Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli complicity

[Terry Mauro]

Interview with Tito Howard director of the film "Lost Liberty" that deals with Israels unprovoked attack on USS Liberty.

http://asx.ljcentral.net/wms/eir/tls/2003/tls030329_en_hi.asx

Edited August 6, 2010 by Terry Mauro

[Pat Speer]

Interview with Tito Howard director of the film "Lost Liberty" that deals with Israels unprovoked attack on USS Liberty.

http://asx.ljcentral.net/wms/eir/tls/2003/tls030329_en_hi.asx

The keys to understanding the Liberty incident (as I recall them).

1. Israel was at war.

2. The Liberty was near a hot spot in the war.

3. The Israelis were on the look-out for Egyptian ships.

4. The Liberty did not resemble the Egyptian ships they were looking for, and was not traveling at a speed or in a direction where Israel would be immediately threatened.

5. Israel attacked the ship anyhow. It was flying its U.S. flag. It was in waters that were technically international waters.

Now, this, so far, makes it look like Israel knowingly attacked the U.S. Some have proposed that Israel thought the Liberty was providing info to the Egyptians, and attacked out of what they perceived was their self-defense. But the rest of the story suggests that, yes indeed, it was a case of mistaken identity.

6. Once the Liberty was crippled, the Israelis moved in to sink the ship. They stopped, however, and instead contacted the ship and offered help. This suggests that they suddenly realized they were attacking Americans. They've stuck by this story ever since.

Now, while some refuse to believe the Israelis could be so incompetent that they'd attack a ship that they hadn't properly identified, this is ISRAEL we're talking about...a tiny country, always fearful of attack, always willing to kill a hundred civilians of their perceived enemy to save one of their own...OF COURSE they would attack a ship that they hadn't properly identified!

That a couple of Israeli yahoos jumped the gun sure makes a lot more sense to me than that Israel would attack a U.S. spy ship for some unknown reason...and then FAIL to finish the job...

[Terry Mauro]

Interview with Tito Howard director of the film "Lost Liberty" that deals with Israels unprovoked attack on USS Liberty.

http://asx.ljcentral.net/wms/eir/tls/2003/tls030329_en_hi.asx

The keys to understanding the Liberty incident (as I recall them).

1. Israel was at war.

2. The Liberty was near a hot spot in the war.

3. The Israelis were on the look-out for Egyptian ships.

4. The Liberty did not resemble the Egyptian ships they were looking for, and was not traveling at a speed or in a direction where Israel would be immediately threatened.

5. Israel attacked the ship anyhow. It was flying its U.S. flag. It was in waters that were technically international waters.

Now, this, so far, makes it look like Israel knowingly attacked the U.S. Some have proposed that Israel thought the Liberty was providing info to the Egyptians, and attacked out of what they perceived was their self-defense. But the rest of the story suggests that, yes indeed, it was a case of mistaken identity.

6. Once the Liberty was crippled, the Israelis moved in to sink the ship. They stopped, however, and instead contacted the ship and offered help. This suggests that they suddenly realized they were attacking Americans. They've stuck by this story ever since.

Now, while some refuse to believe the Israelis could be so incompetent that they'd attack a ship that they hadn't properly identified, this is ISRAEL we're talking about...a tiny country, always fearful of attack, always willing to kill a hundred civilians of their perceived enemy to save one of their own...OF COURSE they would attack a ship that they hadn't properly identified!

That a couple of Israeli yahoos jumped the gun sure makes a lot more sense to me than that Israel would attack a U.S. spy ship for some unknown reason...and then FAIL to finish the job...

One of the things Tito Howard mentioned during his interview was that Israel "jammed" all 5 American emergency channels".

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat Speer and Robert Harris should read WHAT I SAW THAT DAY

by Phillip F. Tourney and Mark Glenn. I have interviewed Glenn on

"The Real Deal". It was a deliberate attack that was going to be

blamed on the Egyptians, so the US could weigh in on the side of

Israel. What went wrong is the ship did not sink. Does no one on

this forum do research? The Israeli pilots recognized the US flag

and notified their control that it was an American ship. They were

ordered to attack it and sink it anyway, which included, by the way,

strafing the life rafts, which is a war crime, if Pat and Robert want

to check it. On this forum, no one does research. James Petras, of

course, is a recognized authority on "Israeli War Crimes: From the

U.S. Liberty to the Humanitarian Flotilla". This is just a bit too much.

Interview with Tito Howard director of the film "Lost Liberty" that deals with Israels unprovoked attack on USS Liberty.

http://asx.ljcentral.net/wms/eir/tls/2003/tls030329_en_hi.asx

The keys to understanding the Liberty incident (as I recall them).

1. Israel was at war.

2. The Liberty was near a hot spot in the war.

3. The Israelis were on the look-out for Egyptian ships.

4. The Liberty did not resemble the Egyptian ships they were looking for, and was not traveling at a speed or in a direction where Israel would be immediately threatened.

5. Israel attacked the ship anyhow. It was flying its U.S. flag. It was in waters that were technically international waters.

Now, this, so far, makes it look like Israel knowingly attacked the U.S. Some have proposed that Israel thought the Liberty was providing info to the Egyptians, and attacked out of what they perceived was their self-defense. But the rest of the story suggests that, yes indeed, it was a case of mistaken identity.

6. Once the Liberty was crippled, the Israelis moved in to sink the ship. They stopped, however, and instead contacted the ship and offered help. This suggests that they suddenly realized they were attacking Americans. They've stuck by this story ever since.

Now, while some refuse to believe the Israelis could be so incompetent that they'd attack a ship that they hadn't properly identified, this is ISRAEL we're talking about...a tiny country, always fearful of attack, always willing to kill a hundred civilians of their perceived enemy to save one of their own...OF COURSE they would attack a ship that they hadn't properly identified!

That a couple of Israeli yahoos jumped the gun sure makes a lot more sense to me than that Israel would attack a U.S. spy ship for some unknown reason...and then FAIL to finish the job...

One of the things Tito Howard mentioned during his interview was that Israel "jammed" all 5 American emergency channels".

Edited August 7, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Pat Speer and Robert Harris should read WHAT I SAW THAT DAY

by Phillip F. Tourney and Mark Glenn. I have interviewed Glenn on

"The Real Deal". It was a deliberate attack that was going to be

blamed on the Egyptians, so the US could weigh in on the side of

Israel. What went wrong is the ship did not sink. Does no one on

this forum do research? The Israeli pilots recognized the US flag

and notified their control that it was an American ship. They were

ordered to attack it and sink it anyway, which included, by the way,

strafing the life rafts, which is a war crime, if Pat and Robert want

to check it. On this forum, no one does research. James Petras, of

course, is a recognized authority on "Israeli War Crimes: From the

U.S. Liberty to the Humanitarian Flotilla". This is just a bit too much.

Interview with Tito Howard director of the film "Lost Liberty" that deals with Israels unprovoked attack on USS Liberty.

http://asx.ljcentral.net/wms/eir/tls/2003/tls030329_en_hi.asx

The keys to understanding the Liberty incident (as I recall them).

1. Israel was at war.

2. The Liberty was near a hot spot in the war.

3. The Israelis were on the look-out for Egyptian ships.

4. The Liberty did not resemble the Egyptian ships they were looking for, and was not traveling at a speed or in a direction where Israel would be immediately threatened.

5. Israel attacked the ship anyhow. It was flying its U.S. flag. It was in waters that were technically international waters.

Now, this, so far, makes it look like Israel knowingly attacked the U.S. Some have proposed that Israel thought the Liberty was providing info to the Egyptians, and attacked out of what they perceived was their self-defense. But the rest of the story suggests that, yes indeed, it was a case of mistaken identity.

6. Once the Liberty was crippled, the Israelis moved in to sink the ship. They stopped, however, and instead contacted the ship and offered help. This suggests that they suddenly realized they were attacking Americans. They've stuck by this story ever since.

Now, while some refuse to believe the Israelis could be so incompetent that they'd attack a ship that they hadn't properly identified, this is ISRAEL we're talking about...a tiny country, always fearful of attack, always willing to kill a hundred civilians of their perceived enemy to save one of their own...OF COURSE they would attack a ship that they hadn't properly identified!

That a couple of Israeli yahoos jumped the gun sure makes a lot more sense to me than that Israel would attack a U.S. spy ship for some unknown reason...and then FAIL to finish the job...

One of the things Tito Howard mentioned during his interview was that Israel "jammed" all 5 American emergency channels".

You missed point number 6, Jim. The problem wasn't that the ship didn't sink. The FACT is that the Israelis decided not to sink the ship. I've read a fair-minded book on the incident written by one of the Liberty's survivors, still angry over the way the incident was handled. It is basically a conspiracy book. And I've looked through the more recent Attack on the Liberty, which concludes the Israelis attacked by mistake. Both books agree on a key point: the Liberty was helpless; its lifeboats had been shot up, etc, and its sailors were just waiting for the end. But instead of sinking the ship, the Israelis stopped firing and offered help. This suggests that they realized they'd made a mistake.

If they were trying to blame the Egyptians, after all, they would have made sure there were no survivors...

[Len Colby]

Pat Speer and Robert Harris should read WHAT I SAW THAT DAY

by Phillip F. Tourney and Mark Glenn. I have interviewed Glenn on

"The Real Deal". It was a deliberate attack that was going to be

blamed on the Egyptians,

Evidence?

so the US could weigh in on the side of Israel.

As if they need any help at that point

What went wrong is the ship did not sink.

Why did the Israeli patrol boats only fire their torpedoes after the Liberty fired on them? Why weren’t the Israeli fighters carrying anti-ship munitions?

The Israeli pilots recognized the US flag and notified their control that it was an American ship. They were

ordered to attack it and sink it anyway,

BS – find a credible citation in support of this claim

which included, by the way, strafing the life rafts, which is a war crime,

According to the witness who made this claim the raft was empty and floating away from the Liberty in the director of one of the patrol boats.

[Evan Burton]

Okay, we'll be separating the 9-11 related posts into a separate thread on the Political Conspiracies sub-forum. We'll try to make sure that only 9-11 specific posts get moved; if there is a relationship to JFK (despite their being 9-11 content) we'll leave it here. If people believe a post should be moved, then please use the 'Report Post' function and we'll consider it.

[Evan Burton]

BTW - I think the LIBERTY posts should also be moved, not being related to JFK. Please make your thoughts known on this thread, please.

Cheers!

[Evan Burton]

(cue Jack)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This attack was deliberate and premeditated. I worry about you,

Pat. If you can't sort out a simple case like this one, how in the

world could you sort out the more complicated cases like JFK and

9/11? I have given you several sources, which you appear to be

neglecting. Try WHAT I SAW THAT DAY and listen to my interview

with Mark Glenn, who turns out to be quite a brilliant fellow. I have

even observed that THEY STRAFED THE LIFE RAFTS, which, as

I note, is A WAR CRIME. I can't wait to hear your apology for that,

too. You really need to learn how to think things though, because

what you are saying here is incredible on its face to anyone who

has an understanding of what actually took place--a vicious attack

which revisionists and apologists desperately want to "cover up"!

Pat Speer and Robert Harris should read WHAT I SAW THAT DAY

by Phillip F. Tourney and Mark Glenn. I have interviewed Glenn on

"The Real Deal". It was a deliberate attack that was going to be

blamed on the Egyptians, so the US could weigh in on the side of

Israel. What went wrong is the ship did not sink. Does no one on

this forum do research? The Israeli pilots recognized the US flag

and notified their control that it was an American ship. They were

ordered to attack it and sink it anyway, which included, by the way,

strafing the life rafts, which is a war crime, if Pat and Robert want

to check it. On this forum, no one does research. James Petras, of

course, is a recognized authority on "Israeli War Crimes: From the

U.S. Liberty to the Humanitarian Flotilla". This is just a bit too much.

Interview with Tito Howard director of the film "Lost Liberty" that deals with Israels unprovoked attack on USS Liberty.

http://asx.ljcentral.net/wms/eir/tls/2003/tls030329_en_hi.asx

The keys to understanding the Liberty incident (as I recall them).

1. Israel was at war.

2. The Liberty was near a hot spot in the war.

3. The Israelis were on the look-out for Egyptian ships.

4. The Liberty did not resemble the Egyptian ships they were looking for, and was not traveling at a speed or in a direction where Israel would be immediately threatened.

5. Israel attacked the ship anyhow. It was flying its U.S. flag. It was in waters that were technically international waters.

Now, this, so far, makes it look like Israel knowingly attacked the U.S. Some have proposed that Israel thought the Liberty was providing info to the Egyptians, and attacked out of what they perceived was their self-defense. But the rest of the story suggests that, yes indeed, it was a case of mistaken identity.

6. Once the Liberty was crippled, the Israelis moved in to sink the ship. They stopped, however, and instead contacted the ship and offered help. This suggests that they suddenly realized they were attacking Americans. They've stuck by this story ever since.

Now, while some refuse to believe the Israelis could be so incompetent that they'd attack a ship that they hadn't properly identified, this is ISRAEL we're talking about...a tiny country, always fearful of attack, always willing to kill a hundred civilians of their perceived enemy to save one of their own...OF COURSE they would attack a ship that they hadn't properly identified!

That a couple of Israeli yahoos jumped the gun sure makes a lot more sense to me than that Israel would attack a U.S. spy ship for some unknown reason...and then FAIL to finish the job...

One of the things Tito Howard mentioned during his interview was that Israel "jammed" all 5 American emergency channels".

You missed point number 6, Jim. The problem wasn't that the ship didn't sink. The FACT is that the Israelis decided not to sink the ship. I've read a fair-minded book on the incident written by one of the Liberty's survivors, still angry over the way the incident was handled. It is basically a conspiracy book. And I've looked through the more recent Attack on the Liberty, which concludes the Israelis attacked by mistake. Both books agree on a key point: the Liberty was helpless; its lifeboats had been shot up, etc, and its sailors were just waiting for the end. But instead of sinking the ship, the Israelis stopped firing and offered help. This suggests that they realized they'd made a mistake.

If they were trying to blame the Egyptians, after all, they would have made sure there were no survivors...

[Len Colby]

This attack was deliberate and premeditated. I worry about you,

Pat. If you can't sort out a simple case like this one, how in the

world could you sort out the more complicated cases like JFK and

9/11? I have given you several sources, which you appear to be

neglecting. Try WHAT I SAW THAT DAY and listen to my interview

with Mark Glenn, who turns out to be quite a brilliant fellow. I have

even observed that THEY STRAFED THE LIFE RAFTS, which, as

I note, is A WAR CRIME.

Clearly promoting his agenda is more important to Fetzer than verifying his claims. Only three crew members claim to have seen life rafts getting shot and only said this decades after the fact.

Lt. Painter said recently he “personally observed an Israeli MTB methodically machine gun ONE of the Liberty's EMPTY life rafts THAT HAD BEEN CUT LOOSE and was floating in the water”. Painter claims that he testified about this at the inquiry but that this was exercised from the transcript and report however he was not quoted as saying anything about it in the 1984 book Assault on the Liberty. In the inquiry transcript he said that he gave orders to “knock most of [the unusable life rafts] over the side”.

Glenn Oliphant, never claimed to have said anything about this at the time but a few years ago claimed to have seen “three life rafts floating in the water, I would say about 150 yards behind the ship” getting shot.

In Assault on the Liberty Thomas Smith claimed that he inflated three of the few usable life rafts and tied them to the side and these were the ones shot by the Israelis but this was contradicted by Painter and Oliphant.

Thus the shooting of the life rafts is not confirmed though probably at least one and perhaps up to three were shot. But based on 2 of the 3 witness accounts the rafts were far from the Liberty and floating away and might well have been unusable even if they had been tethered to the ship.

The text of Assault on the Liberty is available from Amazon through the “Look Inside” feature (registration required) see pages 94 - 6: http://www.amazon.com/Assault-Liberty-James-Ennes-Jr/dp/0972311602

Citations for the rest and more details here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9846&view=findpost&p=107098

I can't wait to hear your apology for that,

too. You really need to learn how to think things though, because

what you are saying here is incredible on its face to anyone who

has an understanding of what actually took place--a vicious attack

which revisionists and apologists desperately want to "cover up"!

Fetzer has a skewed understanding of the word "revisionist" every official investigation concluded it was a case of mistaken identity.

[Pat Speer]

This attack was deliberate and premeditated. I worry about you,

Pat. If you can't sort out a simple case like this one, how in the

world could you sort out the more complicated cases like JFK and

9/11? I have given you several sources, which you appear to be

neglecting. Try WHAT I SAW THAT DAY and listen to my interview

with Mark Glenn, who turns out to be quite a brilliant fellow. I have

even observed that THEY STRAFED THE LIFE RAFTS, which, as

I note, is A WAR CRIME. I can't wait to hear your apology for that,

too. You really need to learn how to think things though, because

what you are saying here is incredible on its face to anyone who

has an understanding of what actually took place--a vicious attack

which revisionists and apologists desperately want to "cover up"!

Pat Speer and Robert Harris should read WHAT I SAW THAT DAY

by Phillip F. Tourney and Mark Glenn. I have interviewed Glenn on

"The Real Deal". It was a deliberate attack that was going to be

blamed on the Egyptians, so the US could weigh in on the side of

Israel. What went wrong is the ship did not sink. Does no one on

this forum do research? The Israeli pilots recognized the US flag

and notified their control that it was an American ship. They were

ordered to attack it and sink it anyway, which included, by the way,

strafing the life rafts, which is a war crime, if Pat and Robert want

to check it. On this forum, no one does research. James Petras, of

course, is a recognized authority on "Israeli War Crimes: From the

U.S. Liberty to the Humanitarian Flotilla". This is just a bit too much.

Interview with Tito Howard director of the film "Lost Liberty" that deals with Israels unprovoked attack on USS Liberty.

http://asx.ljcentral.net/wms/eir/tls/2003/tls030329_en_hi.asx

The keys to understanding the Liberty incident (as I recall them).

1. Israel was at war.

2. The Liberty was near a hot spot in the war.

3. The Israelis were on the look-out for Egyptian ships.

4. The Liberty did not resemble the Egyptian ships they were looking for, and was not traveling at a speed or in a direction where Israel would be immediately threatened.

5. Israel attacked the ship anyhow. It was flying its U.S. flag. It was in waters that were technically international waters.

Now, this, so far, makes it look like Israel knowingly attacked the U.S. Some have proposed that Israel thought the Liberty was providing info to the Egyptians, and attacked out of what they perceived was their self-defense. But the rest of the story suggests that, yes indeed, it was a case of mistaken identity.

6. Once the Liberty was crippled, the Israelis moved in to sink the ship. They stopped, however, and instead contacted the ship and offered help. This suggests that they suddenly realized they were attacking Americans. They've stuck by this story ever since.

Now, while some refuse to believe the Israelis could be so incompetent that they'd attack a ship that they hadn't properly identified, this is ISRAEL we're talking about...a tiny country, always fearful of attack, always willing to kill a hundred civilians of their perceived enemy to save one of their own...OF COURSE they would attack a ship that they hadn't properly identified!

That a couple of Israeli yahoos jumped the gun sure makes a lot more sense to me than that Israel would attack a U.S. spy ship for some unknown reason...and then FAIL to finish the job...

One of the things Tito Howard mentioned during his interview was that Israel "jammed" all 5 American emergency channels".

You missed point number 6, Jim. The problem wasn't that the ship didn't sink. The FACT is that the Israelis decided not to sink the ship. I've read a fair-minded book on the incident written by one of the Liberty's survivors, still angry over the way the incident was handled. It is basically a conspiracy book. And I've looked through the more recent Attack on the Liberty, which concludes the Israelis attacked by mistake. Both books agree on a key point: the Liberty was helpless; its lifeboats had been shot up, etc, and its sailors were just waiting for the end. But instead of sinking the ship, the Israelis stopped firing and offered help. This suggests that they realized they'd made a mistake.

If they were trying to blame the Egyptians, after all, they would have made sure there were no survivors...

Jim, you mistakenly think I'm trying to "cover up" the crime. This is not true. The facts as I came to understand them are that Israel--with blatant disregard for human decency--attacked a ship that not only had not attacked them, but was in international waters. They did this, from all appearances, while assuming the ship to be an Egyptian ship...even though the ship's size, speed, and profile matched no ships known to them. In other words, it was a horrible and unjustified mistake, driven by Israel's MO of shooting first and asking questions later.

In light of this fact, it is not surprising that they fired on the life boats. They were out to kill the enemies. No quarter. Only it turned out the enemy they fired upon was their greatest ally. OOOPS.

Now, questions about Israel's behavior were undoubtedly muffled by the Johnson Administration--it seems clear they feared a backlash. This de facto cover up, of course, led to conspiracy theories, much as the Johnson Administration's cover up of the Kennedy assassination led to conspiracy theories.

But not all conspiracy theories are equal, or true.

[Evan Burton]

9-11 posts have been moved to this thread.

[Evan Burton]

Jim,

What credence do you place on this claim?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6217570&postcount=1

[David Lifton]

One of the definitions of "inchohate" is "lacking structure, order, or organization."

As currently laid out, this thread is inchohate.

In early June (2010), Jim Fetzer posted a memo I had written, expressing my own surprise (and, yes, amazement) at his involvement in Websites that I believed were promulgating an anti-Semitic message--specifically, that Israel, and certain specific American Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks.

The thread grew and grew (and sometimes wandered all over the place, including such matters as whether or not I owed Fetzer money, etc etc) but at least the beginning was there. And there was some logical connection between one point and the next.

And, I might add, the thread had thousands and thousands of views, as people saw for themselves how Fetzer responded to criticism, and just what his beliefs really were.

I had written a critique, Fetzer replied, and matters proceeded from there.

But now, everything has changed, and there is no logical connection between the title of this thread, and its content. Apparently, the editors have come along and--attempting to remove what they deemed to be irrelevant material--have shifted many of the posts and sub-arguments to other threads.

But in doing so, they have lost the internal logic of the entire thread.

What this thread was really all about was whether or not a person who held the bizarre beliefs of Professor Fetzer (in the area of 9/11, and whether or not we went to the moon, etc.) could be a credible spokesman for the JFK research movement. That was the connection, the nexus, but now all that is gone.

What has happened, because of editing, is that the baby has been thrown out with the bath water.

Somehow, the original posting of mine --addressing Fetzer's credibility-- and Fetzer's original objections (defending his credibility, and opposing my arguments) have been completely lopped off.

So now what do we have? A real mess. The beginning of what was a serious matter has vanished, so there is no logical antecedent to what the fuss was all about, yet the title remains!

Just consider how this thread now starts--and with a post (from John Dolva) that is repeated at the top of every page, a post in which Dolva was responding to what I had written: "Jim [Fetzer] shows his true colours. I'm not surprised at all except for the fact that he has finally done so. I wont be surprised by what's to come."

Anyone reading this thread has to ask: what the heck is Mr. Dolva talking about? And the reason for the puzzlement is that my entire original critique (of Fetzer) is gone.

Let me repeat what I have just said: What remains is a title bearing my name ("Lifton Attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli complicity") but completely gone is my original post (i.e., my so-called "attack"). The result is so muddled that its not even clear what the (original) fuss was all about.

I think the moderators and editors should reexamine this matter, rethink their edits, and--at least to some extent--press the "reset" button (as they say).

Either restore my original critique of Fetzer's antics, or (if that is not going to be done) then please remove my name from this thread.

If this thread is to bear the title "Lifton attacks fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli complicity", then at least leave my original critique. If, for any reason, the original critique is not deemed relevant, then please remove my name entirely from the title of this thread.

And what about Josiah Thompson's posts, defending my position, and the impropriety of Fetzer posting records of cancelled checks. His posts--which surely took time to compose and write--are now left out there hanging in cyberspace, with no logical connection to what (once) preceded it.

Please editors:

As currently edited, the content of this thread bears little, if any, relationship to the the title. So the result is a mish-mash which is completely illogical--and, as I said in my opening sentence, this thread, as currently structured, is "inchohate."

I do request that, if my original critique is to be deleted, then the title be changed.

If those reading this thread want to debate matters concerning the Six Day War, the attack on the Liberty, the legitimacy of Israel, the Palestinians, etc etc--by all means do so, those are all issues worthy of discussion; but then take my name off the title. I think that is a reasonable request.

And by the way: as currently structured, this thread has little to do with the Kennedy assassination--and isn't that what this discussion group is all about? (or was supposed to be all about?)

Thank you.

DSL

Edited August 13, 2010 by David Lifton