So the USS Liberty Truthers Were Right. Guess What? So are the 9/11 Ones

[Ten_Hearts]

So the problem with the crazy conspiracy troofers is it turns out they were right. Declassified Israeli cables and even the Jerusalem Post confirm that Israel attacked USS Liberty deliberately, it was not an accident. What? Forty years of saying no flag was visible on the LIberty and that it was an "accident" was a lie?

So following the first claim that the Jerusalem Post admitted in 2004 that the attack was deliberate. I followed your links back to a full copy of the original Jerusalem Post article.

"Even now, 37 years later, the attack by the Air Force on the American spy ship on the fourth day of the Six Days' War fuels the fire of intrigue, conspiracy and cover-up theories. Nevertheless, what follows is powerful evidence that the attack was a tragic mistake. "

Thats the second damn paragraph of the article. So what hell are you talking about the Jerusalem Post said the attack was deliberate. Going by the transcipt in the article it wasn't until after the attack that they realized it was an American ship.

Please check your sources before I fact check you further.

[NumeroOnce]

So following the first claim that the Jerusalem Post admitted in 2004 that the attack was deliberate. I followed your links back to a full copy of the original Jerusalem Post article.

"Even now, 37 years later, the attack by the Air Force on the American spy ship on the fourth day of the Six Days' War fuels the fire of intrigue, conspiracy and cover-up theories. Nevertheless, what follows is powerful evidence that the attack was a tragic mistake. "

Thats the second damn paragraph of the article. So what hell are you talking about the Jerusalem Post said the attack was deliberate. Going by the transcipt in the article it wasn't until after the attack that they realized it was an American ship.

Please check your sources before I fact check you further.

In the link you quoted that the OP posted, from digital journal, claims the Liberty attack was no accident... why don't you post what link you used? And what do you think the stance of the Jerusalem post is going to be with a company description like this?

Your Israel news source, with updates on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Middle East and the Jewish World.

OP maybe made a mistake in his sources, but plenty of legitimate sources (such as the link to the Chicago Tribune in the digital journal source) seem so say that the attack was deliberate.

[Ten_Hearts]

In the link you quoted that the OP posted, from digital journal, claims the Liberty attack was no accident... why don't you post what link you used? And what do you think the stance of the Jerusalem post is going to be with a company description like this?



OP maybe made a mistake in his sources, but plenty of legitimate sources (such as the link to the Chicago Tribune in the digital journal source) seem so say that the attack was deliberate.

I followed the links in his article. I followed that pages related article link to:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/w...article/413296

which had a link to an article copy of the Jerusalem post about halfway down which gave me this page:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../posts?page=33

Which seems to be a full copy of the Jerusalem post article. The article has a transcript of the traffic conversation where there is confusion about who has the ship and if it is American. It wasn't until after the attack and and they dispatched helicopters to verify identity that they say the ship is "apparently American."

What I think the Jerusalem Post's stance would be is irrelevant, the OP declared that the Jerusalem post said in this article that the attack was deliberate. But the author never says that, instead saying it was a tragic mistake, which seems to contradict the OPs claim.

[Oncebitten]

What I think the Jerusalem Post's stance would be is irrelevant, the OP declared that the Jerusalem post said in this article that the attack was deliberate. But the author never says that, instead saying it was a tragic mistake, which seems to contradict the OPs claim.

Well we all assumed that you knew the OP was a CT nut without a credible source for anything he ever claims. You weren't taking him seriously, were you? As if the Israeli military would intentionally try to sink a ship and only send jets armed with machine guns and napalm? LOL! Not exactly anti-ship weapons as any imbicle would realise.

Not OP though!

[NumeroOnce]

Well we all assumed that you knew the OP was a CT nut without a credible source for anything he ever claims. You weren't taking him seriously, were you? As if the Israeli military would intentionally try to sink a ship and only send jets armed with machine guns and napalm? LOL! Not exactly anti-ship weapons as any imbicle would realise.

Not OP though!

The Chicago Tribune agrees more the the OP, while the Jerusalem Post doesn't. Now, would you expect the Jerusalem Post to admit that Israel was guilty?

10:55 a.m. A naval liaison officer at Israeli Air Force headquarters informs Israeli Naval Headquarters that the previously unidentified ship is an "audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy" named Liberty.

11 a.m. The acting chief of Israeli naval operations orders removal of Liberty from a plot table because he is no longer certain of its position.

11:30 a.m. The Israeli Navy receives an erroneous report that El-Arish is being shelled from the sea.

12:05 p.m. Three motor tor**** boats (MTBs) are ordered to proceed toward El-Arish.

THE ATTACK ON THE LIBERTY

1:56 p.m. Two Israeli Mirage III aircraft, followed by two Super Mystere aircraft, begin their attack on the Liberty.

2:14 p.m. The chief Israeli air controller in Tel Aviv tells the controller who is directing the attack on the Liberty that the ship is "apparently American."

2:20 p.m. The Israeli naval commander orders the commander of the Tor**** Boat Division to attack the Liberty. At almost the same time, the Naval Operations Branch orders: "Do not attack. It is possible that the aircraft have not identified correctly." The commander of the Tor**** Boat Division says he never got any order to cease the attack, although the deputy commander says he passed the message to the commander.


2:24 p.m. Liberty sights three MTBs 4-5 miles away and closing fast.

2:26 p.m. Liberty raises its largest American flag, the "Holiday colors."

2:27 p.m. Three tor**** boats begin strafing the Liberty and launch their six tor****es.

2:28 p.m. Five tor****es miss the ship, but one strikes the Liberty's right side, leaving a 39-foot hole.

THE AFTERMATH


2:29 p.m. Starting time for an NSA tape of Israeli communications after the attack. A previous tape, which presumably would have captured the air and tor**** attacks, is missing

http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-li...ry.html#page=5

Note the bolded parts, which seem to show knowledge of the ship's ID was present before the attack. And, of course, the audio tapes go conveniently missing.

The only evidence we have that this was all a big mistake is Israel' word... do you really expect them to admit they attacked the Liberty on purpose?

[Ten_Hearts]

The Chicago Tribune agrees more the the OP, while the Jerusalem Post doesn't. Now, would you expect the Jerusalem Post to admit that Israel was guilty?


http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-li...ry.html#page=5

Note the bolded parts, which seem to show knowledge of the ship's ID was present before the attack. And, of course, the audio tapes go conveniently missing.

The only evidence we have that this was all a big mistake is Israel' word... do you really expect them to admit they attacked the Liberty on purpose?

The time table your are citing seems accurate but its a time table we know based on what happened afterwards. Which makes sense because 1:56 and 2:14 mention the Liberty but it isn't until 2:20 they say the ship might not have been identified correctly.

Seems to be the case in the chicago tribune article. It would side with the OP by there don't appear to being any documentation to support it. Many Americans have and continue to be skeptical of what took place which seems to be the conclusion of the article. The main hypothesis was that the US didn't want to embarrass Israel but we weren't even Israels primary supporter back then. Actually until 1967 the US was relatively neutral in the region.


If Israel attacked the liberty on purpose I wouldn't really expect Israel to admit to it. But I also don't really see why they would have had a real need to attack the USS Liberty intentionally. And friendly fire is very common in war. Heck in 2009 Israel killed 3 of its own soldiers and 20 more when one of its tanks thought the soldiers in a building were Hamas fighters. US history is also riddled with friendly fire incidents.

[Oncebitten]

The only evidence we have that this was all a big mistake is Israel' word... do you really expect them to admit they attacked the Liberty on purpose?

I'm going to assume you have no military experience, which is fine, of course. I'll also assume that if YOU were to try to sink a ship (even with no military experience on your part), you wouldn't attack it with naplam and machine guns. Am I right?

But Israel couldn't figure that out on their own? Really? They can build nukes, yet they think napalm will sink a ship? Really?

Lol....

[NumeroOnce]

The time table your are citing seems accurate but its a time table we know based on what happened afterwards. Which makes sense because 1:56 and 2:14 mention the Liberty but it isn't until 2:20 they say the ship might not have been identified correctly.

Seems to be the case in the chicago tribune article. It would side with the OP by there don't appear to being any documentation to support it. Many Americans have and continue to be skeptical of what took place which seems to be the conclusion of the article. The main hypothesis was that the US didn't want to embarrass Israel but we weren't even Israels primary supporter back then. Actually until 1967 the US was relatively neutral in the region.


If Israel attacked the liberty on purpose I wouldn't really expect Israel to admit to it. But I also don't really see why they would have had a real need to attack the USS Liberty intentionally. And friendly fire is very common in war. Heck in 2009 Israel killed 3 of its own soldiers and 20 more when one of its tanks thought the soldiers in a building were Hamas fighters. US history is also riddled with friendly fire incidents.

I would consider the Chicago Tribune reputable and have no reason not to trust the timeline.

Maybe it's true that the commander never got the message that the ship was unidentified. It also makes a good excuse... blame it on the chain of command being broken, so that nobody is at fault and it can be chalked up to a misunderstanding. I think it is America's neutrality at the time that Israel didn't like, hence the attack.

You'd think that somewhere in the attack while strafing the Naval ship, the Israeli's would've noticed the US flag which in other articles, servicemen on the ship swore were flying before, during, and after the attack.

I'm going to assume you have no military experience, which is fine, of course. I'll also assume that if YOU were to try to sink a ship (even with no military experience on your part), you wouldn't attack it with naplam and machine guns. Am I right?

But Israel couldn't figure that out on their own? Really? They can build nukes, yet they think napalm will sink a ship? Really?

Lol....

Why else attack a ship if not to try to sink it? They fired 5 tor****es at the Liberty, but luckily only one of them hit or more lives would probably have been lost. Tor****es are a little bit more than the machine gun and napalm you mentioned...



They were trying to sink the ship, whoever they thought it was.

Tell me, with all your military experience... can machine gun fire and napalm do ^ that to a ship?

Lol...

And again, I ask... do you really expect Israel to come out and admit they attacked the USS Liberty on purpose?

[metco]

I followed the links in his article. I followed that pages related article link to:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/w...article/413296

which had a link to an article copy of the Jerusalem post about halfway down which gave me this page:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../posts?page=33

Which seems to be a full copy of the Jerusalem post article. The article has a transcript of the traffic conversation where there is confusion about who has the ship and if it is American. It wasn't until after the attack and and they dispatched helicopters to verify identity that they say the ship is "apparently American."

What I think the Jerusalem Post's stance would be is irrelevant, the OP declared that the Jerusalem post said in this article that the attack was deliberate. But the author never says that, instead saying it was a tragic mistake, which seems to contradict the OPs claim.

You make a good point about the JPost article, which was intended to be a cover-up but inadvertently confirms the timeline and authenticity of the radio transmissions in the documentary. In the documentary The Day Israel Attacked America, the Israeli radio transmission is heard at 2:14:

"To what state does she belong?" (Answer): "American"

The attack continued for another hour. The timeline of the attack gives the tor**** boats arriving and slamming the ship with a tor**** at 2:35, a full 20 minutes after the ship is identified in Israeli radio transmissions as American.

Timeline:

1435: Tor**** boats launch five German-made 19-inch tor****es at Liberty. One tor**** strikes starboard directly into NSA area, accounting for 25 of the 34 men who would be killed. Tor**** boats then circle, machine-gunning the ship with armor-piercing projectiles for another 40 minutes.

As the timeline says the tor**** boats then circle the ship machine-gunning it and the life rafts for another 40 minutes.

In 2007 the JPost published what was supposed to be a cover-up article concluding accident. The problem? It publishes a radio transcript which puts the radio transmission identifying the ship as American, but slightly mistranslated, at exactly the same time the documentary is claiming, thus validating the documentary timeline and the existence of the transmissions as authentic. No one can say these transmissions were made up. They are transcribed, with embellishments and mistranslations, in the JPost. The JPost says 2:14. So does the documentary. That's an hour before the attack was called off.

link to reprint of the JPost article at FreeRepublic

Then there is the matter of the Israeli diplomatic cables uncovered by the Chicago Tribune as well as common sense. It was a clear day and the Israelis circled the ship at leisure for 9 hours in the morning, close enough to wave back and forth at the sailors, a ship like no other with at least two huge flags flying and "USS Liberty" painted on the stern. There is a long list of public figures who say it was a deliberate attempt to sink an American ship, including secretary of state Dean Rusk, and NSA director Admiral Bobby Ray Inman.

Rusk:

"But I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day.

Bobby Ray Inman is interviewed in the film, you can hear it from his mouth directly.

Then there are the American intelligence officers who came forward to say they heard the Israelis saying it was an American ship during the attack (published in the Tribune article):

Air Force Capt. Richard Block, who was commanding an intelligence wing of more than 100 analysts and cryptologists monitoring Middle Eastern communications on the island of Crete, told the Tribune:

"The pilots said, 'This is an American ship. Do you still want us to attack?' And ground control came back and said, 'Yes, follow orders.'"

Steve Forslundan, an intelligence analyst for the 544th Air Reconnaissance Technical Wing at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, said that the Israeli military:

"made specific reference to the efforts to direct the jets to the target which was identified as American numerous times by the ground controller. Upon arrival, the aircraft specifically identified the target and mentioned the American flag she was flying. There were frequent operational transmissions from the pilots to the ground base describing the strafing runs. The ground control began asking about the status of the target and whether it was sinking. They stressed that the target must be sunk and leave no trace."

Then there are the Liberty survivors themselves, who won't shut up even 40 years later, and allow their dead shipmates to be dishonored by the "accident" lie.

This only scratches the surface of the evidence. There is plenty more. How much do Americans need is the question.

Thank you for fact-checking. If there is just one thing people crunched on time should do, is just watch the film and let the survivors speak for themselves.

Trailer for film The Day Israel Attacked America


full film

[NumeroOnce]

Bobby Ray Inman is interviewed in the film, you can hear it from his mouth directly.

Then there are the American intelligence officers who came forward to say they heard the Israelis saying it was an American ship during the attack (published in the Tribune article):


Then there are the Liberty survivors themselves, who won't shut up even 40 years later, and allow their dead shipmates to be dishonored by the "accident" lie.

This only scratches the surface of the evidence. There is plenty more. How much do Americans need is the question.

Thank you for fact-checking. If there is just one thing people crunched on time should do, is just watch the film and let the survivors speak for themselves.

Trailer for film The Day Israel Attacked America


full film

It's funny... military posters won't even agree with the servicemen who were actually on the ship, witnessing and processing the event as it unfolded. But of course, their loyalties lie to their superiors instead of their comrades. Anything to defend the company line I guess

[spadelexus]

[metco]

It's funny... military posters won't even agree with the servicemen who were actually on the ship, witnessing and processing the event as it unfolded. But of course, their loyalties lie to their superiors instead of their comrades. Anything to defend the company line I guess

Must be good for the families of the fallen sailors to know they had such solid guys watching their backs. Forty years later they won't let it die, and won't let their deaths be part of a big lie. A man can feel lucky to have even a single friend like that in his life. Many of us probably never do.


Trailer for film The Day Israel Attacked America


full film

[LukeLissen]

First, if they were 'trying to sink the ship'(meaning a pre-planned conspiracy to sink the ship) then they would have initially used the proper munitions to sink the ship, and NOT machine guns, small rockets, and napalm. The fact that the first two Mirage aircraft to spot the ship used machine guns and small artillery rockets(higly unlikely to sink a ship like this) shows that not to be the case. Then the second aircraft to come on scene after the Mirages left used napalm - also nearly 100% impossible to sink a ship like this with. Likely to cause some casualties upon the crew but very unlikely to even come close to sinking the ship. They eventually did use tor****es but not well until after these first attacks.

Second, no one can come up with a good motive for Israel to sink this ship if they had known it was an American one.

Third, even if they did sink it, it would be impossible to 'get away' with an attack of this caliber using a variety of known aircraft and boats like this.



It was right in the middle of the six day war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War , and the Israelis were a little too trigger happy and eager to score kills upon the enemy and far too careless at this time.





But then again, numeroonce and several others here have proven time and again that they certainly do not care about truth, but rather their only purpose is to cause harm to America and its allies through pushing a variety of conspiracy theories and demoralization propaganda.

[NumeroOnce]

I'd like to preface this response by saying this guy thinks Russia did 9/11, with no evidence provided whatsoever.

If anybody would like to know what kind of mind we're dealing with, he is/was a moderator on godlikeproductions.com. Go take a look at those message boards and see how many sane minds are there.

First, if they were 'trying to sink the ship' then they would have initially used the proper munitions to sink the ship, and NOT machine guns, small rockets, and napalm. The fact that the first two Mirage aircraft to spot the ship used machine guns and small artillery rockets(higly unlikely to sink a ship like this) shows that not to be the case. Then the second aircraft to come on scene after the Mirages left used napalm - also nearly 100% impossible to sink a ship like this with.

They sent 5 tor****es at the ship, one hit.

Second, no one can come up with a good motive for Israel to sink this ship.

Israel wanted backup and tried to draw the US into conflict with Egypt. Kind of like how were fighting the Muzzies now for them because of 9/11.

Third, even if they did sink it, it would be impossible to 'get away' with an attack of this caliber using a variety of known aircraft and boats like this.

If they sunk the ship, there would be no witnesses. Dead men tell no tales.

But then again, numeroonce and several others here have proven time and again that they certainly do not care about truth, but rather their only purpose is to cause harm to America and its allies through pushing a variety of conspiracy theories and demoralization propaganda.

Then why are you running away from big bad NumeroOnce's questions?

LukeLissen always bring teh lolz. I think he might actually be a paid shill though... in one wild post, he managed to make the 9/11 truth movement look worse, distract from the points made in the OP, AND place the blame on Russia, our current main country of opposition. I'm not even mad, I'm impressed.

LukeLissen, tell me this: if it was Russia, don't you think the US government would've been the first to blame them? We've been ideally opposed to them since the Cold War, and would use any excuse to go to war with them. Don't tell me you think Bush was afraid of Putin?

Let's say you're right, and it was Putin; you are still admitting that our government went to the Middle East on false pretenses, and thus has the capability to lie. Or you're saying that our government still isn't smart enough to figure out who done it, and LukeLissen of the Religion and Politics section has. lol

Alright Luke, you've had your fun. Time to go back on your meds. But keep posting, your posts always bring the laughs.

[Shikight]

ITT: Something happened in 1967; therefore it "proves" that completely different people, doing something different, 35 years later, are guilty of whatever accusations someone makes.

Cool

Terrible argument. The GOVERNMENT commit these acts of violence. The government does not age, and since this was a covert mission, it must prove that it has changed. It must explain why, up until this last week or so, it has been lying every single day to the world.

[LukeLissen]

...

If Israel was involved in a conspiracy trying to sink the ship as you suggest, then why did they use four different aircraft incapable of sinking the ship in the first two waves of attack upon the ship?

[NumeroOnce]

If Israel was involved in a conspiracy trying to sink the ship as you suggest, then why did they use four different aircraft incapable of sinking the ship in the first two waves of attack upon the ship?

I don't know, but the same question still applies even if they legitimately thought it was an Egyptian ship. Are you trying to say they knew it was an American ship, and thus didn't try as hard to sink it? I don't know what point that question was supposed to prove. An attack is an attack, and I'd say launching 5 tor****es at a ship is definitely an attempt to sink it.

Perhaps they thought it would sink easier, but once the gunning and small rockets and napalm didn't work they started shooting tor****es at it (the tor****es you conveniently forgot to mention in the last post). If 5/5 of the tor****es would've hit instead of 1/5, that ship would be at the bottom of the sea right now.

I answered your question. Now stop being a gutless pussy and answer the points I've raised 3x now that you avoid. You can't answer a question with a question.

LukeLissen always bring teh lolz. I think he might actually be a paid shill though... in one wild post, he managed to make the 9/11 truth movement look worse, distract from the points made in the OP, AND place the blame on Russia, our current main country of opposition. I'm not even mad, I'm impressed.

LukeLissen, tell me this: if it was Russia, don't you think the US government would've been the first to blame them? We've been ideally opposed to them since the Cold War, and would use any excuse to go to war with them. Don't tell me you think Bush was afraid of Putin?

Let's say you're right, and it was Putin; you are still admitting that our government went to the Middle East on false pretenses, and thus has the capability to lie. Or you're saying that our government still isn't smart enough to figure out who done it, and LukeLissen of the Religion and Politics section has. lol

[metco]

If Israel was involved in a conspiracy trying to sink the ship as you suggest, then why did they use four different aircraft incapable of sinking the ship in the first two waves of attack upon the ship?

Because if they had only sunk the ship there may have been many survivors on life boats. They wanted to slaughter sailors too. That is why they machine-gunned the life rafts. Remember the point was to blame the Egyptians so it was important there be no survivors. Napalm is an anti-personnel weapon. It burns you to death.

If you watch the documentary the only reason the attack was halted was when a wounded crew member climbed a transmitter with wire and got it working so they could put out a distress signal. All the other antennae were down.

Do you like the answer to your question? Israel, our "ally," wanted to slaughter every man onboard or make sure he drowned with the ship. The plan was to leave no witnesses.


Trailer for film The Day Israel Attacked America


full film

[LJB1]

If you look up the word Oxymoron in a thesaurus it will have the word truther next to it. It's like dungeons and dragons for adults.

[metco]

If you look up the word Oxymoron in a thesaurus it will have the word truther next to it. It's like dungeons and dragons for adults.

Come along nicely, it's time for your castration.



Now how about attempting to address the post instead of merely derailing by lowering the tone of the discussion? Don't you think American heroes deserve a serious thread? One of them won a Medal of Honor.

[Austanian]

Not sure if srs.

The problem with tin foil hat wearer's is not that they question. It is that there are thousands of explanation's for every single event and they don't work with each other.

Say you are right the in your statement that the 9/11 truthers are right. Which story is right? Many are mutually exclusive. They can't all be right. So even if 1/100 truthers are right the 99 other "theories" are just as ridiculous as they sound.

This is coming from someone who thinks united 93 was shot down. Wading through a mountain of bull chit to find a kernel of truth is not worth it. Especially, when the truth looks like the other piles of chit.

[metco]

...there are thousands of explanation's for every single event and they don't work with each other.

Say you are right the in your statement that the 9/11 truthers are right. Which story is right? Many are mutually exclusive. They can't all be right. So even if 1/100 truthers are right the 99 other "theories" are just as ridiculous as they sound.

The USS Liberty attack boils down to two arguments. One says it was an "accident" and the Israelis didn't know it was an American ship as they attack. The other says of course they did. Weigh the testimony and sources in the thread, the Chicago Tribune, declassified Israeli cables (not challenged as being inauthentic), the testimony of the survivors in the documentary, then make up your mind who is telling the truth. There are no "thousands of explanation's." There are only two.

...

This is coming from someone who thinks united 93 was shot down. Wading through a mountain of bull chit to find a kernel of truth is not worth it. Especially, when the truth looks like the other piles of chit.

Of course it was shot down, the pattern of wreckage alone supports this. So think to yourself, if they lied about one thing, what else are they lying about? If they lied about the USS Liberty, could they be lying about 9/11? Once the government's narratives are impeached as unreliable and blatantly dishonest you need to find the truth for yourself.

Trailer for film The Day Israel Attacked America


full film

[LJB1]

Come along nicely, it's time for your castration.



Now how about attempting to address the post instead of merely derailing by lowering the tone of the discussion? Don't you think American heroes deserve a serious thread? One of them won a Medal of Honor.

My comment was more to do with the 9/11 truthers than the other incident. As like has been mentioned before they add other unrelated theories to something that is a very simple chain of events. The fact that they trivialize events where there was a tremendous loss of life with their fictional theories is what offends me.

[Austanian]

The USS Liberty attack boils down to two arguments. One says it was an "accident" and the Israelis didn't know it was an American ship as they attack. The other says of course they did. Weigh the testimony and sources in the thread, the Chicago Tribune, declassified Israeli cables (not challenged as being inauthentic), the testimony of the survivors in the documentary, then make up your mind who is telling the truth. There are no "thousands of explanation's." There are only two.
Of course it was shot down, the pattern of wreckage alone supports this. So think to yourself, if they lied about one thing, what else are they lying about? If they lied about the USS Liberty, could they be lying about 9/11? Once the government's narratives are impeached as unreliable and blatantly dishonest you need to find the truth for yourself.

Trailer for film The Day Israel Attacked America
[youtube]_9iSwsYPpdc[/youtube

full film
[youtube]c5mu79ygShs[/youtube

Why are you marginalizing your own argument by grouping the Liberty Incident with the 9/11 truthers? There is a very decent likelihood that there was something else going on in the Liberty event and if you focused on that event you might win some people over.

Instead you group Liberty with the 9/11 truthers. There are 1000's of theories out there for that one and even if one is true you would have to prove which one it is and there is NO WAY you could find the true theory from the 1000's of fake ones.

If you have a good event to build your case you DO NOT lump it in with a cluster fuk.

[LJB1]

I'm curious as to why he put the two cases together, all I can think is that he is doing the truther tactic of putting something legit alongside something that is up for debate in a manner so that one can smoke screen the other.

[PrivilegeCheker]

If this thread just confirmed that Russia was behind it all why didn't the OP say this instead of blaming another country? Why would he protect Putin??? Unless he himself is a Russian spy sent to cloud the truth with Russia propaganda.




OP when did you know about the terrorists attacks and how much did you know? ???

[darknessmanX]

Not sure if srs.

The problem with tin foil hat wearer's is not that they question. It is that there are thousands of explanation's for every single event and they don't work with each other.

Say you are right the in your statement that the 9/11 truthers are right. Which story is right? Many are mutually exclusive. They can't all be right. So even if 1/100 truthers are right the 99 other "theories" are just as ridiculous as they sound.

This is coming from someone who thinks united 93 was shot down. Wading through a mountain of bull chit to find a kernel of truth is not worth it. Especially, when the truth looks like the other piles of chit.

Israel did it, that story. Israel did 9/11 just like they attacked the USS Liberty, the comparison makes plenty of sense and this topic kicks ass.

Israel is a malicious terrorist state that attacks without warning and then denies any involvement. this is what we can conclude. they will be dealt with.

[nutsy54]

Terrible argument. The GOVERNMENT commit these acts of violence. The government does not age, and since this was a covert mission, it must prove that it has changed. It must explain why, up until this last week or so, it has been lying every single day to the world.

"The Government" is not a sentient being. It's a bunch of buildings and offices in which individual people work. That's like me accusing you of murder, because someone in your company is believed to have murdered someone a few decades ago.

PS: You guys still have this "proof" thing all backwards. If you make the accusation, you must prove it. Pointing to a 1967 event with no connection to a 2001 event or the people who could have been involved... is not proof.

[nutsy54]

Come along nicely, it's time for your castration.

That's pure irony, coming from the guy who's OP has been proven full of lies, propped up by a Doctor who deceptively claimed to be something he wasn't, just so he could check the "Appeal to Authority" box.

You fell for all the false information cut & pasted into your OP, but attack others as sheep? Wow.

[Oncebitten]

Israel wanted backup and tried to draw the US into conflict with Egypt. Kind of like how were fighting the Muzzies now for them because of 9/11.



If they sunk the ship, there would be no witnesses. Dead men tell no tales.

But here's what makes no sense. Egypts entire air force was wiped out on the first day and Egypts army had already been hammered and was in retreat. Israel was turning it's attention to Syria and was preparing to attack them at the time of the Liberty attack. So why would Israel need or want the US to attack Egypt after Egypts army had collasped?

Secondly, if the attack was to be a secret (dead men tell no tales), why would Israel attack with jets and PT boats fully adorned with IAF markings and communicate over the radio during the entire attack IN HEBREW! I mean come on! Does that make any sense to you? Seriously?

I have all kinds of questions about what happened and why, but your theory just doesn't seem logical.

No hate.