Rethinking Israel's David-and-Goliath past

[Zaknafien]

Rethinking Israel's David-and-Goliath past

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/06/04/six_day_war/

Little-noticed details in declassified U.S. documents indicate that Israel's Six-Day War may not have been a war of necessity.

By Sandy Tolan

Israeli generals Uzi Narkiss (from left), Moshe Dayan and Yitzhak Rabin in the old city of Jerusalem on June 7, 1967, after the sector was captured from the Jordanians.

June 4, 2007 | At a little after 7 on the morning of June 5, 1967, as Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser's commanders were finishing their breakfasts and driving to work, French-built Israeli fighter jets roared out of their bases and flew low, below radar, into Egyptian airspace. Within three hours, 500 Israeli sorties had destroyed Nasser's entire air force. Just after midday, the air forces of Jordan and Syria also lay in smoking ruins, and Israel had essentially won the Six-Day War -- in six hours.

Israeli and U.S. historians and commentators describe the surprise attack as necessary, and the war as inevitable, the result of Nasser's fearsome war machine that had closed the Straits of Tiran, evicted United Nations peacekeeping troops, taunted the traumatized Israeli public, and churned toward the Jewish state's border with 100,000 troops. "The morning of 5 June 1967," wrote Israel's warrior-turned-historian, Chaim Herzog, "found Israel's armed forces facing the massed Arab armies around her frontiers." Attack or be annihilated: The choice was clear.

Or was it? Little-noticed details in declassified documents from the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, indicate that top officials in the Johnson administration -- including Johnson's most pro-Israeli Cabinet members -- did not believe war between Israel and its neighbors was necessary or inevitable, at least until the final hour. In these documents, Israel emerges as a vastly superior military power, its opponents far weaker than the menacing threat Israel portrayed, and war itself something that Nasser, for all his saber-rattling, tried to avoid until the moment his air force went up in smoke. In particular, the diplomatic role of Nasser's vice president, who was poised to travel to Washington in an effort to resolve the crisis, has received little attention from historians. The documents sharpen a recurring theme in the history of the Israeli-Arab wars, and especially of their telling in the West: From the war of 1948 to the 2007 conflict in Gaza, Israel is often miscast as the vulnerable David in a hostile sea of Arab Goliaths.

"You will whip the hell out of them," Lyndon Johnson told Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban during a visit to the White House on May 26, 1967. The president's conclusions were based on multiple intelligence reports, including a CIA assessment that Israel "can maintain internal security, defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts, launch limited attacks simultaneously on all fronts, or hold any of three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth." As Nicholas Katzenbach, U.S. undersecretary of state at the time, recalled: "The intelligence was absolutely flat on the fact that the Israelis ... could wipe out the Arabs in no time at all."

A key discrepancy lay between U.S. and British intelligence reports and those conveyed to the administration by the Israelis. On May 26, the same day Eban met with Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, Dean Rusk, the secretary of state, relayed a message from Israel indicating "that an Egyptian and Syrian attack is imminent." In a memo to the president, Rusk wrote: "Our intelligence does not confirm this Israeli estimate." Indeed, this contradicted all U.S. intelligence, which had characterized Nasser's troops in the Sinai as "defensive in nature" and only half (50,000) of the Israeli estimates. Walt Rostow, the national security advisor, called Israeli estimates of 100,000 Egyptian troops "highly disturbing," and the CIA labeled them "a political gambit" for the United States to stand firm with Israelis, sell them more military hardware, and "put more pressure on Nasser."

As for the Egyptian president, there was a huge difference between his public and private signals. He had threatened Israelis with "annihilation," causing fear bordering on paralysis for a population devastated by the Holocaust. He had closed the Straits of Tiran, a source of less than 10 percent of Israel's shipping, but nevertheless a casus belli as far as Israel was concerned. He had expelled the U.N. peacekeepers from Sinai, further raising fears of war. (Israel, however, refused to accept those same peacekeepers -- a move that would have diminished the chance of war.) And, as the leader of the "Arab nation," Nasser was under great pressure from other Arabs to cut short Israel's nuclear ambitions and deliver the Palestinians back to the homes they had fled and been driven out of in the war of 1948.

But privately Nasser was sending strong signals he would not go to war. On May 31, he met with an American emissary, former Treasury Secretary Robert Anderson, assuring him that Egypt would not "begin any fight." Two days later, Nasser told a British M.P., Christopher Mayhew, that Egypt had "no intention of attacking Israel." The same day he met again with Anderson, agreeing to dispatch his vice president, Zakariya Mohieddin, to Washington, in an apparent last-ditch attempt to avoid war. (Anderson and Johnson had also spoken of a visit to Cairo by Vice President Hubert Humphrey.)

Rostow decided that Israel should know about the secret visit. In a June 2 note to the president, the national security advisor urged that the United States inform Israel of Mohieddin's impending trip to the White House: "My guess is that their intelligence will pick it up." The same day, Nasser sent a telegram to the American president indicating that Egypt would not attack Israel, but that "we shall resist any aggression launched against us or against any Arab state."

The archives for the 1967 war, as with the documentary evidence from other Arab-Israeli wars, thus reveal a history far more complex, and far more interesting, than the inflated portrayal of Arabs poised to crush Israel. "One against 40," declared David Ben-Gurion in describing the odds facing Israel in the war of 1948, ignoring the fact that comparisons of total populations meant little. The records show that the key Arab and Jewish forces -- a much more crucial benchmark -- were about the same, and that after a June 1948 cease-fire, a rearmed Israel had a decided advantage, which it parlayed into victory. Fifty-nine years later, in today's conflict in Gaza, the tragic, well-publicized deaths of Israelis in Sderot from crudely built Qassam missiles -- nine in the last six years -- are dwarfed by the deaths of 650 Palestinians last year (more than half unarmed civilians, according to Amnesty International) from attacks by Israel, one of the most potent and sophisticated military powers in the world, armed with nuclear weapons.

Yet the David vs. Goliath narrative persists, obscuring a more nuanced view of the balance of power in the region. Much of this has to do with Americans' familiarity with the story of Israel as a safe haven for Jews ravaged by the Holocaust. By contrast, Arabs, especially Palestinians, have long been seen as a vaguely menacing Other, as depicted in Leon Uris' hugely influential best-seller, "Exodus." The "Exodus" history, in which Arabs are alternately pathetic or malicious, holds no room for a more layered narrative of the struggle between Arabs and Jews, in which someone like Gamal Abdel Nasser, blustering for the Arab street, may have been privately seeking a way out of war.

Did Nasser truly want peace? We may never know. On June 3, 1967, after Secretary of State Rusk had informed Israel of the pending visit from Egyptian Vice President Mohieddin, Rusk relayed a message from the president to Nasser. "In view of the urgency of the situation," Rusk wrote, "we hope it will be possible for him to come without delay." That same day, however, at a Pentagon meeting between Mossad director Meir Amit and McNamara, the prospects for war seemed closer than ever. Amit told McNamara bluntly that he was "going to recommend that our government strike." This time, the Americans did not object; indeed, the CIA had grown sympathetic to Israel's war aims, in which Nasser, seen as too close to the Soviets, would be defanged. When McNamara asked Amit how long a war would last, the Mossad director replied: "Seven days." And so the meeting between the White House and Mohieddin, scheduled for June 7, never took place. By that time, it was already Day 3 of the Six-Day War, and Israel was already in control of Sinai, the West Bank, Gaza and the skies over much of the Middle East.

[Odin]

Interesting article and its accurate that the david and goliath myth has persisted over time. What's not discussed though is that Nasser did want Israel annihilated. While it might be rhetoric, one could argue that under that threat the israeli response was rather tame.

they took out the military capability of enemies who promoted thier destruction, its hard to find fault in that. Sure there might have been a chance at diplomacy, but as the enemy is making comments about your destruction, and there military is mobolized you can talk, or you can act and then talk.

This event had a lot to do with the 56 suez crisis. Israel and Egypt agreed to let UN peace keepers to keep it demilitarized, egypt threw them out and Israel essentially lost the Sinai because of it. So now 10 years after they took it, gave it up to the UN egypt takes it back, with 100k troops now deployed there.

In addition to that Jordan had in excess of 50k troops on the border near the west bank, and Syria while not a major player was shelling Israel on a regular basis, golan heights was taken as a buffer zone and it worked for the most part.

All in all the article accurately accounts for the David and Goliath metaphor, but in 67 when one looks at the disposition of the other side, the depiction is accurate.

[Grey_Fox]

This is not new information, Jeremy Bowen had the same information in his book Six Days: How the 1967 War Shaped the Middle East which was published back in 2003. Sandy Tolan is a few years behind the times.

[Zaknafien]

I found it interesting paticularly because of our knowledge of the "other" Jewish conquests and oppression in Egypt and such in biblical times to now be false too.

[HoreTore]

Hah, read an article in a norwegian newspaper(aftenposten) about this on friday, seen through the eyes of their correspondent down there at the time... Including interviews with some old egyptian army guys, and most of all, a retired isreali army high-ranking guy. I can't remember his name or rank just now, but he has just released a book telling his version of what happened, which was the base of the article.

[Husar]

I found it interesting paticularly because of our knowledge of the "other" Jewish conquests and oppression in Egypt and such in biblical times to now be false too.
:dizzy2:
What exactly does the 1967 war have to do with things roughly 3000 years ago? The only connection I see is the jews, but we don't really want to go there, do we?

[Zaknafien]

well the modern Jews really have no relation to the mythical Israelites of Biblical times, at least as far as those in Israel. What I was saying has more to do with the perceptions we have of Israel in the West.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

well the modern Jews really have no relation to the mythical Israelites of Biblical times, at least as far as those in Israel.

None of them? Of this you are sure? I bet I can find such Jews all over the world but you claim not in Israel huh? Has god still got them exiled? Or did he destroy them all? Its like the claim there were no AQ in Iraq. They were in Florida and all over the world but there were none in Iraq.

[Zaknafien]

uh, there were no AQ in Iraq before 2003.

Obviously there's plenty of Jews in Palestine.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

uh, there were no AQ in Iraq before 2003.

It didnt take long did it. Use common sense. NONE? Your a fishermans dream :fishing: :laugh4:


But Ill take you bait. Ever hear of this guy?


Page 7 of the pdf document: This is a letter from an Iraqi intelligence officer dated August/7/2002 (7/8/2002 per Iraqi date numbering system) talking about the presence of individuals from Al Qaeda inside Iraq and that they possess multiple passports. The has attached pictures of Ahmad Fadil Nazal AlKhalayla that we know him by his nick name of Zarqawi (Abu Musaab Al Zarqawi) and some other individual.


End of page 3 translation.

Now in page 1 you will find the answer from I.M 53/4 (The Director) to the I.M 53/1/5 who is wrote the original letter about AL Qaeda member in Iraq. Again the letter from the Director says that there is no indication of Al Qaeda members in Iraq.

Translation of page 1

Secret and Immediate Letter

To I.M 53/1/5

From I.M 53/4

Document number 15701 and your letter numbered 3501 in 15/8/2002, we have directed our sources and there was no indication for us about this. We will provide you with the latest in case we receive it. Finished

Secretary 17/8 Youssef 17/8

Signature

M 53/4

17/8/2002

End of page 1 translation

It seems to me that the lower branch of the Iraqi intelligence provided accurate information about the presence of Zarqawi and AL Qaeda members in Iraq but for some reason it was quickly dismissed by another higher branch in the intelligence service as if they want to cover this up and not follow through on it.

LINK (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598259/posts)

[Zaknafien]

Saddam ran a pretty tight ship. There is one guy with AQ links who visited Baghdad in 03 for medical treatment. And the thing about modern Israelites, they are mostly descended from Mongoloid and Asiatic peoples, not the mythical Biblical Israelites who mythically roamed around the Sinai for decades.

[AntiochusIII]

It didnt take long did it. Use common sense. NONE? Your a fishermans dream :fishing: :laugh4:It is entirely possible that there are virtually no effective AQ cells in Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein. Whereas the USA is a free country with a relatively lenient border control prior to 9/11, Saddam's Iraq has always been heavily anti-AQ and heavily autocratic.

It is also possible that some AQ operatives just cross the deserts to set up shops in some Kurdish village or whatever; but that does not necessarily support your implication against Zak's assertion, since his assertion, if not completely factually correct, can be understood as:

"There are no AQ operatives in Iraq with Saddam's blessing or consent."

Having said that, I agree with Husar:

What exactly does the 1967 war have to do with things roughly 3000 years ago? The only connection I see is the jews, but we don't really want to go there, do we?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It is entirely possible that there are virtually no effective AQ cells in Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq

Did I say effective. My point is he is always guilty of this obvious debating mistake. Never say none or always. Your looking for a beating around this place if you do. Someone will call you out on it . Of that you can be sure.

[Proletariat]

What I was saying has more to do with the perceptions we have of Israel in the West.

What does it have to do with our current perception of Israel? That we're always falling for their dirty Jew lies?

[Zaknafien]

No, that we perceive them as the weak country in the region surrounded by enemies, who heroically stand up to their barbrous foes and vanquish them for the sake of Goodness. Bull-snip.

[Proletariat]

Speak for yourself, I don't perceive them as a very weak country.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If their weak then their god must be strong indeed and Im converting :laugh4:

Who here perceives Israel as weak. Please step up?

[Proletariat]

If the Palestinians lay down their arms, there will be peace.
If the Israeli's lay down their arms, there will be no Israel.

To me that's pretty much what it boils down to, couldn't care less who's stronger.

[Zaknafien]

Do you really think not having an Israel would be a bad thing? Why not have a country called Palestine instead, where Palestinians and all of the european and asian immigrants who now live in Israel could also live? Israel, as it currently stands, is a semi-fascist racist state made on land that was stolen from the original inhabitants. Or you would disagree, I assume?

[AntiochusIII]

At the risk of turning into [yet another you-know-what], I'd say that,

If Palestinians lay down their arms, there would be no Palestine.

The original comparison is quite unfair you know.

Indeed, if one is to extend the comparison in a scenario where...certain powerful extreme elements within Israel takes control...it would not be too far fetched to say that there would be, ah, no Palestinians. The same for Israel's case, of course. :book:

Do you really think not having an Israel would be a bad thing? Why not have a country called Palestine instead, where Palestinians and all of the european and asian immigrants who now live in Israel could also live? Israel, as it currently stands, is a semi-fascist racist state made on land that was stolen from the original inhabitants. Or you would disagree, I assume?Israel is a Democracy, you know.

And why can't the country's name be Israel? It could be Narnia for all I care. Or the Imperialist State of House Atreides. That and a majority of the citizens of Israel consider themselves by and large to be Jewish, so "European and Asian immigrants" is a rather...cumbersome term.

[Zaknafien]

It seems people on this board are alot more enlightened than your average Merican yokel, but in the U.S. there are a majority of uneducated boobs of the Evangelical Christian persuasion who believe that Israel is some magical land of fairy tales and Good vs Evil and somehow it is related to the "Good Book" and "God's People".

[AntiochusIII]

It seems people on this board are alot more enlightened than your average Merican yokel, but in the U.S. there are a majority of uneducated boobs of the Evangelical Christian persuasion who believe that Israel is some magical land of fairy tales and Good vs Evil and somehow it is related to the "Good Book" and "God's People".Then you can't blame Israelis if certain elements within the Evangelical Movement perceives them to be more than what they are. Why then should you deprive the citizens of that country the right to call their country with their preferred name?

Unless, of course, you wish to frame this point in a larger argument I have yet to perceive. I'd find it very interesting if we would return to the discussion of the "David vs Goliath" myth and what that myth -- if it exists for certain -- has done to the situation, to the opinions of those involved and not involved, and will do.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Zaks problem is hes a camper :laugh4:

[Proletariat]

I know Zak, and I hate those imbeciles. They're an embarrassment to this place, I'm an arrogant enough American to admit that I think these guys should know better. After all, they're from here, right?! harharhar

But seriously, as dumb as your fellow American is, remember the people in that part of the world are equally stupid and ignorant. So don't just take a left where your dumb neighbor's taking a right, because being reflexively contrarian is just as silly as believing these 'magical land of fairy tales' shpiels.

Go visit Israel sometime. It's a blast, the people are friendly, the history is amazing, and alot of your preconceived notions of it being a 'fascist, racist state' will be shredded. The typical Israeli I met when I was there came across as alot more liberal than most folks I know from LA or NYC (it was a little while back mind you, right before the Second Intifadah).

[Zaknafien]

well of course I have nothing agianst your average Israeli, they're all good enough people Im sure, just like your average American are good hardworking folk. The fascist racist part is more their government, much like our own.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The fascist racist part is more their government, much like our own.

So you dont believe in the theory nations get the government they deserve? Democracies tend to represent in at least some fashion the ideas of the populous. Unlike us most people really have no idea of whats going on nor do they care. I would have to say this is the case of America these days as Bush proves it.

[Samurai Waki]

Well theres certainly a point in seeing something wrong and revolting against the idea, but when we see something going wrong and always revolt against the idea then we become Thailand or some other country wracked with internal dissent. Americans maybe ignorant to the world at large, and to political issues within the country, but Bush and the political system (both Dems and Reps) haven't exactly destroyed the country yet and so it would be foolish to change it in a major way. When push comes to shove then we'll start pushing back, or at least I will, but that time hasn't come yet. I don't foresee this grand fall of the American Democratic System Falling any time soon. We're just in a lull, not quite yet in an anarchy. I believe Government Reforms are to be needed, in both the US and Israel, but their times will come, maybe we need to know what its like to be a fascist Dictatorship before we can appreciate the Freedoms however little they may be that we currently have.

[rory_20_uk]

Interesting article and its accurate that the david and goliath myth has persisted over time. What's not discussed though is that Nasser did want Israel annihilated. While it might be rhetoric, one could argue that under that threat the Israeli response was rather tame.

they took out the military capability of enemies who promoted thier destruction, its hard to find fault in that. Sure there might have been a chance at diplomacy, but as the enemy is making comments about your destruction, and there military is mobilized you can talk, or you can act and then talk.

I see that the right to Free Speech is clearly not universal. And surely there is a clear difference between the rhetoric of a leader to the masses and Diplomacy? Many countries want America destroyed. Most are still standing and most of the have done precious little to attack America.

Israel did what it wanted - and then stated that if they hadn't they'd have been defeated. If I got £1 every time I heard Israel trot that line out...

~:smoking:

[Odin]

I see that the right to Free Speech is clearly not universal.

No it isnt, not sure where your going on this one but I'll play along for now, however your going to need a better lure on your fishing line to snag this fish mate.





And surely there is a clear difference between the rhetoric of a leader to the masses and Diplomacy?

Well yes, there is also a difference between saying you want peace and negotiation, and massing 100k troops in the sinai after you kicked the UN out, after you let them in in a deal with said parties.

whats the old axiom? Actions speak louder then words?



Many countries want America destroyed. Most are still standing and most of the have done precious little to attack America.

Again, most dont have thier militaries deployed on the border. In the case of israel lets not poh poh the fact that there were under constant threat since 47 (maybe rightfully so as they were placed there without permission for the most part) but once placed what are they to do? hope for the best?

That didnt work for them the last time, Mr Hitler trumped thier hope.


Israel did what it wanted - and then stated that if they hadn't they'd have been defeated. If I got £1 every time I heard Israel trot that line out...

You would be rich, but it only takes 1 time being wrong and your goose is cooked. Given the recent history (and yes i consider WWII recent history) if I were a jew living in Israel, and were surrounded by those who were proclaiming the need for my destruction, I'd have done the same.

and back to 67, as it turned out at the time it worked out rather nicely for them didnt it? the result was UN resolution 242 which got them recognition by Egypt and Jordan and ceased hostilities.

[Incongruous]

I know Zak, and I hate those imbeciles. They're an embarrassment to this place, I'm an arrogant enough American to admit that I think these guys should know better. After all, they're from here, right?! harharhar

But seriously, as dumb as your fellow American is, remember the people in that part of the world are equally stupid and ignorant. So don't just take a left where your dumb neighbor's taking a right, because being reflexively contrarian is just as silly as believing these 'magical land of fairy tales' shpiels.

Go visit Israel sometime. It's a blast, the people are friendly, the history is amazing, and alot of your preconceived notions of it being a 'fascist, racist state' will be shredded. The typical Israeli I met when I was there came across as alot more liberal than most folks I know from LA or NYC (it was a little while back mind you, right before the Second Intifadah).

Unfortunatley, when people merge into large groups of people, they seem to lose a certain amount of their freindliness, their openess and perhaps brainpower. Israel is run exactly like a racist state. Just because it's damned democracy means nilt.

[KafirChobee]

Er? Wasn't the war about water? I thought Jordan intended to stop the flow into Israel or some such, and that was the main reason for the attack? I mean, no water - no Israel. They had to take out Egypt simply because they would have gone to the aid of Jordan. I mean, aren't the Palestinians made up of former Jordanians and disenfranchised Israeli Moslems?

At any rate, it was one of the first modern wars fought over water.

As to David vs Goliath, the world press did that - basing it on population and combined army size (s) as opposed to effectiveness. Hey, he who rules the sky, rules the ground.

[Grey_Fox]

That was the Syrians who started blocking tributaries into the Sea of Galilee, which the Israelis took exception to, and it didn't start a war, it was just a middling-sized skirmish involving no more than a few hundred troops, some tanks and a few Israeli fighter-bombers.

[KafirChobee]

Guess my info on Jordan was wrong - took it from USN&WR, seems they get alot of things wrong these days.

Personally, I wonder why we are still allied to Israel, especially after the six day war: http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/
basic info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

To say nothing of the number of their spys we have caught attempting to subverts the USA. Is one of those curiousities.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Personally, I wonder why we are still allied to Israel,

Maybe because their the only western style democracy in the region.


To say nothing of the number of their spys we have caught attempting to subverts the USA. Is one of those curiousities.

Tell me do you think we have spies in Israel? And just how were these Israelis trying to subvert the US?


especially after the six day war: http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/
basic info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident



The Israeli and American governments conducted multiple inquiries into the incident, and issued reports concluding that the attack was the result of a mistake, caused by confusion among the Israeli attackers about the precise identity of the USS Liberty.

That couldnt be why could it?

[Zaknafien]

are you that naive? there is testimony of one of the pilots of the Israeli aircraft who has said the flag of the US was clearly visible and they asked several times to confirm their orders to attack and were told to do so or face court-martial. THEY knew it was a US ship. This was a classic false flag operation gone wrong, the President of the US had intended the ship to be sank so it could be blamed on Egypt. Look into it; Jeebus, even the History Channel got it right.




Israeli Pilot Speaks Up

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htm

Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.

Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot's radio report. The attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war room knew that they were attacking an American ship, the major said. He recanted the statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel.

The pilot's protests also were heard by radio monitors in the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter has confirmed this. Porter told his story to syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak and offered to submit to further questioning by authorities. Unfortunately, no one in the U.S. government has any interest in hearing these first-person accounts of Israeli treachery.

Key members of the Lyndon Johnson administration have long agreed that this attack was no accident. Perhaps most outspoken is former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer. "I can never accept the claim that this was a mistaken attack, " he insists. Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk is equally outspoken, calling the attack deliberate in press and radio interviews. Similarly strong language comes from top leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency (some of whose personnel were among the victims), National Security Council, and from presidential advisers such as Clark Clifford, Joseph Califano and Lucius Battle.

A top-secret analysis of Israel's excuse conducted by the Department of State found Israel's story to be untrue. Yet Israel and its defenders continue to stand by their claim that the attack was a "tragic accident" in which Israel mistook the most modern electronic surveillance vessel in the world for a rusted-out 40-year-old Egyptian horse transport. Despite the evidence, no U.S. administration has never found the courage to defy the Israeli lobby by publicly demanding a proper accounting from Israel.

_____

[Gawain of Orkeny]

the President of the US had intended the ship to be sank so it could be blamed on Egypt.

And you ask if I am naive :idea2:

So then why should we be mad or blame the Israelis? Isnt it pretty obvious we were behind it? That is if this story is true.

[KafirChobee]

And you ask if I am naive :idea2:

So then why should we be mad or blame the Israelis? Isnt it pretty obvious we were behind it? That is if this story is true.
So, the men on the USS Liberty were to blame? I'll assume you actually read their version (posted above) and the statement of the Admiral that was told to recall his aircraft sent to assist the Liberty? Of course, if we assume that none of the Israeli pilots or the torpedo boat (s) crews could read English it makes it plausable that they didn't know what the six foot lettering USS Liberty meant.

That LBJ already had a full plate with Vietnam, and feared allienating our little friend in the M-E is plausable. It does in no way excuse the actions taken that day by Israel, or our sitting on our hands while our sailors died at the hands of a purported ally.
Try typing "Israeli spying on US" in a search engine and see what comes up. Some of it is anti-semetic, but even they bring up some interesting points.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/18/224826.shtml
http://www.cryptome.org/fox-il-spy.htm

Btw, you won't (least ways I couldn't) be able to find the Carl Cameron (Fox News) four part series on Israeli spys - its been flushed from the internet.

Anyway, good allies share information, and don't pass classified materials to their ally's enemy (s).

[Geoffrey S]

This topic seems to me a somewhat more indirect approach to the fruitless subject 'why Israel shouldn't exist and their leaders are evil bastards', and at the very least a strawman by implying that people tolerate Israel because of this David-Goliath myth. I take it you don't like Israel, Zaknafien?

[Zaknafien]

I dont dislike Israel either. Theyre just like any other fake country (like Iraq, and the USA, actually). Theres simply no reason we as the West should favor them over their neighbors and the Palestinians theyve been oppressing for decades now.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So, the men on the USS Liberty were to blame?

Where did I say that?


Of course, if we assume that none of the Israeli pilots or the torpedo boat (s) crews could read English it makes it plausable that they didn't know what the six foot lettering USS Liberty meant.

Did you even read my post? Do you understand english? You quoted it.


Anyway, good allies share information, and don't pass classified materials to their ally's enemy (s)

Unless your Bill Clinton :)

Ok what did they pass to who.

[Zaknafien]

Israel mistook the most modern electronic surveillance vessel in the world for a rusted-out 40-year-old Egyptian horse transport. Despite the evidence, no U.S. administration has never found the courage to defy the Israeli lobby by publicly demanding a proper accounting from Israel.

I. mean. Seriously.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I. mean. Seriously.

Do you even read your own links? It looks more like a conspiracy theory to me. It looks more again like we were behind it and wanted it to happen.

[Zaknafien]

what are you talking about? there are entire paragraphs of testimony from actual people who were involved.



When word eventually reached the White House, President Lyndon Baines Johnson assumed that it was the Egyptians attacking our ship, so he immediately dispatched air support which would have reached the Liberty in 40 minutes. But then, when LBJ discovered that it was, in fact, the Israeli’s who were attacking our vessel, he immediately called off the rescue.

===========================================================================================

In other words, Phantom jets already en route from the Sixth Fleet were ordered to turn around and return to their point of origin. Try to let the seriousness of this situation sink in for a moment. Navy fighters launched from the aircraft carriers U.S.S. Saratoga and U.S.S. America were recalled by the White House!

===========================================================================================

But the blame doesn’t stop there. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and National Security Advisor Walt Rostow at first ordered instantaneous retaliation, but upon discovering that the attack originated from Israel’s Haifa Base, McNamara called off the exercise. In fact, it was reported later that Robert McNamara was so irate when discovering that Liberty radio men contacted the U.S.S. America that he barked, “Tell the Sixth Fleet to get those aircraft back immediately.” Due to this traitorous behavior, the U.S.S. Liberty had to wait 16 hours after the attacks stopped before they were rescued by our military forces. It is the ONLY instance in American naval history that a rescue mission was aborted while an American ship was under attack.

===========================================================================================

In all, the Israeli attack on America’s U.S.S. Liberty – a ship that sat almost motionless in the water with NO offensive weaponry while sailors sunbathed on its deck – lasted for two full hours, equaling the length of Japan’s infamous attack on Pearl Harbor. 821 holes were found in the ship resulting from aircraft rockets, cannon fire, and torpedo blasts, while over 3,000 holes from Israel’s machine gun fire were also counted.

===========================================================================================

Far more tragically, the Israeli’s killed 34 Americans that fateful day, wounded 171 more, and instigated the worst U.S. naval losses since World War II. And even though U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer called this attack deliberate, to this day not one guilty party in Israel or the U.S. has been brought to justice.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Here Ill quote your link again


the President of the US had intended the ship to be sank so it could be blamed on Egypt.

[Zaknafien]

Recent claims by Liberty deniers, however, has brought a number of insiders out of the closet. Several were revealed in the June 2003 issue of Naval Institute Proceedings, which brought supporting statements from such senior intelligence authorities as Oliver Kirby, Admiral Bobby Inman, former CIA Director Richard Helms, General John Morrison and many others of unimpeachable stature. Yet the deniers continue to deny reality.

We have known for years that communications between the attacking Israeli jets and their headquarters were intercepted as the aircraft approached our ship. The Israeli pilots were clearly told by their controllers to find and quickly sink "the American ship" which was USS Liberty. Those communications were almost simultaneously translated and broadcast from a US Air Force C130 near the scene to an intelligence site at Crete where they were sent to Washington and to other stations as "Critical Intelligence," the fastest and most secure means available. Known as CRITICs, these reports routinely arrived in the White House, State Department and Pentagon within ten minutes or less.

Thus Liberty's attackers were caught in the act and their treachery was known to the highest levels of the US government even before the attack was completed.

Now, thirty-six years later, people who saw those reports as they occurred find that they can remain silent no longer.

http://www.ussliberty.org/smoking.htm



DECLARATION OF JAMES RONALD GOTCHER

I, James R. Gotcher, do declare under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and complete, and based entirely upon my personal knowledge gained through direct observaton, unless specifically stated otherwise:

1. My true, full, and correct name is James Ronald Gotcher, III.

2. I am a resident of the State of California.

3. On June 8, 1967, I was a Sergeant in the United States Air Force, assigned to the 6924th Security Squadron, Da Nang, Republic of Vietnam.

4. During the early evening (local time) of June 8, 1967 we received a CRITIC message, informing us that USS Liberty was under attack by Israeli aircraft. Shortly thereafter, we began receiving rough translations of the Israeli air to air and air to ground communications.

5. The next day, we received the final translations of the intercepts. There will virtually no difference between the two versions.

6. While I have a clear recollection of reading transcripts of conversations between pilots and controllers, I do not recall ever reading anything similar to the transcripts recently released by the National Security Agency concerning Israeli helicopter pilots.

7. It was clear from the explicit statements made about “the American ship” by both the aircraft crews and the controllers that the aircraft were flying a planned mission to find and sink USS Liberty.

8. My understanding of what I read led me to conclude that the Israeli pilots were making every effort possible to sink USS Liberty and were very frustrated by their inability to do so.

9. Approximately ten days to two weeks later, we received an internal NSA report, summarizing the Agency’s findings. The report stated, in no uncertain terms, that the attack was planned in advance and deliberately executed. The mission was to sink USS Liberty.

10. A few days after the report arrived, another message came through directing the document control officer to gather and destroy all copies of both the rough and final intercept translations, as well as the subsequently issued report.

11. After the destruction of those documents, I saw nothing further on this subject.

12. I have read the translated transcripts, released by the Israeli government, which purport to be actual transcripts of the air to ground communications between the controllers and the attacking aircraft. I know this document to be a fabrication because I have read the actual intercepts and they were nothing like this. It is not possible that the differences could be due to different translations being used.

13. If called upon to testify, I am competent to testify to all of the foregoing on the basis of direct observation and personal knowledge.

Dated: May 17, 2004


Declaration of
Ward Boston, Jr.,Captain, JAGC, USN (Ret.)
Counsel to the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry’s investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty

Download the Document

I, Ward Boston, Jr. do declare that the following statement is true and complete:

For more than 30 years, I have remained silent on the topic of USS Liberty. I am a military man and when orders come in from the Secretary of Defense and President of the United States, I follow them.

However, recent attempts to rewrite history compel me to share the truth.

In June of 1967, while serving as a Captain in the Judge Advocate General Corps, Department of the Navy, I was assigned as senior legal counsel for the Navy’s Court of Inquiry into the brutal attack on USS Liberty, which had occurred on June 8th.

The late Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, president of the Court, and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the Navy’s official investigation into the attack, despite the fact that we both had estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry into an attack of this magnitude would take at least six months to conduct.

Admiral John S. McCain, Jr., then Commander-in-chief, Naval Forces Europe (CINCUSNAVEUR), at his headquarters in London, had charged Admiral Kidd (in a letter dated June 10, 1967) to “inquire into all the pertinent facts and circumstances leading to and connected with the armed attack; damage resulting therefrom; and deaths of and injuries to Naval personnel.”

Despite the short amount of time we were given, we gathered a vast amount of evidence, including hours of heartbreaking testimony from the young survivors.

The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. Each evening, after hearing testimony all day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as “murderous bastards.” It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident.

I am certain that the Israeli pilots that undertook the attack, as well as their superiors, who had ordered the attack, were well aware that the ship was American.

I saw the flag, which had visibly identified the ship as American, riddled with bullet holes, and heard testimony that made it clear that the Israelis intended there be no survivors. 10. Not only did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that had been launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most seriously wounded — a war crime.

Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. Admiral Kidd telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making arrangements. Admiral Kidd later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter.

Regrettably, we did not receive into evidence and the Court did not consider any of the more than sixty witness declarations from men who had been hospitalized and were unable to testify in person.

I am outraged at the efforts of the apologists for Israel in this country to claim that this attack was a case of “mistaken identity.”

In particular, the recent publication of Jay Cristol’s book, The Liberty Incident, twists the facts and misrepresents the views of those of us who investigated the attack.

It is Cristol’s insidious attempt to whitewash the facts that has pushed me to speak out.

I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of “mistaken identity” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the court’s findings.

Admiral Kidd also told me that he had been ordered to “put the lid” on everything having to do with the attack on USS Liberty. We were never to speak of it and we were to caution everyone else involved that they could never speak of it again.

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement as I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent off to Washington.

I know this because it was necessary, due to the exigencies of time, to hand correct and initial a substantial number of pages. I have examined the released version of the transcript and I did not see any pages that bore my hand corrections and initials. Also, the original did not have any deliberately blank pages, as the released version does. Finally, the testimony of Lt. Painter concerning the deliberate machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews, which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and included in the original transcript, is now missing and has been excised.

Following the conclusion of the Court of Inquiry, Admiral Kidd and I remained in contact. Though we never spoke of the attack in public, we did discuss it between ourselves, on occasion. Every time we discussed the attack, Admiral Kidd was adamant that it was a deliberate, planned attack on an American ship.

In 1990, I received a telephone call from Jay Cristol, who wanted to interview me concerning the functioning of the Court of Inquiry. I told him that I would not speak to him on that subject and prepared to hang up the telephone. Cristol then began asking me about my personal background and other, non-Court of Inquiry related matters. I endeavored to answer these questions and politely extricate myself from the conversation. Cristol continued to return to the subject of the Court of Inquiry, which I refused to discuss with him. Finally, I suggested that he contact Admiral Kidd and ask him about the Court of Inquiry.

Shortly after my conversation with Cristol, I received a telephone call from Admiral Kidd, inquiring about Cristol and what he was up to. The Admiral spoke of Cristol in disparaging terms and even opined that “Cristol must be an Israeli agent.” I don’t know if he meant that literally or it was his way of expressing his disgust for Cristol’s highly partisan, pro-Israeli approach to questions involving USS Liberty.

At no time did I ever hear Admiral Kidd speak of Cristol other than in highly disparaging terms. I find Cristol’s claims of a “close friendship” with Admiral Kidd to be utterly incredible. I also find it impossible to believe the statements he attributes to Admiral Kidd, concerning the attack on USS Liberty.

Several years later, I received a letter from Cristol that contained what he purported to be his notes of our prior conversation. These “notes” were grossly incorrect and bore no resemblance in reality to that discussion. I find it hard to believe that these “notes” were the product of a mistake, rather than an attempt to deceive. I informed Cristol that I disagreed with his recollection of our conversation and that he was wrong. Cristol made several attempts to arrange for the two of us to meet in person and talk but I always found ways to avoid doing this. I did not wish to meet with Cristol as we had nothing in common and I did not trust him.

Contrary to the misinformation presented by Cristol and others, it is important for the American people to know that it is clear that Israel is responsible for deliberately attacking an American ship and murdering American sailors, whose bereaved shipmates have lived with this egregious conclusion for many years.

Dated: January 9, 2004
at Coronado, California.
Ward Boston, Jr., Captain, JAGC, USN (Ret.)
Senior Counsel to the USS Liberty Court of Inquiry

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So now you cut and pasted them instead of linking them. Are you trying to make a point? How come you left out the part I quoted? Tell me why did the Israelis do this? Did they want war with the US? Did they just want to kill americans? Why did we call it an accident?

[Zaknafien]

The two documents posted are sworn statements by just two of the men invovled. there are many others. Those are called facts. Why? Who knows. there are several theories. one is that LBJ wanted to prompt a cassus belli to get the US involved in the Egypt War to take over the Suez. Would the US do such a thing? sure, we have before. But I don't know.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The two documents posted are sworn statements by just two of the men invovled. there are many others. Those are called facts. Why? Who knows. there are several theories. one is that LBJ wanted to prompt a cassus belli to get the US involved in the Egypt War to take over the Suez. Would the US do such a thing? sure, we have before. But I don't know.

:wall:

Then again I ask you why do you blame Israel?

[Zaknafien]

I never said I blamed Israel. Im simply saying they knew exactly what they were doing, as is obvious from the witness statements and statements of Israeli pilots to that effect. The motivation is up for debate though.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I never said I blamed Israel.

Yeah right. Kafir did and you seemed to be sticking up for him. I never said Israel didnt do it. Im asking does this make them our enemy as Kafir infers or were they in reality still acting as our allies?

[KafirChobee]

Lets make some assumptions, in the ever changing Israeli story of the attack:

1) That 24 hours before the attack, they actually told LBJ (or McNamara) that they knew of the Liberty's presence off the Sinai coast and told them to remove the ship - or they would attack it (see previous post for link, or type USS Liberty in a search engine to find your own link).

2) That knowing this, LBJ (or McNamara) chose to ignore the warning, and did not forward a warning to our fleet in the region. Leaving the Liberty ignorant of the Israeli intent to kill them and their ship.

3) That LBJ saw an advantage to the sinking of one of our own ships, to justify a later taking of the Suez canal (1973 ring a bell? We forced the Israelis to give it back lickity split as I recall.

Now, what advantage would our gaining the Suez really have had? Aside from POing the the regions populace and nations against us into todays frenzy - what took us 40 years to acheive (P'em off) would have been accomplished in a blink. Did LBJ want boots on the ground in Israel? Did he see an advantage in allowing the murder of a capital ship and its entire crew (the torpedo boats machine gunned the rafts) and blaming it on Egypt. For that he would have had to force the compliance of Adm. Kidd and his pilots; no survivors either btw.

What exactly was behind the cover-up? Was it just politics? I mean (without intending to sound ant-semetic), for such a small group the American Jewish community seems to have a disparaging amount of political power in the US. So, was the cover-up about maintaining a voter base? Or, was it about gaining some imaginary form of leverage in the region?

Has Israel proven itself as a trusted ally, or a loose cannon because of our unwaivering economic, military and political support?

Then there is the bit about an Israeli spy ring of 60-100 broken up after 9/11/01. A spy in the DoD. Possible advance knowledge (information) of the 9/11 terrorists and the attack, not shared. To say nothing of their tapping into our own NSA and law enforcement communications.

Israel has proven itself unworthy of our trust. Proven that their own paranoia (mind you not without cause - though they are responsable for most of it by their exclusion of Muslim rights and the theft of Muslim propertys in their little state, and their unbridled use of employing the sympathy of the past for their own self-interest) dictates their policy in the region.

Understand, I feel they have the right to exist - but, they really need to learn to get along with their neighbors. As long as the US stands unwaivering behind them like some big brother, they won't. We need to begin to wean them off of our one sided approach in the M-E. That is what I am saying - we need to reshape our thinking and quit this "they're the only ones that likie us - ergo we must support only them". There is a reason we are as distrusted as the Israelis in the M-E, and that is it.

OOPS!
As to the Liberty:
Attack on the Liberty misinformation
http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/texts/admm_s-s.txt

Report filed to the Sec. of Def (Rummy) June 8, 2005 by the Liberty Vets Assoc.
http://www.freewebs.com/gidusko/report.htm

[Don Corleone]

I don't know anywhere near enough about the USS Liberty incident to begin to offer an opinion. I think the assertions made earlier in the thread that today's Jews have nothing to do with the Jews of the bible is laughable, as genetic markers can actually identify different sub-groups within the Jewish race, and these remain constant regardless of whether the current host resides in Moscow, London or Tel Aviv. Saying that modern Jews aren't really Jews is a new one by me. :laugh4:

But the real point I want to address is the implied hostility on the part of Israel for maintaining an espionage network within the US. Yes, they do. So does the UK, so does France, so does Canada. The United States is the #1 target of espionage agencies worldwide, of friend and foe alike. And guess what? We spy on all of them too, friend and foe alike. There's this silly notion that all espionage is something like Spy vs. Spy out of Mad Magazine. I have news for you folks, we all do it, and all we all do it to all of each other, every chance we get. Sometimes its of a hostile nature, but generally its a simple matter of peeking over to your neighbor's desk, to see what he's getting for an answer on question #7.

[KafirChobee]

Thing is Don, we generally know who the ally spys are - and they know ours as well. It isn't a game so much as an easy method to pass sensitive information through undiplomatic channels no one wishes to expose, because it is an advantage to all parties concerned to have these - a system where exposing the information exposes the system. It is a convenience. But, moles? From allies?
Why? When for our part there would be no reason, since there are enough greedy types in our intelligence system that need only be shown the proper $amount$ to sell them what ever plans or info they desire (they are few, but we know they exist).

I seriously doubt any of our allies have a network of a hundred as Israel did, does. Why should they? For the most part all they need do is ask.

I read, whether it is true or not is another matter, that the Israeli network were the first to learn about Clinton and Monica. That they attempted to bribe Bill about it, he refused - and the next thing you know, Starr knew about it. Whether true or not, it is a curiousity. Especially when one considers some of the dumb moves Reagan made in the M-E - like sending Marines to Lebanon after the Israeli invasion, there simply was no need for it.

Regardless, check out the bit about the Israeli communication companys entrusted with tracking our "bills" and establishing the intercommunication network for our law enforcement. To many coincidences of failed enforcements (against the Israel based drug cartel) to ignore the connection.
Probably just one of those coinsidinkys we keep hearing about, over and over again where Israel is involved.

[Grey_Fox]

Nations tend to put intelligence agents into allied nations for both gaining experience in a relatively safe environment, and also because you never know when you might not be allies, or at least want to know what's going on in the higher political and military circles where naturally enough secrets tend to be kept.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Dont you know Israel is different. Their spies evil just like all Israelis and their PMs are or were all war criminals.

[Azi Tohak]

Good way to avoid war that: "I want all of you dead! D-E-D, dead!" in public, but in private he 'gives strong indications of not wanting war'. Idiot. I'm curious what his intel told him about the Iraeli's military power.

Azi

[Grey_Fox]

His military commander (Amin?) was a pompous fool who wanted to attack and was convinced that they could win. He was an embarrassment and the official version is that he commited suiced, although many reckon that it's more likely Nasser had him killed.

[Incongruous]

Dont you know Israel is different. Their spies evil just like all Israelis and their PMs are or were all war criminals.

Yes Gawain, those of us who do not agree with Israel as is, are all anti-semites. Pheew, that smells bad, probably gone past it'se use by date in the last thread about this issue.

Hey Gawain, just a hypo question here.
If in old aparthied SA a group of Black South Africans had started to blow things up and fire rockets in White areas, what would you think?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes Gawain, those of us who do not agree with Israel as is, are all anti-semites.

Im glad i didnt say that. I dont agree with Israel as is LOL.


If in old aparthied SA a group of Black South Africans had started to blow things up and fire rockets in White areas, what would you think?

Id think they were bad . I dont see where you are going here. But Im sure you will inform me shortly.

[FactionHeir]

I think he means to compare SA with Palestine. And stripping the issue down by subtraction to what it actually boils down to.

[Zaknafien]

you wouldnt think they were fighting for freedom from their oppressors? their racist, fascist oppressors?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

you wouldnt think they were fighting for freedom from their oppressors? their racist, fascist oppressors?

No Id call them terrorists just like I call Mandella one,

[Incongruous]

Oh, all right Gawain, you have me. Im anti-Semite (blushes).
It's not that Israel is a racist, warmongering state, it's because I'm anti-Jewish. Gawain! Oh my Gosh, you have finally realised why the Palestinians are abgry, they hate Jews, for no reason at all! It must be the water round those parts.

Oh ok Gawain, those Blacks SA's had no reason to fight like that? Damnd Blacks, don't they know that violence is not the way, why don;t they just wait till someone in the West takes a damned care for them!

[Incongruous]

No Id call them terrorists just like I call Mandella one,
Holy crap...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

, it's because I'm anti-Jewish. Gawain!
Well if you say so. Dont put words in my mouth.


Oh my Gosh, you have finally realised why the Palestinians are abgry, they hate Jews, for no reason at all! It must be the water round those parts.
Ive never claimed that either. They have many legitimate gripes. You must have me confused with somebody else. Ive always maintained they should have their own state.


those Blacks SA's had no reason to fight like that?

If they were attacking troops they are freedom fighters if they are intentionaly targeting civilians they are terrorists. There is no excuse for terrorism.

[Incongruous]

my reply to you is still.
Holy Crap...

[Zaknafien]

freedom fighter = terrorism until they win or get concessions. Do you know why guerilla groups traget civilians?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yeah Im the only person in the world who calls this maniac a terrorist. The ends do not justify the means.

[FactionHeir]

Question is, how are they supposed to target troops if they get shot down before they get to them? Its not like they have airplanes or something. So if they cannot target troops, should they just sit there and take it instead? (And I'm not saying I agree with targeting solely civilians without intention of targeting troops)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Question is, how are they supposed to target troops if they get shot down before they get to them?

So you kill civilians and women and children and babies. The guy just got off the terrorist list. Im not making it up. He did horrible things. If the Palestinians won would that make Terrorism acceptable to you? Or it seems that it already is.

On top of that the two are hardly comparable. The Jews didnt take over anybody elses nation.

[FactionHeir]

Personally, I think they ought to just withdraw to the 1948 borders peacefully or even move the Israelites to where they came from, as there is now no more danger from holocaust in Europe for instance.
You are right, the Jews didn't take over anybody else's nation, but they did take 3 nation's lands and the Palestinians' lands.

[Zaknafien]

terrorism is simply a means of waging warfare. is the life of a civilian businessman who works in the corporation that makes the guns of the soldier worth any more or less than the soldier that carries that weapon into battle? you cant make one human life more or less important than another.

[Incongruous]

So you kill civilians and women and children and babies. The guy just got off the terrorist list. Im not making it up. He did horrible things. If the Palestinians won would that make Terrorism acceptable to you? Or it seems that it already is.

On top of that the two are hardly comparable. The Jews didnt take over anybody elses nation.
To the first part.
The fact is that, the blacks had lived under terror for an age, that to me justifies their means to finally be treated like humans.

To the second part, no they did not take a nation, but they took a people land.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

terrorism is simply a means of waging warfare

You of all people backing terrorism. Get out of our army please. did you claim to be in for 6 years? Why the hell did you re enlist if you think the way you do or did you sign up for 6 and are about to get out.


The fact is that, the blacks had lived under terror for an age, that to me justifies their means to finally be treated like humans.

Two wrongs dont make a right. Dont tell me it was impossible to attack government targets.

[Zaknafien]

OH please, I never said I supported it. I said what it is. There's no need for you to make ridiculous assumptions. We American soldiers have shot plenty of women and children in Iraq, and bombed countless more. Its called "collateral". Its no different.

[Incongruous]

Uhh, ok Gawain, lets take this to the root core.

The only reason Israel is not called a terrorist state is becuase it operates under the guise of an army. Its lucky the world works that way Gawain, otherwise I would be accepted in saying the Us is very good dealer in terrorism. But the world does not work that way.

Israel constantly targets civilians, sometimes for fun its seems. Man are they lcky they are backed by America, or their entire millitary managment would be up for war crimes or some such.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I never said I supported it. I said what it is

Is that what they teach you in the military now days? Killing the enemies children is just another means of waging war like mustard gas. Its all cool.


We American soldiers have shot plenty of women and children in Iraq,

How many did you take aim at and shoot? Now if you want to talk about native americans we are guilty of terrorism and so were they.


Its called "collateral". Its no different.

You have the strangest opinions ive ever seen from a soldier never mind an officer. That is in US service.:laugh4:

[Zaknafien]

in the military intelligence community we are taught to look at facts, and ground-truth. the ground truth is collateral happens, we kill civilians, so do they. terrorism is a method of waging war, just like bombing the enemy's industrial areas.

[FactionHeir]

I still don't get what stance Gawain is taking. One moment he seems on one side, the next on the other. :inquisitive:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I still don't get what stance Gawain is taking. One moment he seems on one side, the next on the other.

My stance is both parties are partially to blame and that both deserve to exist . Is that plain enough for you?


terrorism is a method of waging war, just like bombing the enemy's industrial areas.

No its just like using mustard gas or killing POWs. Its against the rules of war. You are shot if you are caught doing it.


n the military intelligence community we are taught to look at facts, and ground-truth. the ground truth is collateral happens, we kill civilians, so do they.

Thats not the facts. Didnt they issue you a genva convention card. You go out and commit some terrorist acts and see what your commanding officer and the Army have to say about it. I no longer believe your even in the army.

[Zaknafien]

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about then. You dont think civilians get killed all the time in air strikes? I can think of three or four funeral air strikes on Taliban commanders where dozens of civilians were gathered as well. Predators are used all the time to strike things like this. Im not saying there are missions to go into towns and kill every child like we did during the Phillipine War. Im saying that it happens, and its a fact of life, like it or not.

"Rules of war" are an interesting peculiarity that was created. As if war is civil. You, I think, need a reality check.

[Zaknafien]

here's a picture of me on the day I left fob warrior, by the way :) I was very happy

https://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e286/Alhazenalrashid/100_0829.jpg

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about then. You dont think civilians get killed all the time in air strikes?

Ok wise guy now youve really tweaked me. I dont know what Im talking about huh. Ill remind you I spent four years in the Marines during a real war. In fact I was in photo recon and aerial intelligence and probably had as high a security clearnce as you. Part of my job was to help evaluate air strikes. We flew both before and after strike missions. Certainly civilians are killed in every war and there are is almost always collateral damage. But they avoid killing civilians when ever possible. I know the army does not teach the two are the same. Hence again I doubt your even an officer in the army.


"Rules of war" are an interesting peculiarity that was created. As if war is civil. You, I think, need a reality check.

Again Ive been to war . I need no reality check. Although unlike you I never knew if I hit anybody or not .


here's a picture of me on the day I left fob warrior, by the way :) I was very happy

How do I know thats you?

Thats a picture of me :)

[Zaknafien]

oh, a "real" war huh. I guess seeing a buddy get literally blown to pieces by an RPG hit doesnt count as a real war. Or having to direct-lay 105's on a "horde" advancing from three sides doesnt count either. Or have 4 x A-10s and 1x AC-130 in direct support of our position not 1 km away as they did so. I dont discredit your service, do NOT dis mine.

Look into the battle of calakor sometime.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

oh, a "real" war huh. I guess seeing a buddy get literally blown to pieces by an RPG hit doesnt count as a real war. Or having to direct-lay 105's on a "horde" advancing from three sides doesnt count either. Or have 4 x A-10s and 1x AC-130 in direct support of our position not 1 km away as they did so. I dont discredit your service, do NOT dis mine.

Scale wise. You are not in a war. Even Man wasnt called a war. I certainly dont discredit your diservice I do feel you do sometimes however. If your not proud of what your doing then get the hell out of there. How much longer do you have? maybe its differnt in the marines i dont know. We were gung ho even though we hated the war. We were Marines. Ive seen my share of death thank you up close. I lost more friends than I care to count. Almost half my platoon from bootcamp died in the war. My bunk mate didnt last 6 months.

[Zaknafien]

I support my brothers fully. I despise what our country has done though. I dont find them at odds with each other. Im there with my comrades, its about us surviving, not about foreign policy. Most soldiers these days don't like the war anymore than I do.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I support my brothers fully. I despise what our country has done though. I dont find them at odds with each other. Im there with my comrades, its about us surviving, not about foreign policy.

You see now thats better. Things havent changed a bit :laugh4: Only one thing matters in war and thats you and your fellow soldiers lives. Again you and i are not really that far apart. I also say there are no rules in war. If its you or the other guy anything goes. But this is not politically correct and cannot be the policy of the Us government or army. We must appear to be civilized. In reality you are correct but thats not the way civilised nations are supposed to behave. Dead is dead and the dead dont care how or why they died. But morally their is a difference. its like the difference between 1st degree murder and manslaughter.

[Husar]

How do I know thats you?
His Photobucket album has even more pics like that, and some from EB, so I guess it's genuine.:2thumbsup:


terrorism is simply a means of waging warfare. is the life of a civilian businessman who works in the corporation that makes the guns of the soldier worth any more or less than the soldier that carries that weapon into battle? you cant make one human life more or less important than another.
Not every civilian works for gun manufacturers, you know...
Why does the woman who works in the grocery store have to die for the racism of others? And why would you spare the soldier who actively supports that racism just because he has a gun and kill the defenseless woman instead?
I wouldn't only call you a terrorist, I'd call you a coward as well.


The fact is that, the blacks had lived under terror for an age, that to me justifies their means to finally be treated like humans.
Ah well, if Hitler had established an empire that covers the world, we'd have worldpeace by now, I mean the end justifies the means, no?
And really, we weren't treated like humans in the Versailles treaty.:dizzy2: :juggle2:

[Incongruous]

His Photobucket album has even more pics like that, and some from EB, so I guess it's genuine.:2thumbsup:


Not every civilian works for gun manufacturers, you know...
Why does the woman who works in the grocery store have to die for the racism of others? And why would you spare the soldier who actively supports that racism just because he has a gun and kill the defenseless woman instead?
I wouldn't only call you a terrorist, I'd call you a coward as well.


Ah well, if Hitler had established an empire that covers the world, we'd have worldpeace by now, I mean the end justifies the means, no?
And really, we weren't treated like humans in the Versailles treaty.:dizzy2: :juggle2:

You comparing the possailty of black freedom fighters in SA with Hitler?
Did something go wrong here?:smash:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You comparing the possailty of black freedom fighters in SA with Hitler?

No he is comparing terrorists to Hitler

[Grey_Fox]

The fact is that, the jews had lived under terror for an age, that to me justifies their means to finally be treated like humans.

[FactionHeir]

The fact is that, the jews had lived under terror for an age, that to me justifies their means to finally be treated like humans.


I will quote Gawain for once.



Two wrongs dont make a right.

[Grey_Fox]

Just copying Bopa - what he said can be applied to everybody.

[KafirChobee]

Wow, this thread certainly went sideways. How did we get from discussing the US unwavering support for a renegade nation (Israel), to defining what a real war is?

The soldiers of both conflicts - 'nam and Iraq - are more alike than dissimilar. First the bulk initially went to their respective combat zones with the intent to make the world safe (from communism - from terrorism) and believed in the missions as presented to them. In 'nam the attitude went south after Tet, more because the troops felt their hands were tied (couldn't chase Charlie into Cambodia or Laos to their safe bases, or cross the DMZ) than their problem of ID'ing the enemy. For the troops in Iraq it maybe because their mission changes on an almost daily basis - so often that many (if not most) have become weary of listening to the cause and wherefore of why they are there.

What all soldiers learn is that the political mission of the State is of no importance to them. What is, is their supporting, protecting, and aiding the man (men) next to them. Their primary concern becomes one of safeguarding themselves and those around them - and getting home safe (not in a flag draped aluminum box).

Those in the "know" escallated in 'nam (beginning in '64) because they believed the war was winnable. By 1968 when they knew it couldn't be (aside from nuking the North), they persisted out of pride more than having a real strategy. By comparrison in casualties - well, I went in in 67' and we were told more men had been lost on Iwo Jima than in Vietnam (to that date). So, those in Iraq actually are heavier - to that point, or after 4 years (remember our involvement in 'nam started in WWII, advisors in 1955 or 56').
http://icasualties.org/oif/

Regardless, any soldier that has heard "the shot fired in anger" is a brother. Anyone disputing it, or downgrading it has either never heard that shot - or has forgotten the abject terror of hearing it for the first time. Once a brother of war, always a brother. Some forget - some times.

end rant
__________________________________________
My point in this thread is that we need to rethink how we deal in the M-E. We have become reactionary and defensive. We lost our ability to lead, partly because we tend to choose a side and stick to it regardless of its value to creating a stable environment for a region. It is time to take a more central approach, and cease the fear mongering.

Food for thought:
http://cfr.org/
http://cfr.org/publication/13539/newsweek.html/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19001200/site/newsweek/
The last two are from Fareed Zakaria. The last one is lengthy, but worth the read if you have the time. It nails it, imo.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What all soldiers learn is that the political mission of the State is of no importance to them. What is, is their supporting, protecting, and aiding the man (men) next to them. Their primary concern becomes one of safeguarding themselves and those around them - and getting home safe (not in a flag draped aluminum box).


Regardless, any soldier that has heard "the shot fired in anger" is a brother. Anyone disputing it, or downgrading it has either never heard that shot - or has forgotten the abject terror of hearing it for the first time. Once a brother of war, always a brother. Some forget - some times.

Truer words were never spoken.

[Incongruous]

Just copying Bopa - what he said can be applied to everybody.

Yeah, they did, but that was the fault of Europeans and Christians, not Middle Eastern muslims.