Talk:USS Liberty incident/Archive 2

message: An incident is:
1.  A definite and separate occurrence; an event. 
2. A usually minor event or condition that is subordinate to another.
3. Something contingent on or related to something else.
4. An occurrence or event that interrupts normal procedure or precipitates a crisis: an international incident.
The word to use here is 'attack', as in 'The attack on USS Liberty', nothing more, nothing less.
Knutars 10:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incident?

message: :Something never mentioned anywhere above.
Where it says that both sides agree that Liberty was 13 miles from the Sinai coast...Nautical miles, or statute miles? If I remember correctly, that's rather important: 12 nm was pretty much settled on at the time as the limit to territorial waters, wasn't it?
Also, something that seems odd....13 miles...Isn't that well within range of shore fortifications (such as at El Arish) as used at the time? From memory, it certainly rings a bell as being well within range, at least of shore-based missiles. Which would raise a question of what the hell anyone would expect to happen to a bystander (whether or not an intelligence ship can ever be innocent is a question for others) in what would be called a rather well-known war zone. (I highly doubt that Lloyd's was accepting claims for any damage recieved in the area!) I mean...A war was happening just over the horizon. Wouldn't it seem logical for those fighting to think "No neutral would enter a war zone. Ergo, if it's here, there's no way it's neutral"? --134.198.82.71 00:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: just with simple calculations, I believe they were 13 nautical miles from the coast, or 15 statute miles. They were in international waters (undisputed) which was 12 nm. But 13 statute miles is only 11.3 nm, so it must have been 13 nm (the number 13 is undisputed). Liberty researcher 18:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statute miles or nautical miles? 

message: "About twenty minutes after the attack of the aircraft, the ship was approached by three torpedo boats bearing Israeli flags and identification signs. Initially, Captain McGonagle, who perceived that the torpedo boats "were approaching the ship in a torpedo launch attitude," (http://www.ussliberty.org/torpedo.htm) ordered a machine gun to engage the boats. After recognizing the Israeli standard and seeing apparent morse code signalling attempts by one of the boats (but being unable to see what was being sent, due to the smoke of the fire started by the earlier aircraft attack), McGonagle gave the order to hold fire. This order was apparently misunderstood in the confusion, and two heavy machine guns opened fire. Subsequently the Israeli boats opened fire and launched at least two torpedoes at Liberty (five according to the 1982 IDF History Department report). One hit Liberty on the starboard side, forward of the superstructure, creating a large hole in what had been a former cargo hold converted to the ships research spaces causing the majority of the casualties for the incident. The torpedo boats approached Liberty and strafed crewmen (including damage control parties and sailors preparing life rafts for launch) on deck. (see below for disputed details)."
I think somebody misunderstood the link given cited. According to the link given, the strafing occurred before the torpedo hit the ship, and after the torpedo hit the torpedo boats stopped "dead in the water" according to McGonagle
:They stopped "dead in the water" according to McGonagle. Other survivors (such as ones not ready to pass out from their wounds) said that the torpedo boats gunned the lifeboats and the firefighters. Captain Ward Boston (the JAG officer of the NCOI) said in his affidavit that such testimony was exised in Washington after he certified and submitted the record.  --Liberty researcher 00:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of sequence events? Strafing by torpedoe boats and McGonagle testimony 

message: "Among the theories presented as to why Israel carried out this action is that Israel may have been trying to get the US involved in the conflict on Israel's side, by convincing the US that Egypt was the aggressor."
where is that theory presented?
:The theory is presented throughout the article, and in its extreme in Operation Cyanide. I think that Operation Cyanide is a bit too conspiratorial, but it is possible. The main theory is that Israel tried to quickly sink the Liberty and leave to trace as to who did it, then blame the Egyptians (maybe even produce evidence showing that it was the Egyptians). I could be wrong, but this is detailed in the article. --Liberty researcher 00:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. But just because Israel destroyed an air force does not mean that a few planes or boats existed. What motive would Egypt have had? Who knows; maybe Israel didn't think very far. One possible motive is that Israel thought that the Liberty was picking up communications of POW genocide war crimes in the Sinai (there is evidence of such) or perhaps ambitions of territorial aquisition and NOT self-defense (I can provide evidence of this as well). So, maybe sinking the Liberty and blaming it on Egypt, but then later apologizing and saying that they did it accidentally, maybe they thought that they were covering their butts in the long run. Heck, current Israeli PM Sharon was a general that may have been taking part in those war crimes -- sinking the Liberty was a small price to pay to save those generals from tribunals. --Liberty researcher 00:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that the Liberty was attacked to hide evidence of war crimes motive makes no sense.  There is no evidence of POW war crimes, and Egypt has never reported any such atrocities, despite being the party involved.  And I hardly think that any Israeli general was at risk of tribunals because of conduct during the 1967 war, even if there had been executions of POWs.  The lack of motive does really seem to be a problem in this case, requiring Israel to deliberately try to sink the ship, then notify the Americans of the attack.  Some sort of explaination is needed to claim that this was intentional.  --Goodoldpolonius2 00:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Considering Israeli planes and torpedo boats were clearly marked as Israeli, the attack was done in daylight, the surviving eyewitnesses were able to testify that it was not Egypt, etc. etc. Gzuckier 17:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey now, wait a second. Who says the planes and torpedo boats were clearly marked as Israeli? The survivors said that the planes were unmarked. And if those torpedo boats were going 35-40 knots, the flag would have been blowing straight back, and thus McGonagle was delusional when he said that he saw one. Heck, a lot of his recollections are off -- for instance, how can a plane be 5 to 6 miles out, altitude 6000 to 7000 feet, and at an angle of 45 degrees? And with regards to the surviving eyewitnesses, perhaps Israel tried to sink the ship? C'mon, they shot a torpedo at it. Of course they were trying to sink the ship. That would leave no survivors, wouldn't it? (It may leave a few, but they gunned the life rafts according to exised testimony -- see Captain Boston's affidavit). --Liberty researcher 00:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is this theory presented? 

message: The most objective way to estimate the number of wounded is to count the number of Purple Hearts awarded to survivors. Some survivors originally rejected their Purple Heart due to their dissatisfaction with their government. Some of these survivors have asked for their medals back over time. I have thus upgraded the number from 172 to 173 due to the recent award of an additional Purple Heart. --Liberty researcher 01:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. That's the only thing you wanted to change in the article, and not all those other POV changes you made?  Fine, I'll change that number and assume the rest were simple errors on your part. Jayjg (talk) 15:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: To begin with, you've misunderstood the process; if you want to insert changes into a highly charged article, you get agreement in Talk: first, rather than inserting and then saying "O.K., if you want to talk, let's agree in talk".  Articles are the result of lengthy processes of negotiation and NPOVing, and earlier consensuses should not just be thrown out the window.  Second, I've removed some of the blatantly obvious POV of your edits; for example, your changed a perfectly neutral introduction to one which said "Israel attacked the Liberty on purpose, they claims it was an acciedent, but they're wrong and lying, and all the evidence proves this".  Second, you've inserted highly POV phrases into various article sections; e.g. "note how each are skewed to show exonoration of Israel".  Finally, your insertion of extensive and selective quotations into the article is not appropriate; this isn't Wikiquote, summaries serve the article better.  And we've been through all of this on the Talk: page before. Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number wounded to 173 

message: The blanket statement in the article 
"Testimony of USS Liberty crew members unanimously describes the aircraft as having no identifying markings."
is disputed here
:Crew member Lloyd Painter claims in the documentary that he saw “unmarked jets, no markings whatsoever” pass over the ship, thus clearly implying that the attack was intentional and premeditated. Painter’s claim contradicts his sworn testimony before the Court of Inquiry, in which he makes no such assertion. Lt. Painter testified, under oath, that as the jets first strafed the ship (which would be before they passed over the ship) he was:
:...
:Thus, according to Lt. Painter’s sworn testimony he was looking at the Liberty’s gun mounts as the jets attacked, at which point he quite understandably “hit the deck.” When the first strafing run was over, Lt. Painter ran as fast as he could to his station below decks; he was therefore in no position to determine whether the attacking jets were marked or unmarked. At no point in his testimony did he claim that the jets were unmarked or even that he was in a position to tell. [emphasis mine]
:...
:And, while presenting Lt. Painter’s claim that the attacking jets were “unmarked,” the History Channel kept from viewers the fact that Signalman Russell David saw Israeli insignia on the attacking jets and reported this to the Captain. 
and more or less paraphrased here. So I'm going to be bold and remove that statement for the nonce. Gzuckier 18:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get some information on this and get back to you. Though you can't trust the NCOI -- I wouldn't be surprised if they removed any said references to unmarked planes... note Captain Ward Boston's statement.--Liberty researcher 04:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  marked/unmarked planes 

message: :As of 2005, NSA has yet to declassify "boxes and boxes" of Liberty documents. Numerous requests under both declassification directives and the Freedom of Information Act remaing pending in various agencies including the NSA, Central Intelligence Agency, and Defense Intelligence Agency.
This was just added to the article. For sources: 1) I have and am aware of numerous requests with those three agencies (NSA, CIA, DIA), 2) I have had numerous telephone conversations with NSA's FOIA office ("boxes and boxes" is verbatim from one of the FOIA officers).
I did not want to say this in the article because it is unsubstantiated, but there is a possibility that more intercepts or useful evidence remain classified, whether they be recordings, translations, or summaries. The officer remembered scanning through the boxes for Cristol's request (the request by this time was a lawsuit), and she pulled out some things that would satisfy the request (i.e., there could have been more). Cristol could have persisted and forced them to look through every sheet of paper to find everything, but since they supposedly satisfied his thesis (even though they were post-attack recordings only)... --Liberty researcher 07:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NSA declassification of Liberty documents 

message: The USS Liberty Veterans Association has filed a formal Report of War Crimes Committed Against U.S. Military Personnel, June 8, 1967 with the Pentagon. The Report deals with the 1967 Israeli attack on USS Liberty, a US Navy ship sailing in international waters. Of a crew of 294, 34 were killed and another 173 were wounded. The ship’s captain was awarded the Medal of Honor for keeping his crew alive during and after the attack. The LVA seeks to have a formal war crimes investigation opened by the Pentagon.
To read the Report as a PDF file, please go to: http://ussliberty.org/report/report.pdf
To read the Report as an HTML file, please go to: http://ussliberty.org/report/report.htm
--Jmeadors 16:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS Liberty Survivors File War Crimes Report 

message: In think most will agree that the "talk" secion of Wikipedia does not allow for the easy, ongoing discussion of any issue.
For those who would prefer to discuss the USS Liberty attack in an easier format and for those who would like to follow along in the discussion without participating you're more than welcome to visit the Forums sections of http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/
--USS Liberty Survivor 17:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will probably end up in frustration on your discussion group. One of the key arguments made by those who claim that the Israeli attack on the Liberty was intentional is that it was a "false flag" operation, that the original intent was to sink the ship and blame it on the Egyptians. When someone is suspected of a crime, that person's criminal history is certainly of considerable importance.  If there is evidence implicating someone of murder, a jury would certainly want to know if that person is known to have murdered before.  In the case of Israel, it is an established and acknowledged fact that they engaged in extremely perfidious false flag bombings of American facilities in Egypt in what is known as the Lavon Affair.  There is also very strong evidence that false flag bombings were employed by the Israelis in Iraq in 1950-1951 to stampede the native Iraqis into immigration to Israel.  In fact, there were convictions and executions for the crime.  That evidence is presented at [The Jews of Iraq].  The first time I put these links up they were taken down within hours by someone from Israel.  I am not surprised that he would want to hide this history.  I think that it is very relevant history, however, for any Wikipedia reader who needs all the information he can get to determine what happened that day that 34 American seamen were killed. Reggie Arton 12:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all see WP:TALK so you can properly use the talk page and post the comments on the bottom of a talk page. Second you conclusions about connection between two incidents are original research see WP:NOR and WP:A.Shrike 17:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online Discussion of USS Liberty Attack and Aftermath 

message: Could someone please merge the following information into this article, as per vfd consensus?  The other article in question has been redirected to this one to preserve the GFDL. -- Francs2000 | Talk  02:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Wikiquote material, at best.  Highly selective stuff like that is inherently POV. Jayjg (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah; the NPOV response would have to be including the text of all 13 investigations that the above did not find agreeable. Not worth the effort, considering the article makes the controversy abundantly clear.Gzuckier 14:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information to be merged 

message: In early December User:Alexxx1 inserted this material into the intro:
However, a number of parties have raised doubts about Israel's explanation of what happened. There are press articles, for example in the Christian Science Monitor of June 4 and June 22, 1982, whose version of events contradicts the Israeli version. Ahron Bregman, in his book A History of Israel, casts doubt on the Israeli version of events by publishing transcripts of conversations between Israeli fighter pilots and air controllers. He comments that "What then follows is extraordinary and, indeed, highly suspicious, and seems to indicate a possible cover-up by the Israelis..." (p.121). Indeed, Bregman concludes in the most updated version of Israel's Wars that the "Israelis did know, even in the initial stages of their strike on the Liberty, that this was an American vessel." (p. 97)
It was overly detailed for the intro, and unbalanced it as well.  There are books which make the exact opposite assertions, and which are not quoted in the intro, and for good reason.  The intro is long enough as it is, and outlines the dispute in a fairly neutral way. Also, I restored references to two books on the subject which were somehow "mysteriously" deleted. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed overly detailed material 

message: These links are borked:
USS 'Liberty' hit was unintentional, says CIA
 
Pilot who bombed 'Liberty' talks to 'Post - interview with pilot (Yiftah Spector) who led attack
 
Exclusive: Liberty attack tapes revealed - transcript of IAF recordings of radio traffic during the attack. 
I didn't want to step on anyone's toes and just drop them, in case somebody has enough interest to track down new links/different external refs . . .
Greg  (Talk) 01:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken links 

message: Regarding the accusation this paragraph is covering:
::James Bamford, a former ABC News producer, in his book Body of Secrets, proposes a different possible motive for a deliberate attack: "to cover up a massacre of 1,000 Egyptian prisoners of war" that was supposedly taking place at the same time in the nearby town of El-Arish. Bamford has no concrete evidence to back this accusation, except a confirmation by a single anonymous Egyptian. He cites a supporting Israeli source that "150 prisoners were executed," but this source, Gabi Bron, an Israeli reporter, claims Bamford misrepresented his report by using only partial sentences from it, which in fact wholly referred to the execution of 5 Palestinian guerillas, and other than that, he saw no mass murders. Further adding evidence against this claim was that Egypt has ruled El-Arish and the whole of the Sinai peninsula for over 20 years since Israel returned it in the early 1980s, yet no mass graves have been found, nor has Egypt reported such an incident occurring. In any event, the possibility of a ship at sea discovering such a crime on land, at or beyond the limit of its visual range, is unlikely (according to U.S. accounts, the ship was 14 nautical miles (26 km) from shore at the time of the attack, and did not get much closer to it previously).
There seems to be an obvious flaw in this "motive" that isn't mentioned. i.e. if your trying to hide a cover up of a massacre of your enemy, even given the most extreme estimates of the number of people massacred, it would be positively stupid to attack your ally, an act with x100 worse consequences and it wouldn't cover up the massacre to boot! It doesn't make any sense. You might say a lot of things about the IDF, but they aren't stupid. --Brentt 21:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brentt, you're absolutely right, the IDF is not stupid. In fact, they are utterly brilliant and very efficient. To make such an enormous mistake and attack a ship that was clearly an American military vessel is either a mistake which I believe is not possible for the IDF to make or there is another reason for the deliberate attack for which we may never know. Jtpaladin 17:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stating the Obvious

message: I think there is a way to reconcile the apparent editing dispute amicably. A couple of points to keep in mind:
* The term "investigation" is used throughout Wikipedia even when the thoroughness, motivation, and outcomes of the investigations are in doubt.
* The introduction should focus on agreed-upon facts and avoid confusing readers with caveats, qualifiers, etc. It is sufficient to write, for example, that official explanations are disputed, and the issue is still controversial
* It would also be completely appropriate to include an entire section on the controversy and delineate carefully what basis there is for the disputes.
Let's not allow this to devolve into an edit war - there are even more contentious issues that have been somehow resolved in Wikipedia. --Leifern 12:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Correct me if I am wrong but I assume that those who claim that the US government has conducted many investigations of the attack on the USS Liberty are referring to the same reports similarly described by Jay Cristol in his book, The Liberty Incident, and on his website.
Let's take a look at one of these "investigations."  How about the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Investigation?
Why doesn't everybody go to the page on Jay's website, download the report and read it.  It shouldn't take long.  That "investigation" of the attack on the USS Liberty is all of 4 pages long.
After you have read the "investigation" tell me something substantive about the attack that you learned from reading the "investigation."  USS Liberty Survivor
:I don't see how that could possibly be called an investigation. Doing so adds undue weight to the idea that the incident was heavily investigated. It seems incredibly misleading to refer to ten investigations when only six are presented in the article, and one of them is quite obviously not an "investigation" (the work of inquiring into something thoroughly and systematically). It seems more like a discussion than anything else. Did the idea that ten investigations were conducted come solely from Cristol's work, or is this a widely held view? DejahThoris 03:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I am in complete agreement with you; it is patently ridiculous to characterize memos and reports as "investigations."  This incident has never, ever, received the full attention and scrutiny that it deserves. Tarc 20:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see someone other than Jay Cristol (an obviously POV source, although I suppose most are on this issue) claiming ten U.S. investigations were conducted. Having looked over some of the documents he calls "investigations," I think his credibility is in doubt. Stating in the article "Following more than a dozen investigations..." and "Ten official American investigations[citation needed] are claimed regarding the Liberty incident..." gives a lot of weight to what, at this point, appears to be the opinion of one highly-biased man. Perhaps I'm missing something? DejahThoris 22:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's Take a Look at Some of These US government "Investigations" of the Attack on the USS Liberty 

message: Wikipedia Administrator Jayjg has allowed the statement that there have been "multiple American government investigations" (or words to that effect) at various places in the article.
Jayjg, could you refer to the Wikipedia Reliable Sources Policy and show us why this should be shown as a fact instead of an opinion?  I'm particularly interested in the part of the Policy that states, "a fact is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic." USS Liberty Survivor 14:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the claim of "multiple American government investigations" a fact or an opinion under Wikipedia policies? 

message: Jayjg, as our resident Wikipedia administrator could you tell us the Wikipedia policy on requesting a citation for information contained within a citation? USS Liberty Survivor 15:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean.  If a citation says something, then it says that.  You can't investigate the accuracy of the statement in a Wikipedia article, that's original research. Jayjg (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your kindness in responding.  What I was referring to is the reference you made to the CAMERA article.  Clearly they're just parroting Jay Cristol's claim of multiple investigations of the attack on our ship.  Or, perhaps more correct, I cannot find any evidence in the article that they conducted any research into the subject upon which they wrote.  In doing so they are just expressing an opinion based upon who knows what.  A better source would be the US government itself by an email to the Senate Historian or a request through your Congressional Delegation to the Congressional Research Service.  The reference you used to the CAMERA article might or might not be within Wikipedia policy but in using references like that the article just becomes one of a list of opinions with little reliance on documents from the original source.  Perhaps a better way to word the reference in the article would be to include words such as "CAMERA claims. . ." rather than letting the reference take on the appearance of stating a proven fact. USS Liberty Survivor 23:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Some Clarification on Wikipedia Policy 

message: I appreciate the effort of changing the "Ten official US investigations..." to "six American government investigations," but it still strikes me as POV. Among other things, the source cited for that figure is  CAMERA. CAMERA cannot be considered a neutral source by any stretch of the imagination. From  Reliable Sources: "Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?... Groups like these may be used as primary sources only as sources about themselves or about their viewpoints, and even then with caution and sparingly." It's entirely appropriate to use them as a source for the viewpoint that the attack was a mistake, it is not appropriate to use them in the intro as a citation for an obviously controversial statement. It seems like we could dump that entire paragraph, as it doesn't add anything to the article. Perhaps the entire intro should be re-written. In any case, I'm adding a POV tag to this article, until we can come to a consensus. DejahThoris 01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CAMERA is in fact a credible source. Very credible, and you'd know that if you read their articles. Their response, btw, is to anti-Zionists who are trying to hijack the incident to make something out of it there is absolutely no evidence for. Having said that, the article does need a lot of work to make it NPOV. --Leifern 11:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying CAMERA has no "strong views, or other bias..."? DejahThoris 17:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: CAMERA is a media watchdog group that critiques biased reporting on the Arab-Israeli conflict. They should be held up to the standard they themselves profess, and so far I've only seen a lot of ad hominem attacks on them; rarely something substantive. --Leifern 19:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If we were going to remove anything from sources which "have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report" then we'd have to remove absolutely everything from Meadors's two websites, which already comprises half the links on this article. Jayjg (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said "It's entirely appropriate to use them as a source for the viewpoint that the attack was a mistake, it is not appropriate to use them in the intro as a citation for an obviously controversial statement." JMeador's website is not used as a source in the intro. I just think controversy should be discussed farther down in the article, instead of having only one of the viewpoints represented in the intro. DejahThoris 19:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still POV 

message: Recognizing that the article has been declared to be in violation of Wiki's NPOV guidelines and that there is an effort underway to bring it into conformity let me make my request here instead of in the article itself.
My request is for the citation that supports the claim that "Both the Israeli and American governments have conducted multiple inquiries into the incident".
At issue is the use of the word "inquiries."
The only "inquiry" performed by the US government is the US Navy Court of Inquiry and that was not of the attack but of other issues.  As for the Israeli side there is no evidence that either the Yerushalmi or the Ram Ron reports are more than something pulled out of the air by their authors.
Pehaps over the years I've become a bit jaded but I realize that a phone call to the folks who run the CAMERA website would quickly provide an editor with a citation to bring the claim to within Wikipedia guidelines.  I am hoping that someone considering that avenue would have the courtesy of being a bit more professional than that. USS Liberty Survivor 02:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request For Citation Regarding Description of the US and Israeli Government's Actions 

message: "AH-64D Longbow" needs to stop badgering Jayjg over Jay's identity. "AH-64D Longbow" has crossed a well-defined line regarding harassment and disruption and can be blocked from editing if he continues to disrupt the project by continuing to harass this particular editor. FeloniousMonk 17:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and signing with a username that doesn't exist is unacceptable too. AnnH ♫ 12:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning about harassment 

message: To provide clarification to this statement that is included in the article, during a reunion we had in Nebraska the survivor who was the one who opened fire on the torpedo boats told us that he fired a single round at the gunboats.  After that single round was fired the gun jammed and he was unable to continue firing. USS Liberty Survivor 15:03, 23 July 2006
:A single round is still considered fire, and you don't need more than that to consider it a hostile act, which it was, as it was intended to harm the gunboats no matter of the actual outcome. That it was in what was viewed as self defence is of no doubt, but so would be the returned fire from the said gunboats after being fired upon by the Liberty. In short, both cases could be summed up as self defence.  Koantin 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggesting that the actions of the U.S.S. Liberty are in anyway "hostile" considering what damage they had sustained up until that point is absolutely absurd. The torpedo boats knew what had happened and could clearly see the U.S. flag yet they fired on the Liberty regardless. The actions of the IDF were nothing short of an act of war on the United States. Jtpaladin 23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, no one disputes the fact that the attack on Liberty was unprovoked. The U.S. government chose not to go to war with Israel, based on Israel's immediate acknowledgment of responsibility and its explanation that the attack was an accident. After the initial attack, the captain of Liberty would have had every right to open fire on the approaching torpedo boats without warning. However, that is not what happened, according to his testimony. He saw that the approaching boats flew Israeli flags, saw them signaling, but could not read the signals due to smoke. He suspected that the initial attack may have been a mistake and ordered his men not to open fire. They misunderstood and did open fire. Had he been able to hold fire and respond to the signals, the second attack, which caused most of the loss of life, might have been averted. Mistakes happen in war time. --agr 07:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agr, thanks for the follow-up thoughts. My comments were related to the chain of events and what makes the Liberty's response appropriate. Even considering what you state above, the IDF at that point would have to understand that they opened fire on an ally and that the U.S. ship would have to assume that a state of war now exists between the U.S. and Israel. Any other assumption considering the facts surrounding the attack could have been a lethal mistake for the crew. So, what the Liberty did was appropriate whereas the torpedo boats would have no right in claiming "self-defense". The torpedo boats should have raised a white flag or simply retreated to avoid any further conflict. Even more so, shooting the life-rafts was inexcuseable. Jtpaladin 21:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Liberty opened fire first on the gunboats" 

message: I note that Jeremy Nimmo has made two modifications to the article that I would like to understand the rationale and source for.
In the first modification he added the adjective "several" to the description of the membership of the USS Liberty Veterans Association.  Jeremy, just curious to know your relationship to the LVA that makes you knowledgable about the composition of the membership of the group.
In the second modification he changed the wording of the reason that some claim the attack was deliberate.  Previously that wording noted that the size of the USS Liberty was four times the size of the el Qusrir.  That claim is supported by the Salans Memorandum.  Jeremy unilaterally changed that comparison to two times the size of the el Quseir.  Jeremy, since the Salans Memorandum so clearly gives the size comparison of the two ships why would we change the size comparison from four to two? USS Liberty Survivor 15:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeremy - Can You Explain and Source Your Modifications to the Article? 

message: Could the Egyptians have been jamming the radio?
:Probably not absurd for Egyptian forces to be jamming American frequencies if they suspected American assistance of Israeli forces. (From USS_America_(CV-66)#Attack_on_the_USS_Liberty): "However, as the Israeli forces moved to speedy victory in the Six-Day War, the Arabs charged that 6th Fleet aircraft were providing air cover for Israeli ground forces."  -Shogun 01:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The jamming 

message: I have modified the claim that Liberty survivors unanimously claim the planes were unmarked. This claim is untrue, see for example  for Signalman Russell David's testimony. WaysAndMeans 05:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CAMERA described itself as non-Partisan, and the source you are citing to describe it is clearly not neutral. Half the material on this page comes from a partisan source- the LVA - and most of that was contributed by a partisan source personnaly involved. If we're going to start using that criteria for source reliability, and excising content based on the alleged partisanship, there won't be much left... WaysAndMeans 15:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unmarked planes , yet again 

message: Perhaps the Israelis were open to the possibility that their pilots might have missed the ship with the high explosives which would have allowed the Liberty to get off a message to the Sixth Fleet informing then that the ship was under attack by Israeli aircraft (assuming the use of marked aircraft in your scenario).  The machine guns and rockets were very effective in destroying the ship's communications and defensive capabilities which allowed the torpedo boats to conduct their attack at their leisure.  
As it happened, the torpedo boats were not as proficient as they would have hoped since they missed the ship with four of the five torpedoes they launched. 
And we were to learn later that the Israelis didn't really need to worry about the Sixth Fleet response what with two flights of rescue aircraft having been recalled. USS Liberty Survivor 15:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally: if you want to sink a ship, why would you use napalm, of all things? And if you want to eliminate all surviving witnesses, why would you save them? Gzuckier 19:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Not Initiate the Attack with High Explosive Bombs?

message: I can't believe that this matter is still being dicussed as an "accident" vs. "conspiracy". After the Freedom of Information Act has retrieved evidence regarding the facts of this incident, all proof points to the reality that Israel purposely bombed the U.S.S. Liberty as part of a plot between U.S. President Johnson and the Israeli govt. to get the U.S. into the Six Day War (which I personally supported. I'm also pro-Israel, should that be a question in anyone's mind) conflict in the mid-east.
The phone call from the Admiral of the 6th fleet during the attack confirmed the conversation between himself and Defense Sec. McNamara and President Johnson, and that Johnson stated that he wanted the Liberty to go down to the bottom of the sea. The Admiral was prevented from sending U.S. fighters to stop the three hour assault.
The only reason that the attack on the Liberty stopped was because a Russian spy ship came into the area and since they were now witnesses, the operation was pulled and the Liberty limped back to port.
This was a "false flag" operation like the "false flag" operation of the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident. How people can blind themselves to "false "flag" operations like this is amazing considering the information made available. When seeking the truth, it's usually best to ignore what the culprits state and listen to the victims. Jtpaladin 20:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, unless Israel wanted the US in the conflict on the other side, it would probably have made more sense not to have their aircraft clearly marked as Israeli. Silly Israelis. Gzuckier 15:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, the Mirage IIIs that the Israelis used was one of (if not the) most distinctive aircraft shapes in the world, markings or no. It would be like the U.S. staging a foreign flag operation using B-52 bombers and saying it was the Iranians who did it. And why would the Israelis want the U.S. to intervene after they had pretty much won? Remember what the U.S. did in the Suez crisis a decade earlier: they made the Israelis withdraw from the Sinai. And if the U.S. and Israel did stage the whole thing, just strafing the Liberty would have been enough of an excuse for intervention; or if they didn't want witnesses, they could have sunk her instantly with high explosive bombs. Why send in torpedo boats flying Israeli flags? And why send helecopters to rescue the crew? Read the NSA report if you want to know what really happened.--agr 17:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, all of those issues were answered by the Liberty survivor who has been posting here. Go back and refer to them. The Israeli's were doing a heck of a job to sink this ship but it survived by sheer luck and the skill of the crew of the ship. Jtpaladin 19:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still going on? 

message: I have no plans to edit the article, only to make a few comments and suggestions.<P>
A bias appears to be present:<P>
"...In the absence of reliable records, it is only left to speculate whether jamming (of Navy tactical and international maritime distress frequencies) did take place, ... According to a book by Russell Warren Howe (see below), Captain McGonagle testified that the jamming of his transmissions had been on American, not Egyptian, frequencies, suggesting that the Israelis were aware of the nationality of the ship. The U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry concluded that Liberty experienced jamming (finding 47)." This was later referenced with "...The crew's failure to receive any call for identification may be related to the possible Israeli jamming of radio frequencies."<P>
The problem with these statements is that this assumes that if jamming was present, Israel was responsible. Bear in mind, it was during a war and near the Israel-Egypt front, and Egypt would have had valid reasons to jam communications. While Israel is not directly accused of jamming transmissions in this case, the conclusion is leading.<P>
Additionally, in the statement "No adequate benefit has been put forward that the Israelis would derive from the attack on an American ship, especially considering the high cost of the predictable complications that must inevitably follow such an attack on a powerful ally, and the fact that Israel immediately notified the American embassy after the attack," the merits of the listed counter arguements to this are subjective and do not have the same rational solidarity. To segue to them with a statement such as "This argument, though, has been strongly countered (see below)" is, again, leading with the assumption that the attack was deliberate, if not overstating the validity of the author's conjectures.<P>
Instead of picking the rest of the article apart, perhaps it would suffice to say that a conclusion is subconciously elicited through some methods of linguistic deconstructionism that would be put to better use in non-communal work.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nastrum (talk • contribs)  05:29, 30 November 2006 
:I removed the "strongly countered" sentence which is unnecessary editorializing. People can read the arguments and make up thier own minds. Do you have other specific examples? This is a very contentious topic so a fresh pair of eyes can be helpful. --agr 16:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added fact from CNN. Can't believe some people choose to ignore eyewitness accounts of what happened.  Majoreditor 15:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible bias