Mark Stapleton

Mark, hopefully my reply to Myra will give you what you need as well.

If not or if either of you have more questions don't hesitate to post or email if you

prefer.

You might also want to check out Glen Sample's web site for The Men on the Sixth Floor,

a search will find it for you and you will find some key documents there.

-- Larry

Thanks, Larry.

I'll have a look at the Glen Sample site. The section in the Forum dealing with Glen's book is decidedly sparse.

An extract from Alfred Lilienthal's The Zionist Connection II, page 568, 569.

Lilienthal is a remarkable and now very old anti-Zionist American Jew, who knew JFK personally and whose entire adult life has been primarily devoted to seeking justice in the middle east.

I presume these extracts (sourced here) are accurate?

"After President Nasser exposed an illegal American arms deal to Israel in 1965, James Angleton and several Mossad officers decided to oust Nasser by forcing Egypt to confront Israel. The fiery threats of the ill-starred Palestinian leader Ahmed Shukiary helped them. Following a series of secret meetings in Tel Aviv and Washington, CIA officers, the Israeli general staff, certain Israeli politicians, and inner members of Johnson's administration agreed to promote a contained war between Israel and Egypt, which would not affect territorial lines between Israel, Syria, and Jordan . . .

"The Israelis assured the Americans that the ensuing war would be fought to the predesigned American plan of containment. . .

"Knowing that American intelligence from Israel came through the Mossad, Evron believed that he could tell the American government what he wished, and he assured all his Washington contacts right up to the outbreak of war that Israeli troop movements were simply precautionary. Evron did not know about the Liberty, but as the war began, the spy ship's listening devices tuned in to transmissions from both the Arabs and the Israelis. Its presence off the battle zone was to make sure that Israel did not overstep the objectives of the containment plan.

"The observers on the Liberty discovered that while the Arabs failed to crack Israeli codes, the Israelis had penetrated Egyptian and Jordanian codes as soon as the war began. Somewhere between Amman and Cairo, according to Pearson, the messages between King Hussein and President Nasser were intercepted, reconstructed, and passed on by the Israelis without detection, a process called 'cooking'.

Lilienthal goes on to say that the false information being passed on was that the war was going badly for the Israelis, making the Arab leaders think things were going well for them. This emboldened them to continue the war.

"The Egyptians were likewise misled; thinking that the Jordanians had made a successful attack in Hebron, they counterattacked during the early hours of June 8, ignoring a U.N. call for a cease-fire. Thus, the Israelis gained enough time to seize all of the West Bank they wanted, to consolidate their gains in Sinai, and to move their troops right up to the east bank of the Suez Canal.

"On June 7 Eugene Rostow called Avraham Harman to the State Department and warned him that the Israeli attack must stop immediately; he informed Harmon that the Americans knew about the 'cooking' of communications. Four hours later in Tel Aviv the Minister of Defense and the Commander of the air force's offices ordered surveillance of the American communications ship operating off Sinai. Four hours after that, the same sources ordered that the ship be sunk."

Lilienthal then concludes on page 570:

"Alternatively, if indeed the U.S. had been party to a conspiracy to unseat Nasser, the Liberty had gathered definite proof that Washington had been double-crossed and that Jordan, whose territories were to remain untouched, had been sucked into the war through Israel's code-breaking and 'cooking' of false messages."

On page 572 Lilienthal makes the following statement as well:

"The congressional hearings remained secret, but one or two small leaks revealed that two of the pilots in the attack were Americans. Doubtlessly, Washington had connived with the Israelis to hush things up. . . All reference to the nationality of the attackers was deleted." [since many have dual citizenship, it is likely that these were American-Jewish pilots, trained in America, who participated in the attack on the Liberty.]Finally, Lilienthal states on page 574,

"UPI reported on September 18, 1977, that the American Palestine Committee had obtained CIA documents through the Freedom of Information Act revealing that Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan had himself ordered the attack on the Liberty."

Well, that dispelled for all time the myth of mistaken identity. But because of President Johnson’s complicity in the plot, there was no way he could come forth with the truth, because then the public would discover his own role in planning the war! So here we are, 40 years later, still paying the price for the Johnson Administration's belief that the Israeli government could be trusted.

This is the only reference I can find to what, if it is accurate, is a most extraordinary UPI report.

Can anyone verify this or otherwise?

A most interesting post, Sid.

If it is anywhere close to being accurate, it renders the argument for a case of mistaken identity laughable.

The fog begins to clear.

I'd suggest that Jack P. may not be suspicious in and by himself...but recall that he was reporting to Cliff Carter daily

and that Cliff did go to Dallas in advance as well. Given that Carter was LBJ's advance man of choice, ask why they

picked Jack to advance Dallas (having no experience in Texas politics at all) and not Cliff himself (Johnson's lead aide

in Texas politics). One answer would be that he functioned as a nice cut-out, being privy

to all the motorcade and security planning without being involved as a matter of record - Jack gets called

to provide testimony, Cliff stays in the background.

Interesting to recall that Carter is also supposedly on tape admitting to a conspiracy...

-- Larry

Very interesting observations indeed, Larry. Makes perfect sense to me.

Regarding the taped admissions, like Myra I'm curious to know more......

Read all about it.

Sacre BLUE!

Vince,

A warm welcome to you.

FWIW, I place you at the top of my list of researchers I most admire, along with the likes of Mark Lane, Penn Jones, Jim Garrison, Larry Hancock, John Simkin, among a select group.

Although I don't have Survivors Guilt, I have read most of it online and once again complement you on an outstanding piece of research, on one of most difficult areas of reseach surrounding the JFK assassination.

I won't bombard you with a series of questions but instead just ask one,

There are many 'people of interest' within the SS. Emory Roberts, Bill Greer, Paul Paterni, David Grant, Floyd Boring to name a few. My question is do you think that the sudden appearance of Democratic National Committee representative Jack Puterbaugh in the lead car was suspicious?

I ask this because of my personal suspicion that the DNC, being largely funded by wealthy interests, may have been a part of the plot.

There's no hurry, as you will probably be asked a lot of questions.

Once again, welcome to the Forum.

----------------------

Thanks so much.

Hmmm...I'm not very suspicious of Jack Puterbaugh. Among other reasons, he said the "ballistics stuff doesn't add up" in the WC investigation and he just didn't seem to say or do anything to warrant suspicion.

vince:)

Thanks for your reply, Vince. I'm still a tad suspicious. I might see what I can dig up and ask a follow-up later.

Hold it right there. "It was removed from the board and then there was a shift change".

You always try to dance past this inconvenient little problem. There's no way I can buy that explanation.

Perhaps you can spell out to us your military especially war room experience to us all.

And perhaps you could spell out yours, Len.

People with such experience who bought that explanation include:

· William L. McGonagle –captain of the USS Liberty at the time it was attacked

· Clark M. Clifford – presidential advisor at the time the attack, wrote a memo for LBJ about the incident. Later Secretary of Defense previously (1944 – 46) and officer in the US Navy reaching the rank of Captain.

· Admiral Issac M. Kidd – head of the COI

· Adm. John McCain Jr. 4 star admiral USN, himself the son of an admiral. Entered the navy in 1941. Commander of the USN in Europe at the time of the attack.

· Robert McNamara – Secretary of Defense 1961 – 68, served in the US Army-Airforce 1940 – 6 rising to the rank of Lt. Coronel

· SEN. JOHN McCAIN III – Son (obviously) of John McCain Jr. 23 year veteran of the USN

· SEN. BOB GRAHAM - Chair, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

· ADM. DAVID E. JEREMIAH, USN (Ret.) - former vice chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

· NORMAN POLMAR - naval analyst and author of The Naval Institute Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet

· ADM. JERRY JOHNSON, USN (Ret.) - former vice chief of naval operations

· Rear ADM. T. A. BROOKS, USN (Ret.) - Former Director of Naval Intelligence

· REAR ADM. PAUL TOBIN,

· CDR. PETER B. MERSKY, USNR (Ret.)

· CDR. DOUG SIEGFRIED, USN (Ret.)

· CAPT. ERNEST E. CASTLE, USN (Ret.) - United States Naval Academy Alumni Association

For most of the above see - http://libertyincident.com/book.html#comments

· J.B. Colwell – Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (in 3/1968)

http://libertyincident.com/docs/usncoi/CNO-7.pdf

· Admiral Stansfield Turner – 30 USN veteran, commander of U.S forces in Japan and Korea, commander in chief Allied Forces Southern Europe ( NATO), president of Naval War College, Commander, United States Second Fleet. Director of Central Intelligence 1977 - 81

· Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1967)

· House Armed Services Committee Investigation (1971)

· House Armed Services Committee Investigation (1991-2)

http://libertyincident.com/documents.html

Presumably most of the members of the Armed Services committee were military veterans.

Call me crazy but I put a little bit more weight in the opinion of anyone of the above than yours. I don't rememberany of the people with similar backgrounds who said they though the attack was no accident saying that this part of the Israeli's story was implausible. Even our own Evan Burton seems to think it was 'unbelievable' but plausible.

Well I couldn't find anything from Polmar, Parker, Tobin, Brooks, Witty, Kinsolving, or Sherwood where they explicitly stated that the attack was not deliberate. Some of them gushingly praise Cristol's 'work' but hey, maybe they knew the ADL would be reading the reviews. Anyway, once again, here's the list of those who claim otherwise:

"I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous "

-- US Secretary of State Dean Rusk

"...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty."

-- CIA Director Richard Helms

"I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship."

-- NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby

"That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable"

-- Special Assistant to the President Clark Clifford, in his report to President Lyndon Johnson

"The highest officials of the [Johnson] administration, including the President, believed it 'inconceivable' that Israel's 'skilled' defense forces could have committed such a gross error."

-- Lyndon Johnson's biographer Robert Dallek in Flawed Giant, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 430-31)

"A nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept [expletive deleted]."

-- Handwritten note of August 26, 1967, by NSA Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella reacting to the Israeli court decision exonerating Israelis of blame for the Liberty attack.

"Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers.

-- Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, US Navy (retired), USS Liberty Survivor

"The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack...was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.... It was our shared belief. . .that the attack. . .could not possibly have been an accident.... I am certain that the Israeli pilots [and] their superiors. . .were well aware that the ship was American."

-- Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy (retired), senior legal counsel to the US Navy Court of Inquiry

That the attack was deliberate "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the National Security Agency

-- Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom on 3 March 2003 in an interview for Naval Institute Proceedings (So he didn't join the NSA till 1977--big deal--MS.)

Former NSA/CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman "flatly rejected" the Cristol/Israeli claims that the attack was an accident

-- 5 March 2003 interview for Naval Institute Proceedings (as above, he didn't join till 1977--big deal-- MS)

Of four former NSA/CIA seniors with inside knowledge, none was aware of any agency official who dissented from the position that the attack was deliberate

-- David Walsh, writing in Naval Institute Proceedings

"It appears to me that it was not a pure case of mistaken identity."

-- Captain William L. McGonagle, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty, speaking at Arlington National Cemetery, June 8, 1997

"To suggest that they [the IDF] couldn't identify the ship is ... ridiculous. ... Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument."

-- Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in The Washington Post, June 15, 1991, p. 14

Pretty impressive list I think.

As for the COI in 1967, it was no inquiry at all. It was held in secret (like the WC), sailors who were on board were forbidden from talking to the press and the whole thing was designed to cover Israel's ass. How effective was the Warren Commission 'inquiry'? How effective was LBJ's sham nuclear inspection regime in forestalling Israel's nuclear ambitions? LBJ was a crook--all his 'inqiries' were designed to place himself and his friends in the clear. Fact. All the subsequent 'inquiries' prove is that the Israel lobby's hold on the US has remained as strong as it was in 1967.

For your theory to make sense you’d have to have some one who was aware of the Liberty’s identity and the killings before the attack began. This is unlikely because the officers involved in the killing were probably low ranking army officers in the Sinai and presumably one outside of the Navy’s operations center in Haifa and a few IDF pilots knew about the Liberty.

So you're saying that in order for the theory (a deliberate attack) to make sense, I must 'have someone' who was aware of the Liberty's identity and the killings before the attack? I assume from this clumsy paragraph of yours that a confession from an Israeli officer is required before the theory 'makes sense'? LOL. Any IDF officer who said that would probably be court-martialed--or worse.

Sometimes I think (I'm sure), you don't realise what you're saying. So, by your reasoning, the theory that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy would require a confession from one of the assassins or plotters before it would 'make sense'! LOL (again).

Sorry. Duplicate post.

The only thing in doubt is if you knew of this meaning when you used the phrase. I asked various Australians and Englishmen as well as some Canadians and New Zeelanders and the near universal consensus was that it was hard to believe you didn’t.

Oh brother. A piece of advice for you len---get help.

Actually I did at one point consider hiring an assistant but couldn’t justify the expense ($ 250 - $ 600 / month) but if you want to help defray my costs I’ll PM you my PayPal address.

The phrase Sid used has only one meaning in American English. I asked people from other English speaking countries I know personally and on another forum about it and they told me it has another. But they were almost universal in their opinion that it's hard to believe an Englishman living in Australia wouldn’t have been aware of the American meaning which is well know in both countries.

Well, I guess that's it then. You've now admitted you cannot explain how Israel knew the identity of the USS Liberty and then 'forgot' about it just hours later. Just dismissing it as a screwup doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Better to admit you failed Len---once again. Israel's desperate claims of innocence are all froth and bubble.

No one claims that anyone “forgot” about the Liberty it was removed from the board and then there was a shift change. Screw-ups happen especially in high-pressure situations like war. You said such a explanation can not be believed, I imagine your war room experience/expertise is zero, people with experience/expertise in these matters have found it plausible

There's little point continuing this debate unless something new comes in. You've come unstuck on this key issue and this debate will go downhill from here, degenerating into insults. Better luck next time, Len.

You: “I agree with Sid Walker. You're a sad case Len.”

You: “A piece of advice for you len---get help.”

The insults have only been emanating from one person on this thread - you.

Len (post 103): "Spare us your smug sarcasm and feigned pity"--to Sid.

Sid wrote:

There is a precedent for this type of thing. In the 1950s, the Lavon Affair - ironically named after the hapless Mr Lavon who was most definitely outside the decision-making loop - was a plot in which the formal chain of command was clearly subverted. The nominal leadership was left to shoulder the embarrassment of a very evil and unsuccessful false-flag operation.

Not a very good analogy for what you think led to the attack on the Liberty. No one was hurt nor was anyone meant to be hurt, even property damage was minor, no essential services were targeted. The intention of the plan was to prevent Britain from relinquishing control of the Suez canal. The Australian, British, French, American, Iraqi, Syrian and Israeli governments etc have done far more evil things.

The munitions used by the planes couldn't have been expected to sink a ship. They were designed to be used against ground forces or other planes. The descision to attack the Liberty seems to have been made at the last minute with whatever planes were available. If you want to argue the attackers knew the ship was American you need to come up a senario in which the attack wasn't planned in advance.

Also if the plan was to sink the ship why did the MTB's offer assistence immediately after the torpedo attack? The captain, Ensign Lucas and Harold Thompson, the ship's communications chief, all testified they did http://www.ussliberty.org/ncitext.htm

I encountered an article by former BBC-journalist Alan Hart that I'd reproduced in full on the forum in a previous post.

I came across this paragraph:

In June 1967 Israel’s prime minister of the time, the much maligned Levi Eshkol, did NOT want to take his country to war. It, war, was imposed upon him by the generals, led by Dayan. As I explain in Volume Two of my book, what really happened in Israel in the final countdown to that war was something very close to a military coup in all but name

The cause(s) of the 6 Day War is a subject far outside the scope of this thread. He might have presented evidence for this in his book but he didn’t cite any during his talk.

The only thing in doubt is if you knew of this meaning when you used the phrase. I asked various Australians and Englishmen as well as some Canadians and New Zeelanders and the near universal consensus was that it was hard to believe you didn’t.

Oh brother. A piece of advice for you len---get help.

Actually I did at one point consider hiring an assistant but couldn’t justify the expense ($ 250 - $ 600 / month) but if you want to help defray my costs I’ll PM you my PayPal address.

The phrase Sid used has only one meaning in American English. I asked people from other English speaking countries I know personally and on another forum about it and they told me it has another. But they were almost universal in their opinion that it's hard to believe an Englishman living in Australia wouldn’t have been aware of the American meaning which is well know in both countries.

Well, I guess that's it then. You've now admitted you cannot explain how Israel knew the identity of the USS Liberty and then 'forgot' about it just hours later. Just dismissing it as a screwup doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Better to admit you failed Len---once again. Israel's desperate claims of innocence are all froth and bubble.

No one claims that anyone “forgot” about the Liberty it was removed from the board and then there was a shift change.

Hold it right there. "It was removed from the board and then there was a shift change".

You always try to dance past this inconvenient little problem. There's no way I can buy that explanation.

Some of your points are plausible, such as the apparent lack of motive, although a false flag operation designed to conceal Israeli war crimes can't be discounted. Also, questions about the visibility of the hull number, why the IDF didn't attack under cover of darkness and why the ship wasn't sunk are all valid, imo, but not conclusive.

However, the issue--the key issue--of why the board marker was removed and the nonsense concerning the shift change is not plausible or believable, despite your eagerness to dangle the Sheffield incident as an analogy, pretty pictures and all.

They identified the ship.

.

Sid wrote:

There is a precedent for this type of thing. In the 1950s, the Lavon Affair - ironically named after the hapless Mr Lavon who was most definitely outside the decision-making loop - was a plot in which the formal chain of command was clearly subverted. The nominal leadership was left to shoulder the embarrassment of a very evil and unsuccessful false-flag operation.

Not a very good analogy for what you think led to the attack on the Liberty. No one was hurt nor was anyone meant to be hurt, even property damage was minor, no essential services were targeted. The intention of the plan was to prevent Britain from relinquishing control of the Suez canal. The Australian, British, French, American, Iraqi, Syrian and Israeli governments etc have done far more evil things.

The munitions used by the planes couldn't have been expected to sink a ship. They were designed to be used against ground forces or other planes. The descision to attack the Liberty seems to have been made at the last minute with whatever planes were available. If you want to argue the attackers knew the ship was American you need to come up a senario in which the attack wasn't planned in advance.

Also if the plan was to sink the ship why did the MTB's offer assistence immediately after the torpedo attack? The captain, Ensign Lucas and Harold Thompson, the ship's communications chief, all testified they did http://www.ussliberty.org/ncitext.htm

I encountered an article by former BBC-journalist Alan Hart that I'd reproduced in full on the forum in a previous post.

I came across this paragraph:

In June 1967 Israel’s prime minister of the time, the much maligned Levi Eshkol, did NOT want to take his country to war. It, war, was imposed upon him by the generals, led by Dayan. As I explain in Volume Two of my book, what really happened in Israel in the final countdown to that war was something very close to a military coup in all but name

The cause(s) of the 6 Day War is a subject far outside the scope of this thread. He might have presented evidence for this in his book but he didn’t cite any during his talk.

Sorry Len. I'm sorry for you. That is a really pathetic fit-up. The evidence against the Birmingham 6 constituted a stronger case than that.

Please spare us your smug sarcasm and feigned pity.

So writing an essay you think is “a crock” doesn’t classify as “intellectually dishonest” to you? What Does then? I imagine your POV would be quite different if Deborha Lipstadt, Martin Peretz or Alan Dershowitz had let a similar admission slip out.

It's like the way you once harped on about one of my exasperated expletives and claimed it had lurid implications. Sad.

The only thing in doubt is if you knew of this meaning when you used the phrase. I asked various Australians and Englishmen as well as some Canadians and New Zeelanders and the near universal consensus was that it was hard to believe you didn’t.

Oh brother. A piece of advice for you len---get help.

"You haven't satifactorily explained how Israel could make a positive identification of the vessel and then 'forget' about that fact only hours later? You can claim it was a misunderstanding but I don't believe you. The flimsy explanation that the information was lost in a shift change requires one to suspend disbelief more than is humanly possible, especially in light of the IDF's well earned reputation for efficiency."

I don’t think it can be satisfactorily explained it was a screw up. Has the attack on the Sheffield by planes from its own battle group been “satisfactorily explained”? What about the failure of the flight crew of Eastern flight 401 to notice that the auto-pilot had disengaged while they were trying to figure out why a landing gear light wasn’t working and they were losing altitude until it was fatally too late? Look up the "Dieppe raid". Mistakes happen an in light of the rest of the known facts that is the best explanation for what happened.

Well, I guess that's it then. You've now admitted you cannot explain how Israel knew the identity of the USS Liberty and then 'forgot' about it just hours later. Just dismissing it as a screwup doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Better to admit you failed Len---once again. Israel's desperate claims of innocence are all froth and bubble.

There's little point continuing this debate unless something new comes in. You've come unstuck on this key issue and this debate will go downhill from here, degenerating into insults. Better luck next time, Len.

As for Thompson's death, it's better to wait and see if any allegations are made. For the moment, though, you can label me suspicious. Sorry if my opinion is not 'verifiable'--but neither is yours.

Yes I agree “it's better to wait and see”, his death would be more suspicious if

- it hadn’t come out years AFTER he made his allegations. Apparently he was a source for the BBC “documentary” ‘Dead in the Water’ which came out in 2001 as well as for "Operation Cyanide" which was published 2 years later or

- if he didn’t seem to be pushing a patently absurd theory that the attack was part of a ploy to nuke Egypt.

Vince,

A warm welcome to you.

FWIW, I place you at the top of my list of researchers I most admire, along with the likes of Mark Lane, Penn Jones, Jim Garrison, Larry Hancock, John Simkin, among a select group.

Although I don't have Survivors Guilt, I have read most of it online and once again complement you on an outstanding piece of research, on one of most difficult areas of reseach surrounding the JFK assassination.

I won't bombard you with a series of questions but instead just ask one,

There are many 'people of interest' within the SS. Emory Roberts, Bill Greer, Paul Paterni, David Grant, Floyd Boring to name a few. My question is do you think that the sudden appearance of Democratic National Committee representative Jack Puterbaugh in the lead car was suspicious?

I ask this because of my personal suspicion that the DNC, being largely funded by wealthy interests, may have been a part of the plot.

There's no hurry, as you will probably be asked a lot of questions.

Once again, welcome to the Forum.

I agree with Sid Walker. You're a sad case Len.

So Piper wrote a paper in high school about a subject he didn't really believe in. So bloody what? Piper at least made an unsolicited admission, which is more than can be said for others. Can you prove that all your pro-Israeli sources are as pure as the driven snow?

Can you state that you have never been dishonest? If not, cut out the sanctimonious sermons.

As for your rationisation that shooting the messenger is fine if the messenger is making 'unverifiable' assertions and forbidden if they make 'verifiable' assertions, that's looking as fragile as your argument that the Liberty attack was an innocent mistake.

Cristol's assertion that Israel did not know they were attacking an innocent American vessel is merely his opinion and certainly not 'verifiable' in light of the considerable evidence and opinions to the contrary. You haven't satifactorily explained how Israel could make a positive identification of the vessel and then 'forget' about that fact only hours later? You can claim it was a misunderstanding but I don't believe you. The flimsy explanation that the information was lost in a shift change requires one to suspend disbelief more than is humanly possible, especially in light of the IDF's well earned reputation for efficiency.

As for Thompson's death, it's better to wait and see if any allegations are made. For the moment, though, you can label me suspicious. Sorry if my opinion is not 'verifiable'--but neither is yours.

John asks whether I support the boycott because of Israel's threat to world peace. The biggest threat to world peace is capitalism not Israel. However if the peaceful non-violent and non-terrorist boycott of Israel means that I am not an accomplice to the appalling treatment of the Palestinians then I am happy with that.

And as you might have noticed I am a member of the CWI (Committee for a Workers' International) and the Socialist Party. Our record on Iran, North Korea and China...and the USA is perfectly clear and well documented. Dershowitz is just being disingenuous.

Derek,

I agree that Israel, despite the fact that certain hardline Zionists are urging the US to attack Iran, is not the greatest threat to world peace. America must be considered a greater threat to world peace based on such factors as their awesome arsenal of weaponry and increasingly belligerent determination to secure a disproportionately large share of non-renewable resources for themselves.

When a nation which makes up 5% of global population consumes 25% of the world's oil, then they have a problem. When that nation possesses 10,000 nuclear warheads and a vast conventional armoury and are capable of electing someone like George Bush, then the rest of the world has a problem.

However, the real problem which underpins the US threat is rampant capitalism. Not the benign form of capitalism whereby goods and services are exchanged for a reasonable profit, but the malignant ideology which has infected modern economies. This ideology demands unsustainable growth in perpetuity, disregard for the environment which provides all natural resources and disdain for public ownership of essential services and Government expenditure on anything that it does not benefit from.

People are slowly realising that the dogma of globalisation is merely a trick whereby large corporations can abandon communities at will and relocate to places where reduced costs of production equate to a better bottom line. Using the excuse of globalisation to increase shareholder returns (without any feelings of guilt or shame) is just another tool of this neo-capitalist ideology.

The engine room of this ideology resides in the US. It is so deeply rooted in greed that it sees no problem in corrupting the polital process in order to achieve higher profits, regardless of the social costs. Herein lie the seeds of its eventual destruction, imo. The are a plethora of lobby groups which use the supply or withholding of funds to members of Congress as a means of forcing elected representatives to do their bidding. As the ideology of neo-capitalism dissolves the middle classes and concentrates most of the nation's wealth in the hands of the priveliged few, the Government will find that its best efforts to reverse the trend are hamstrung by their subservience to special interests and their lobbies, almost to the point of paralysis. We are currently witnessing a good example of this in the powerlessness of the US to intervene in the Palestinian problem, despite the fact that America underwrites Israel. The fact that this is not a hot issue with the average American is because it has little immediate impact on their standard of living. However, neo-capitalism is an entirely different issue and it will eventually hit them hard.

When they discover that this ideology will result in greatly reduced living standards for the majority, and the Government is unable to help them, a grass roots movement for radical change will emerge. The only alternative to the election of a left wing Government will be the emergence of a fully fledged police state which would ensure free and fair elections are not possible.

Being an optimist at heart, I believe America will not go the way of the police state, despite the best efforts of the reprehensible band of criminals currently at the helm. I believe America will swing to the left, as John Simkin predicted some time back.

The motion to boycott Israeli academic institutions hasn't actually been passed. The British Union of Colleges will consider the moral implications for a year and then vote on it.

Other groups are beginning to call for actions in protest at what is being described as Israel's apartheid regime. One group, 'Jews for boycotting Israeli goods', has called for the upcoming soccer international between Israel and England, scheduled for Wembley on September 8, to be disrupted. Even the C of E appears to be becoming active:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/871280.html

The groundswell of international support for Palestine seems to be growing.

The suggestion there should be a debate about an academic boycott of Israel has prompted attempts to close down the discussion as being anti-semitic, most recently by Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, (famous for defending OJ Simpson inter alia) on Channel 4 news.

I do think that the day we had to accept lectures on human rights from the White House came to an end when they set up the university of Abu Ghraib, the college of Guantanamo bay and the various little CIA torture schools around the world.

It is particularly sickening to see a boycott defined as terrorism or "giving aid and comfort to terrorism" to use the White House doubletalk. There is no more peaceful method of protest than a boycott.

If I no longer buy Jaffa I am not likely to bring down the Zionist government, but I am saying I refuse to be an accomplice in the appalling treatment of the Palestinians by that government.

(Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Dershowitz published an essay in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled "Want to Torture? Get a Warrant," in which he advocates the issuance of warrants permitting the torture of terrorism suspects if there were an "absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it." He is described in America as a "civil libertarian". Standards have slipped haven't they.)

FWIW, I agree completely with Derek's perspective here. "There is no more peaceful method of protest than a boycott." And what better way than for academics and intellectuals worldwide to appeal to the conscience of Israeli academics and intellectuals by insisting on intellectual honesty -- viz, about their very own government and society? This is particularly and specifically relevant in terms of biblical scholars, archaelogists, etc, as it seems logical that quite a bit of foreign exchange capital flows into Israel thereby (and how much to the "Palestinian Authority," for instance?)

I also agree with the critique of people like Dershowitz and of this White House, which has given us Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and "rendition centers" around the world. The Bush Administration and ideologues/apologists like Dershowitz continue to deny the fact that Israeli policies toward Palestinians (and Arabs in Lebanon, and Israel's own Arab citizens) are at the heart of "the problem," and they also set up, encourage and promote the idea that all these Palestinians and others can only be understood as "terrorists" and "enemies of Israel." The Sharon government understood how to exploit this dynamic quite well after September 11: it routinely employed the rhetoric of "War on Terror" as justification for its "approach" to "the Palestinian problem."

And yet, as I continue to hope should be clear enough by now, it's very damned difficult to have serious discussion, debate, criticism, etc of Israel and its government and its policies without becoming aligned with and mistaken for those who are mere antisemites per se.

I agree. The US and Israel have learned that they can get away with acts of aggression by stamping these actions with the 'war on terror' brand name. The Western media is fully complicit in this deception, as they appear to condone any Israeli aggression and hardship imposed upon the Palestinians. The alternative of asking Israel to justify its actions seems to be too much to ask of the Western media. They are a shameful disgrace.

Israel's denial of funds required for the maintenance of the Palestinian Government, resulting in unpaid teachers and public servants and desperate families, is the latest in a long line of injustices heaped upon these people. That Israel is allowed to control the purse strings of another nation, and can deny vital funds to ordinary Palestinians on the pretext that the Government they elected is not to their liking, is proof that the Palestinians are a people that the world has turned it's back on.

As for your final sentence, yes it's difficult to discuss these issues without being tagged as anti-Semitic by those wishing to brush the issue under the carpet. People who accuse me of anti-Semitism get short shrift.

Israel and the US deserve strong condemnation for the mess they have created in this region and I'll condemn them loud and long. If those whose motivation is 'mere anti-semitism' join in the condemnation that's too bad. The more urgent issue is to help Israel to rediscover its moral compass and to convince both Israel and the US that war in the region has the potential to spread. A global conflict based on religion can only be bad news for everyone.

No my reaction to an allegedly suspicious death is to try and get minimal information about it before rushing to judgment. I tried finding more about it on Google but came up empty handed, I imagine if his death were reported at all it would have been in a local newspaper hence my request for more info from Sid.

Ennes it seems knew (or at least knew of) Thompson because he addressed a survivors meeting and gave out DVD which you would know if you’d bother to follow the link. I’d be surprised if Ennes weren’t aware of the ‘accident’ and even more surprised if he found it suspicious but made no mention of it on his site

But no-one's rushing to judgement. Sid's initial post merely stated that the cause of the accident was unknown.

No one's making any allegations. Let's just wait and see if anything comes of it before you start jumping down people's throats.

Your response to Sid for posting this information makes it appear that you are permanently in attack-dog mode (your post #91).

It’s not suspicious until we have some minimal details about what happened. Since Piper bragged about being intellectually dishonest on this very forum I wouldn’t take anything he said for granted. See if you dig up any info about this that doesn’t come from a confessed xxxx.

Well well well.

Look who's shooting the messenger now.

Woolly was murdered by four ISI agents (one domiciled in Jamaica, one in the UK and two in the USA).

More on this later...

You have my undivided attention.

What's an ISI agent?

A finger on a tentacle that stretches all the way to Langley, Virginia... Or as Wikipedia puts it:

The Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (also Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI) is the largest and most powerful of the three main branches of Pakistan's intelligence agencies.

The BBC have a lot of funny sounding names for them like 'Al Qaeda' and 'Taliban.'

Very interesting, Michael.

I guess this should should go on to the Bob Woolmer thread which was started not long after his death:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9486&st=30

Ennes' site makes no mention of Thompson's death so presumablly he didn't find it suspicious

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls...amp;btnG=Search

Len's reaction to a suspicious death is to run a quick search of Google a few days after the event. If no-one has posted anything noteworthy then it's case closed, "Nothing to see here, folks--move along now".

Sherlock Colby strikes again.

I haven't heard that South Africa is in trouble preparing for the 2010 World Cup, but I guess England might be a logical alternative, given that it's unlikely any other African nations would be able to host it on short notice. What's wrong with Australia? At least we're in the same hemisphere.

As for London handing over the 2012 Olympics to France--whoever suggested this doesn't know his Monty Python.

Woolly was murdered by four ISI agents (one domiciled in Jamaica, one in the UK and two in the USA).

More on this later...

You have my undivided attention.

What's an ISI agent?

I find that Americans who eagerly express their Christian faith, and constantly praise Israel while obligingly turning a blind eye to the suffering of the Palestinians to be quite contemptible.

It's part of their Christian faith that Israel is God's chosen as set forth in the Bible. Naturally God's chosen can do no wrong.

Yes I know. They are blinded by their faith.

With Bush leading the nation, it's surely a case of the blind leading the blind.

Michael Collins Piper's radio show has covered in Liberty incident in recent days.

Last Friday, Piper interviewed several Liberty survivors in person. They were assembling in Washington for a week-end re-union.

One of the speakers at that event was a healthy septuagenarian called Richard Thompson. An ex US Naval intelligence officer, he had been a primary source for the recent book 'Operation Cyanide: How the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III ' referred to above.

It is the book by British journalists Peter Hounam and John Simpson that claims Israel set up the attack on the Liberty as a false flag operation. According to this theory, had the attack succeeded, the War on (Arab) Terror would have come three and a half decades earlier...

Thompson was killed in a car crash on his return to Florida. Apparently no other cars were involved. Cause of the accident unknown.

The trgic incident was discussed by Piper on his show this Monday.

Sid,

Thanks for that. I'll listen to the relevant programs when I get a chance.

It's quite bizarre that Thompson was killed so soon after speaking at the re-union. It's definitely an eyebrow raiser.

Thanks also for posting the Paul Findlay piece via Jeff Blankfort (post #78). A disturbing scenario from a man who knows all about the influence of the Israeli lobby in Congress. I fail to understand why so many Americans put their head in the sand and refuse to admit that this is a very serious problem for America. In particular, I find that Americans who eagerly express their Christian faith, and constantly praise Israel while obligingly turning a blind eye to the suffering of the Palestinians to be quite contemptible.

It's a real irony of the present era that the Congress of the world's most powerful nation is terrified of upsetting a small nation on the other side of the globe---but that's the state of play, I'm afraid.

The US Congress is too gutless to confront the issue. The country is led by a vacuous, cowardly simpleton, joined at the hip to corrosive special interests, the militant Israel lobby prominent among them, whose interests are diametrically at odds with the interests of the average citizen, and whose global vision is limited to a simple us versus them endgame, drawn along religious lines. All we can do is watch and brace ourselves for the consequences.

The proposed missile shield is their latest gambit.

Sorry for the off-topic rant. Sometimes you need to let it out.

If that’s the case you should easily be able to counter my arguments, so far you haven’t even tried

Now that I have had time to check you arguments and the sources underpinning them, I'll give it a try.

On May 2 (post #35), you posted this article from the HNN archives--a blurb promoting A Jay Cristol's upcoming book. You prefaced posting this link by claiming to Sid Walker that "actually there was a Hebrew linguist on board the Liberty":

[…]

Okay Len, I'll make three observations/queries regarding this piece:

1. Who was the Hebrew linguist aboard the Liberty? What was his name? You said a linguist was on board so you should have no trouble answering this.

I gave the wrong link. Ennes wrote (my additions in []): “The six men who came aboard in Rota [spain] were Wilson, [Alan] Blue, Blalock, Lockwood, Raper and Rehmeyer, all Arab or Russian linguists. Only Blue knew any Hebrew, and he had learned it on his own in his spare time for fun. He was not a qualified linguist.”* Others have been less negative about Blue’s Hebrew speaking ability I’ll try and find a citation. Blue died during the attack, Ennes only would have had limited (if any) contact with him for 6 days. I should have said “someone who understood Hebrew” The lack or presence of Hebrew linguist doesn’t prove much either way. According to Ennes and an author who supports his claims they were sent to spy on the Egyptians and Russians who the US believed was helping them**.

* http://www.ussliberty.org/addendum.htm

** “There were at least four Russian and three Arabic linguists aboard, however; that indicates the ship's intelligence targeting. Additionally, Ennes has recently disclosed that a special tasking of the ship, apart from gathering all the information on every party it could, was to determine if TU-95 "BEAR" Bombers of the Egyptian Air Force were controlled and flown by Soviets. Ennes also says that "at least two men recall that their orders were to concentrate on Soviet intercepts and to ignore any Israeli signals they happened to hear. The order was `Note the signal and, if it is Israeli, drop it.””

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

2. The circumstances surrounding the removal of the Liberty from the battle control board at naval headquarters are ridiculous, imo. I believe Evan also expressed surprise at such an explanation. A routine reconnaissance flight identifies the ship at 6am. POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION WAS MADE and the Liberty was marked on the battle control board at Naval Headquarters. FIVE HOURS LATER THE LIBERTY MARK WAS CONSIDERED OLD INFORMATION AND REMOVED FROM THE BATTLE CONTROL BOARD.

Len, do you and A Jay Cristol expect researchers to be stupid enough to believe the subsequent attack was carried out without the IDF leadership being aware of who they were attacking? Do you expect me to believe that a defence force as efficient and highly trained as the IDF, in a time of war with vigilance and caution at its peak, would allow such a comical breakdown in military co-ordination to occur? Cristol then expects us to believe that when the shift change occurred after 11am, the officer who assumed command was not briefed about what had occured previously--that a marker for the Liberty had been placed on the control board and then removed because it was 'old information'. Pull the other one, Len.

1)

I really don't appreciate your insinuation that I'm intentionally being misleading, it was uncalled for.

Funny, I never knew you were such a sensitive soul. Based on what you have written in some of your rants at Jack White your new found sensitivity is a little surprising. Not losing the debate, are you?

2) I have noted similar ‘unbelievable’ blunders by Russians, Americans and the British. Twice during WWII British aircraft attacked their own ships, on one of those occasions they mistook the Sheffield a cruiser from their own battle group from the much larger very different looking battleship Bismarck. They had not gotten the message that the Sheffield had been ordered to approach the German ship.

Yes, but that's not the same as having made a positive identification some hours earlier of the ship in question, is it? I grant that blunders have been made in the past, probably more than the military services have willingly revealed, but that still doesn't prove that Israel mistakenly attacked the Liberty. You're asking readers to grant Israel the benefit of the doubt, which they are free to do. I'm not granting Israel that luxury.

3) The explanation is hard to believe but since neither you nor Sid nor anybody else has proposed motive that makes senses it’s the best one we have. It was seeming accepted by the Liberty’s captain even in 1997 as well as other people with naval/military/intelligence experience who looked into the incident.

Here I'll concede that the apparent lack of motive is the strongest part of your argument. An attempt to entice America into the war seems a little too strange, as Israel appeared to be in a dominant position. However, the purpose may have been to use the attack as a diversion. This possibility has been explored. Then there's also the possibilty that it was simply a case of bloodthirsty hubris, committed in the knowledge that America's unflinching loyalty was guaranteed by LBJ's occupancy of the White House and that the Israeli and US military shared some very dark and mutually damaging secrets.

3. The editor's note at the top of the article states that Cristol has been granted exclusive access to Israeli archives and officials. Hmmm, so others interested in seeking the truth of this matter are denied access to these archives and officials, one must assume. Why has this preferential treatment been granted exclusively to Cristol?

Didn’t Bamford claim to have “exclusive access” to NSA documents? It’s normal for governments to use discretion when granting access to “archives and officials”. Do you know of anyone who has asked for such access and been denied it?

I guess it is. Especially when the Government in question is eager for the historian to see things their way.

What is his background vis-a-vis the state of Israel?

Yes, he’s Jewish is that a problem?

There's no problem if he's Jewish. There's a problem if he's just an apologist for a Government guilty of wilful murder.

His transition from Federal Bankruptcy Judge (in the state of Florida--a stronghold of support for Israel) to authoritative historian seems to have been remarkably seamless. Of course, he didn't move into the historian's profession at entry level---he was granted exclusive access to important historical information.

No real mystery, according to the article he spent 14 years researching the case and it was the subject of “his doctoral dissertation accepted in 1997 by the Graduate School of International Studies of the University of Miami”

So Len, naturally I have to ask the question, is Cristol as staunchly supportive of Israel as yourself?

1) I have no idea what his position is about Israel on other matters.

2) I’m not exactly a ‘staunch supporter of Israel’ having criticized that nations actions on more than one occasion.

Where?

Should I take your attack on “the messenger” (Cristol) as evidence you can’t find anything wrong with “the message” (other than his explanation that the Liberty was removed from the board?).

You're the last person who should be admonishing others for 'attacking the messenger'. In post #81 you state:

"The recent claims of the octogenarian Mr. Boston aren't very credible for reasons I spelt out in post #70"

The needless insult concerning Boston's age aside, you didn't demolish his credibilty in post #70 at all. You wrote:

"Back in 1967 he signed the findings of the COI which concluded the attack was accidental. So he either perjured himself back then or perjered himself later."

However, you conveniently neglect to mention another possibility--that he was pressured into signing off on the finding in 1967. LBJ was adept at giving inquiries their riding instructions prior to commencement. Remember the Warren Commission? Hale Boggs never believed the lone nut theory but he too was compelled to sign off on a finding he didn't believe.

When it comes to shooting the messenger, you are always willing to indulge. Don't give me high-minded speeches please.

Mark,

I'm still very much on the fence about this, but I must clarify one point you mention:

2. The circumstances surrounding the removal of the Liberty from the battle control board at naval headquarters are ridiculous, imo. I believe Evan also expressed surprise at such an explanation. A routine reconnaissance flight identifies the ship at 6am. POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION WAS MADE and the Liberty was marked on the battle control board at Naval Headquarters. FIVE HOURS LATER THE LIBERTY MARK WAS CONSIDERED OLD INFORMATION AND REMOVED FROM THE BATTLE CONTROL BOARD.

Len, do you and A Jay Cristol expect researchers to be stupid enough to believe the subsequent attack was carried out without the IDF leadership being aware of who they were attacking? Do you expect me to believe that a defence force as efficient and highly trained as the IDF, in a time of war with vigilance and caution at its peak, would allow such a comical breakdown in military co-ordination to occur? Cristol then expects us to believe that when the shift change occurred after 11am, the officer who assumed command was not briefed about what had occured previously--that a marker for the Liberty had been placed on the control board and then removed because it was 'old information'. Pull the other one, Len.

Such a fanciful scenario would be more appropriate if it concerned the military of a small dictatorship in Central America or Africa--even then I would have trouble believing it--but I will never accept that the IDF could be so lazy and slipshod, especially in a time of war.

Your premise falls on this point alone (but wait, there's more).

I certainly do find it unusual - based on Naval experience 1985 to date - but I can't say it wouldn't happen. I'll try to find some "blue-on-blue" incidents that have similar circumstances. To make a more judgmental call, I'd have to know more about the particular ops centre and their Area of Operations. For what area tracks were maintained, how tracks were removed, and their subsequent disposition is important in this case.

There are a lot of aspects that are questionable in this incident, but I most certainly do not rule out an accidental attack. Both sides of the argument have much merit, IMO.

Sorry for being so non-committal, but I don't think I have read enough to convince me one way or the other.

No worries, Evan. Your Naval background is of great assistance in explaining to non-military people like me the technical aspects of naval procedure. Also, you clearly also have an open mind on the Liberty issue.

If you could discover precedents for the cockups resulting in the Liberty attack, it would be interesting indeed.

For my part, I still think the attackers (those who ordered it) knew it was the Liberty. Given Israel's record of indifference to civilian 'collateral' casualties, disregard for the safety of aid workers, journalists or anyone else who gets in the line of fire, I'm not prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.