Talk:USS Liberty incident

Archives

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

new source

LBJ said "I don't care if theysink the god damn ship" when ordering the US planes to stand down and not defend the USS liberty...leaving US citizens to die at the hands of Israelis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.192.46 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune just published a 7 page investigative article on this. Just bringing it to your attention, as I don't edit here. 13:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I had my first edit conflict trying to put in this at same time.

I'm sure those with more experience with this article will see and include this pronto, but just in case see Oct 3 article "New revelations in attack on American spy ship Veterans, documents suggest U.S., Israel didn't tell full story of deadly '67 incident" http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-liberty1002,0,3053738.story?coll=bal_tab01_layout RE: DECLASSIFICATIONS "which strengthen doubts about the U.S. National Security Agency's position that it never intercepted the communications of the attacking Israeli pilots -- communications, according to those who remember seeing them, that showed the Israelis knew they were attacking an American naval vessel. The documents also suggest that the U.S. government, anxious to spare Israel's reputation and preserve its alliance with the U.S., closed the case with what even some of its participants now say was a hasty and seriously flawed investigation." I'm sure more detailed articles and the documents themselves will be forthcoming.

Carol Moore 13:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

We have annother new source on now, which is from 'Consortium News' (via altnet). This site espouses the belief that Bush has managed to have a peaceful 'coup' and taken over the country. Excellent quality sources we have. Counterpunch and Consortium News. Whats next, lunatic hobo from down the street? If we are have sites like the Chicago Tribune to back up claims of the attack being deliberate, do we need the lunatics? Narson 11:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

209.188.62.12 Adding Unsourced, POV content to article

Just noticed this. These are 209.188.62.12 only edits. Please see page's history. "Narson" has been properly undoing them, but 209.188.62.12 keeps it up and yells vandalism. 209.188.62.12 should source info properly and stop making POV comments. Hopefully, WIKISCANNER is keeping tabs in case 209.188.62.12 is some govt or advocacy organization misusing Wikipedia. Carol Moore 18:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Don't get me wrong, I agree with many of his conclusions, but they are, without some sources, simply conclusions of a user. He also alters things that are clearly sourced away from what the source says, messed up links to other language wikis...that and the whole personal attack issue really is trying my patience. Narson 21:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

If it keeps up obviously there are steps we can take ;-)

Carol Moore 00:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I've notified the admin, there is some suspicion this might just be Louie33 again. Narson 01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

More stuff got added I think. I really don't have the energy or the heart to keep this up. This article may be somewhat of a lost cause. Narson 19:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like our friend is back (similar IP inputting the same info and the same browbeating edit summaries) and continuing his personal attacks (though toned down) and his random drifting from unsourced to original research to deleting stuff without a source (Not that the last one is bad, just amusing considering how much unsourced material and OR the anon wants to put in). Anyone fancy wading through the mud to see if there is any gold? Narson 15:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, back to the personal attacks proper and the demands for my banning. So I'm not touching this with a barge pole and will leave it to everyone else while I file annother incident at the admin noticeboards. Narson 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

citation needed

I called for citation for the following claim

“They claim it was hastily conducted, in only 10 days, even though the court’s president, Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take 6 months to conduct properly.”

The cited source http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/arguments/american/investigations.html in no way baked the claim Kidd’s name is not even on the page. Lenbrazil 04:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are undisputed facts not listed in the Introduction?

Why are undisputed facts not listed in the Introduction?

There are facts about the attack on the USS Liberty that should be introduced in the introduction to this story. Reading the introduction as it stands one would never know that such an enormous controversy surrounds this event in recent History.

1. It should be mentioned in the introduction that this event was an unprovoked attack by combined Israel Forces on an American Ship in International waters.

2. It should be mentioned the ship was attacked after Israeli pilots had twice informed superiors that it was American and flying an American Flag.

3. It should be mentioned that it was a sustained attack lasted for over an hour.

4. It should be mentioned that Pres. Johnson recalled U.S. planes that were already in the air on their way to help the USS Liberty.

These are facts and undisputed. The introduction gives the exposed cover-up version of events before it examines anything else and that does not do the truth or the victims any service.

Mr. N.Mollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.178.212 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right. But the encyclopedia runs on "Verifiability not Truth". Prove to us that those things are stated in reliable sources, not based on your own Original Research, and it should be possible to fit them in. PR^talk 00:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>And the JFK article should start with how he was shot by an alien using an ice bullet from the grassy knoll. </sarcasm> Narson 09:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That was a disgusting sarcasm misrepresenting the core of a serious controversy.Mik1984 (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are undisputed facts not listed in the Introduction? Part 2

Why are undisputed facts not listed in the Introduction? Part 2

I understand that poof is needed to back up the points I made in my first post. I also understand that this page is for corroborating and introducing facts that can then be included in an authoritative history. I see no place on Wikipedia for sarcasm and uninformed opinion.

1. The attack by combined Israeli forces was unprovoked. This is an undisputed fact and the word “unprovoked” should be inserted into the first line of the introduction before the word “attack”.

2. The America flag that was flying on the USS Liberty exists supporting numerous bullets holes.

3. Recordings are in existence of Israeli Pilots informing superiors that the ship was American before the attack.

4. The length of the attack was long and substantiated. A very conservative estimate is over one hour but numerous witnesses’ stress it was over two hours.

5. The recalling of American Planes that took-off from U.S. Aircraft Carriers by someone in the America Administration is confirmed by the officer of the deck (OOD) David Lewis in writing and audiotapes.

Mr. N.Mollo

And on the other side of the coin, Pro-Israelis could argue it should be 'An accidental attack on a US craft resulting in an unprovoked attack on Israeli torpedo boats'. We leave the controversial tooing and froing to the sections on it, where both views are put forward with points and counter points. There are numerous (and rather authoritative) sources stating it was an accident just as there are numerous ones that claim it wasn't. Therefore the title is how it is and we leave the conspiracy theories for further down the page. Narson 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Israel claims it thought it was attacking an Egyptian ship. Israel was at full war with Egypt and did not need a provocation to attack one of their ships. Israel has never claimed it had any justification for attacking an American ship.

2. According the the Captain of the Liberty, the ship's American flag was shot down and its halyard destroyed in the first attack. He ordered a second flag raised after the torpedo boats were sighted. (NSA report p.28)

3. This is very much disputed. NSA says on it web site that it has released all audio tapes of the incident that it made.

4. According to the NSA report, there were two attacks, one by aircraft at 1400 (local time) lasting "five or six minutes" (p.28) and one by torpedo boats. The later were sighted at 1424 and the torpedo boat attack started at 1434.(p.29) One torpedo hit the Liberty at 1440. The boats then "milled around astern of the Liberty" and one signaled "Do you require assistance?" The boats left the area at 1505. (p.30) Israeli helicopters appeared at 1515 and came and went several times. NSA has released tapes and transcripts of the helicopter communications. Torpedo boats appeared again at 1536 and "returned toward the ship several times ... over the next hour and a quarter" but took no action. (p.31).

5. The launch and recall of US aircraft is well documented in the NSA report (pp.31-32). At 1440, the Commander, Sixth Fleet ordered the launch of four A-4 jet fighters and four A-1s to defend the Liberty. The order was "implemented" at 1516 (I assume this means planes were launched). It was estimated that the first planes would be on the scene at 1715. Israel notified the US of the attack, via the US Naval Attache at about 1600 and he immediately sent a flash message to the White House. The NSA report (p.32) goes on to describe how Washington was notified of the attack, how the notification made its way to President Johnson. Johnson then sent a message to Soviet union chairman Kosygin over the "hot line" that began "We have just learned that the U.S.S. Liberty, an auxiliary ship, has apparently been torpedoed by Israel forces in error off Port Said." The message goes on to inform him of the aircraft sent to investigate and asks him to inform "the proper parties." Kosygin replied that he passed the message to President Nassar of Egypt. The US aircraft were then ordered withdrawn.

It might be a good idea to add a time line with these details to the article, but I don't see why any of this belongs in the introduction.:--agr 14:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are undisputed facts not listed in the Introduction? Part 3

1. How can the attack be described as anything but being unprovoked? The fact that History can be given any perspective is an obvious one and the introduction proves it. The reason I feel the need to correct this version of events is that the introduction reads as uncontroversial when the events so obviously were and still are and for that reason alone the word “Unprovoked” should be put before the word attack in the introduction.

2. You have confirmed my statement about the American Flag.

3. I agree.

4. There were over 800 rounds of different sorts that peppered the ship. Many witness state the attack was long and prolonged.

5. American fighter Planes already in the air were recalled to their carriers by the American Administration.

Mr. N. Mollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 19:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia tries to avoid conclusionary terms like "unprovoked." It's better to let the facts and sourced statements from both sides speak for themselves.

2. It's not clear which flag you are referring to, the first that was shot away, or the second that was raised during the torpedo boat attack, when there was a lot of smoke.

4. There were 821 separate hits according to the NSA report, p.28. According to our article on the DEFA cannon that was standard on the Mirage III, it had a rate of fire of 1300 rounds per minute and each plane had two of them. That is not atypical for fighter aircraft of the era. The Liberty was a large target. It was initially moving about 5 knots, according to the NSA report. It's not hard to believe the Israeli pilots could have delivered 821 rounds in five minutes. The timeline I quoted above says the attack started at 1400 and the last Israeli boats left the area over two hours later, so that is not inconsistent with the witnesses you quote. But the active attack was not that long.

5. The US launches planes; the Israeli government notifies the US of the attack and says it was an error; the planes are recalled. That seems quite natural. I'm not clear as to why you think this aspect of the story is particularly significant.

--agr 20:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding point 4: The DEFA cannon was able to fire 1200 cannon shells per minute, but only 125 shells per cannon were carried on each aircraft. Additionally, it's extremely unlikely that all rounds hit the target. Generally, DEFA cannons, of that era, were fired in several second bursts to avoid overheating the barrel. Thus, it's likely that on each strafing pass each cannon fired for only several seconds. In short, it's NOT easy to believe that two aircraft hit the ship on both bow sides, the starboard side, and the aft side with 821 rounds within several minutes.

In the US Navy's Court of Inquiry record of testimony, the USS Liberty's Engineering Officer, LT Golden, stated: 1453, generator on the line. During this period of time, there were both 20mms and two other smaller caliber bullets coming through the bulkhead from the starboard side from approximately frames 80 to 95. In other words, the shooting part of the attack lasted at least until 1453. Considering that several US Navy messages and logs state the attack began a few minutes before 1400, I'd say that 1453 qualifies as making the duration of the attack very close to one hour. Ken (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It is quite likely that most of the rounds fired by the attacking aircraft hit the Liberty. IAF pilots were known for their accuracy, having destroyed most of the Arab air forces on the ground at the beginning of the war. The IAF spent the rest of the war providing close air support to the Israeli army. The Liberty, by comparison to MIG's and tanks, was a large, slow target. The photo of damage that accompanies our article, Image:H97478t.jpg, demonstrates that accuracy. Two guns with 125 rounds each is 250 rounds per plane. Each Mirage III also carried 72 rockets (NSA report, p. 28). There were 851 separate hits on the Liberty (ibid.). Two or three aircraft plus gun fire from the torpedo boats could have accounted for that much damage.

The NSA report says there were 5 to 6 minutes of strafing attacks after the initial attack, sometime after 1400. That makes sense given the limited amount of ammunition each plane carried. The torpedo boats were spotted at 1424. The torpedo boats opened fire with their gun mounts at 1434 and a torpedo hit the ship a minute later. (p.29) "The three torpedo boats stopped and milled around astern of the Liberty" at about 1440. That is not grossly inconsistent with Lt. Golden's 1453 "During this period of time" report. According to the official NSA version, there were two periods of active attack, separated by 20 to 25 minutes. According to the Captain, a fire ignited by the first attack caused a machine gun to go off by itself. So it's understandable that many crew members viewed the entire period as one of continuous attack. In any case, Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not original research, and the NSA's internal account of events, based on the Navy inquiry's conclusions, seems a most authoritative source.--agr (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I accept that IDF pilots were well-trained, but photographic evidence shows shells hitting the water before any hit the ship, and I suspect shells hit the water after some hit the ship. Here's the photographic evidence: http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/AircraftAttackingPortSideBow.jpg

Anyway, it is moot to argue this point here. Moving on...

I believe Wikipedia articles should be strictly based on primary sources (government investigative reports in this case). Whether or not opinions/findings cited in primary sources are correct or reliable is debatable. As such, opinions/findings in primary sources should never be reported or presented in a tone or context that connotes absolute fact.Ken (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are undisputed facts not listed in the Introduction? Part 3

1. The fact that this event is controversial is part of its legacy. It is controversial because the attacks were Unprovoked by a supposed ally. There is need to correct the introduction because it reads as uncontroversial.

2. I was referring to the one that still exists with the holes in it.

4. I agree with your stand on this.

5. I can accept your natural version of events on this point but I see them as unnatural. I concede. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I think your have a point here. There was no mention of the controversy until the fifth paragraph. I added a brief and, I hope, NPOV, mention to the first paragraph. I did not use the word "unprovoked," for the reasons I gave above, and also because that really isn't the heart of the controversy, which is whether the attack delibertly targeted a ship known to be American. --agr 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice that your addition to my point 1. in the opening paragraph has now disappeared and reverted to it's original form but with added extraneous detail such as the unnecessary information about Iraq and USS Stark which could come much later. Wikipedia is really falling in my estimation as I see bias and a lack of balance much more often. Nick Mollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 21:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are always subject to change, there is no "final" version. The intro as it currently stands does make it clear that there is controversy over the incident and mentions many of the important issues, others are covered in the body of the article. I think that's fair. --agr (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does the information about USS Stark need to be in the very first paragraph? And why is Israel's official position put before any mention of controversy? Your opinion might be that it is fair but it is not. I argued hard for that one alteration to the first paragraph. It removal is unjustified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 09:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the official version by the two parties involved is more weighty than conspiracy theorists? At a guess. You might want to consider expanding your edits on wikipedia outside of the realm of talk page campaigning for hoax theories to be included in prominance, it might help round out the arguments and make you more aware of wiki-guidelines and policies that result in the treatment of hoax theories that seems to have you so upset. Narson (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Condescension and dismissal of a justified alteration to the first paragraph does not add to this topic.

Sorry you feel that way. Single purpose accounts are often ignored due to the tenatious way they approach things, I was merely suggesting ways to improve your understanding of wikipedia and to broaden your editing styles so you could perhaps gain some perspective. Narson (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Understanding and perspective are concepts that you need to read up on. Honestly, where is the balance, objectivity and neutrality? If the agenda is revisionism, so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Espionage

I read somewhere that the liberty was sending Israeli tank communication to the Egyptians. Can anyone find a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.254.28 (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The Liberty was recording Arab and Russian communications and were under orders not to record Israeli at all. One of the claims for the reason Israel attacked is that they were worried the Liberty was recording Israeli communications which could have been used in a future war crimes trial against them. This is probably where your theory came from. Wayne 05:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Moorer Commission on Capitol Hill and Captain Ward Boston statement

These are important aspects that need to be in the article. Moorer was formerly the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of STaff,the highest ranking military officer in the US, and a WWII hero. The commission he chaired, which reported its findings on Capitol Hill in 2003, is highly significant. The findings need to be in the article.

Also, Captain Ward Boston's affidavit needs to be included, as does Rear Admiral Starings's information. These are among the highest military officers in the United States. Their statements -- given in the Rayburn House Office Building -- are historic.

I remind you of the 3RR rule. You have now done 6 reverts in 6 hours! I give you the benifit of good faith but don't do it again. I suggest you make small edits and allow them to stand on their own merits. Parts of the massive edit you made do make some good points but are badly worded, unfortunately most of what you have done is innapropriate and unnneccesary. Wayne 06:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Make that 7 reverts now. Make a small edit every few hours and you will have more chance of them staying if they are worthy of inclusion. Large blocks of quotes are innapropriate no matter how accurate or true they are. You pick a representative quote where needed and then provide a link for the rest. Learn how to edit then try your hand, what you are doing now is vandalism. Wayne 15:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

See also section

This article seems large enough that the see also section is unnecessary at this point and had run amok of WP:GTL. Anyways, --Tom 15:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)ps, I reverted until there can be discussion.--Tom 15:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a highly contentious subject and some of the articles in the "see also" section provide important balance. It has gotten a bit out of control. I'd suggest anything from WW II and before is too old to be of relevance. --agr (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple Description: Failed "False Flag" operation

This article fails to acknowledge the obvious and indisputable, the USS Liberty was attacked by Israel as part of a "false flag" attack designed by Pres. Johnson to allow the US to enter the war against Egypt.

This should essential be the first sentence of the article, otherwise this is just some non-sensical article. The people here who are deliberating obfuscating the truth with Israeli and official US lies should be banned. Bofors7715 (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What are your sources for this? If this is indeed "obvious and indisputable", then there should be no problem finding reliable sources confirming this.

Also, your suggestion to ban certain editors is in violation of Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith and Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. If you want to be taken seriously, you'd best respect these policies. Rami R 15:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell me, which WP rules cover the deliberate obfuscation of acts of treason and murder? Or are you claiming that WP allows people to freely re-write history for political purposes? Bofors7715 (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Rami R 08:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Claim Liberty ignored orders to withdraw

I once again removed claims that suggest the Liberty may have ignored orders to withdraw. There is nothing in the Naval Court of Inquiry report cited that says any such thing. Nor is there any difference between its account of the communication screw up that caused the Liberty not to receive the order in time and that in the NSA report (which recounts essentially the same story). The editor making these claims cites a message to sixth fleet headquarters well before the attack, but as both the NSA and Navy accounts make clear, that order was not sent to Liberty until after the attack. --agr (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Factual problems with second paragraph, first two sentences

The first two sentences of the second paragraph state: Israel's official position is that the attack was an accident. Officials say they were assured by the United States that no U.S. ships were in the area, and that its air and naval forces mistakenly identified Liberty as the Egyptian vessel El Quseir.

First sentence should read: Israel's official position is that the attack was due to mistaken identity.

In other words, the Israeli attack was not accidental; i.e., the attacking forces intentionally attacked a target. But, according to the Israelis, the target was wrongfully identified. Thus, the attack was due to "mistake", not "accident."

Second sentence should read: Officials say they were assured by the United States that no U.S. ships were in the area; and that Israeli air force pilots could not identify the ship, and navy torpedo boat captains mistakenly identified the ship as the Egyptian vessel El Quseir.

Nowhere in any official Israeli document will you find a statement about its air force pilots identifying USS Liberty as El Quseir. Only the torpedo boat captains claim to have misidentified USS Liberty as El Quseir. Official Israeli documents state clearly that its air force pilots were only able to identify the ship to the extent that it was an unknown type of non-Israeli naval vessel; i.e., they could not identify the ship. Ken (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this paragraph needs to be rewritten. It makes it sound like Israel was trying to shift some of the blame onto the U.S. for not informing it of the Liberty's presence. I don't think this was Israel's position. The only official account of Israel's position that I know about is in Chapter V of the NSA history report, which contains the finding of the IDF Court of Inquiry. I'll try to summarize that. If someone knows additional official sources, let me know.--agr (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There are three well-known official Israel sources:

Ram Ron Report: http://thelibertyincident.com/docs/israeli/ram-ron-report.pdf

Yerushalmi Report: http://thelibertyincident.com/docs/israeli/yerushalmi-report-en.pdf

IDF History Report: http://thelibertyincident.com/docs/israeli/IDF-history-report-en.pdf

HTML versions of these documents are here:

http://gtr5.com/evidence/ramron.htm

http://gtr5.com/evidence/yerushalmi.htm

http://gtr5.com/evidence/idfhr.htm Ken (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent contributions. Your USS Liberty site is very impressive indeed. I think the article should mention the attack by Jewish pilots. This is relevant, much like Jonathon Pollard 24.27.151.226 (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)