The Israeli Military intentionally attacked the USS Liberty

FRAMEWORK I don't want voters to lose site of what this debate is about so I feel we need to readdress a few points. I'll go over them point by point. Intentional What's meant by intentional is clearly laid out in round one by both me and con. "More specifically, I'm stating that the Israeli military, portions of or personnel knew the ship they were attacking was American either before the attack or sometime during the attack and continued attacking anyway." ( round 1 as part of the clarification of resolution). I think I've demonstrated that portions of the Israeli military or personnel knew the ship was American before and during the attack and that the military continued attacking anyway. I've produced declassified NSA documents that demonstrate this. Israel in fact doesn't deny knowing the identity of the ship prior to and during the attack. Just a reminder of what was mentioned in these declassified NSA documents. "Witnesses testified that when the Naval Liaison Officer at the Air Force Headquarters telephoned the Naval Command Bridge about the hull markings and their similarity to those of the Liberty, the officer to whom he spoke repeated the message in a loud voice so that it was heard by all present on the Command Bridge including the Head of the Naval Department. The examining judge stated, therefore, that there was thus no reason to repeat to the Head of the Naval Department a fact that had been audibly announced to those present." "At 0600 hours (local time) on 8 June 1967, an Israeli aircraft, with a naval observer on board, located a ship 70 miles west of Tel Aviv. On the basis of this information, Israeli Navy Headquarters marked the object in red (meaning an unidentified target) on the combat information center plottable. ~ At about 0900 hours, another Israeli plane reported sighting a ship 20 miles north of AI 'Arish, The pilot reported that the ship was "coloured gray, very bulky, and the bridge amidships." The ship was then identified by the Israelis as a supply vessel of the American Navy;" "Later that morning at 1055 hours, the Naval Liaison Officer at Israeli Air Force Headquarters reported to the Acting Chief of Naval Operations at Navy Headquarters that the ship sighted earlier was "an electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy, named Liberty" "the deputy commander of the boat testified that he had received the message and passed it on to the division commander" The division commander of the attacking forces had the message given directly to him by the deputy commander. My opponent doesn't contest any of these things. This is all I need to win this debate, the way I clarified my position in round 1, but even if you don't buy that interpretation of the resolution (and you should buy it), My opponent expects us to believe that all these high ranking people and even the person in charge in the field directly attacking the Liberty who were directly told that the ship was American had communication issues. We're expected to believe that the person who was directly told the ship was American (Division commander) just didn't understand his deputy commander when he stated the ship was American. This isn't a piece of information you'd allow your superior officer to misunderstand during the attack. You'd likely bend over backwards to make it extremely clear that you're attacking an allied ship to prevent further damage. Anybody that applies Occam's Razor to this situation knows that the division commander ignored his direct subordinates plea to stop the attack. It's important to keep the term Occam's Razor in mind. It applies to a bunch of things here. For those who don't know; "The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but"in the absence of certainty"the fewer assumptions that are made, the better." http://en.wikipedia.org... We can either assumed one of the best trained militaries in the world not only accidentally fired on an American ship with hull markings and a visible flag and in broad daylight with clear weather but they also had miscommunications, not just at one level but on several different levels from the command room all the way down to the division commander who was told directly the ship was American. Do we believe that theory which needs a hundred different details to work or do we believe the theory that requires fewer assumptions, that the attacks were intentional. Burden Of Proof The burden of proof in this debate is split, meaning that my opponent has to forward some type of case if she expects to win, So far she has provided some context and attacked my case but has forwarded very little in terms of her own case. My opponent acts as if I have to prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt and I most certainly do not. " Given the circumstances of that, combined with the level of misinformation, the case of mistaken identity is very much conceivable. " Sorry Con, you need to do more than conceivable. Your version of events has to fit the situation better than mine. This isn't a court of law or an official investigation where things need to proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a debate where if my version of events had even a 51% chance of occurring I should win. Sources My opponents sources still are just sloppily thrown at the bottom of the argument and I'm not sure which source is used for which facts. I'm specifically stating the forces for whatever sets of facts I lay out. Just look at my opponent's sources for the last round. Every single one goes back to articles that are of merely interested parties and most of the information in these articles aren't cited. A few articles she lists are well cited but these are the exception. FLAG VISIBILITY I've listed a ton of eye witness testimony from Liberty survivors. These testimonies show a flag that is up and clearly visible. These testimonies are ones I pulled from declassified NSA documents showing interviews with these individuals. My opponent has failed to explain how these individuals are mistaken or any motive for these men to lie. These people are among medal of honor recipients for God's sake. I'd like to see some explanation from my opponent for this. I've even shown declassified documents that the Israeli bridge commander was told by a pilot that the ship was American. I cited as close to first hand sources as you'll get, though some of their citations are in fact from classified documents. My opponent has shown statements by Israeli pilots but not only can I not find the citations on these statements so I can see the full statements the one statement I do find is only from an uncited document. I ask that my opponent do better with citations. INVESTIGATIONS My opponent has put out several investigations that conclude that the attack on the USS Liberty was accidental. I don't think she understands my rebuttals to this. The conclusions of these investigations don't count as evidence. Now I've read some of these investigations and others just aren't available to read. I've even used some of the information in these investigations to make my case. I suggest my opponent read these investigations to come up with some evidence. This debate is about examining the evidence and presenting each of our sides in their best light but my opponent has attempted to use the opinions of a few people on the conclusion of the evidence. No only is this just a short cut to cutting out debate, the conclusions aren't valid because they have a higher burden in their conclusions than we do ours. If there is a 40% chance that the incident was an honest mistake then they need to do the honorable thing and conclude that not enough evidence exists to conclude it's anything other than an accident. However in this debate a 40% possibility of an honest mistake isn't good enough. There has to be a 51% chance of it being an honest mistake for my opponent to win this. CONCLUSION Look at my rebuttals from last round. My opponent acts as if those are part of my case but they aren't. They're intended to undermine her premises and do just that. She has to show why they don't undermine her premises but she just creates read herrings. Take this for example, Here is my opponent's premise for Israeli not intentionally attacking a US ship: "The losses are far higher and more detrimental than anything Israel would have to benefit. Such losses include being accountable for and potentially convicted of war crimes, lack of U.S backing, expenses, such as those that go on legal cases, etc." I respond by pointing out that Israel is willing to risk those things andI provided evidence by bringing up the Lavon affair' Here is her response to her premise being undermined. "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." This completely ignores the fact that her premise was undermined. We can't always know a nation's or commander's motive for doing something but we can look at their actions to assess their motive in the moment. Which is what this debate is about. I'm actually out of space and time. Good luck to my opponent.