dramatic program explored Israel?s June 8, 1967 attack, at the height of the Six-Day War, on a lightly armed U.S. ship, killing 34 American sailors and wounding 172 others. Crewmembers Jim Ennes, Jr., John Hrankowski, Rocky Sturman, Joe Meadors, Joe Lentini, and Lloyd Painter took turns telling their story in a precise, matter-of-fact manner, never sensationalizing the harrowing attack. Film clips from the Arab-Israeli war and previous naval maneuvers, mixed with home movies and snapshots taken by Liberty sailors, accompanied their narratives.
Adding to the crewmembers? eloquent eyewitness accounts was commentary by James Bamford, whose explosive new book, Body of Secrets, revealed Israeli communications recorded during the attack (see Andrew Killgore?s book review, Aug./Sept. Washington Report, p. 103).
On the day of the attack, the Liberty was in international waters, 13 miles off the coast of the Sinai Peninsula, listening in on the developing Arab-Israeli war?which, the show commented, both sides claimed the other started?collecting intelligence. Fearing the slow-moving Liberty might be exposed and vulnerable with only four 50-caliber machine guns to protect it, the Pentagon sent three messages to the ship to withdraw farther off the coast. Twice messages were misdirected to the Philippines. The ship was definitely in the wrong place at the wrong time.
In nine hours of close surveillance Israeli pilots had circled the ship 13 times on eight different occasions. They could easily see the American flag and its clear markings. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, who spoke at a July 23 book-signing for Bamford?s Body of Secrets held at the Army Navy Club in Washington, DC, was outspoken and skeptical of Israeli claims that pilots thought the ship was an Egyptian vessel. Admiral Moorer described the Liberty as ?the ugliest, strangest looking ship in the U.S. Navy. As a communications intelligence ship, it was sprouting every kind of antenna. It looked like a lobster,? he noted. ?Israel knew perfectly well that the ship was American.?
Some of the planes circled so close that American sailors sunning themselves on their ship?s deck waved to the Israeli pilots.
Then, at 2 p.m. on June 8, 1967, a clear day, three unmarked Mirage fighters attacked the USS Liberty for five minutes. A National Securty Agency (NSA) surveillance plane overheard the attack. Radio operators in nearby Lebanon also intercepted Israel Defense Force orders to attack the ship, as well as the pilot?s reply that it was an American ship and he could see an American flag. The order was repeated: ?Attack the ship.?
Then-U.S. Amb***ador to Lebanon Dwight Porter was shown a transcription of the radio exchange and later told his story to syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak. Two Israelis actually involved in the attacks also have confirmed that Israel knew it was attacking an American vessel.
A few minutes after the initial ***ault, three unmarked Super-Mystere jets attacked the Liberty with napalm and dozens of rockets. The engagement lasted 25 minutes?23 minutes longer than a simple case of friendly fire?killing nine men and wounding 172. When the American flag was shot up it was replaced by an extra large flag usually flown during holidays.
The survivors continued to tell their dramatic story of heroic sailors on deck who were chased and mowed down by machine gunfire, rockets and napalm. (Clean-up crews later saw shell casings that read ?Fort Dix, New Jersey.?) They described others working frantically below decks to destroy cl***ified materials. Throughout the attacks Liberty communications experts tried to contact the Sixth Fleet by radio or teletype, but the Israeli planes jammed their transmissions and shot up their antennas.
Finally, in the few seconds it took for an Israeli plane to launch a rocket?when it was unable simultaneously to cause radio interference?a distress signal slipped through to the chief of naval operations saying that the Liberty was under attack from unidentified ***ailants and asking for immediate ***istance.
The message was received and acknowledged by the carrier Saratoga, and Captain Joe Tulley dispatched fighter jets to come to the Liberty?s rescue. Israel must have heard these messages and known that it had little time left to complete its mission.
In Washington, President Lyndon Johnson convened a crisis meeting to discuss the attack. With the identity of the attackers still in doubt, according to The History Channel, Johnson and his advisers, including Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and Secretary of State Dean Rusk, decided not to risk a possible Cold War confrontation. McNamara got on the radio and said, ?Tell Sixth Fleet to get those aircraft back immediately.?
When McNamara?s orders were questioned, the president himself got on the radio to recall the planes. The History Channel program implied that Israel was unaware that the White House was calling back the ***istance promised and, indeed sent, by the Sixth Fleet. Perhaps the Jewish state could not imagine a scenario whereby a government would abandon its own forces.
At 3:15 p.m., three torpedo boats?which finally were marked with the Star of David, identifying the ship?s attacker as Israel?attacked the USS Liberty from the starboard side, launching armor-piercing bullets and even machine-gunning lifeboat rafts dropped into the water in case the crew was forced to abandon ship. That attack lasted 40 minutes.
Even after a torpedo blew a 30- by 40-foot hole in the ship?s communications room, the Liberty stayed afloat. Finally Israeli troop helicopters approached, and Liberty Capt. William McGonagle warned his crew that their ship could soon be boarded.
There was no doubt in anyone?s mind that armed troops were coming to finish the crewmen off, survivors told The History Channel. The men are convinced that because Israel believed rescuers were on their way, they did not come aboard and kill survivors. Israeli attackers finally left the crippled ship alone.
The action had already moved to Washington, where, as soon as the crippled ship sent a message saying they had been attacked by Israel, Israeli diplomats were busy apologizing for their ?tragic mistake.? The Liberty repaired its engines and radio equipment and began to limp to Malta, pausing only to attach a net to close up the torpedo hole and prevent their buddies who were killed in the torpedo attack from washing out to sea.
What hurts survivors even more than the loss of their friends and boat is their own government?s subsequent cover-up of Israel?s attack. John Hrankowski related how, when they arrived in Malta, the crew was divided into small groups and debriefed. Admiral Isaac Kidd told crewmembers not to talk to their shipmates or anyone else about the incident. This is cl***ified stuff, he told the men: ?You are never, repeat, never to discuss this with anyone, not even your wives. If you do you will be court-martialed and will end your lives in prison?or worse.?
No one was interested in carrying out an in-depth investigation of anything but the communications problems the ship encountered during the Israeli attack. All evidence on the ship?including 820 rocket and cannon holes?was patched up and painted over, and crewmembers were sent home or re***igned (and split up) as if nothing had occurred. After a long wait, Israel paid $3.5 million in financial compensation to the families of the dead and $3.5 million to the wounded, some of whom refused to accept the money. In 1982?after Sen. Adlai Stevenson (D-IL) threatened to hold an inquiry?Israel suddenly offered $6 million for damage to the ship and ?to close the book on the USS Liberty affair.? This effectively blocked Senator Stevenson?s hopes for an investigation, and the attack quickly became an official non-issue. As far as Congress and the White House were concerned, it was over.
But it wasn?t over for the survivors, however. In the years since the attack, many suffered post-traumatic stress, emotional problems, nightmares, alcoholism or divorce. Others tried to escape their pain by burying the memories so deeply they wouldn?t hurt. It wasn?t until Jim Ennes published ***ault on the Liberty in 1980 that the crew began to go public with their story to tell their country what had really happened to their shipmates.
Israel, in the meantime, had published four reports that contradicted many of the facts the sailors knew to be true. It claimed to have fired on the Liberty as a result of mistaken identity, saying its pilots believed the ship to be the Egyptian horse-carrier ship al-Qusair, that had been docked in Alexandria for years. Israel also claimed that, once its attackers realized their mistake, they tried to help the crippled ship and its crew. ?That?s the purest baloney,? Ennes responded in The History Channel film.
Toward the end of the program?presumably an addition made during the five-month interval between the initial and actual airings?Israeli Emb***y spokesman Mark Regev unconvincingly denied a cover-up and claimed that Israel has been most forthcoming. ?It was a tragic mistake that happened,? Israel?s Minister of Foreign Affairs Abba Eban agreed, while UCLA Prof. Stephen Spiegel explains that in the fog of war honest mistakes can happen.
On the other hand, Prof. Richard Dekmejjan, said the attack wasn?t a mistake and that he believes the crewmen. He told viewers that trying to minimize or ignore the ***ault is a disastrous error. Dekmejjan theorized that Israel had decided to capture the Golan Heights despite a U.N. cease-fire and simply didn?t want Americans to learn its plans. Nor did Israeli soldiers want an audience as they m***acred Egyptian prisoners of war, who were told to dig their own graves, then shot at el-Arish. Did Israel attempt to destroy the Liberty and its radio transcripts containing evidence of war crimes? Did it hope to sink the Liberty and blame Egypt?
The crew avoids trying to guess the reason Israel attempted to sink their ship, surviving crewmembers Donald Pageler and John Hranskowski told the Washington Report during a recent visit. Said Pageler, ?Only Israel knows why they did it and they will never own up to it.?
The questions Liberty survivors want answered are directed at their own government. When did the U.S. first learn of the attack? Why did Johnson and McNamara abandon American sailors? Why did they abort the rescue mission that would have prevented the torpedo-boat attack that alone claimed 25 lives?
At his recent book-signing, Bamford asked the audience why Israeli interests were placed before American lives. The Liberty cover-up, he warned, demonstrated to Israel that, if Washington was willing to ignore an attack on an American ship, the U.S. would wink at almost any Israeli action in the future. The Body of Secrets author also told a chilling anecdote about the early days of U.S. peacekeeping forces in the Sinai. The American deputy chief of mission in Tel Aviv got an urgent call from a furious then-Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, complaining that an American U-2 had drifted three kilometers into Israeli territory. ?If one of them drifts over again,? Dayan yelled at his American ?ally,? ?we?ll shoot it down.?
Still-Unanswered Questions
Why was Liberty Captain McGonagle?s Medal of Honor, earned for remaining on deck and commanding his men despite serious wounds, presented in a quiet ceremony in a back room of Washington Navy Yard instead of by the president at the White House, as has been the case with every other Medal of Honor recipient? Why has no president ever met with any Liberty survivors?
Why did an Arlington cemetery headstone marking the grave of six missing Liberty comrades for years read ?Killed in the Mediterranean,? without even mentioning the name of the ship or the Israeli attack?
According to survivors Pageler and Hrankowski, the Liberty is one of the most decorated ships in American naval history, with its crewmembers having received 830 awards. Does the Navy typically award this many medals to victims of ?friendly fire?? Why did Liberty survivors? DD2-14 discharge do***ents read RVN (Republic of Viet Nam) as the area where the men served?
When Israel jammed the Liberty distress calls, how did they know what frequencies the ship used? Why did the U.S. government allow Israel to lie about the attack? Why won?t the NSA release transcripts of their recordings of the Israeli attacks? Why has Congress, which has investigated every other incident of this kind, never conducted an investigation into the attack on the USS Liberty? Is it waiting until there are no eyewitnesses left alive to tell their story?
The more Americans learn about the Liberty and add their voices to those of the survivors (see petition box), the more likely it is that Congress will act on requests for a comprehensive investigation into the cover-up.
The History Channel?and producers Tom Seligson, Andrew Rothstein and David Siegel, along with narrator Arthur Kent?is to be praised for producing (and finally airing) a thorough and thought-provoking show in which survivors of Israel?s attack on the Liberty finally were given the opportunity to speak for their dead and wounded comrades. The patriotism and quiet dignity with which these men shared their story is a testimony to their honor and courage, and also, unfortunately, to their own government?s disgraceful treatment of servicemen who laid their lives on the line for America. USS Liberty survivor Dr. Richard Kiepfer recently declared, ?Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken on faith the word of their attackers.?
It?s time for Washington to tell the truth.
Delinda C. Hanley is the news editor of the Washington Report
SIDEBAR 1
Ordering the ?Cover Up? Video
Jim Ennes, Liberty survivor and author of Attack on the Liberty, reported that within four hours of the program?s airing, the History Channel sold out of the video ?Cover Up: Attack on the USS Liberty.? This makes the video the network?s fourth best-selling tape, with the other contenders all being historical Christian shows. High video sales, along with letters to the History Channel, will help encourage repeat broadcasts of the groundbreaking show in the fall and winter, when viewers are more likely to watch TV than during the summer holiday months, when the show originally aired.
Those wishing to order a copy of ?Cover Up: Attack on the USS Liberty??for their own viewing, or to present to their congressional representatives?may order the video by calling 1 (800) 708-1776. The cost is $20, plus $5 shipping and handling. The History Channel, as of Aug. 27, no longer offers the Liberty video for sale online at their Web site. ?D.C.H.
SIDEBAR 2
Liberty Online Petition
To sign the following petition visit:
To: US Citizens:
Whereas, on June 8, 1967, the USS Liberty?while operating in international waters in the Eastern Mediterranean?was the target of an attack by Israel?s war planes and torpedo boats; and
Whereas, this attack killed 34 members of the Liberty?s crew and wounded 172 others, in addition to causing extensive damage to the ship; and
Whereas, the Congress of the United States has investigated every other incident of this kind; and
Whereas, the Congress of the United States has never conducted an investigation into the attack on the USS Liberty; now therefore be it
Resolved, That the Congress of the United States should immediately undertake and conduct a complete and comprehensive public Congressional investigation of the June 8, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty.
quote:And so when they ask for a peace settlement based on the 1947 UN partition plan (which they had orignally rejected and the Jews supported) the Israelis scream that the viability of the all important Jewish state is threatened
Which anybody with a few active neurons can see it is.
Okay, so the guy who shares your duplex attacks you with a club, and you beat him and take the club off of him, and kick him out of the duplex, and NOW you're gonna not only give him the club back, but move him back into your house?
No. You don't put the people who tried to destroy you in a position in which they will be able to make the same attack again. No matter WHAT the doves say.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Or the Isreaelis just wanted to send a clear message: 'don't fuck with us, we don't care who you are.'
Either way, yes, anyone I've ever spoken to about the Liberty believes it was a deliberate attack. Its the reasons why that are up for debate.
