Mark Stapleton

Just read you post, Sid.

You were obviously as surprised by the content of Len's 'reference' as I was.

Gob smacked - at least I would have been, had I not observed the wily Brazilian perform many earlier feats of intellectual acrobatics.

Brazilians are famous for their acrobatic and highly creative goals.

Among other things.

the Liberty website claims that Captain McGonagle's Medal of Honour was presented in a quiet ceremony at the Washington Naval Yard instead of at the White House by the President as is customary. Can you prove this is false?

No that seems to be true. Produce evidence that this was due to the reason you proposed rather than the reasons I did

Unless some reliable documentary evidence is produced, the reason for LBJ's actions can't be determined with any certainty--obviously.

I conclude that he swept the entire affair under the carpet so as not to embarrass Israel, while you suggest he was trying to save the US Military from the embarrassment. My conclusion has company but yours is on its own. I've never heard that explanation before.

Hersh is normally pilloried by JFK researchers? Can you list them? I'm all ears.

He doesn’t seem too popular on this forum:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ghlite=%2Bhersh

Although not really part of the “mainstream” JFK community Fetzer listed him as a “special case” along with the likes of Specter, Posner and his “arch-enemy” our very own Josiah “Tink” Thompson http://assassinationscience.com/specialcases.html

Leading JFK researcher and history professor David Wrone in his review of his Kennedy book entitled “SHAME ON YOU, SY, FOR THAT AWFUL BOOK ON JFK” wrote:

“[Hersh] has prostituted his nation's history… Hersh does it with a corruption of scholarship perhaps unparalleled in recent times.

He uses not a single source note, but employs caption notes that refer to many books and no pages, so a reader cannot easily check his truthfulness. Hersh has corrupted the facts. On major issues he is coy, strongly using suggestive language with a statement of fact where none exists. Sources are often made up to fit his perceived beliefs…”

Wrone used words and phrases like “putative accounts” “Hersh's false presentation of his foreign policy” “bad…scholarship”, “subterfuge”, “Hersh's framing of JFK”, “falsifies the reality” “libel” in other parts of the review.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/wrone/Dark_Side_review.html

The Columbia Journalism Review (considered the most important academic journal of journalism in America) wrote:

“But Hersh's attributions generally fall short of normal journalistic yardsticks. More important, many of his conclusions are weakly substantiated by his research and highly questionable.”

http://archives.cjr.org/year/98/1/books-hersh.asp

Edward Jay Epstein one of the first people to challenge the LNT wrote:

“But how, even with his legendary investigative skills, did Hersh manage to recover these new memories from Robert Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1968? Hersh did not interview Robert Kennedy before his death, and Hersh does not list any source for these interior thoughts in his documentation. Nor could he have gotten it from Kennedy's own writings, since they don't contain them or even make reference to such matters. Hersh must have invented these facts.

Such license may serve to expand the universe of creative journalism, but it unfortunately does not produce credible history. When the pretensions of "helping the nation reclaim some of its history" fade away on scrutiny, this book turns out to be, alas, more about the deficiencies of investigative journalism than about the deficiencies of John F. Kennedy.”

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/hersh.htm

"This book is a fiction and we don't intend to comment any further on this maliciousness and innuendo."

Senator Ted Kennedy

“[Hersh is] the most gullible investigative reporter I've ever encountered."

Arthur Schlesinger

"[Hersh’s book is] a pathetic collection of wild stories."

Theodore Sorensen

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/coms...00405200943.asp

History professor Athan Theoharis in his review of the book for America’s leading history journal noted that “Little, if any, documentary evidence is cited.”

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L

I'll consider Hersh to be well pilloried.

However, it doesn't resolve the issue of the Kennedys' suspicions regarding Feldman's loyalty priorities. Or the suspicion that others within the Government and intelligence agencies wrestled with conflicting loyalties. Like JJA, for instance.

Also, can you disprove the quote attributed to RFK?

You’ve got the burden of proof backwards can you prove he said it? Considering the condemnation of Hersh’s scholarship on the book from so many sources I’d say the chances are about 50/50 that he said it. Who does Hersh claim told him this 30 years after RFK’s death or was another unverifiable anonymous source? How reliable was he (or she)? What was the context? What led Kennedy to (supposedly) say this?

Yes, JFK reportedly liked Myer Feldman. However, how does this demolish the suggestion that Feldman's main interest was Israel rather than the US?

It doesn’t seem that the President believed this or at least if he did felt that it prevented him from carrying his duties at the White House which had nothing to do with military or foreign affairs.

According to Piper, Feldman is still used as the Kennedy family's attorney but, again, this doesn't demolish the suggestion either.

If true it would undermine it, if he put another nation’s interests ahead of the US’s while serving under JFK that would have been a betrayal of trust. If I were one of the Kennedys and believed what RFK (supposedly) did I wouldn’t want him as my attorney.

Do you really believe a betrayal of trust is such a rare occurrence? If he was not loyal to Israel then Israel would feel betrayed.

Just read you post, Sid.

You were obviously as surprised by the content of Len's 'reference' as I was.

And there's JFK's quip to a family gathering at Hyannisport, retold by close friend Charles Bartlett, "I imagine Mike's having a meeting of Zionists in the Cabinet room".

Citation I couldn’t find this supposed quote on the Net?

Who is/was “Mike”

Ditto the context question re: the Feldman quote

Feldman was alternatively known by the christian name of 'Mike' or 'Myer'

Thanks for filling me in but since the quote and even snippets of it get zero hits on Google it seems that no one else (besides you) claims Kennedy or Bartlett said this.

The question of Angleton's primary alliegance has been discussed on the Forum, as you are no doubt aware.

Yes and other than the fact that the Israelis placed a cardboard plaque with his name on it next to a garbage dump and the unelaborated comments of a single disgruntled ex-CIA agent I don’t remember seeing any evidence of such claims.

So the memorial erected by Israel to honour Angleton was situated next to a garbage dump and featured a mere cardboard plaque? Can you cite a reference for this?

Yes those famed Israel apologists Alexander Cockburn…

http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?Progr.../?ProgramID=106

…and Victor Marchetti.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p305_Marchetti.html

I couldn't find the Cockburn comments from the booknotes site. Maybe you could paste the passage.

As for the Marchetti link, the passage in question actually reinforces my point that Angleton was a bigger friend to Israel than he was to the US:

The man who handled that account, James Jesus Angleton, was extremely close to the Israelis. I believe that through Angleton the Israelis learned a lot more than they should have and exercised a lot more influence on our activities than they should have.

For his trouble, James Angleton, who died last year, was honored by the Israelis, in the way that the Israelis customarily honor their Gentile helpers. They decided to plant a whole forest for Angleton in the Judean hills, and they put up a handsome plaque in several languages, lionizing Angleton as a great friend of Israel, on a nearby rock. Israeli's intelligence chiefs, past and present, attended the dedication ceremony. Later on, a television reporter of my acquaintance sought out Angleton's memorial during an assignment in Israel. After some difficulty, he was able to locate it, but something seemed odd about it. On closer inspection, Angleton's plaque turned out to be made, not of bronze, but of cardboard. Nor was the setting particularly flattering to Israel's late benefactor: the trees and plaque were at the edge of a garbage dump. My friend's British cameraman put it best "This guy sold out his country for the bloody Israelis, and this is the way they pay him back!"

I'll have to check through the links that you post in support of your arguments more carefully. In this instance it supports my argument more than yours. And who is this television reporter of Marchetti's acquaintance? Name? It's just an anecdote. Marchetti may have made it up for all we know.

And what about LBJ himself?

What about him?

Well, he was a true friend of Israel. The funds and weaponry he provided for Israel allowed them to emerge as the regional superpower by the mid-sixties. Do you disagree?

I not that familiar with the details but I believe that weapons sales to Israel started under JFK, grew under LBJ but only became widespread under Nixon. The Israeli’s main arms suppliers at the time were France and the UK.

Even if true can you provide evidence that this is evidence of his putting ahead of the US’s. It was the height of the Cold War and it was SOP to back the enemies of countries backed by the Soviets.

You're right---you're not familiar with the details.

Aid to Israel ballooned under LBJ's Presidency. I don't have the figures handy but I can dig them up. Also, LBJ conveniently looked the other way while Israel developed nuclear weapons. JFK was not prepared to do this. LBJ helped coverup the Liberty incident in order to save Israel from embarrassment. The Liberty issue recieved some press but it warranted much more exposure than it recieved. It's no coincidence that Israel recieved a huge boost in weapons and financial aid under his Presidency. Importantly, much of this assisstance was given to Israel unconditionally, whereas JFK always wanted concessions from Israel as a quid pro quo. Cohen's 'Israel and the bomb' covers many of these matters in great detail. No wonder the Israeli's arrested him. I'm pretty sure this issue has been discussed elsewhere on the Forum, but if you wish to make LBJ's relationship with Israel the subject of a new thread, I think it could be quite revealing. It's getting a bit off topic here.

Mark wrote:

Yes, I do have an indication that they placed Israel's interests ahead of those of the US. The awarding of gallantry medals was a secretive affair. LBJ didn't want American gallantry to be publicly celebrated in this instance, it appears. It would cause too much embarrassment to Israel. Very sensitive chap was Lyndon--to Israel that is.

Please cite evidence for this claim. Even IF true this could have been due to embracement over US errors or perceived errors (only ordering the defenseless ship away from a combat zone at the last minute, misrouting those orders, failure to provide an escort etc,)

The Liberty website claims that Captain McGonagle's Medal of Honour was presented in a quiet ceremony at the Washington Naval Yard instead of at the White House by the President as is customary. Can you prove this is false?

Can I cite examples? Hersh quotes RFK stating, in regard to Myer Feldman, "His major interest was Israel rather than the United States".

LOL so now Hersh is a reliable source regarding the Kennedys? Normally he is pilloried by JFK researchers. What context was statement made in what lead RFK to say this? Who was the source of the quote? In any case Feldman as deputy assistant council to the White House wasn’t exactly a high official especially regarding military/intelligence/foreign affairs. Didn’t RFK say his brother liked Feldman?

Hersh is normally pilloried by JFK researchers? Can you list them? I'm all ears. Also, can you disprove the quote attributed to RFK? Yes, JFK reportedly liked Myer Feldman. However, how does this demolish the suggestion that Feldman's main interest was Israel rather than the US? According to Piper, Feldman is still used as the Kennedy family's attorney but, again, this doesn't demolish the suggestion either.

And there's JFK's quip to a family gathering at Hyannisport, retold by close friend Charles Bartlett, "I imagine Mike's having a meeting of Zionists in the Cabinet room".

Citation I couldn’t find this supposed quote on the Net?

Who is/was “Mike”

Ditto the context question re: the Feldman quote

Feldman was alternatively known by the christian name of 'Mike' or 'Myer'

The question of Angleton's primary alliegance has been discussed on the Forum, as you are no doubt aware.

Yes and other than the fact that the Israelis placed a cardboard plaque with his name on it next to a garbage dump and the unelaborated comments of a single disgruntled ex-CIA agent I don’t remember seeing any evidence of such claims.

So the memorial erected by Israel to honour Angleton was situated next to a garbage dump and featured a mere cardboard plaque? Can you cite a reference for this?

And what about LBJ himself?

What about him?

Well, he was a true friend of Israel. The funds and weaponry he provided for Israel allowed them to emerge as the regional superpower by the mid-sixties. Do you disagree?

Mark wrote:

Yes, I do have an indication that they placed Israel's interests ahead of those of the US. The awarding of gallantry medals was a secretive affair. LBJ didn't want American gallantry to be publicly celebrated in this instance, it appears. It would cause too much embarrassment to Israel. Very sensitive chap was Lyndon--to Israel that is.

Please cite evidence for this claim. Even IF true this could have been due to embracement over US errors or perceived errors (only ordering the defenseless ship away from a combat zone at the last minute, misrouting those orders, failure to provide an escort etc,)

Can I cite examples? Hersh quotes RFK stating, in regard to Myer Feldman, "His major interest was Israel rather than the United States".

LOL so now Hersh is a reliable source regarding the Kennedys? Normally he is pilloried by JFK researchers. What context was statement made in what lead RFK to say this? Who was the source of the quote? In any case Feldman as deputy assistant council to the White House wasn’t exactly a high official especially regarding military/intelligence/foreign affairs. Didn’t RFK say his brother liked Feldman?

And there's JFK's quip to a family gathering at Hyannisport, retold by close friend Charles Bartlett, "I imagine Mike's having a meeting of Zionists in the Cabinet room".

Citation I couldn’t find this supposed quote on the Net?

Who is/was “Mike”

Ditto the context question re: the Feldman quote

The question of Angleton's primary alliegance has been discussed on the Forum, as you are no doubt aware.

Yes and other than the fact that the Israelis placed a cardboard plaque with his name on it next to a garbage dump and the unelaborated comments of a single disgruntled ex-CIA agent I don’t remember seeing any evidence of such claims.

And what about LBJ himself?

What about him?

As a matter of fact, I do believe there is evidence to suggest that certain areas of US policy have placed the interests of Israel ahead of those of the US, and analysis of the record of certain influential historical figures such as LBJ and JJA can support this argument. Since this argument is beginning to stray off topic, why don't you start a new thread so this can be explored further? You seem to react with great hostility to the suggestion that any favoritism towards Israel existed. Why don't we take a look and find out if Israel has been granted any special status or if it's just malicious gossip spread by nasty anti-semites.

No it requires the collusion of:

- The JCS who ordered the ship there

- The various people involved in the move (Hot absolutely necessary but if the move was not justified they might have raised questions.)

- Admiral Martin who refused the captain’s request for and escort

- Admiral McCain and his subordinates who failed to pass on the order for the ship to stay 100 nautical miles from the coast.

- The people who told the UN and the Israelis there were no US warships in the area

- The people who refused the Israelis’ request for a Naval Attaché (this and the previous item being essential for the “cover story”).

- The NSA people involved in over flights who overheard radio communications.

- And yes all the people you THINK were involved in the cover up

Who says? If there was a conspiracy to put the Liberty in the line of fire, then who knows how many (or how few) were involved.

How can you possibly state that had there been a conspiracy, then all the aforementioned must have been involved. Suddenly you're an expert on conspiracies?

FWIW, I don't necessarily believe that there was a conspiracy to place the Liberty in jeopardy from the American side but I think it's possible.

The above people would have to be involved for Sid’s theory to be viable, they are the ones responsible for the Liberty being where it was without escort or gave the Israelis a reasonable excuse for misidentifying the ship

That's what you say. But your statement is too sweeping--that's the point I'm trying to make. All the 'people' you claim must have been involved in order for this conspiracy to exist could comprise a small core of primary conspirators. The rest just followed orders. It's the navy.

So you suspect that all of the above would conspire to destroy their country’s best signals collection ship and kill hundreds of their colleagues in pursuit of a rather intangible goal of another country? Do you have any indication they “placed Israel's interests ahead of those of the US”? Can you cite examples of high-level US officials at the time who did so?

No I don't suspect 'all of the above' would do any such thing, counsellor.

Yes, I do have an indication that they placed Israel's interests ahead of those of the US. The awarding of gallantry medals was a secretive affair. LBJ didn't want American gallantry to be publicly celebrated in this instance, it appears. It would cause too much embarrassment to Israel. Very sensitive chap was Lyndon--to Israel that is.

Can I cite examples? Hersh quotes RFK stating, in regard to Myer Feldman, "His major interest was Israel rather than the United States".

And there's JFK's quip to a family gathering at Hyannisport, retold by close friend Charles Bartlett, "I imagine Mike's having a meeting of Zionists in the Cabinet room". The question of Angleton's primary alliegance has been discussed on the Forum, as you are no doubt aware. And what about LBJ himself?

Of course, I still believe the attack by the Israelis was deliberate. The excuses don't hold up.

Then refute them.

All in good time, Len. Sorry if it conflicts with your timetable.

btw, I think your rapid ascent to the rank of expert has been remarkable. In no time at all, you seem to have acquired comprehensive knowledge of all the intricate details surrounding this matter. I'm not in any great hurry to attempt to match your feat. I would like to see how your arguments and conclusions stand up to analysis from those who have researched this case as meticulously as you have. That's why I hope we can get someone from the Liberty Forum to participate.

The Israelis would never confuse the Liberty for an Egyptian horse trading ship.

Then respond to my previous points, one could argue the British “would never confuse” a flotilla of six of their own ships for a flotilla of German navy ships, especially after four years of war but they did.

And Len, you still haven't explained why I should believe you rather than all the officials cited in the Liberty website who regard (with great certainty) the attack to have been deliberate.

Of course you and Sid have failed to respond to several of my points however I did reply partially:

- I’m not the only one who takes my position so it’s not a ‘me against them’ scenario.

- Rusk admitted to not having studied the incident or read the official reports,

- Clark Clifford who they try to make appear supports their position concluded the attack was accidental,

- The ship’s captain believed at the time the attack was accidental. They quote him as having said 30 years later that he was no longer sure it was “a pure case of mistaken identity” 1) there is no independent confirmation of the quote 2) it is vague, since we aren’t given the full quote it is even more difficult to understand exactly what he meant and why he changed his mind (if he actually had).

As to some of the others:

- The cite “former NSA director…William Odom” in 2003 but don’t tell you that at the time he was a professor of government at West Point and didn’t join the NSA till 1985.

- They also cite Bobby Inman in 2003 who didn’t join the NSA (as director) till 1977 and incorrectly identify him as a former CIA director (he was deputy director for about a year).

- However a 1981 NSA report* concluded the attack was due to mistaken identity and in 2001 (in response to Bamford) a NSA spokesman said the “claim that the NSA leadership was `virtually unanimous in their belief that the attack was deliberate' is simply not true,"**

* http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/

** http://web.archive.org/web/20040401082004/...sa24apr24.story

- Helms said “I had no role in the board of inquiry that followed, or the board's finding that there could be no doubt that the Israeli's knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty”. But the board (in which played no role) actually came to the opposite conclusion, i.e. the attack WAS accidental. http://www.thelibertyincident.com/docs/CIAreports.pdf

- They quote Admiral Thomas Moorer as telling the Washington Post "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." 1) I couldn’t find the quote in the Post’s archives http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost...ncedsearch.html

2) He didn’t say directly he though the attack was intentional, if he had presumably they would have quoted him as saying so, might he have concluded like Clifford that the attack was due to gross negligence?

That’s most of them; if you want to bring up some of the others I’ll reply.

You've done your homework. I'll say that for you.

I've emailed Jim and Joe from the Liberty website and asked if they or any others who were personally involved would like to participate. I hope they do.

Although it would out me at a very distinct disadvantage so do I, but if it becomes a 4 to 1 debate don’t expect me to be able to keep up.

It's not about who wins. I doubt if it will ever be proven one way or the other. It's about getting as much information about this matter on the table so those interested can form their own views.

Ron,

The one man who could have revealled the facts regarding Sarti was murdered about 10 years ago. Nelson Gross was a former aide to Richard Nixon and a narcotics agent.

Amongst his papers was a complete dossier on Sarti including where he was on November 22, 1963. I submit it wasn't Dealey Plaza.

I also submit that there was indeed a Frenchman dispatched to Dallas that weekend but not as a shooter, instead this guy was skilled in explosives.

Just my opinion of course.

James

James, you didn't tell us his name. Even if he wasn't the shooter we need the name, man.

FWIW, I can't see how a US military sniper could be persuaded to kill his own President, regardless of which General or intelligence official told him to do it. It would need to be one who already harboured a pathological hatred for JFK.

Corsican snipers still seem the most likely candidates, imo.

No it requires the collusion of:

- The JCS who ordered the ship there

- The various people involved in the move (Hot absolutely necessary but if the move was not justified they might have raised questions.)

- Admiral Martin who refused the captain’s request for and escort

- Admiral McCain and his subordinates who failed to pass on the order for the ship to stay 100 nautical miles from the coast.

- The people who told the UN and the Israelis there were no US warships in the area

- The people who refused the Israelis’ request for a Naval Attaché (this and the previous item being essential for the “cover story”).

- The NSA people involved in over flights who overheard radio communications.

- And yes all the people you THINK were involved in the cover up

Who says? If there was a conspiracy to put the Liberty in the line of fire, then who knows how many (or how few) were involved.

How can you possibly state that had there been a conspiracy, then all the aforementioned must have been involved. Suddenly you're an expert on conspiracies?

FWIW, I don't necessarily believe that there was a conspiracy to place the Liberty in jeopardy from the American side but I think it's possible. Recklessly sacrificing those on your own side to further some cause is not without precedent and the more one discovers about US foreign policy the more one suspects that there were (and still are) powerful people in authority in the US who placed Israel's interests ahead of those of the US. This would be an horrific scenario but forty years ago many people regarded the suggestion that the Government, the agencies and the media would conspire to bury the truth about JFK's death to be an horrific scenario. Now we all know that that's exactly what they did.

Of course, I still believe the attack by the Israelis was deliberate. The excuses don't hold up. The Israelis would never confuse the Liberty for an Egyptian horse trading ship.

And Len, you still haven't explained why I should believe you rather than all the officials cited in the Liberty website who regard (with great certainty) the attack to have been deliberate. I've emailed Jim and Joe from the Liberty website and asked if they or any others who were personally involved would like to participate. I hope they do.

I hope Royal wins, too. I can't believe the French would be dopey enough to elect a leader who blatantly toadies to those discredited neocons in Washington. As the Diana Johnstone piece points out, it's too late anyway--Bush and company are on the way out.

I also don't see what all the fuss about the LePen interview is about. His views on Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and America's attempt to goad Iran into war all seem quite reasonable to me.

The country was in a state of chaos after the killing. Men like Katzenbach and Moyers believed it was their duty to enlist their friends in the media to help calm the public down. This meant, at least temporarily, assuring the public what they themselves did not know--that Oswald acted alone. The media, as usual (think of the build up to war in Iraq), played ball. A few weeks later, after Hoover had leaked his report, the media began to really believe Oswald acted alone. Meanwhile, Warren was deliberately dragging his feet. By the time the Warren Report BEGAN its investigation, the media, on Hoover's cue, had already sold the public that Oswald acted alone. The Warren Commission by this time realized that they were there to rubber-stamp that Oswald acted alone, and basically went through the motions.

Pat,

I agree with Don. I think you and John D are being too kind to Katzenbach.

It's hard to misinterpret point 1.,

the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial

I can only see this as an urgent call for a coverup. How did he know there were no confederates of Oswald still at large? And he's basically calling for Oswald to be framed. Isn't that a bizarre thing for the Deputy AG to say? He's not calling for an open investigation with full public disclosure of the facts. I can't see how it could be interpreted that way. I also think he's writing like someone who knows at lot more than the public knows.

The aftermath of the assassination would have been interesting times to witness and I envy those who did. Maybe some of those on the Forum who were around could gives their thoughts on this. Was the atmosphere so chaotic that Katzenbach's memo could be interpreted as a valiant attempt to restore calm? My view is that the people were more stunned than anything else but I could be wrong.

So we’re back to no real motive.

No we're not.

You haven't discredited or debunked any of the possible motives, imo.

Your opinion ain’t worth jack (nor is mine) if you can’t say why you feel that way.

You're using a classical circular argument in order to excuse Israel's culpability and intent. ie, you claim that if Israel had used the attack on the Liberty to divert attention from the Golan Heights invasion, they would not have been stupid enough to do it in daylight and would have attempted to conceal their identities from the Americans. However, you would then have us believe the Israelis were indeed stupid enough to launch a comprehensive air and sea attack on a ship bearing the US flag and bearing little resemblance to the Egyptian ship they claimed was their true target--BY MISTAKE. The Israeli explanations, hastily cobbled together and full of contradictions, are fanciful at best and were dismissed by the Americans (with the exception of that poodle McNamara).

What you describe is a self-contradictory argument not a circular one, let’s try and keep our terminology straight. But there are several problems with your argument.

1) Your previous theory was that the attack was to cover-up the invasion of the Golan Heights, now after I’ve presented evidence that this is improbable your new theory was that is was “to divert attention from the…invasion”. This is a silly motive, Israel was already at war with Syria, outside of Muslim and Communist countries there was relatively little outcry when they attacked their neighbors, nor was there much outcry about the invasion. If they hadn’t been worried about the world’s or the US’s reactions to starting the war why would they be so concerned about reaction to the invasion they would attack a US warship?

2) You say the ships don’t look alike but Evan begged to differ they were ROUGHLY similar. The pilots were flying at high speed were over 1300 feet away and presumably didn’t have copies of ‘Jane’s Fighting Ships’ or a similar reference to consult in their cockpits, the people in Navy HQ did but they never saw the Liberty they were over 100 miles away in Haifa.

3) As to the flag whether or not it was visible is disputed. Owen handled the flag issue fairly well a while a go.

As for the flag, see here, here, here, here, and here.

Also here:

"Immediately prior to the air attack, the Liberty had a 5 by 8-foot American flag hoisted but because of the light wind conditions it probably was not extended. This is the Finding of Fact number 2. of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry of June 18, 1967. As a matter of fact, a reference to the formula for visual acuity reveals that a flag that size, if fully extended in good light would not be identifiable beyond 1323 feet and the attacking aircraft never came that close. It is also the undisputed testimony of the Commanding Officer of the Liberty that the 5 by 8-foot flag was shot away on the first strafing run. A second, larger, 7 by 13 foot flag was hoisted after the air attack and prior to the torpedo attack but it was engulfed in smoke and thus was not an identification factor during the attacks. The first actual sighting of an American flag on the Liberty was made by an Israeli helicopter pilot more than 30 minutes after both air and sea attacks were over."

If the links don’t work got the original post

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=60085

4) You also fail to distinguish between mistakes during the “heat of battle” and “fog of war” with what would have been a carefully laid plan. Misidentifying a ship fits in with the former but attacking the Liberty in the manner it was doesn’t fit with the latter. One must also consider group think and cognitive dissonance, they thought an arms depot had been shelled coloring their judgment. This is not dissimilar to the shoot down of an Iran Air airbus that was taking off by the USS Vincennes.

Whose crew believed it was an F-14 fighter diving at them

Or Soviet pilots mistaking a KAL 747 for a RC-135

5) You say such a mistake would indicate the IDF was incompetent because after 4 days of warfare they weren’t able to correctly identify a single ship from another country’s navy. How then would you classify they RAF? Which after 4 years of warfare misidentified 6 ships of their own navy for German ones leading them to sink two and damage 2 others (see earlier post for details and link).

Since according to you theory they would have had time to plan the attack why not hide their identity by using their subs or MIGs or attack at night?

The answer you submitted to Sid's question was no answer at all.

"do you have any other grounds for doubting the sworn testimony of so many US sailors, AND THE CONSIDERED OPINION OF SO MANY HIGH RANKING US POLITICIANS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS".

Your weak reply was to state that you doubted the conclusions they reached. Well Len, on one side we have an almost unanimous consensus from experienced military officers, Government officials who had access to official reports and hard evidence, and sailors who witnessed the attack personally. On the other side, we have the opinion four decades later of a researcher whose unbending loyalty to Israel renders his historical objectivity doubtful at best.

On the question of which side is more credible it's no contest.

It not really accurate to say there was “an almost unanimous consensus from experienced military officers, Government officials who had access to official reports and hard evidence” because the Navy, NSA, CIA, Clark Clifford and congress (on more than one occasion) concluded the attack was a case of mistaken identity. But of course the list of officials on sites like ussliberty.org is “almost unanimous” but they take some out of context, Clark Clifford concluded the attack was due to “gross and inexcusable failures” but wasn’t intentional* they however made it seem like he thought the attack was intentional**.

* http://www.ussliberty.org/cliffor2.htm

** http://www.ussliberty.org/index.html

Dean Rusk did say he thought the attack was intentional but after acknowledging “he never read the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry findings, the CIA Report, or the Clark Clifford Report” said, "I did not make a career of studying the evidence."* And since he opposed the creation of Israel MAY have been hostile to that country.

http://hnn.us/articles/369.html

The ships Captain said at the inquest he thought the attack was accidental (see ‘hnn’ link above) and said in 1997 "In many years, I have wanted to believe that the attack on the Liberty was pure error. It appears to me that it was not a pure case of mistaken identity” which seems to indicate that he accepted that the attack could have been purely accidental for the first few decades after the attack but by 1997 no longer believed it was a “pure” accident whatever that means, perhaps if the only source of the quote on the Net would offer it in its entirety.

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

You speak disparagingly of McNamara, and but I doubt you normally consider the likes of Helms and Rusk credible, but I guess when you agree with them your assessment changes

I’m not even the only member of this forum who disagrees with you Owen does (or did) and Evan seems to as well. Your classification of me as someone with “unbending loyalty to Israel” is false as well, I called that country’s murder of Egyptian POWs and Indian peacekeepers war crimes and previous condemned its recent invasions of Lebanon and Gaza. I could just as easily argue Sid and your obvious hostility to Israel colors your judgment.

I’ll try to reply to Sid tomorrow.

Edit - Photo url fixed

No soap, Len. These are just the same old arguments re-hashed over again to try to muddy the waters.

You claim that cases of mistaken identity are often made, then cite the shooting of the KAL-747 and the Iranian Airbus. They're aircraft----they're not slow moving ships. Apples and oranges. Worthless analogies and in any case, aren't there some who still believe that the shooting down of these aircraft was deliberate?

The ships (Liberty and El Qasir) were not similar--even to someone unfamiliar with seagoing vessels. I know you'll try to argue that the Israeli Air Force made a mistake but I don't believe it. They're much too smart for that. I'm agreeing with the convincing majority of naval officials and political figures who think otherwise. (btw Len, mentioning that Dean Rusk opposed the creation of Israel and hinting that this may have colored his judgement concerning whether the attack was deliberate is a little desperate, don't you think?)

Making the assumption that the attack was deliberate (a fairly safe one in light of the evidence), the questions raised by Sid in his previous post are worth considering. Who placed the Liberty in such a position? Who ensured no Hebrew speaking sailors were on board? Who set up the America's end?

The debate's moving on, Len. You can keep up or be left behind.

Most valuable would be access to the outtakes, which are said to contain otherwise unseen (by mere mortals) evidence supportive of the conspiracy truth.

Hasn't David Lifton written of this?

Charles

Mark Lane has written of his experiences with CBS in "A Citizen's Dissent" (1968).

I posted a small part of his account in this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9672

Lane and colleague Emile de Antonio viewed five hours of outtakes and were astounded at what they saw. There were apparently some seventy hours of outtakes--much of it was interviews with witnesses and police--which CBS claimed they would destroy. Lane stated that the small sample of outtakes he and de Antonio viewed proved beyond doubt that the film evidence had been manipulated to such an extent that the interviews which America saw when the four part doco was aired in 1967 bore little resemblance to what the witnesses actually said in November '63. What the remainder of the outtakes might have revealed is fertile ground for speculation.

Whether the outtakes still exist is unknown. I don't believe CBS has ever admitted destroying them. I could be wrong.

If they have been destroyed, it raises an interesting question concerning the legality of such an act. CBS and other media networks claim the film is their private property and they are free to do as they like with it. However, Lane argues that there is a legitimate public interest in the material,

The networks share a monopoly that is government, therefore publicly created and regulated. Had an ordinary citizen equipped with a Brownie camera sought entrance into the basement of the Dallas Police and Courts Building to film the abortive transfer of Lee Harvey Oswald he might well have been denied admission. Yet the local officials welcomed the film crews of the networks due, no doubt, to their official capacity. Credentials, which grant access to historical moments are given, by the public, to the networks, but are denied to the ordinary citizen. Do the networks then, having accepted that public trust, have the right to treat the resultant material as private property to be suppressed or destroyed at will?

It would be interesting to see how Lane's argument would go if the issue of the seventy hours of outtakes was ever tested in court.

So we’re back to no real motive.

No we're not.

You haven't discredited or debunked any of the possible motives, imo.

You're using a classical circular argument in order to excuse Israel's culpability and intent. ie, you claim that if Israel had used the attack on the Liberty to divert attention from the Golan Heights invasion, they would not have been stupid enough to do it in daylight and would have attempted to conceal their identities from the Americans. However, you would then have us believe the Israelis were indeed stupid enough to launch a comprehensive air and sea attack on a ship bearing the US flag and bearing little resemblance to the Egyptian ship they claimed was their true target--BY MISTAKE. The Israeli explanations, hastily cobbled together and full of contradictions, are fanciful at best and were dismissed by the Americans (with the exception of that poodle McNamara).

The answer you submitted to Sid's question was no answer at all.

"do you have any other grounds for doubting the sworn testimony of so many US sailors, AND THE CONSIDERED OPINION OF SO MANY HIGH RANKING US POLITICIANS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS".

Your weak reply was to state that you doubted the conclusions they reached. Well Len, on one side we have an almost unanimous consensus from experienced military officers, Government officials who had access to official reports and hard evidence, and sailors who witnessed the attack personally. On the other side, we have the opinion four decades later of a researcher whose unbending loyalty to Israel renders his historical objectivity doubtful at best.

On the question of which side is more credible it's no contest.

You have the awesome task of proving why we should believe you rather than the impressive list of those who believed it was no accident. I've got no doubt you'll have the front to attempt to scale that peak but you haven't even arrived at base camp yet.

Interesting stuff, Evan.

I remember reading about the FRANK E EVANS as a kid. I tend to agree that the invasion of the Golan Heights is probably the most likely of the possible motives on the table so far.

The question of who bore ultimate responsibility for the attack on the Liberty may not be resolved during the life of this thread but I did discover one fact which may or may not be relevant. While perusing this comprehensive timeline of the region (it actually goes back over more than three millennia), I noticed that Eshkol appointed former IDF Chief Moshe Dayan to the post of Minister for Defense on June 2, 1967---mere days before the Liberty incident occurred. Eshkol obviously wanted Dayan's military expertise in Cabinet for the upcoming war, so it could be assumed that Dayan was widely consulted by IDF Chiefs in relation to important strategies and operations during the course of the six day war.

Anyway, the timeline's a fascinating read:

http://www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm

The most fitting eulogy--far closer to the truth than the one provided by Bush--would have been straight from the lips of LBJ:

"He's so dumb he can't chew gum and fart at the same time".

From the Liberty Enquiry site:

10.02.95 Time magazine article

OPENING GRAVE WOUNDS: EVIDENCE OF ISRAELI ATROCITIES DURING THE 1967 WAR WITH EGYPT THREATENS THE COUNTRIES' FRAGILE TIES

FREDERICK PAINTON REPORTED BY AMANY RADWAN/CAIRO AND ERIC SILVER/JERUSALEM

Despite a historic peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, the heritage of two wars in two decades still leaves unexpected and bitter traces. Last week new disclosures that Israeli soldiers massacred Egyptian pows during the 1967 war added to a growing wave of anti-Israeli sentiment in Egypt. The sequence of events leading to the unearthing of two mass graves outside the Sinai city of El Arish last week began a month ago with admissions by Israeli war veterans that unarmed Egyptian civilians and pows were murdered in the 1956 and 1967 wars.

The expedition that discovered the shallow burial sites was organized by the semiofficial Al-Ahram newspaper and guided by Abdel Salam Moussa, 55, a former air force officer who was taken prisoner by the Israelis during the 1967 war. The searchers found human bones and estimated that the first grave contained the remains of approximately 90 people. Recalling the killings, Moussa told Al-Ahram, "I saw a line of prisoners, civilians and military, and they [israeli troops] opened fire at them all at once. When they were dead, they told us to bury them." Another witness to such shootings, a local Bedouin named Soliman Salama, identified a second grave 27 km away where he said he saw Israelis kill about 30 Egyptian soldiers after they had surrendered.

The fury aroused in Egypt by the apparent proof of massacres was fueled by the press, which matched wartime photos with imaginative illustrations showing Egyptian soldiers surrendering, being ordered to dig their graves, then being executed. Opposition parties and newspapers are pressing President Mubarak to suspend diplomatic ties with Israel until a full investigation into the executions is conducted. Director of Egypt's State Information Service Nabil Osman responded, "This is a very serious issue. The truth has to be made clear. Such crimes are against humanity, and they just don't fade away."

The sudden revival of old resentments threatened to poison relations between Cairo and Tel Aviv, and worse, to undermine a diplomatic alliance that is essential to the process of reaching a broader Middle East settlement. The controversy led Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres to veto Cairo as the site for current talks with the Palestinians over self-rule in the West Bank, explaining that he would have to answer questions about the mass graves.

For the Israelis, who take pride in the morality of their armed forces, the revelations were deeply troubling. Prompted, he said, by conscience, retired Israeli General Arieh Biro admitted last month that he had executed 49 Egyptian pows with submachine gunfire in the 1956 Sinai campaign. The disclosure touched off a bout of soul-searching and prompted Israelis who had witnessed other executions of prisoners to come forward. The newspaper Yediot Aharonot urged a government investigation, not only to satisfy Egyptians but also "for our own sake, our conscience, our beliefs and our principles." Biro, 69, said he had been ordered to advance but lacked the means to take along his Egyptian captives; he could not leave them for fear that they would lead their advancing comrades to Israeli positions. So he killed them. He has "ached over" his actions, he said, but "under the same circumstances, I think I would do it again."

While Egyptian anger was on the rise, the reaction in Israel grew more muted. Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said, "We know that Israeli prisoners were killed many times in the past. Without accepting them, atrocities are part and parcel of war. The Egyptians cannot claim the moral superiority to criticize us, while ignoring whatever their own side did."

The Egyptians are demanding that Israel officially apologize, launch an investigation into the incidents, punish those found guilty and compensate the families of every prisoner of war killed by the Israelis. Israel's Attorney General Michael Ben-Yair ruled last month that there was no basis for prosecuting soldiers for offenses in 1956 and 1967 because of a 20-year statute of limitations on homicide charges. Israel's only war-crimes law, Ben-Yair noted, related to crimes of genocide or crimes committed by Nazis during World War II. While the shootings of pows were "unlawful and intolerable acts," he said, they were not the kind of crimes covered by the law on genocide.

That reasoning has rankled many Egyptians, who point out that Israel has set a precedent in such matters by relentlessly tracking down Nazi war criminals all over the globe. "This is not just a political issue," said retired Major General Ahmed Fakhr, director of the National Center for Middle East Studies in Cairo and a veteran of all three wars, "this is an issue of families who were told that their men were missing in action. Now, after 20 years, they learn they were slaughtered in cold blood by the Israelis." Concludes Fakhr: "The Israelis opened that file, now they have to close it. And peace means justice."

The discovery of mass graves outside El Arish indicate that mass executions of POW's occurred at some point during the 1967 war. It's interesting to note that the Israeli Foreign Minister stated, in 1995, that a 20 year statute of limitations precluded prosecution of the Israeli officers responsible. The only war crimes laws in force in Israel were those relating to Nazi genocide during WW2.

Len, as for your request that I uncover documentation proving the date and time of the executions and evidence that the military command were cognizant, I respectfully submit that this is not necessary. You are obviously aware of the difficulty of satisfactorily determining such matters with supporting documentation. The burden of proof you wish to place on those critical of Israel's behavior is a clever trick employed to turn the tables and bask Israel in the benign glow of perennial victim.

Israel committed these war crimes. Israel attacked the Liberty--a premeditated attack, according to most of the senior US military personnel. The burden of providing an explanation for its actions rests with Israel and its defenders, not the other way round.

FWIW, I think that the execution of the POWs at El Arish and the murder of the UN peacekeepers are quite plausible explanations for Israel's decision to attack the Liberty and divert attention from its actions. Of course, the party best placed to provide the answers is Israel itself. Their refusal to do so doesn't get them off the hook. Sorry to disappoint you, Len.

Assuming the attack was deliberate--and it appears the vast majority of researchers fall into this category--the Liberty Memorial website speculates on possible motives:

1. The IDF planned an invasion of the Golan Heights, which was postponed for a day after the arrival of the Liberty into the region. The Liberty was attacked, and the invasion proceeded the following day. The IDF did not wish the Liberty to report back to Washington the details of this invasion.

2. The Israelis wanted to conceal the execution of 1000 Egyptian POWs which was taking place at El Arish while the Liberty was sitting 13 miles from the coast.

3. The Israelis wanted to conceal the murder of 14 Indian UN peacekeepers which that took place in Gaza shortly before Israel's attack on the Liberty.

I haven't looked into these possible motives and whether there could be something to them. However, in light of the apparent absence of plausible motive for the attack, they must be considered.

Did the Israelis commit a war crime to conceal other war crimes?

The attached image first came to my attention when perusing the "Architectural Digest" cover story of the sale of Frank Sinatra's last Palm Springs estate.

Whenever I come across a published photo of a library, I try to identify the visible titles. In so doing with this shot, I noted that Sinatra's shoes were resting on the cover of a coffee table book.

After some manipulation, I discovered that directly beneath the heels was a portrait of JFK as it appeared on what I've identified as a Time-Life special issue of assassination coverage.

Make no mistake: Sinatra left nothing to chance. The message was intentional as it is to this day savage.

It is also worth noting that the room in question originally was constructed to serve as the president's bedroom during what would become his famous aborted stay at the Springs estate.

Charles

Charles,

It was a little too dark and hazy for me to make out the magazine cover, but I'll take your word for it.

Frank knew what he was doing.

The biggest hole it that by June 8, day four of the “Six Day War”, the Israelis had already achieved most of their objectives:

They had captured the Gaza Strip, the Sinai and the West Bank; the Egyptians and Jordanians were in full retreat.

The air forces air airfields of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq had been destroyed, the Israelis had no need for American fighters or bombers.

This may be true--I'll have to verify this claim, but it still leaves the central question unanswered: namely, was it deliberate or accidental?

The Americans established that elements of the IDF had identified the Liberty as early as 9am. Yet the attack still went ahead.

Therefore, two possibilities present themselves,

A-Deliberate. This would constitute an act of war. Technically, this would require a response from the US. The US responded to the USS Maine, Pearl Harbour and the Gulf of Tonkin by declaring war on the nations responsible. Why would this be any different? The only possible defense would be the claim that the attack occured during a time of war. At the very least, the leadership of the IDF should have been hauled before a war crime tribunal, court martialed and imprisoned. The dead and wounded and their families deserved better than to be intimidated into silence.

B-Accidental. This would mean that a significant breakdown in the chain of command had occured. The 'element' which was aware of the Liberty's identity had not communicated this to the 'element' responsible for the attack. Moreover, the element responsible for the attack had not recieved proper clearance from the high command. Somehow, wires were crossed and the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. This raises the alarming question; if such a breakdown in the command structure occurred, why is Israel in possession of nuclear weapons? Couldn't a similar breakdown result in a nuclear catastrophe for the region? Unidentified 'elements' within the IDF apparently act without properly constituted authority, so if Israel were under attack, or even under the threat of attack, these elements may again respond unpredictably. A nation which contains unpredictable 'elements' and whose chain of command has proven to be unreliable and irresponsible should never possess such weaponry. Their vast conventional armoury is already too much. The US tells the world that its role is to ensure that nuclear weapons don't fall into the hands of irresponsible Governments. If the US was to play that role, pressure should be placed on Israel as it is being placed on North Korea and Iran. Of course, this will never happen because 1) the US is lying about its role and 2) Israel's strongest supporters own the western media and the US politicians.

These are the two possibilities. FWIW, I believe it was no accident.

Mark,

A question raised by Len still drives home to me: why? Drive it away, etc, by all means, but attack it? It doesn't seem to make sense (although there are aspects which certainly suggest someone, somewhere, is not telling the entire truth about the matter).

Possibly to bring the Sixth Fleet into the war on their behalf. The war was in progress at the time, with the final outcome unknown. This plan would require as few survivors as possible in order for Israel to place the blame elsewhere.

The other possibility is unrestrained hubris on the part of the 'element' which ordered the attack. Maybe they thought the President would show more loyalty to Israel than to the US. I think they were right.

"I will not embarrass our friends" was reportedly LBJ's response.

You've done a fine job as moderator, as usual, Evan. Thanks.

It seems to me the matter to dispense with initially is whether anyone on the forum wishes to argue that the attack on the USS Liberty was an accident.

I agree on both counts.

The innocent mistake lobby--of which Len might be the only member--could provide some amusing contradictions.

Frankly, the USS Liberty Memorial Website provides the whole picture. The Presidents Advisory Board and the major brass of the US defense establishment didn't think it was an accident. The site--hours of fascinating reading for those with the time--leaves one with little doubt that the attack was deliberate.

The innocent mistake argument sometimes revolves around the notion that there was miscommunication within certain elements of the IDF, hence it was all an innocent mistake. Conclusion (d) from Clifford's memo to LBJ, from the Memorial site states:

"The best interpretation from available facts is that there is gross and inexcusable failures in the command and control of subordinate Israeli naval and air elements.

One element of the Israeli Air Force knew the location and identification of the Liberty around 9am and did not launch an attack.

Yet, hours later apparently a different IDF element made the decision to attack the same vessel that earlier flights had identified and refrained from attacking".

Apparently unique among Western allies, the IDF contained these amorphous, unidentifiable 'elements', some of whom may act, ostensibly not requiring formal authority, at any time. As a way of avoiding responsibility, it's a first class strategy.

The NAMES of who comprised the rogue element are never disclosed to my knowledge. I think the rogue element knew in advance that any response from the US President regarding the attack would be mild at best. They played a major role in getting LBJ into the White House so they knew they owned him.

Ah Len, you've done it again.

In replying to my posts you have dissected them into 16 separate quotes and replied to each individually. For this I commend the conscientious work ethic you apply to your postings. I'm serious.

However, it becomes quite a task for me to go through and respond to each individually. For one thing, the debate would probably descend into nit-picking semantics and name-calling. It would also probably fly off on several unwieldy tangents. Moderators may get interested. And I would probably make a pig's ear of the color coding anyway . (I'll be damned if I'm going to paste or retype slabs of text)

I could focus on one or two of your points and make replies. But what's the point? Neither of us will be swayed, will we? And I can't make readers change their minds if they sympathise with your argument. What I think you worry about is the possibility that readers may be influenced by some of the points Sid makes. You regularly attack the posts from Sid and, to a lesser extent, myself. Nothing wrong with that. Most members voice strong disagreement with contrasting views. However, unlike Sid and others, you don't seem to offer many new ideas and talking points with new threads of your own. It's as if you're playing the role of permanent guardian for the status quo. The vigilant goalkeeper, rarely entering into the general field of play.

As far as this thread goes, it's the same as most of the others. I'm not even close to being persuaded by your shaky rationalisations of Israel's actions, or that of its intelligence machinery, its awesome US lobby or its apparently lifelong love affair with the western media. I've never seen a doco on the USS Liberty, even a whitewash effort. I think those killed and their families deserved a proper inquiry into exactly what transpired that day, with public testimony from witnesses who were present. Apparently you believe there was nothing unusual about the media coverage and subsequent public debate which followed this incident. After all, it was an accident, right? Also, I had never heard about the Mexican Congress fiasco before reading this thread. I think these are two examples of a wider pattern of stories detrimental to Israel's image being buried. It's not really surprising when you consider that much of the Western media is owned by strong supporters of Israel. They don't wish the public to see Israel at its worst, and they definitely don't wish to present the Palestinian side of their dispute with Israel.

You may argue that everything about the media is fine and dandy, it's all a teapot tempest, nobody's getting any preferential treatment (especially not Israel), and the western media treats Muslims and enemies of the US with the utmost fairness. I don't agree because the weight of evidence indicates the media is anything but honest and trustworthy, especially on highly sensitive issues like Israel. That's the central theme of the thread.

Maybe time will tell which of us is right.

p.s. I just made a quick count. If you slice off and stridently denounce each and every sentence of this post, you can make 33 separate statements. It'll be a personal best. Go for it!

-- Any reasonably informed, free-thinking, unimpaired individual who would respond to criticism of Zionism by leveling against the critic an unsubstantiated charge of anti-semitism is a fool, a cad, or both.

Charles,

Sorry for slicing this small piece from your fine post, but I think it's worth repeating for the benefit of readers.

The Holocaust and the myths that may or may not surround it is a low order issue with me. Exposing those responsible for JFK's assassination is much more important. However, criminalising public debate of the issue is, as John Simkin aptly described it on another thread, daft. It happened, it was horrible, and those responsible were guilty of crimes against humanity. What I can't understand is why this atrocity should be elevated by legal sanction above all of history's other crimes against humanity, to the extent where its mere public discussion is verboten under threat of imprisonment. I agree with Sid Walker on this. Surely this kind of legislation is a throwback to the dark ages. A mistake.

Criticising Zionism attracts nasty retribution, although not quite as fierce as those who question facts surrounding the holocaust. Fortunately, I'm not in the latter group but I'm definitely in the former. The latest charge levelled against Sid is that his motive in questioning the Holocaust orthodoxy is the revival of National Socialism. Such an accusation is a little extreme, I would say.

I've been lucky enough to escape with just the anti-Semite tag I've recieved in discussions in the political debates section. It doesn't bother me because its rubbish. What is a little more disturbing is the subtle inference from some one or two regular posters in the JFK threads that a suspicion of Israeli Government involvement in the assassination is tantamount to anti-Semitism. Hence, any such suspicion equals an agenda against the Jewish people. Of course, they never emerge from behind the bushes and state exactly why one equals the other, because such a claim can't be sustained. They like taking pot shots from behind the bushes, though, without directly committing themselves to the claim.

I didn't ask you for furthur examples I pointede out that your examples didn't stand up to scrutiny, Rather than defend your examples you changed the subject.

I actually asked for examples of Arabs or Moslems given lengthy jail sentences in Western countries simply for possesing explkosives when their was no indication they planned to used them to harm anyone. It doesn't seem you were able to.

Nice sidestepping of the USS Liberty issue, Len. Most apologists for Israeli bellicosity show similar nifty footwork.

Off the top of my head, I can give you one example. How about David Hicks? Five years in detention without trial on suspicion of terrorist activities. Is five years without trial lengthy? It's debatable whether his biggest crime was his conversion to Islam or the critical comments he made concerning Israel.

Anyhow, I asked you why the western media have been silent on this issue of the two Israelis found inside the Mexican Parliament with guns and grenades. You responded that the media may not have considered it newsworthy. That's the silliest statement I've ever heard. Terrorism and the reporting of terrorist actions is the lifeblood of the western media. All terrorist activities, even failed ones, recieve blanket coverage in the media. Coverage of the Bali bombings in 2003 occupied the first six to ten pages of all the major Australian newspapers for weeks. The Western media make millions of dollars out of its coverage of terrorism. To suggest that they would consider even a failed terrorist act--like this one--not newsworthy beggars belief. It rivals your blatantly absurd comment some time back that Meyer Lansky was only an insignificant player within organised crime. (which you quickly retracted, to your credit).

I agree with Sid that this incident in the Mexican Congress appears to have caused you some distress. However, full credit to Sid for bringing it to the Forum's attention. The media's refusal to report this story, as they are duty bound to do, only serves to reinforce the argument that the western media is dominated by those with a strong loyalty to Israel. The result is that here in the West, we recieve coverage of global events which is in fact grotesquely distorted. And when an event takes places which casts Israel in a bad light, such as the USS Liberty incident, we recieve no coverage at all.

Sid's point about the double standards of the West in the war on terror is proven beyond reasonable doubt.