This is highly unpersuasive. “Lots of senior US military and intelligence professionals” have been wrong in their thinking on other issues, ranging from “we are winning in Vietnam” to “Saddam has WMDs”; one does not have to believe they were liars or fools to think that they could be mistaken.
Additionally, many “senior US military and intelligence” figures believe it was a ff incident. Are they liars and fools?
More accurately:
Walked by the woman eight times checking her out, then “tripping” and grabbing her boobs and then hanging on for two hours and then claiming it was really all an accident…sorry.
Is this in fact true. Are there a comparable number of military and intelligence figures who have stated that it was a ff incident? Obviously US intelligence has been mistaken on highly closed countries like Vietnam and Iraq. But this is rather different; a concrete incident involving a US vessel where the US has access to a lot of information ranging from eye-witness testimony to NSA intercepts.“Swinging wild” isn’t a motive.
The problem the conspiracy enthusiasts have is that the scenario they envision isn’t at all plausable. The fact that the US was not yet an Israeli ally cuts against the probability of a conspiracy. Why would a nation fighting for its life wish to risk adding to their list of enemies the most powerful nation on earth, by egregiously attacking one of its ships?
It would take a most powerful motive indeed to take such action, and while many (quite contradictory) motives have been proposed, none hold any water.
Here, I’ll walk folks through the other thread.
The threadopened with a post that actually claimed that Israel in their denial had stated that they thought the ship was an ancient Egyptian horse transport. Ancient. Like… with pharos on board or something.
Mole then admitted that he knew of only one inquiry/investigation (there were ten) which still put his own cite into question as they claimed that there were none.
Upon in being pointed out that, in fact, there were ten official US inquiries Mole used that decide that it must’ve been a coverup. Much like 9/11 truthers use the NIST investigation and Popular Mechanics debunking to prove that there was a coverup. His argument is that friendly fire due to fog of war is a coverup unless someone is punished. He conveniently drops this argument whenhe’s asked, later, why Americans didn’t prosecute their own forces who killed our allies due to fog-of-war friendly fire incidents.
Additionally, Mole ignores the findings of the 10 US investigations (obvious coverup!!!) but instead cites the deceptively named “Moore Commission”, which was not affiliated with let alone endorsed by any official body, at all.
He then goes on to commit the fallacy of appeal to authority. He also pretended that the Navy and the NSA agreed with him, when in fact their inquiries had found the exact opposite of his fictional claims. (That’s the post he quoted here, by the way, with many of its claims already debunked by that point in the other thread, later to be repeated here).
In this post I pointed out that the captain of the ship and one of its officers testified that the life boats were shot before being kicked over and that there had been nobody in the life boats when they were kicked overboard, respectively.
Mole then said he saw no difference that it would make if this super seeekrit coverup mission had used ships that were manifestly incorrectly outfitted for anti-ship work and were, in fact, outfitted for a ground attack role. The jets had not one anti-ship missile on them. Mole then fictionalized the past a bit by claiming “Your version of the spy tapes seem to be flatly wrong. There is evidence that the Israelis DID know it was an American ship from spy tapes”
What the spy tapes actually showed, however, is that pilots identified the flag as American but thaht HQ believed it to be an Arab ship (most likely flying under false colors) and told the pilot that it was not an American ship. He uses that as evidence of them really knowing it was an American ship. It is impotant to note in the face of distortions such as this that the ship was identified as Arab (and the US had denied having any ship anywhere near the combat zone) but that the flag was identified as American. Those who conflate “flag” with “ship” despite all the facts are not arguing the accurate truth.
Mole also cited the lie that the Navy inquiry did not allow testimony on whether or not the attack had been accidental. I went on to show that, in fact, it contained much such testimony.
I then pointed out the facts of some of his sources’ claims. It’s worth re-quoting.
Mole went on to cite a liethat the Six Day War was an act of aggression by Israel, a “Pearl Harbor style” attack, none the less. :rolleyes:
When I went on to point out that Mole’s own sources contained a massive lie that they built their case around (no investigations by the US) and that he’d uttered a fiction (the Navy and NSA didn’t agree with the fact that the attack had no malice), Mole didn’t understand. I, again pointed out the lies is cite used and his mistake about the actual record of the fact-finding done in the US.
He then re-cited the Washington-report’s lie (which I’d already debunked), added a claim by Boston that Admiral Kidd had been ordered to lie… conveniently he only said this once Kidd was dead, but surely, since it was true, Boston had a very good reason to wait three decades and only speak once Kidd wasn’t able to defend himself. Boston also claimed that the findings of the Court of Inquiry were, in fact, changed by the conspiracy (and nobody, at all, found out, all all… for 36 years).
He then cited the liars and added more of their lies, namely that the “Israel lobby” had forced Congress to refrain from a thorough inquiry (there were several) and that no crew member was allowed to testify. This, after his own source upthread had claimed that testimony had been collected and posted in a report, but that the report was changed by the conspiracy and nobody noticed for 36 years until he bravely blew the whistle.
He then goes on to cite Bamford, a proven liar, who lies and says that there was never a real investigation as well as another lie that the numerous investigations/inquiries “were merely reports to the boss from advisors”.
Finally having had enough of the garbage, I provided the conclusive evidence that the “gag order” bullshit is a fiction. (Mole repeated that here, again), that the actual inquiry did indeed contain direct testimony from crew member on the suspected motive of the attack, an email that Nowiki (he intercepted the original spy tape that proved Israel had been mistaken and not malicious) sent to Bamford confirming the facts, and that Bamford would then go on to lie about. Also provided was a link to a PDF on the misidentification of ships at sea.
Mole’s response was that reading the facts of the inquiry for himself rather than second hand was simply too much work.
I then
[quoted the specific testimony that debunked the lies of the people he’d cited.]
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7352276&postcount=46)
Mole response was to repeat the conspiracy theory that the record of the inquiry itself had been forged (and remember, nobody noticed for 36 years). I also pointed out the rather obvious fact that even if Painter’s testimony had been changed by the dastardly Zionist conspiracy, that the Liberty’s captain was still on record debunked many of the CT lies… and that would mean that the captain himself was in on it. Unless of course he too had his testimony changed by the conspiracy but didn’t notice for any of those 36 years either.
After that, Mole quit the thread.
There are assorted other mistakes he makes along the way that you can check on if you really want (like the silly assertion that a lack of being able to investigate the Israelis ourselves shows that it was a coverup, and yet when we prohibited the British from investigating our pilots after a friendly fire incident, it didn’t show that we were nefariously intending to kill some Brits).
Etc…
Well, obviously; numerous official US investigations have found it to be a ff incident. Are they not staffed by senior military and intelligence figures?
Um… no.
The evidence is persuasive (and debunks your claims).
Appeal to authority is a fallacy.
Yes, now let’s have a claim that the jets which had not one anti-ship missile between them and were outfitted totally for ground attacks were really sent on a planned mission to sink a ship.
Yes, people can indeed see what quality your argument is.
By the way, I thought you said you’d go away?
Let me guess… that wasn’t true?
What with all of your cites’ claims having shown to be lies with conclusive evidence.
Nice try.
People can read the linked thread, you know. But please, as long as I’m reading fiction make it enjoyable . I didn’t just fail to rebut everything you claimed, but I also ate kittens while doing it.
Yeah, that’s what we call the fiction that you cited other folks saying, and that I conclusively proved were lies. Good fallacy of appeal to authority (again!) though.
Yet again, the NSA actually called bullshit on your claims.
Why you keep citing a group that found that there was no malice is beyond me. Again, people can read, you know.
Why do you think you keep engaging in this ploy? The NSA’s investigation found no malice and that it was an accident, and you’ve now, several times, claimed that the NSA did anything but call bullshit on you. Do you think that people can’t check what the NSA actually said in order to see the quality of your claim?
I like the chain of illogic even more.
The US wasn’t a friend to Israel, so the US went to an elaborate coverup to protect Israel. Shooting down three aircraft might have led to Israel’s defeat in the war :rolleyes: and besides, the US didn’t want that. Despite that we’re just told it was friendly with one of the nations trying to bring exactly that about. Plus the Soviets might have misinterpreted an attack against Israeli jets as an attack on their allies, despite the fact that the Soviets were funding the Arabs in their opposition to Israel. Evidently, those Soviets were really easily confused.
:smack:
I really am waiting for someone to argue that the Mossad placed thermite on the Liberty ahead of time and just used jets to make it look like there were airplanes involved.
I never said it was. The fact that you would ignore the motive I gave to cherry pick this quote indicates to me that you don’t wish to actually address my point.
Why would Nixon spy on his opponents? Why would Clinton lie about Lewinsky instead of admitting his mistake? Why do people rob banks? Because they think it benefits them, and they think they can get away with it. I certainly admit that Israel having a motive and ordering a strike is difficult to swallow, but then again the claim that this was an accident is difficult to swallow.
Besides, the record shows that the U.S. govt. did not buy the accident explanation and we didn’t do anything:
There are basically two implausible stories here. The first is that after repeated identification Israel attacked an obvious spy ship flying an American flag in clear weather because they thought it was an Egyptian warship. The second is that Israel deliberately attacked a U.S. vessel and covered it up.
Only a few of the reports dealt specifically with the issue Israeli culpability. Of that the main report: the first US Navy enquiry had numerous problems; according to Scott:
One of the reports by Clark Clifford casts doubt on the Israeli story.
I am sure there were military and intelligence officials who served on the various committees but that doesn’t mean their views were reflected in the findings particularly on the issue of Israeli culpability. This is a controversial incident which has remained a matter of debate for decades. There have been many statements on the record during that period by US military and intelligence officials casting doubt on the Israeli story . I haven’t heard comparable statements by such officials who accept the Israeli story.
You start right off the bat mischaracterizing what I said.
Did I say that? Yes.
Did you notice in the very next post made 8 minutes later I retracted that statement?
“I think I should retract that part of my last post. I do not know all of the inquiries made, official or otherwise, that were made. I was just going on the one Executive inquiry mentioned above. For all I know there were dozens others made by the CIA, NSA, DOD, Navy, etc…”
There is more (such as the claim of a “forged” document is a link to a signed affidavit given by the guy who wrote the thing saying it was forged). We’re not allowed to call fellow Doper’s certain things in this forum but I think that speaks for itself.
I again invite others to read through the previous debate. Again I am content with the myriad of evidence I posted versus your blatant and proven mis-characterizations.
I never understand this argument. Appeal to relevant authority is not a fallacy; it’s a valid argument. We are talking about people who had access to the relevant documents and were experts in their fields: which are highly relevant to understanding the incident. They may be wrong of course, but their statements definitely carry weight.
Your second statement isn’t much of a motive either:
What could the US ship have possibly heard that was so significant it would warrant possible war with the US over?
There is no equivalence here.
Indeed, you raise another issue which points to the irrationality of the conspiracy theory. How, one may ask, did Israel reasonably expect to “get away with it?”
Again, even if all you say is 100% true - that the US gov’t “officially” decided to accept it as ff and “privately” thought it was 100% bullshit - how on earth would the Israelis know in advance of the attack that the US would take such an accomodating view of the matter?
No, the Israelis didn’t cover it up, the conspiracy theory must be that the US Authorities covered up an attack on the US on behalf of the Israelis - at a time when the US was not yet an Israeli ally; and moreover, that the Israelis presumably knew in advance of the attack that they would (or presumably would not have risked it). That’s what is so downright implausable.
What a hatchet job.
(1) Just because we weren’t particularly friendly with Israel doesn’t mean we wanted to see it destroyed and it’s population exterminated.
(2) It’s stupid and retarded to characterize my statement about Soviet misinterpretation in the way you did. All the Soviets would have seen is a sortie flying two hours towards a battlefield. They would have no way to know if those planes were intending to attack Israel or Egypt when they got there.
(3) It’s stupid and retarded to split the airspace over the Liberty with that over the greater battlefield. The Liberty was 1-2 minutes away from the battlefield. Again, a sortie approaching a battlefield with unknown intentions would likely be met with a response by Israel raising the possibility of a full scale aerial battle. This scenario is unlikely, but prudence calls for avoiding disastrous scenarios no matter how unlikely.
Again, the fact that you responded to a hatchet job of my post indicates that you don’t seriously wish to address the arguments offered.
Actually they did not think it was a warship. They said they thought it was an Egyptian cargo vessel (the El Quseir).
Yet again, you said you were going to go away.
Would you have said something that isn’t true?
:smack:
Generally best not to make up claims of “mischaracterization” and then admit that I was 100% correct and you did indeed say exactly what I stated.
Come on, at least try to make this difficult for me.
You said you had no idea how many inquiries/investigations there were. Rather than the fiction you’ve now presented, what you actually said 8 minutes later was “I do not know all of the inquiries made, official or otherwise, that were made. I was just going on the one Executive inquiry mentioned above. For all I know there were dozens others made by the CIA, NSA, DOD, Navy, etc…”
You can’t claim you retracted something that you just admitted, in this thread was true and that even in your “retraction” in the other thread… you confirmed.
Yes, I already linked to the post in the thread where I demonstrated that loony CT you’re now again reposting where a liar claimed that for 36 years The Conspiracy altered the record and nobody noticed, and he (honorable gent that he is) refrained from saying anything until nearly four decades had passed. I also pointed out that he took an oath to see justice done, so if he knew it was forged and said nothing for 36 year then in his own words he was a liar and an oath breaker, forcing us to ask if he was lying when he swore his oath or lying when he created his conspiracy theory.
I see that, in keeping with your user name, you’ve just popped up to repeat the same debunked bullshit from a self-admitted liar and oath-breaker.
It sure does.
Please, amuse me some more.
Post another “proven” mimscharacterization in which you say exactly what I claim, you repeat exactly what I claim, and then you quote exactly what I claim while saying I’m wrong.
Cite?
Surely you should be able to find dozens of such articles as this would be a major coup of a story.
Is he talking about the declassified transcripts which in fact show that there was no plan to attack any American ship?
Ask yourself why the investigation of a rather cut and dried occurrence where the command staff all told us a very clear story and our ally confirmed it is different from the capture of a spy ship by a hostile nation.
I’m sure you also meant to say “American story as confirmed by our Navy, Congress and intelligence services.”
Right.
Also, the Ark Royal was acting as part of a conspiracy when it attacked the Sheffield. Why, combat at sea is just like fondling a woman.
If by the US government you mean that congress, our intelligence services and the Navy all didn’t call bullshit on your claim… then… no.
If you mean that an internal memo showed that some members of one discussion weren’t convinced, then yes.
Question: Have the Israelis ever explained in detail how the “mistake” happened? Clearly the El Quseir is much smaller than the Liberty and visibility conditions were excellent. Who exactly made the mistake and how? How was he punished?
Oh noes!!!
I better not point out any more of your mitsakes.
That would be just horrible of me.
This is a good bit of obfuscation and evasion, but sorry, no. I’ll remind you that you were the one who said that we were in fact supporting one of the nations that was trying to do just that.
You really don’t like being caught in your bullshit, do you?
Sorry, no. If anything is “stupid and retarded”, then it’d be your statement that attacking Israeli jets would confuse the Soviets. The soviets would have known exactly what happened once they saw the results of the battle, and they weren’t able to intercept the Americans in any case. Moreoever, during the Cold War both sides made it a habit to come right up against each other’s airspace (let alone actually fighting each other’s proxy forces on numerous battlefields). That this would have been a major departure from, ya know, history?
You’re in full-tilt rationalization mode.
Yes yes treis, noticing that your argument is shitty is very stupid and retarded. I’m sorry for paying attention and catching you, next time maybe I’ll refrain? Nawwww.
Again, despite your rationalizing none of the sorties that were launched and recalled caused an Israeli military counter-strike to be vectored in let alone launched. And it would have been freaking insane for Israel to launch an attack on one of the worlds superpowers.
Nope, poor guess.
I quite seriously would enjoy pointing out that your argument is full of shit for several more posts. Shall we go again?
Battle plans, troop positions, orders? I don’t understand what is difficult to understand about this. Armies go through great lengths to keep their communications from their enemies, and their opponents go through great lengths to break into that communication.
How, one may ask, did Clinton reasonably expect to “get away with it?”.
That is exactly the point. People often has unreasonable views about what they can get away with. The explanation is “they thought they could get away with it”. It is not “The weight of evidence showed a high probability of them getting away with it”.
To use Clinton. His plan was to sneak an intern into one of the most highly secured buildings in the world to have some clandestine relations. It was a stupid plan, yet he did it because he thought he could get away with it.
They didn’t, of course. But as my Clinton example illustrates, the fact that objectively the chances of getting away with something is low doesn’t preclude intelligent people from trying anyway. You’re argument is especially hollow because the U.S. reacted in the exact way you find impossible to predict. Privately they didn’t believe it was an accident, but they accepted it officially because they had (1) no proof and (2) no desire to create an incident with Israel.
There’s no need to have the U.S. involved in any coverup. The only “need” is to believe that they privately thought Israel was full of shit, but that they didn’t have the evidence to call them on their bullshit. You’ve never been in a situation where (1) You know someone is lying to you but (2) can’t call them on it for want of hard evidence?
Yes, and no quotes. You could probably do a bit of reading and find out exactly what happened and exactly what the Israelis have said.
You got that cite for me yet, by the way?
Even using modern equipment friendly fire still happens.