quote:Miami Judge A. Jay Cristol received transcripts of transmissions from two Israeli helicopter pilots, sent to check for survivors after the attack. The pilots referred to the ship as Egyptian and were surprised to discover it was flying an American flag.
The recordings, in Hebrew, were made by a U.S. spy plane hovering over the site.
Cristol told The Associated Press he received the transcripts after submitting a Freedom of Information request to the U.S. National Security Agency, which had kept the recordings secret for 37 years. After his request was denied, Cristol filed suit in federal court and forced their release.
quote:Cristol, who has written a book about the case, said, the tapes "show both the helicopter pilots and their controller ... believed the Israeli air force had targeted an Egyptian ship."
A National Security Agency summary of the incident says the Israelis were confused over the stricken ship's identity more than an hour after the attack.
Cristol provided the summary and full transcripts of the pilot and tower recordings to The Associated Press.
Israel has long maintained the attack was the result of a tragic mistake during the heat of battle. Israel was at war with Egypt, Syria and Jordan at the time.
An Israeli commission of inquiry concluded the Israeli air force believed the targeted ship was an Egyptian cargo vessel ferrying supplies to Egyptian troops fighting Israeli forces.
However, some of the Liberty's survivors and some officials in the U.S. defense establishment have rejected this view, contending Israel deliberately targeted the ship to keep the United States from learning that Israel was planning to attack Syria as part of its strategy during the war.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Bullshit it was an accident, those who claim it was don't like to admit that the Israeli government bit the hand that fed it.
quote:A National Security Agency summary of the incident says the Israelis were confused over the stricken ship's identity more than an hour after the attack.
I guess they just didn't see the really big American flag flying over it. I guess they didn't hear the radio communications from the ship identifying itself (before, during, and after the attack). I guess the fact that the Liberty didn't look ANYTHING like an Egyptian ship was just conveniently ignored.
And BTW, the Israeli pilots confirmed the identity of the ship before they began the attack.
Cristol is a known liar, and his reports can not be trusted - many people refute his claims that he has interviewed him.
The inquiries own legal counsel, Capt. Ward Boston, is now saying publicly that the attack was deliberate and that the Court reported otherwise falsely because it was ordered by Washington to report falsely.
quote:Melvin Smith, senior enlisted intercept chief, reassured Ennes when he overheard the pilots several times identify the flag as U.S. and the ship for what she was. At that time, of course, Israel was a friend. Later, despite jamming of the ship's distress frequencies, and before all her transmitters were shot away, the Liberty's radio operators managed again to hear the attackers make a positive identification in the clear
quote:Ennes, who maintained logs about such details, disagrees. He says that even at the Liberty's slowest steaming speed of 5 knots, the wind put 12 knots across Old Glory and kept it waving. Since the ship was near a combat zone, the crew also was ordered to keep "head's-up" by then-Commander William McGonagle, the ship's captain. Ensuring unfurled colors was a given. And after the normal flag was shot down early on, McGonagle ordered signalmen to hoist the bright new holiday ensign, measuring 7-by-13 feet.
quote:Principally, the El Quseir lacked the U.S. ship's unique add-ons, which included, both topside, an 18-foot-wide satellite dish nearly as tall as the smokestack and a wading pool-sized microwave dish. The ship bristled, as well, with video capture antennae and other exotica found on no other vessel in the world, much less decrepit Arab transport ships. Ancillary reasons the "deliberate school" rejects Judge Cristol's El Quseir defense are as follows: The Egyptian craft:
* Flew colors markedly dissimilar to the U.S. flag
* Was one-quarter of the Liberty's tonnage and just nearly half her length
* Had been out of service for many months & was waiting to be scrapped in Alexandria
*Was illustrated—along with the Liberty—in Jane's Fighting Ships, to which Israel had access
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
If the AP puts out an analysis of the transcrips that ends up agreeing with Cristol's, you'll consider them liars as well?
Just checking.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:If the AP puts out an analysis of the transcrips that ends up agreeing with Cristol's, you'll consider them liars as well?
The difference is that if the AP falls for Cristol's lies, they're only as gullible as a certain Pennsylvanian librarian I could mention.
Cristol's base information is misinformed, in part because of his pro-Israeli viewpoints, and in part of the information he bases his on being incorrect (by Washington's order to not upset our "ally"). AP's analysis of Cristol's information is as irrelevent as Critsol's "research."
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Take a hot bath, Darth Celica.
I never said I agreed with Cristol's analysis. I have said very little (if anything) about the Liberty as I know next to nothing about it.
Unlike some people I could mention, not every post I make is a sheer propaganda ploy for 'my side.'
I'm asking because AP now claims to be in possession of those same transcripts, and speculating that the transcripts are unauthentic was just a little bit too paranoid even for me.
Of course, if one is going to label an entire worldwide association of journalists as "gullible," one won't be able to quibble much with my NYT-bashing anymore...
quote:I trust people who were THERE:
...but only if they're Americans?
That would be quite a reversal of our Standard Operating Procedures...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:That would be quite a reversal of our Standard Operating Procedures...
I'd believe the Israelis involved, but they seem to be lying about it, so I can't exactly trust them, can I?
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
My take is that the Isreali command told the pilots that they where attacking an Egyptian ship (and probobly received permission to do so)... I'm sure that there WAS a significant amount of confusion...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
quote:That would be quite a reversal of our Standard Operating Procedures...
I'd believe the Israelis involved, but they seem to be lying about it, so I can't exactly trust them, can I?
So you have determined, sight unseen, that the transcripts of the conversations of the Israeli pilots and tower, recorded by a US spyplane, are lies?
Your telepathic abilities are more phenomenal than I had previously surmised, Xavier.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Rob,
Since you're an idiot, allow me to point you to an earlier post of mine, where I quote USS Liberty crewmen as intercepting communications from the Israelis which revealed that their attackers had IDENTIFIED the ship as a United States flag vessel.
Since you're even dumber than a character in "Dumb and Dumber" (or even "Dumb and Dumberer", let me post (AGAIN!) a link to www.ussliberty.com.
The attack on the USS Liberty was a deliberate act of war by the Israeli Government against the United States of America. The Israeli soldiers who conducted the assault were well aware that they were attacking a US vessel, and did so anyway. The Israeli government was well aware that they were ordering an attack on a US vessel, and did so anyway.
Pretending otherwise is an indication of complete and total stupidity and blind ignorance.
Jim Ennes was the officer on duty when the attack began, and is now one of the founders of www.ussliberty.com. I e-mailed him and requested he stop by this thread for input, this was his reply:
quote:Golly, Jeff, if I get any more on my plate I'm going to have to be catheterized. I'll pass that URL along to my shipmates for attention, but here is some information you might find useful if you feel up to responding on the subject.
This is what I am sending to people who ask for information:
The NSA intercepts prove only that the helicopter pilots were not aware of the ship's identity until they arrived. Intercept of the attack itself, not released and said not to exist but which has been seen by senior NSA sources we have identified, show that in fact they did know they were attacking an American ship.
The plain truth is that, despite the arguments sent by spokesmen for Israel, most people who look carefully at this attack agree that it was deliberate. Moreover, the top minds in the American intelligence community agree that solid evidence is overwhelming that it was deliberate! I've attached a file listing some of those names. One really must look carefully when such leading lights as Dean Rusk, Marshall Carter, Richard Helms, Lou Tordella, Tom Moorer, Rufus Taylor, William Odom, Bobby Ray Inman, John Morrison, George Ball, Clark Clifford, Lucius Battle, William Odom, Merlin Staring and others including even LBJs own press secretary George Christian all say almost with one voice that it was deliberate and that the evidence says so. Four former NSA directors agree that deliberateness of the attack was not a debatable issue; it was agreed fact. None of these men are the sort to adopt wild or irresponsible positions.
We survivors say the attack was deliberate because what we saw argues that it was: Prolonged, low-level pre-attack reconnaissance in which the recon pilots were heard telling their HQ that we were American; an extended close air attack with large colors flying throughout; selective jamming of the very frequencies we needed to call for help; torpedo boats that examined the ship and flag from 50 feet away and CONTINUED to fire from close range for another 40 minutes; machinegunning of our liferafts in the water. Then they lied about everything and claimed that they recognized us as American even while the torpedoes were in the water and never fired again. Nonsense. They claim falsely that the boats called in the air attack because they miscalculated our speed from 32 miles away when in fact their maximum radar range was 16 miles and that they judged our speed at 30 knots when we were moving five knots. Nonsense. They claim we flew no flag. Nonsense. If it was a mistake, at least they could tell the truth. If they didn't know we were American, why did they jam American radio frequencies?
Yet the evidence goes far beyond those things; it is virtually absolute. Recently I called Oliver Kirby, a former NSA Ops boss who was called back to NSA in 1967 to look into the circumstances of the attack. He has never before discussed this with anyone outside the confines of the NSA complex, but the first words out of his mouth were, "I can tell you for an absolute certainty that they knew they were attacking an American ship." How did he know? He saw transcripts of Israeli communications during the attack. There was a Navy EC121 overhead (reported recently by Jim Bamford) and an Air Force C130 a few miles away. Both were recording communications. The Navy intake was merely recorded; the Air Force product was sent securely in real time via the CRITICOMM system to Air Force intelligence centers worldwide where it was seen by hundreds of people. Now many of those people are coming forward to describe what they saw. These are the same intercepts that were seen by Oliver Kirby and other top analysts and officials at the National Security Agency. These transcripts are the reason so many top intelligence officials are certain that this attack was no accident.
NSA now denies there were airplanes overhead during the attack or that the attack was intercepted or recorded. Those denials are contradicted by very credible people who were there, including the navigator of the EC121 who is talking to us.
NSA can deny that such intercepts exist because shortly after the attack all such evidence of a deliberate attack was ordered destroyed. But fortunately for the historical record a great many people saw those things before they went into the burn bag, and many of those people are now speaking out.
People are just learning that the Court of Inquiry was falsified. The Court's own legal counsel, Captain Ward Boston, now says publicly in Navy Times and elsewhere that the court actually believed that the attack was deliberate but reported otherwise falsely because it was so ordered by Washington.
Why would Israel bite the American hand? We may never know. As Dean Rusk once said, it must have been ordered by someone fairly high up to be able to coordinate all the different forces involved. Richard Helms and Admiral Moorer have supposed that it was done to delay American knowledge of the pending Golan invasion. General Morrison agrees that it could have been to assure that we didn't learn of the executing of POWs then underway at El Arish. We may never know the real reason, but anyone who wonders about this should look carefully at the circumstances before allowing the improbability of such an attack to weigh against the very solid evidence that the attack was deliberate.
A recent article in Naval Institute Proceedings discusses these things in some depth. You will find this at http://www.usni.org/proceedings/Articles03/PROwalsh06.htm. This conservative and trusted publication, known as the voice of the US Navy officer corps, does not bite carelessly on weak positions.
Attached is a list of well known individuals who agree. The file is sent both in PDF for and, for those who may not be able to read PDF files, in plain text.
However, I remain incredulous at the idea that this conspiracy could have survived TWELVE separate inquiries intact. Like I said, I'm not paranoid enough.
I know that all these pages are part of the Vast Zionist Conspiracy (TM), but I thought I'd post them anyway:
quote:James Ennes, one of the leading conspiracy proponents among the former Liberty crewmen, who was interviewed extensively by the History Channel, has made extreme statements that border on the anti-semitic in e-mail discussions on Prodigy. For example, in a message dated June 8, 1992 referring to Israeli Jews, Mr. Ennes stated:
... Consider their dilemma: For generations they wanted their own country as a haven from racists. Finally they got it. Gradually they learned that their �leaders� obtained the new country by murdering and frightening away the original owners. Gradually they learned that the new leaders were actually the worst kind of self- centered, amoralistic murderers - worse than the people they sought to flee from.
This was too much of a moral dilemma for many of them. Some drew silent. Others turned against the people who betrayed them and now led their new country. Others pretended that all was well and that the new country was surrounded by extremists and that this condition justified every kind of brutal excess.[sic] And over the years they have instilled this narrow view in their children who now accept it as religious dogma. It is a very sad situation indeed.
Of course, the people that Jews fled from were first and foremost the Nazis, so Mr. Ennes is saying that Israel�s leaders are �amoralistic murderers� who are �worse� than the Nazis.
In another message dated July 22, 1992, Mr. Ennes stated:
... the fact is Israel would have no enemies if they did not constantly raid their neighbors, steal their land, take their water and kill their children.
quote:Ennes states Israeli offers of help are baloney. The program fails to mention that Ennes at the time was wounded and below decks on the Liberty and that the commanding officer, Commander McGonagle, who was commanding the ship from the bridge, read into the record a chronology of events, which he prepared with consultation with the crew:
1503 One MTB returned to ship and signaled (�Do you need help� in English C.O. signaled �Negative�. (U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, Testimony of Commander McGonagle, P. 131)
And the Liberty�s log of Thursday, 8 June 1967, reflects:
1503 One MTB returned to ship and signaled [sic], �Do you need help.�
Commanding officer directed that, �Negative� be sent in reply.
Going against your own CO... that's something.
quote:Ennes further claims no one in the Court of Inquiry talked to the crew about what happened. The program neglects to report that the following crew members were called by the Court of Inquiry and testified for the number of pages indicated (In fact, of the 19 witnesses called by the Court, 14 were Liberty crew members.):
Page No.
Ensign D.G. Lucas, USNR, First Lieutenant & Gunnery Officer 12 USS Liberty (AGTR-5)
CDR W.L. McGonagle, USN, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty 31 (AGTR-5)
LTJG L.C. Painter, USNR, Officer of the Deck, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) 55
Ensign J.D. Scott, USNR, Manager Control Assistant, USS Liberty 59 (AGTR-5)
LT G.H. Golden, USN, Engineering Officer, US Liberty (AGTR-5) 63
Page No.
Ensign M.P. O�Malley, USN, Assistant Operations Officer, USS Liberty 68 (AGTR-5)
LTJG M. M. Watson, USNR, Main Propulsion Assistant, USS Liberty 72 (AGTR-5)
LT R.F. Kiepefer, USNR (MC), Medical Officer, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) 74
CTC H.J. Thompson, USN USS Liberty (AGTR-5) 87
CTC C.F. Lamkin, USN, Repair Party Three, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) 91
RMC W.L. Smith, USN, Radio Central, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) 94
CT2 J.P. Carpenter, USN, Communications Division, USS Liberty105 (AGTR-5)
LT. M.H. Bennet, USN, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) 114
CT2 T.L. Long, USN, Communications Division, USS Liberty (AGTR-5)117
CDR W.L. McGonagle, USN, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty 124(AGTR-5)
Going against your own mates, that's something else entirely.
If I didn't know better, I'd think that this was a modern-warfare version of the blood libel.
[ July 09, 2003, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I'll take it that's a "HM he's right, dammit."
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Miami Judge A. Jay Cristol received transcripts of transmissions from two Israeli helicopter pilots, sent to check for survivors after the attack. The pilots referred to the ship as Egyptian and were surprised to discover it was flying an American flag."
I'm not sure what bearing this has on anything at all, especially without more context. These helicopter pilots were sent out after the attack. It doesn't matter what they thought the ship was; they weren't the ones attacking.
And we aren't told whether they "referred to the ship as Egyptian" because they looked at it and thought it was Egyptian, or simply because they were told that it was Egyptian.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Oh boy, I can't wait until Flare becomes a hotspot for bitter people with axes to grind.
I mean, more so.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
I think this would be playing a bit of devil's advocate, but...
Are all Israeli fighter pilots trained to identify every single type of naval ship in the world? Their superiors may be at home, but I don't think you could take a random Israeli pilot, show him a picture of a ship, and have him identify its type and what country it is from.
Second, how is the communications officer able to be sure that the Israeli pilots confirmed they were firing on a American ship? Wouldn't they be speaking Hebrew? Would he be able to translate Hebrew?
Third, and this one is just an idea in my head, but couldn't the Israeli pilots have interpreted the raising of the American flag as an attempted deception by the "Egyptians" to trick the Israeli's into believing that they were attacking an ally? I don't know about you, but it'd be a trick I'd use to try to sneak past someone who is attacking me...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Oh boy, I can't wait until Flare becomes a hotspot for bitter people with axes to grind.
I mean, more so.
I know....it'd be like bashing B&B or Voyager: unthinkable. Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by The359: I think this would be playing a bit of devil's advocate, but...
Are all Israeli fighter pilots trained to identify every single type of naval ship in the world? Their superiors may be at home, but I don't think you could take a random Israeli pilot, show him a picture of a ship, and have him identify its type and what country it is from.
Israeli pilots are some of the best trained in the world, at present. No clue what they were like back then, but their contemporaries likely have an extensive background in silhouette recognition. U.S. pilots are trained this way and we set the standard for what the Israeli AF uses for the training of their aircrews. They've just done the typical Israeli thing and improved upon it. Liberty didn't have a silhouette that could be mistaken for very many other types of ships, so I think the odds of it being an "honest mistake" are fairly small.
quote:Second, how is the communications officer able to be sure that the Israeli pilots confirmed they were firing on a American ship? Wouldn't they be speaking Hebrew? Would he be able to translate Hebrew?
U.S. "Spy Planes" are generally manned by linguists, who are trained in both understanding the language and analyzing the information it represents. This has been the case since the U.S. first started putting these linguists on-board reconn birds like this might have been. Of course, I'm also somewhat armchair quarterbacking what the "sply plane" contained, but I'm willing to lay good money down that there were Hebrew linquists on-board. The ship was an Intell Ship, so it very likely had linguists on board, as well. That was it's job, after all: monitor communications and report back all intelligence it gathered while on-station.
quote:Third, and this one is just an idea in my head, but couldn't the Israeli pilots have interpreted the raising of the American flag as an attempted deception by the "Egyptians" to trick the Israeli's into believing that they were attacking an ally? I don't know about you, but it'd be a trick I'd use to try to sneak past someone who is attacking me...
Certainly possible.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by Griffworks: The ship was an Intell Ship, so it very likely had linguists on board, as well. That was it's job, after all: monitor communications and report back all intelligence it gathered while on-station.
I had forgotten the Liberty was an intel ship, I was thinking of the Liberty ships from WWII.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Third, and this one is just an idea in my head, but couldn't the Israeli pilots have interpreted the raising of the American flag as an attempted deception by the 'Egyptians' to trick the Israeli's into believing that they were attacking an ally? I don't know about you, but it'd be a trick I'd use to try to sneak past someone who is attacking me..."
Sure, it could happen. But one should assume it has happened w/o a lot of other evidence.
"Crap! We're surrounded by ships flying our allies' colors! It must be an enemy trick! Destroy them all!"
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Israeli pilots are some of the best trained in the world, at present. No clue what they were like back then, but their contemporaries likely have an extensive background in silhouette recognition. U.S. pilots are trained this way and we set the standard for what the Israeli AF uses for the training of their aircrews.
You ARE aware of the US military's track-record when it comes to "friendly fire" incidents? 8)
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Second, how is the communications officer able to be sure that the Israeli pilots confirmed they were firing on a American ship? Wouldn't they be speaking Hebrew? Would he be able to translate Hebrew?
Quoting from www.ussliberty.com, "Ennes acknowledges that no "official" Hebrew linguists were on board, but he points out that at least one of the doomed NSA men, Russian/Arabic linguist Allen Blue, understood Hebrew. As for the jamming, Ennes, quoting Chief Radioman Wayne Smith and an article in Proceedings, also notes that the ship could not have been misidentified, because the frequencies jammed were peculiar to the U.S. Navy. Liberty Radioman Richard "Rocky" Sturman also recalls that he and other technicians heard the radio jamming. Judge Cristol rejects such accounts as "myth."
quote:Third, and this one is just an idea in my head, but couldn't the Israeli pilots have interpreted the raising of the American flag as an attempted deception by the "Egyptians" to trick the Israeli's into believing that they were attacking an ally? I don't know about you, but it'd be a trick I'd use to try to sneak past someone who is attacking me...
The flag was already raised. The ship was displaying all her colors so that no one could misidentify her. After the attack began, a LARGER flag was raised in case the Israeli pilots were blind as well as stupid (as it turned out, they were just stabbing their ally in the back).
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: You ARE aware of the US military's track-record when it comes to "friendly fire" incidents? 8)
Yes, just as I'm aware of the Brit Military's track-record on the same.
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Quoting from www.ussliberty.com, "Ennes acknowledges that no "official" Hebrew linguists were on board, but he points out that at least one of the doomed NSA men, Russian/Arabic linguist Allen Blue, understood Hebrew. As for the jamming, Ennes, quoting Chief Radioman Wayne Smith and an article in Proceedings, also notes that the ship could not have been misidentified, because the frequencies jammed were peculiar to the U.S. Navy. Liberty Radioman Richard "Rocky" Sturman also recalls that he and other technicians heard the radio jamming. Judge Cristol rejects such accounts as "myth."
That's interesting that they weren't on-station with an "official" linguist. Interesting that the judge rejects the accounts. I wonder if something isn't being spelled out in the website and stories that are publicized.
quote:The flag was already raised. The ship was displaying all her colors so that no one could misidentify her. After the attack began, a LARGER flag was raised in case the Israeli pilots were blind as well as stupid (as it turned out, they were just stabbing their ally in the back).
Good point about the flag already being up. I had forgotten about that. I've seen the Liberty website before and read thru the account, but it's been a while. I had forgotten that Liberty wasn't a "spy ship" in the strictist sense of the word. She was a intell gathering ship that sat in international waters and flying the U.S. flag.
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
I would wager that the Lib found somthing of intrest about Israel that they didn't want to be passed on to America... so they attacked the ship.
This is a good example of why we should have never supported those nuts in the first place. Don't get me started...
grumble grumble nuke them all let God figure out the rest mutter snort.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:I would wager that the Lib found somthing of intrest about Israel that they didn't want to be passed on to America... so they attacked the ship.
Something which noone has leaked since? Really?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
At least I have some solace that Americans are also not immune to friendly fire. And where the families of its victims are given the same treatment as the Canadians.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I don't know. Did the US pay off the Canadian's families? Because the official records say that Israel made restitution of $13,000,000 which was divided up among the families of the victims.
in 1967, 13 million was still a lot of money.
Maybe the survivors didn't get any?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I heard that the U.S. does not plan to. I also hear is that part of the reason is due to current Canada-U.S. relations, and compensation would only be considered once Canada "toes the line".
What I don't understand is why they knocked Schmidt's counts to just one, indictable for only 6 months jail time. Many people around who have tuned in to this trial have wondered why didn't Schmidt simply lift his plane to a safe height instead of engaging.
In the article regarding the Liberty, I am under the impression that justice for the victims was not truly achieved. Sure, there is a payout, but there has got to be answers for the many questions, which they feel have not been addressed.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:in 1967, 13 million was still a lot of money.
Maybe the survivors didn't get any?
Oh, of course, THAT'S it. The only reason the survirors are mad at Israel is that they didn't get any green. It has NOTHING to do with the fact that Israel, an ally of the USA, tried to MURDER them, a treachery worse than the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor before declaring war!
It all boils down to money, eh? Well, Rob, sorry. Israel committed an act or war, and they can't buy their way out of that. Israel needs to fess up, and admit their crimes, including whatever it was they were doing (plans for pre-emptive assaults, murders of POWs, whatever) that they felt warranted such secrecy as to risk war with the United States.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
quote:It has NOTHING to do with the fact that Israel, an ally of the USA, tried to MURDER them, a treachery worse than the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor before declaring war!
Whoa, calm down there, skippy. Once I punched my friend in the face. Charles Manson surely has nothing on me.
Also, once, there was this one time when I fell of my bike, skinning my knee. A very cute girl asked me what happened, and I certainly did not say I merely fell off my bike. I was scaling the mountainside and tumbled down the sheer cliff face, narrowly avoiding disaster. A site run by objective victims is surely as divested.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Israel committed an act or war, and they can't buy their way out of that."
It seems they have, though...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
And of course, EVERYONE on the Liberty is now a person involved in that site. Or even, a lot of them. SOME of them?
Which is why Ennes keeps managing to forget how many people were interviewed by the Court of Inquiry.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
It is your right to be an idiot.
quote:One really must look carefully when such leading lights as Dean Rusk, Marshall Carter, Richard Helms, Lou Tordella, Tom Moorer, Rufus Taylor, William Odom, Bobby Ray Inman, John Morrison, George Ball, Clark Clifford, Lucius Battle, William Odom, Merlin Staring and others including even LBJs own press secretary George Christian all say almost with one voice that it was deliberate and that the evidence says so. Four former NSA directors agree that deliberateness of the attack was not a debatable issue; it was agreed fact. None of these men are the sort to adopt wild or irresponsible positions.
Most damming:
quote:People are just learning that the Court of Inquiry was falsified. The Court's own legal counsel, Captain Ward Boston, now says publicly in Navy Times and elsewhere that the court actually believed that the attack was deliberate but reported otherwise falsely because it was so ordered by Washington.
Gosh, guess it doesn't matter HOW many people Cristol claimed to interview ...
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Yes, but that last quote block is just a reservoir of opinion.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Thank you First of Two for the original posting. I was previously unaware of this incident. I don't know which side I fall on with this controversy, but it is very interesting reading both positions.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It must be fake: Nothing ever happened before I was born.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: It is your right to be an idiot.
quote:One really must look carefully when such leading lights as Dean Rusk, Marshall Carter, Richard Helms, Lou Tordella, Tom Moorer, Rufus Taylor, William Odom, Bobby Ray Inman, John Morrison, George Ball, Clark Clifford, Lucius Battle, William Odom, Merlin Staring and others including even LBJs own press secretary George Christian all say almost with one voice that it was deliberate and that the evidence says so. Four former NSA directors agree that deliberateness of the attack was not a debatable issue; it was agreed fact. None of these men are the sort to adopt wild or irresponsible positions.
Most damming:
quote:People are just learning that the Court of Inquiry was falsified. The Court's own legal counsel, Captain Ward Boston, now says publicly in Navy Times and elsewhere that the court actually believed that the attack was deliberate but reported otherwise falsely because it was so ordered by Washington.
Gosh, guess it doesn't matter HOW many people Cristol claimed to interview ...
Not Cristol, you dolt. The Court of Inquiry.
Ennes says they never interviewed any of the survivors. The records say otherwise.
In fact, most every claim Ennes makes, the records say otherwise.
Now, I haven't read through all of Ennes's website, but in relation to the list of names he makes above, does he offer any documentary evidence that said individuals actually made such expressions of belief?
Ennes credibility would jump in my eyes if you could show me that a large number of Liberty survivors agree with his claims. This means more than his partner in the website, and more than the fact that he was president of the survivors' association for a time.
Given that Ennes's statements seem to contradict those of not only his CO, but many of his crewmates (to the extent that he goes as far as to claim they were never interviewed by the Court of Inquiry), this would be an interesting challenge.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:The Court of Inquiry.
Rob. You are an idiot. It is the only way to explain why you are ignoring Captain Ward Boston. It is the only way to explain why you bash Ennes and ignore those with more experience in this matter than either you or I have, people who happen to agree with Ennes, that the attack on the Liberty was DELIBERATE, people like Dean Rusk, Marshall Carter, Richard Helms, Lou Tordella, Tom Moorer, Rufus Taylor, William Odom, Bobby Ray Inman, John Morrison, George Ball, Clark Clifford, Lucius Battle, William Odom, Merlin Staring and George Christian.
In fact, since you keep saying that Ennes seems to be the only Liberty survivor claiming that the attack was deliberate, I would VERY MUCH enjoy seeing you attempting to back up your assertion by posting first hand accounts from Liberty survivors who believe it WAS an accident.
In the end, you can't, because your blind need to defend Israel means that you must overlook what can only be interpreted as an DELIBERATE assault on a ship of the United States Navy - an act of war.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I was going to post something as virulent and nasty as your post, Snay, but then I read a few things which changed my mind about doing so.
You know, you would have made both our lives easier if you'd just linked to the few survivors' statemets that were on the Liberty page, rather than vent your spleen.
I'm going to concede that Ennes MIGHT have a case. It would help if he didn't make claims that are clearly not borne out by the facts, like the Court of Inquiry bit, but still he and his supporters make a compelling argument.
And he's right that the US's need to support Israel at the time (and ever since) makes it extraordinarily difficult to reach a satisfying conclusion, free of suspicion. As long as Israel is our ally, someone will be able to say "Oh, they're just covering it up to protect their ally."
Unfortunately, the alternative is, in fact, worse.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Rob. You are an idiot.
Am I the only one who thinks you're really overkilling on the insults here?
quote:It is the only way to explain why you are ignoring Captain Ward Boston. It is the only way to explain why you bash Ennes and ignore those with more experience in this matter than either you or I have
A Court of Inquiry wouldn't have more experience and knowledge?
quote:people who happen to agree with Ennes, that the attack on the Liberty was DELIBERATE, people like Dean Rusk, Marshall Carter, Richard Helms, Lou Tordella, Tom Moorer, Rufus Taylor, William Odom, Bobby Ray Inman, John Morrison, George Ball, Clark Clifford, Lucius Battle, William Odom, Merlin Staring and George Christian.
I'd like to see their statements that say they believe that, since quite frankly, listing names doesn't do shit for me. I have no clue what they said or why they are listed there.
quote:In fact, since you keep saying that Ennes seems to be the only Liberty survivor claiming that the attack was deliberate, I would VERY MUCH enjoy seeing you attempting to back up your assertion by posting first hand accounts from Liberty survivors who believe it WAS an accident.
Well if we could get the opinions of those people listed above, it'd help...
quote:In the end, you can't, because your blind need to defend Israel means that you must overlook what can only be interpreted as an DELIBERATE assault on a ship of the United States Navy - an act of war.
And are you at all in the slightest open to the possibility that you are wrong?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:...your blind need to defend Israel...
This, on the other hand, is FUNNY.
I have no need to defend Israel. The outcome of the several arab attacks on them has convinced me of that.
I was only interested in the OP because I vaguely recalled the topic from the mists of history. I didn't even remember who'd posted on the subject, nor did I care. I was reporting news.
Your subsequent unprovoked attack on a non-hostile intelligence gathering vessel (sounds familiar) prompted a retaliatory strike.
I think it's very clear who has the blind need to attack whom.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:A Court of Inquiry wouldn't have more experience and knowledge?
The359,
Key members of the inquiry - including the afore-mentioned Captain Ward Boston - are coming forward and saying that the inquiry's findings were ORDERED by Washington. In other words, there was no inquiry which actually did what it was supposed to.
quote:Am I the only one who thinks you're really overkilling on the insults here?
I don't think calling Rob an idiot is overkill. Rather, it is accurate based on all available information.
quote:And are you at all in the slightest open to the possibility that you are wrong?
If there was a possibility that I was wrong, I would be open to it. Since all available evidence indicates that the attack was deliberate, and since no-one can offer any counter-evidence beyond "waaaah they're all dirty liars", I see no reason to change my stance.
Israel knew damn well the ship was the USS Liberty.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Of course to Snay "All available information" consists solely of "everything I can cut-and-paste off of Ennes's website." Don't even begin to suggest he look elsewhere, he'll cling to that site like Omega to the Bible.
But besides that, and his juvenile way of saying it, it's an accurate statement.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:I have no need to defend Israel. The outcome of the several arab attacks on them has convinced me of that.
The outcome of THAT which left a U.S. Navy ship smoking in the water. I wonder how long Israel would've survived if LBJ had taken them up on their invitation.
quote:Your subsequent unprovoked attack on a non-hostile intelligence gathering vessel (sounds familiar) prompted a retaliatory strike.
Oh, you made a typo: it's supposed to be, 'on a non-intelligent vessel'. Remember for next time.
quote:I think it's very clear who has the blind need to attack whom.
Oh, wah, pity-party for Rob. Oh well, this is always the result when he gets so badly beaten.
quote:Of course to Snay "All available information" consists solely of "everything I can cut-and-paste off of Ennes's website." Don't even begin to suggest he look elsewhere, he'll cling to that site like Omega to the Bible.
Okay, Rob, why don't you start pointing to information that the attack was an accident? You CAN'T. You can't point to the board of inquiry because members of it are saying "Hey, it was rigged." You can point to Israel, but, hey, "can you say motivated self-interest?"
You have NOTHING to point to! All you can do is moan and bitch and whine about how mean I am, and about Omega's love for the Bible. Get a fucking grip, boy.
quote:But besides that, and his juvenile way of saying it, it's an accurate statement.
Pity-party is at 11pm for you, Rob.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Enough of you. Cry into the darkness, I nevermore shall hear your prattling tongue.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
So, since you have nothing further to contribute, I'll take it you've tucked tail between your legs and retreated under the "I made a big fuss, love me" door?
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Lord God. Go sleep with a woman. Or try to. Buy one, if needed. If you can't afford a real one, dress up a really drunk man in a wig. But, touch someone, somewhere naughtily.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well I keep trying but you won't stand STILL!
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I shield my special parts, in accordance with current playground education theorem.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Zing!
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Hm. Aparently, the "ignore" function doesn't work like it should. No matter.
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Okay, Rob, why don't you start pointing to information that the attack was an accident? You CAN'T. You can't point to the board of inquiry because members of it are saying "Hey, it was rigged." You can point to Israel, but, hey, "can you say motivated self-interest?"
You have NOTHING to point to! All you can do is moan and bitch and whine about how mean I am, and about Omega's love for the Bible. Get a fucking grip, boy.
Jeffy, I gave you four disparate link cites wayyy back on page 1. You ignored all of them, with a response which amounted to "well, they're all liars, because Ennes says differently," which is hardly a valid debating tactic. (Not to mention being hypocritical.)
You want to try again? Let's consider the flags.
#1. The first flag was small enough that its identity was below the threshhold of visual acuity beyond 1400 feet, a distance the jets did not come within. It was shot off during the first attack, according to survivors' testimony.
#2. The 7x13 foot flag was then raised, but obscured by the huge amount of smoke billowing from the wreckage. This also according to eyewitness testimony.
#3. The first sighting of the US flag was made by an Israeli helicopter pilot 30 minutes after the attack was over. (Verifiable through the Israeli transcripts of the event.)
Now, can you actually debate those points, or not?
If you're going to claim that there were other tapes, and that they were destroyed by the Krazy Kabal Konspiracy, well, that falls under the pervue of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:#1. The first flag was small enough that its identity was below the threshhold of visual acuity beyond 1400 feet, a distance the jets did not come within. It was shot off during the first attack, according to survivors' testimony.
Which is irrelevent. Israeli pilots had already identified the ship as American, and even if they hadn't, NO Arab ship came ANYWHERE close to even looking like the Liberty - this includes the US Navy markings on the hull and the VERY distinct "moon-bounce" and other unique equipment mounted on the vessel.
The day was clear and sunny. The Liberty was in INTERNATIONAL waters, and if it HAD been an Egyptian or other hostile ship, it is VERY unlikely that the Israelis would have left it alone for so long already after the beginning of the war. Even if we accept the excuse that they confused Liberty with El Quseir, keep in mind:
a) Liberty had four times the tonnage of El Quiseir, and was twice the length.
b) Liberty was painted grey, and flew American colors; El Quseir was SILVER and flew Egyptian colors.
c) As an enemy ship, El Queseir's silhouette was available and known to Israeli pilots. It is unlikely that they would have confused it with something else.
d) El Queseir had been OUT OF COMMISSION and waiting to be scrapped in Alexandria.
In an interview on February 18th of this year, NSA Director Olivery Kirby stated that it was unlikely that Israel would not have been aware of the above facts.
quote:#2. The 7x13 foot flag was then raised, but obscured by the huge amount of smoke billowing from the wreckage. This also according to eyewitness testimony.
The Liberty itself could’ve been painted red white and blue and Israel STILL would have attacked. They were well aware the ship was not Egyptian: they attacked it because for whatever reason, an American spy ship was a threat to them.
quote:#3. The first sighting of the US flag was made by an Israeli helicopter pilot 30 minutes after the attack was over. (Verifiable through the Israeli transcripts of the event.)
Assuming they hadn’t seen the flag before the attack, you still have to explain why Israeli pilots failed to identify the Liberty based on site on the ship’s size and shape and markings (remember: even Israel admits they identified the ship that morning, then “moved“ its marker off a plotting table); why Israel jammed AMERICAN radio frequencies during the attack (if they thought they were attacking an Egyptian ship, why not jam, I dunno, Egyptian frequencies?), and why Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned Liberty motor-boats as well as targeting crewmen on the ship. (Of course, here’s another problem: at the range the torpedo boats were, the ship’s markings could hardly be ignored. So why would the torpedo boat crews machine gun American servicemen? If the initial attack had been an accident, maybe they should’ve said “oh shit, sorry ’bout that!” and not “fire at will!”)
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
See? That's more like it (although it rapidly became not about the single point of discussion I proposed - the flags... but I digress)
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Which is irrelevent. Israeli pilots had already identified the ship as American,
A routine Israel Navy reconnaissance flight at dawn on June 8 sighted Liberty at about 6:00 A.M. steaming southeasterly and south more than 70 miles further west of El Arish. Positive identification was made and the information passed to Naval Intelligence Headquarters and the Liberty was marked on the battle control board at Naval Headquarters. Five hours later, the Liberty mark was considered old information and removed from the battle control board. At 11:00 A.M., shifts changed and the information about the Liberty was not known to the officer who assumed command. At about 1:00 P.M., when the presence of a ship steaming west, 14 miles off the coast of the Sinai and reported to be shelling Israel Army positions from the sea became a tactical issue, the Navy Officer in command did not know about the dawn sighting of Liberty many miles to the west.
There is no evidence or transcript extant that suggests that the pilots in the air at the time knew that their target was a US ship. The Israelis had already been informed that no US ship was within 100 miles of the coast. (Unfortunately, the Liberty never received any of the several orders to withdraw.)
quote: and even if they hadn't, NO Arab ship came ANYWHERE close to even looking like the Liberty - this includes the US Navy markings on the hull and the VERY distinct "moon-bounce" and other unique equipment mounted on the vessel.
The day was clear and sunny. The Liberty was in INTERNATIONAL waters, and if it HAD been an Egyptian or other hostile ship, it is VERY unlikely that the Israelis would have left it alone for so long already after the beginning of the war. Even if we accept the excuse that they confused Liberty with El Quseir, keep in mind:
a) Liberty had four times the tonnage of El Quiseir, and was twice the length.
b) Liberty was painted grey, and flew American colors; El Quseir was SILVER and flew Egyptian colors.
c) As an enemy ship, El Queseir's silhouette was available and known to Israeli pilots. It is unlikely that they would have confused it with something else.
d) El Queseir had been OUT OF COMMISSION and waiting to be scrapped in Alexandria.
In an interview on February 18th of this year, NSA Director Olivery Kirby stated that it was unlikely that Israel would not have been aware of the above facts.
Fair enough. However: "THE BOATS OF CHERBOURG (pg 68-69) 1988"
quote:"The son of Amiral Erell, Udi was an ensign aboard one of the torpedo boats. He could see the smoke from a long distance as the boats raced at top speed toward the scene. As the vessel came into view, Erell's skipper scanned an identification book containing pictures of the ships in the Arab fleets and consulted with the commanders on the other boats. The squadron commander concluded that the ship was the Egyptian supply vessel EL QUSEIR. Ensign Erell, looking over his skipper's shoulder at the picture and glancing up at the burning vessel, fully agreed, even though he would later recall that the mast in the picture was not positioned identically with the mast of the target vessel...." "Nevertheless, the squadron commander sought to confirm the vessel's identity before attacking. When the Israeli signalman flashed the message "What ship?" Udi Erell saw the response flickering through the smoke four miles away---"AAA", the signal meaning "Identify yourself first." The same signal had been flashed, the Israelis were aware, by the Egyptian destroyer challenged off Haifa during the Sinai Campaign in 1956. Americans on the bridge of the Liberty would later state that the signals flashed were the ship's name and its international call sign, not what the Israelis believed they saw. Even with binoculars, Erell could make out "no flag". The sqaudron commander ordered his boats to commence torpedo attacks. The vessels peeled off to make their runs and fired five torpedos. Only one hit home. The boats raked the burning ship, now dead in the water, with their guns."
"Fire was halted when one of the officers reported seeing the identification markings CTR-5 on the ship's hull, markings that were not those of an Arab vessel. Notified of this, Haifa ordered the sqaudron commander to pick up survivors and definitely establish the ship's identity......Drawing closer to the burning vessel, they were able to make out a flag. It was not opened by a breeze and could not immediately be identified, but it was clearly not Egyptian...."
"Udi saw a splash of red on the flag and heard a report being sent back to Haifa that the vessel might be Russian. The report caused shock and consternation when passed on to General Staff headquarters. The shock was not abated when the torpedo-spadron commander reported half an hour later that he had identified the vessel as American."
At worst, this sounds like a case of "Shoot first, answers aren't that important," and not a "calculated" attack. (You'll note that this, also, falls into the realm of "believing the people who were there.")
quote:The Liberty itself could’ve been painted red white and blue and Israel STILL would have attacked. They were well aware the ship was not Egyptian: they attacked it because for whatever reason, an American spy ship was a threat to them.
This is where that "extraordinary claim" bit comes in.
WHY would Israel attack its only ally?
I've seen two theories... but they've both been discredited:
#1 To prevent the US from knowing Israel was going to attack the Golan Heights.
Except that documents show that Israel had notified the US of this fact 8 hours before the Liberty was attacked. When theory #1 was found to be untrue, they turned to Theory #2...
#2 To prevent the discovery of an Israeli "massacre" of Egyptian soldiers.
A massacre which, much like the Jenin "massacre: of a couple years ago, was eventually investigated and turned out not to have happened.
quote:Assuming they hadn’t seen the flag before the attack, you still have to explain why Israeli pilots failed to identify the Liberty based on site on the ship’s size and shape and markings (remember: even Israel admits they identified the ship that morning, then “moved“ its marker off a plotting table);
see above
quote: why Israel jammed AMERICAN radio frequencies during the attack (if they thought they were attacking an Egyptian ship, why not jam, I dunno, Egyptian frequencies?),
There are a limited number of radio frequencies available, and jammer's aren't always selective (hence the phrase "They're jamming all frequencies!") What are Egypts? What are the US's? I don't know. (And if all frequencies were jammed, how did the Liberty manage to call for help? It's a matter of record that two carriers launched planes in response to a Liberty SOS)
quote: and why Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned Liberty motor-boats as well as targeting crewmen on the ship. (Of course, here’s another problem: at the range the torpedo boats were, the ship’s markings could hardly be ignored. So why would the torpedo boat crews machine gun American servicemen? If the initial attack had been an accident, maybe they should’ve said “oh shit, sorry ’bout that!” and not “fire at will!”)
The name Liberty on the curved stern of the ship was not larger than 18 inches and because of the curvature of the stern, was extremely difficult to read under any circumstances. The ships identifier, "GTR-5" was painted on both sides of the ship near the bow and near the stern but only the number "5" was ten feet tall. The "GTR" was substantially smaller. It was the sighting of these markings by the second wave of aircraft that identified the ship as not an Arab ship and resulted in immediate termination of the air attack.
You'l notice this pic was taken at a much closer range than any aircraft before the helicopters approached.
I don't know the range of the torpedo boats at the time they launched. What was it?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Forgive me for the paraphrasing ... US Secretary of State Dean Rusk said after the attack, that an accident might occur for a few minutes, but there was no way that the very distinctive looking USS Liberty could be fired on for over an hour at close range without being identified as American.
quote:. Five hours later, the Liberty mark was considered old information and removed from the battle control board. At 11:00 A.M., shifts changed and the information about the Liberty was not known to the officer who assumed command. At about 1:00 P.M., when the presence of a ship steaming west, 14 miles off the coast of the Sinai and reported to be shelling Israel Army positions from the sea became a tactical issue, the Navy Officer in command did not know about the dawn sighting of Liberty many miles to the west.
Gosh, I guess it wasn’t “old information”, was it? And since the Liberty had NO GUNS capable of bombarding ANYTHING, (and instead had big antennas), then one wonders what all those recon flights were about. Oh, wait, don’t forget: crewmen onboard Liberty heard the pilots saying it was an American ship (directly prior to the assault). This of course, despite the TWELVE over-flights between 5:30am and 2pm.
quote:There is no evidence or transcript extant that suggests that the pilots in the air at the time knew that their target was a US ship. The Israelis had already been informed that no US ship was within 100 miles of the coast. (Unfortunately, the Liberty never received any of the several orders to withdraw.)
There is evidence, the testimony of survivors of the USS Liberty. What you forget to mention is that of all the boards of inquiry, only FOURTEEN Liberty crewmen testified, and allegations have been made that certain testimony was NOT PERMITTED. Given, of course, that the outcome of the Boards of Inquiry had been ordered by Washington, it’s a wonder that anyone testified at all. BTW - as much as Rob would like to dismiss this, the Board of Inquiry’s own legal counsel, Captain Ward Boston, has recently come forward with this information. In other words, the Board of Inquiry was a sham to preserve the US/Israeli alliance.
quote:The squadron commander concluded that the ship was the Egyptian supply vessel EL QUSEIR. Ensign Erell, looking over his skipper's shoulder at the picture and glancing up at the burning vessel, fully agreed, even though he would later recall that the mast in the picture was not positioned identically with the mast of the target vessel...."
Well, it’s nice to know that the Israeli Navy has such INCOMPETENT officers.
THIS is a comparrison of the silhouttes of the Liberty and the El Quseir. As you can see, they look NOTHING alike, especially not in shape and SIZE. Where El Quiseir has GUNS, all the Liberty has are BIG COMMUNICATIONS GEAR. Please forgive me for making one of two assumptions: a) Ensign Erell and his Squadron Commander are dip-shits incapable of floating a boat in a bathtub, b) the posted commentary is altered to reflect the “fog of war” excuse.
quote:The sqaudron commander ordered his boats to commence torpedo attacks. The vessels peeled off to make their runs and fired five torpedos. Only one hit home. The boats raked the burning ship, now dead in the water, with their guns
They also targeted Liberty crewmen on the deck, including fire-control teams and medical support teams. They also opened fire on assorted life-craft tossed into the water.
quote:At worst, this sounds like a case of "Shoot first, answers aren't that important," and not a "calculated" attack. (You'll note that this, also, falls into the realm of "believing the people who were there.")
I don’t believe the Israelis who were there. Why? Motivated self-interest. If you’d attacked an ally ship with the hope of sending a message or what have you, and the attack had failed, would YOU want your most powerful supporter coming down on you with a volley of nukes? Probably not.
In other words: Israel’s motivated self-interest was to keep the alliance with the USA. The US’s motivated self-interest was to keep the peace with Israel, at the time certainly its strongest ally in the region. What motivated self interest does the crew of the Liberty have? None, except to see the truth told.
quote:There are a limited number of radio frequencies available, and jammer's aren't always selective (hence the phrase "They're jamming all frequencies!")
What are Egypts? What are the US's? I don't know. (And if all frequencies were jammed, how did the Liberty manage to call for help? It's a matter of record that two carriers launched planes in response to a Liberty SOS)[/quote]
Yes, once Liberty radiomen were able to find an un-jammed radio frequency.
In an interview, Jim Ennes said: “Long after the attack I was contacted by an Israeli pilot who told me that on his first flight over the ship he saw our American flag and informed his headquarters that we were American but was told to ignore the flag and attack anyway. He refused to do so and returned to base where he was arrested. I was told by an Israeli in the war room that they knew we were American. I have been told by several American intelligence analysts who read or in some cases heard the messages between the pilots and their headquarters that these messages make it very clear that the pilots and their headquarters knew we were American.”
quote:I don't know the range of the torpedo boats at the time they launched. What was it?
Close enough to murder American servicemen.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I'm still waiting for the Big Why.
Assuming the attack was deliberate, (misstatement, of COURSE it was deliberate, they were obviously trying to attack the ship.)
Assuming they KNEW it was a US ship from the get-go, WHY did the Israelis attack the Liberty?
Because you're right, everything that's been mentioned so far could be deliberate, or it COULD be chalked up to reprehensible incompetence (not entirely implausible.)
Therefore, motive is key.
quote:What motivated self interest does the crew of the Liberty have? None, except to see the truth told.
Revenge? Hatred?
quote: "Gradually they learned that the new leaders were actually the worst kind of self- centered, amoralistic murderers - worse than the people they sought to flee from." Ennes, on the Israeli leadership
Worse than the Nazis? That's pretty extreme. More than simple bitterness over the attack.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
While second-hand information can be fun, I'd be more interested in seeing a direct quote from, say, the Israeli pilot that was supposedly arrested, as opposed to one from a guy who claimed he'd met him. Anyway, assuming everything stated is true as stated, there are three major possibilities: the Liberty survivers are lying, they're mistaken, or the Israeli and US governments are lying. Yes, I have trouble thinking of a simple reason for the Liberty survivors to lie, but I similarly have trouble thinking of a reason for Israel to have knowingly attacked one of our ships. Seeing, as Rob pointed out, that the two major explinations proposed don't seem to hold water, what others would you propose, Jeff?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Aaaaand he beat me to the button...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:I'm still waiting for the Big Why.
You're not the only one.
quote:Assuming they KNEW it was a US ship from the get-go, WHY did the Israelis attack the Liberty?
Maybe they just wanted to send a message: don't fuck with us.
quote:Because you're right, everything that's been mentioned so far could be deliberate, or it COULD be chalked up to reprehensible incompetence (not entirely implausible.)
VERY implausible. The Israeli military is at the top of its game - has to be for Israeli survival. The chances of this attack happening for such a length of time being committed by Israel is *VERY* small and, honestly, not very likely. When you look at some of the people who have come forward regarding the Board of Inquiry, and other circumstances (Rusk, Adlai Stephenson, etc), it certainly lends more creedence to "this was deliberate."
quote:Therefore, motive is key.
But understanding the motive isn't always key to understanding "hey, they did this on purpose."
quote:Revenge? Hatred?
Perhaps indeed anger - anger that they were attacked, left to die by their nation, and that the attack was covered up by Washington (as evidenced by the falsifying of the Board of Inquiry).
quote:Worse than the Nazis? That's pretty extreme. More than simple bitterness over the attack.
I was going to say something, then I remembered that the Nazis have a history of attacking their allies, too.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Maybe they just wanted to send a message: don't fuck with us.
Unlikely, since the US was Israel's primary ally and had demonstrated no intention of fucking with them. Indeed, if the coverup were true, it would PROVE the US had no intention of fucking with Israel. No, that's not a reasonable reason. That'd be like punching out your best friend in order to make sure he stayed your best friend.
quote:VERY implausible. The Israeli military is at the top of its game - has to be for Israeli survival. The chances of this attack happening for such a length of time being committed by Israel is *VERY* small and, honestly, not very likely.
You are aware, that during this same war, Israel attacked one of its own tank columns? Even "top of its game" militaries have friendly fire incidents.
quote:But understanding the motive isn't always key to understanding "hey, they did this on purpose."
Oh, it most certainly is. One of the things police look at when they're determining the level of crime committed (1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree, manslaughter, etc.)
quote:I was going to say something, then I remembered that the Nazis have a history of attacking their allies, too.
Given that criteria, every army on earth ever is worse than the Nazis.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
OK. Operating on the assumptions that 1) Liberty had intercepted some... ultra-sensitive intel, and that 2) the ship was attacked to keep a lid on that data, AND that 3) the Israelis were aware of the US flag it flew, WHY did Washington order the reports falsified? Liberty wasn't in those waters for a pleasure cruise. It was spying on an ALLY during a time when support for Israel was at an all-time high. If things were already heated up enough for Washington to warrant THAT (I'm pretty sure active espionage qualifies as an act of war, though the legal definition is open to debate), I don't think alienating Israel was a prime concern of anyone.
OTOH, why the Israelis would value the protection of that intel more than the BILLIONS of dollars of US subsidy they put on the line... it must have been VERY fucking compromising.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Operation Vaklempt:
Step One: Commission several businessmen.
Step Two: Dominate Hollywood Production.
- Mossad.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: I similarly have trouble thinking of a reason for Israel to have knowingly attacked one of our ships
How about to get the US to declare war on Egypt and the Arab nations? After the attack on the Liberty a US aircraft carrier in the region did launch nuclear equipped aircraft with provisional targeting orders for Egypt which were, fortunately, called back. There was a documentary on a few weeks ago about this; the survivors seemed convinced that they had been deliberately attacked by the Israelis. The Israelis were equally adamant they did not.
You might find this interesting.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Dwight Porter was US ambassador to Lebanon in June 1967. He states that on June 8 CIA men showed him radio transcripts, translated into English, which recorded talk between an Israeli pilot and his home base. The pilot protests that the ship he is attacking is American; the home base orders him to attack anyway.
Hmmmm!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Sooooo... what, Israel was trying to make it look like Egypt was attacking the Liberty? Or they hoped to destroy the Liberty with all hands so that we wouldn't know exactly what happened and might assume Egypt had done it? That... actually sounds reasonable. I have to wonder exactly how far up in the military hierarchy the plan would have gone, were that the case.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: I have to wonder exactly how far up in the military hierarchy the plan would have gone, were that the case.
I would imagine either all the way up or just at a local level (eg a local commander getting confused reports from the battlefield decides to try and get Israel some help). I doubt we'll ever know the whole truth about this incident; or at least not for a very long time!
On an aside the Israelis did 'do a deal' with us and the frogs prior to Suez; the Israelis would attack Egypt then we'd move in and take Suez/shoot up a few Egyptians.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
quote:Dwight Porter was US ambassador to Lebanon in June 1967. He states that on June 8 CIA men showed him radio transcripts, translated into English, which recorded talk between an Israeli pilot and his home base. The pilot protests that the ship he is attacking is American; the home base orders him to attack anyway.
Hmmmm!
You cut off the juicy little tidbit at the end of that quote:
quote:Porter never saw the transcripts again, but stands by his story.
In other words, he has no proof and is merely going from memory.
Hmmmm to you too.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
And "hmmmm" right back at you. If you saw documents which showed that Israel knew Liberty was a US ship, would YOU be likely to forget them? Somehow, I doubt it.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
Well, lets see, after 40+ years of seeing this elusive document, and having to read so many other papers in connection to his ambassadorial duties...yeah, I think he might have a problem remembering exactly what the paper said. There's no way he can remember it word for word.
Besides, you have no clue as to how good this guys memory even is. You're just assuming its perfect and he knows what he's talking about since he happens to agree with your theory.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Well, lets see, after 40+ years of seeing this elusive document,
He didn't see the document BEFORE the attack, and certainly not years in advance.
quote:Besides, you have no clue as to how good this guys memory even is. You're just assuming its perfect and he knows what he's talking about since he happens to agree with your theory.
Neither do you have any clue as to how good this guy's memory is. Right now, yes, his qualifictions speak quite loudly to me.
And it's more than just my theory, it's a theory which fits the facts, and which is agreed upon by a great many of people in upper levels of the military and the government of the time in which it happened (and many from the current, as well).
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
I meant approximatly 40 years. Brain fart.
And his qualifications on the matter seem kind of lacking. It's like the ambassador to Brazil claiming the NSA sent him papers saying the Israeli's purposly attacked the Liberty...the guy isn't directly involved nor has he anything to do with the Liberty, so why would he remember years later what some NSA paper said about an accident in the country he's not even in?
And as for your theory, yeah it might fit the facts, but are you saying ours doesn't? It'd be rather dumb for a theory to last for 40 years if it wasn't based on any facts...
As for your "large number of high up military people" who agree, I'd love to see a list. Those few you listed a few pages back hardly count as a large number nor as the military elite...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:It'd be rather dumb for a theory to last for 40 years if it wasn't based on any facts...
Your fit the facts as seen in the Boards of Inquiry. The problem is that the Boards of Inquiry were falsified, so that sort of erodes your basis, don'tcha think?
quote:And his qualifications on the matter seem kind of lacking. It's like the ambassador to Brazil claiming the NSA sent him papers saying the Israeli's purposly attacked the Liberty...the guy isn't directly involved nor has he anything to do with the Liberty, so why would he remember years later what some NSA paper said about an accident in the country he's not even in?
He's not from Brazil. He was in Lebanon. Now, perhaps you don't know where Lebanon is, or the role it played in the 6-Day War, but if as one theory goes the Liberty was attacked to draw the US into war with the Arabian nations, than being the ambassador to Lebanon is certainly someone in the "know." Also, no one was in the country the "accident" took place in - the attack happened in international waters.
quote:As for your "large number of high up military people" who agree, I'd love to see a list. Those few you listed a few pages back hardly count as a large number nor as the military elite...
I said military and government. I don't believe I said 'elite', however there are certainly quite a few Secretariess of State and other high ranking posts - Senators, Congressmen, Intelligence Agency Directors - and as for your claim that there aren't enough, how many more would satisfy you? Ten? Twenty?
Yeah, that's what I thought. Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
You've shown no statements from these supposed people though, so right now you have a grand total of...zero.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:You've shown no statements from these supposed people though,
Before you post in this thread again, you need to go back to page one and read through. Okay?
"I can tell you for an absolute certainty that they knew they were attacking an American ship." - Oliver Kirby, NSA Operations who looked into the attack in 1967
US Secretary of State Dean Rusk said after the attack, that an accident might occur for a few minutes, but there was no way that the very distinctive looking USS Liberty could be fired on for over an hour at close range without being identified as American.
Dwight Porter was US ambassador to Lebanon in June 1967. He states that on June 8 CIA men showed him radio transcripts, translated into English, which recorded talk between an Israeli pilot and his home base. The pilot protests that the ship he is attacking is American; the home base orders him to attack anyway.
That's THREE right there, plus some more stuff from Dean Rusk and Moorer in there. ZERO my ass, and since you're only aim seems to be "Waaah, he saw documents 40 years ago and his memory is shit, therefore Israel didn't attack the Liberty" please either try a new line of attack in this thread, or don't bother.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
A "certainty" with no follow-through, an opinion, and a mysterious visitation from 'CIA men.' (in black, no doubt.)
This has the makings of a great movie. I see Leslie Nielsen in the lead role as the investigative reporter.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Or in other words, "All I can do is allude to a grand conspiracy to try to make Snay look silly, although I haven't done a character assassination yet on Ward Boston, so I'm making myself look silly and have nothing further to add to this discussion."
Thanks Rob. Door on your left.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Ladies and gentlemen, the most apropos quoting of "Time Bandits" ever...
"Oh, Benson..DEAR Benson...you are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence."
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Okay, so we'll just take that as "Yes, it's true, I can't substain any case so now I'm going to attempt to character assassinate Mr. Benson, because I can't touch Captain Boston, who threatens the credibility of the Inquiry upon which I base all my comments."
Door is on your left, Rob. Would you still care for the pity-party? We can still arrange it. Since you seem only to be managing snappy little insults to cover your big loss, why don't you just swallow your pride, exit stage left, and stop wasting all our precious time?
To quote Jim Carrey, "LOSER!"
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
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.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
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.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
Well this is pointless if you're going to be an asshole...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
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.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
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 by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
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.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
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?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
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.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I guess it's safe to say at this point, that no-one is going to introduce anything new to the topic...
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Wow, I've never actually opened a topic before.
Anyway, allow me to add something new. That said, can we please be grownups?
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)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
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?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yes, since, oh, about 1967....
TSN wanted to feel special and bump a thread....
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
When was this reopened?
Rob,
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.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I know the response we'll get:
Either we'll be asked "How can we believe this guy (the navy lawyer)" and we'll get a post or something discrediting him.
Or, someone will ask "You think everything is a vast Zionist conspiracy, don't you?"
It's hard to criticize Israel without being branded a racist.
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Personally, I always thought that the truth was somewhere in the middle.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
No, it's over here... Ooooh, wait. No, is that it? Maybe over there there. Anyway it's gotta be around here somewhere.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
No, no, it was taking up valuable posting space, so we threw it away.....
Israel has it's own problems, just like everyother nation. I wouldn't doubt that there is corruption at various levels of their government too, unless they really are special.....
Although they do have a habit of being penny pinching misers there.... ((This was the racist part that had to be added....))
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
They also have a problem killing civilians when they target terrorists.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Civillians are just terrorists without training. Kill 'em all, I say!
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: 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
You do, however, have to prove either intention to commit the crime or recklessness as to whether the crime was committed.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I would submit the USS Liberty in as evidence that an attack did occur, which being unprovoked, is a crime....
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
ah, a good working point. Mayhaps you'all should start there and go up, instead of arguing about the end conclusions.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Motive was they didn't want their communications overheard, even by the US, which is what the ship was there to do, along with Egypt and Syria. So regardless of whether or not it is need there it is.
Israel couldn't ask the US to not listen to their secret messagess about their up coming offensive, so, what to do about that ship....
Well, since they are Israelis, and attacking is a normal part of life, and getting attacked too, they do what seems to come natural. I forget how many fly overs there were, several anyway, and the huge US flag pretty much identified it, plus the silohoutte (or what ever), should have been recognizable as a US ship. (Let us not debate the ability of nations to us this method of IDing ships, aircraft, or vehicles.) On the IDing part I would imagine, that considering that they were about to go on the offensive, they would know where all Arab nation equipment was, ships, aircraft, and vehicles.
If they meant to destroy the ship, they failed, if they meant to scare it away they were over zealous, but the end result was that there was no one around that could discover the offensive before it happened.
Hence, this was an attack with a well reasoned motive, although the level of the use of force can be argued, but we would need to find out what exactly the orders that were given were.
Motive, ability, and a body, all the things Hollywood says are need for a conviction....
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I don't think there's a Vast Zionist Conspiracy anywhere... all you need is a really powerful lobby in Washington. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I prefer a comfortable one, if I am to be waiting for any length of time....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
"Lets all go to the lobby....and have ourselves some snacks!"
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)