The Israeli Military intentionally attacked the USS Liberty

Thanks Wylted. Firstly, all sources displayed refer to specific information that I have summarized in my argument. The first sources provide brief descriptions of the Six Day War and its context, with later sources providing an overview of the Liberty attack, source three in particular supporting my argument that IDF had received orders from Yitzhak Rabin to sink any unidentified ship within the area, something that is referenced in his memoirs. Source four is a comprehensive copy of the Israeli Ram Ron report which gives in-depth assessment of the events prior (such as the IDF hearing an explosion) and during the attack. Source five makes reference to all investigations conducted by the U.S and their official conclusions, which are of course, that no evidence on intention has been found and that instead the attack was the result of a series of miscalculations and errors. Additional sources provide other reports, such as nine, in which the official IDF historical report on the Liberty attack is displayed, which like Ram Ron gives a comprehensive assessment of the incident and refers in detail to the events surrounding it. The report naturally comes to the same conclusion as other U.S and Israeli investigations, in stating that the attack was caused by "incorrect target identification and faulty data analysis, due to the ambiguities and the pressures of the situation in which Israel was involved." Which is of course where the context of the Six Day War applies. The report goes on to clarify that as soon the IDF air and naval forces had realized the mistake, the attack was entirely halted and assistance was immediately provided.Perhaps more revealing, the report also explicitly highlights how the Liberty's commander was in fact concerned about the order to operate within such visual range to the coast, and had apparently considered distancing the ship from the dangers inherent to such a situation. Likewise the final source used references the compensation that Israel made and the offer put forward "to make amends for the tragic loss of lives and material damage",professing full sympathy towards the victims' families and those aboard the ship. Therefore, I'd like to make it clear to readers that sources used are not "opinion pieces" but actual articles and reports that support my case.RebuttalsConcerning Pros assertion of Israel being aware of Liberty's presence, it would remain inconclusive that the ship was in fact formally identified by the Air and Naval forces directly involved in the incident. As outlined in round two of my argument, in the transmission recordings of Israeli crew member Yiftah Spector, he can be explicitly heard saying: "I can't identify it, but in any case it's a military ship. Also stating that after the incident that the ship "did positively have no symbol or flag that (he) could see", and that his main concern, keeping in mind again that this was taking place in full-scale war in waters that been shelled by the Egyptian army, was the fact the ship did not belong to Israel. The main contention in my argument is that there was a clear serious of miscommunications and miscalculations on both sides, the information (or rather, "update") from the Israeli Liaison Officer was not necessarily relayed to those who would directly participate in the attack thus not proving anything that would lead to the attack being "intentional". As highlighted, the Israeli recordings and additional information surrounding the Liberty would entirely suggest that the Air and Naval forces who were involved in the attack, had not been made aware of or identified any nationality of the ship. In the first reference to an Israeli recording outlined in my previous argument, you can again hear these words by an Israeli pilot: "there is no flag on her!"On the contrary to be conclusive proof of an intentional attack, it would only seem evident that there was a considerable lack of communication between the Israeli military. I'd point out again that neither of the Israeli sightings, with the first one being "unidentified" and thus leading to the ship being marked in red, make any reference to an American flag, which according to survivors, was clearly visible. Pro states that this was the "Israeli government admitting it knew prior to the attack", which I'd naturally contend. The Israeli government may have admitted or indicated that the ship was identified by one particular source, but once more it does not mean that this information (on the ships identity) was successfully relayed across the entire Israeli Air and Naval forces. Evidence would clearly indicate the opposite. This is also where the learning of an explosion arises, the response upon hearing that there was an explosion in the nearby the location of the Liberty, given that Egyptian ships had previously targeted the area with shelling, was understandably to assume action and eliminate any threat being posed (I.E, by the Egyptian military.) Given the circumstances of that, combined with the level of misinformation, the case of mistaken identity is very much conceivable. Investigations:As I have outlined, in my opening argument a number of three reports are referenced, including the Ram Ron Report, one official U.S government investigation, and the IDF "Attack on the Liberty" report. Another source provides summaries of all investigations conducted by the U.S and Israel, along with brief conclusions. Which were all in compliance with one another with regards to the attack and if any intention was there, all reports established that the attack was indeed accidental and that there was a series of miscalculations and errors before and during the attack. I'd note to Pro that the two other Israeli reports referred (such as Ram Ron and Yerusashalimi) are official inquiries. The IDF historical report provides a comprehensive look at the attack and the events surrounding it, therefore it is still valid. Pro uses the statement himself that one of the main objectives through the report is to "respond to some of the claims regarding Israel's intentions", with all responses indicating that the attack was not intentional. The inquiry by Yesha'yahu Yerusahalimi still stands as a credible citation to include as again, it provides an assessment of the attack and also officially categorized as an "investigative" piece. Overall a number of ten U.S and Israeli reports have been made on the USS Liberty attack, with nine all counting as investigations. I would particularly like to highlight that Pros assertion of myself using the "Gish Gallop Technique", in which only half-truths, lies and straw-man arguments are conveyed is neither a proper rebuttal to points made or relevant to the debate. Instead of actually using the characters to include the Wikipedia definition, Pro could have continued to address arguments made and rebut them accordingly. Anyone who views my opening argument would be able to see that I have not "merely given the conclusions" (which do actually count) to studies made but have went in detail to events surrounding the Liberty attack and provided sound explanations as to why such an attack could happen, and more importantly, why it is conceivable that it was non-intentional. Now alluding to motive:The Lavon Affair is an entirely separate case to the USS Liberty attack and its circumstances and reasons to why such an attack occurred have clearly been overlooked by Pro. Israel had wanted the British forces to retain their presence in the Suez Canal area of Egypt. The case alludes to again to Egypt being the main military enemy of Israel at the time. Civilian places that were targeted were all done so after closing hours, and no civilians were killed. Pro states that there a "several possible" motives for the attack, while only actually including one. A motive that I've already demonstrated has a lack of a credibility, primarily due to the fact that no evidence for any mass execution of Egyptian POWS has ever surfaced. One cannot simply not include this as a viable motivation, when there is no such proof of it ever happening. There also arises the question of how this relates to the Liberty, which did not have the power to learn anything about such a cover-up. Naturally it's rather senseless that Israel would go about covering up one alleged war crime (which the Liberty would have no knowledge on) with committing another alleged war crime. The statement that the attack on the Liberty "was a small risk to take" also fails to draw an actual motive, it's still left unanswered what Israel would have to gain from such an attack. Things like paying millions in compensation, which Israel immediately offered to do, are certainly not valid reasons to attack an allied ship. Regardless of being committed of war crimes or not. In addition, it's also irrelevant to state that "Pro Israel people control the mainstream media almost exclusively." One only has to view U.S news outlets such as CNN, NY Times, etc. (which show absolutely no bias towards Israel) to prove that incorrect. Certainly in modern cases, Israel cannot do "whatever they please" without any repercussions, the recent 2014 Gaza conflict offers good indication of this. U.S Flag: The quote used does not state whether this is before, during or after the attack itself, which could make all the difference to its contextual meaning. More importantly it still doesn't negate my own case that no sightings reported made reference to a U.S flag, as do no Israeli recordings. Relating to Pros final point, my assertion is based on the fact that in two seperate recordings Israeli officers are heard stating that they could see no flag. [11.] http://www.mitchellbard.com...[12.] http://articles.sun-sentinel.com...[13.] http://azure.org.il...[14.] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...