Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Zealand's War on Terror


Recommended Posts

Let’s see Sid you started this thread off with your spin on the Shapiro case. Then when I raise doubts about your interpretation of events you change the subject to by making some sort of nonsensical reference to the leader of the 7/7 bombings, when I show the cases weren’t comparable you change the subject once again with speculation about what would happen to an Arab caught with explosives in a Western country or how the media would react if a Syrian had gone on a shooting rampage after I say why disagreed with your take on those hypothetical situations you changed the subject once again and bring up the incident in the Mexican congress after I explain why I think your interpretation is unlikely you true to form change the subject to the USS Liberty.

This fits a past pattern with you, raising points and then changing the subject rather than replying when holes are poked in your case. Your contention that a phone call from some one over 20 floors above and on the opposite side of 2 WTC from fires indicated they were not hot enough to cause the trusses to sag is a case in point. I not willing to play that game with you on this issue. I imagine if I make my case that your interpretation of the Liberty incident is not the most likely one, rather than honestly argue you’ll ‘cut and run’. I seriously doubt we’ll change each other’s or anybody else’s minds. I made a post about it a while back.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=30&p=60102

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let’s see Sid you started this thread off with your spin on the Shapiro case. Then when I raise doubts about your interpretation of events you change the subject to by making some sort of nonsensical reference to the leader of the 7/7 bombings, when I show the cases weren’t comparable you change the subject once again with speculation about what would happen to an Arab caught with explosives in a Western country or how the media would react if a Syrian had gone on a shooting rampage after I say why disagreed with your take on those hypothetical situations you changed the subject once again and bring up the incident in the Mexican congress after I explain why I think your interpretation is unlikely you true to form change the subject to the USS Liberty.

This fits a past pattern with you, raising points and then changing the subject rather than replying when holes are poked in your case. Your contention that a phone call from some one over 20 floors above and on the opposite side of 2 WTC from fires indicated they were not hot enough to cause the trusses to sag is a case in point. I not willing to play that game with you on this issue. I imagine if I make my case that your interpretation of the Liberty incident is not the most likely one, rather than honestly argue you’ll ‘cut and run’. I seriously doubt we’ll change each other’s or anybody else’s minds. I made a post about it a while back.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=30&p=60102

Len

My key aim in this thread is to highlight the egregious double standards that are applied in the so called 'War on Terror'.

Indeed, I'd argue that the double standard is really what this bogus 'War' is all about. It is a deliberate attempt to bait, weaken and terrorize an entire culture: the 'Muslim World'.

At various times you actively requested additional examples. I provided some. Odd you now complain about this.

I mentioned the USS Liberty as another striking example of western mass media double standards. True, the incident predated the 21 Century WoT.

Yet the falure of the US media on that occasion to speak up for US forces viciously attacked by another nation will stand for all time as the quintessence of Zionist bias in the US media.

On another thread, the question has been posed: "who controlled the US media in 1963?"

The case of the USS Liberty provides a partial answer.

They were the kind of people who, just a few years later, could impose an effective news blackout concerning a murderous Israeli attack on a US naval vessel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee Mark your research skills and critical thinking are as impressive as ever! Pravda in case you haven’t noticed is complete crap, they recently ran a story saying that right-wing racist TV and radio commentator Dom Imus wasn’t fired because he referred to a mostly Black woman’s basketball team as “a bunch of nappy-headed ‘hos [i.e. whores]” but because he was about to spill the beans on 9/11.

Gee Len. In future I'll try to cite only those sources which meet your approval.

You obviously failed to notice that the Pravada article was an exact “reprint” of the “La Voz de Aztlan” article originally cited by Sid’s source i.e. it is suspect to say the least.

Yes I did notice that, actually.

??????? uuuuuh, in case you hadn’t noticed the story took place in Mexico, they speak Spanish there, is the Mexican government and press under an obligation to provide translations of every pronouncement? Are you insinuating that I’m mistranslating?

uuuuuuuuuuuuh, I know that, Einstein. Er, no, I'm insinuating that the links are difficult to read because they're in SPANISH.

??????? uuuuuh which “pro-Zionist” source did I cite? LOL!

LOL! Nearly all of your cites are pro-Zionist. Just like you.

Why would security consultants be visiting the parliament of a Latin-American country? I can think of a few reasons that would make more sense than a false flag bombing. See below.

!!!!!!!!Yeah, right. Your normal security consultant walks around with 9mm automatics and military style grenades. Security consultant my ass.

Perhaps it didn’t get wider attention because they didn’t deem it newsworthy.

Yeah right. A terrorist threat not newsworthy in the West. I can see the sub-editors meeting now. "Let's just forget about it---people are getting tired of hearing about terror attacks".

If the Israel lobby is so powerful and adept at keep such stories out of the news then how do you explain Cameron’s “Israeli Art Student” series on Fox or all the media accounts of Israelis getting arrested after 9/11?

Because once a story is corroborated by a sufficient amount of sources, then it can't be ignored. The authorities must then provide an explanation. The Israeli Art Student stories were reported more widely than this incident in the Mexican Congress----and it was all over the internet. The mainstream press was forced to provide an explanation. The media then spun the story to its satisfaction.

1) What possible benefit would Israel derive from Mexico entering the “war on terror”?

It's in Israel's interest to keep the West's 'war on terror' at fever pitch. If you don't believe me, you only have to listen to Israel's carefully groomed mouthpiece Mark Regev, who is constantly exhorting the West to confront the 'terrorist threat' that countries like Iran and Syria 'represent'. Keeping the war on terror at boiling point helps to permanently sabotage relations between the Arab nations and the West. Israel sells the war on terror to any nation that will listen.

35) The behavior of the “Israelis” doesn’t seem consistent with “black ops” agents on a ‘false flag’ mission. Presumably they would want to attract as little attention to themselves as possible but according to the “La Voz de Aztlan” they were posing as press photographers drew the attention of the sugar plantation workers due to their suspicious behavior. This basically correlates with an account given in a forum posting on the official Mexican Presidential cite which indicates “Salvador Gerson Smike” (sic) was taking photos of the workers and drew their attention due to his suspicious behavior, only taking photos from the waist down (“sólo les tomaba fotos de la cintura para abajo”) and was carrying a pistol (“armado con una pistola”). As with other accounts it only mentions “Smike” as carrying a gun. Why would they draw attention to themselves photographing the sugar workers? Why would one (or both) of them be carrying a not very well concealed 9mm? None on the accounts said they had a working bomb. What do we suppose their plan was to hook up the bomb after they had drawn attention to themselves? Wouldn’t the most logical thing been to have gone in with the bomb already ready discretely left it some where and left? Why enter the ground of the Congress? A car bomb or flying a plane into a target would have been much easier to pull off.

I don't agree at all. Who knows what the grand plan was? The fact is, they were caught with dangerous weapons inside the Mexican Congress. Under normal circumstances that's probable jail time and a storm of publicity. In this case, it didn't happen. That's highly suspicious. Your dubious rationalising doesn't sway me at all.

Ah, how much easier life would be (for some) if all the critics of Zionism were snug in jail following prosecutions in which truth is no defence!

I didn't see the story reported in the mainstream media either Mark.

I encountered it first in one of the places Len would rather folk don't look.

The Mixican papers seem to confirm the story - but NO follow-up at all (that I noticed) in the western mass media.

This is from a newsgroup posting on misc.activism.progressive:

October 2001: ISRAELIS ARRESTED IN A FOILED ATTEMPT TO BLOW UP MEXICAN PARLIAMENT

Initially after 911, Mexico did not respond to Bush's "war on terror" theme.

Mossad decided that it was time for a false-flag operation to convince them.

On October 10, 2001, CNN made a brief mention of a foiled terrorist bomb plot

in the Mexican Parliament building. They promised to bring any further

developments of this story to their viewers, but the incident was never heard

of again in America.

So, if this account is correct, it wasn't a complete non-story in the Ministry of Truth, just a once-only story.

Very big “IF”. The source of that post was an article called “Stranger Than Fiction: An Independent Investigation of 9/11” some times attributed to ‘anonymous’ and at others to “Dr. Albert D. Pastore Ph.D” which according to Amazon is a “pen-name”* and indeed I couldn’t find any references to any one named ‘Albert D. Pastore’ or anyone named Albert Pastore’ with the title Dr. or Ph.D that didn’t reference the article or from CT sites or forums. So it’s the an unsourced claim by an anonymous author. It wouldn’t surprise me if the story did get a brief mention on CNN though, and if it I’d like to know what exactly they said and if there was any follow up

* http://www.amazon.com/Stranger-Than-Fictio...e/dp/1893302474

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee Mark your research skills and critical thinking are as impressive as ever! Pravda in case you haven’t noticed is complete crap, they recently ran a story saying that right-wing racist TV and radio commentator Dom Imus wasn’t fired because he referred to a mostly Black woman’s basketball team as “a bunch of nappy-headed ‘hos [i.e. whores]” but because he was about to spill the beans on 9/11.

Gee Len. In future I'll try to cite only those sources which meet your approval.

In the future you should try to cite credible sources, which independent of its politics Pravda isn’t.

You obviously failed to notice that the Pravada article was an exact “reprint” of the “La Voz de Aztlan” article originally cited by Sid’s source i.e. it is suspect to say the least.

Yes I did notice that, actually.

Then why did you seemly cite it as independent confirmation of that article? If true you were being a bit deceptive.

??????? uuuuuh, in case you hadn’t noticed the story took place in Mexico, they speak Spanish there, is the Mexican government and press under an obligation to provide translations of every pronouncement? Are you insinuating that I’m mistranslating?

uuuuuuuuuuuuh, I know that, Einstein. Er, no, I'm insinuating that the links are difficult to read because they're in SPANISH.

Which is the language we expect press releases and newspaper articles from Mexico to be in. For your benefit I’ll cite and translate the appropriate sentences in the next day or so. Which less helpful a) a credible source in a widely spoken foreign language a summery of which has been provided by a member of the forum or B) a report in English from and obviously biased crackpot?

??????? uuuuuh which “pro-Zionist” source did I cite? LOL!

LOL! Nearly all of your cites are pro-Zionist. Just like you.

Nice dodge, you statement that I had cited Zionist sources in my post shows how little attention you were paying.

Perhaps you’d be willing to quantify your claim that “Nearly all of [my] cites are pro-Zionist.” The vast majority of my posts have nothing to do with Zionism or Israel etc, but I guess if you consider the NY Times, BBC, the Mexican Congress’ website, an explosives company website, the inventor of Kodacrome II, NIST and the Loose Change Forum etc “Zionist” sources even when what they said has nothing to do with the Middle East you’re right.

Why would security consultants be visiting the parliament of a Latin-American country? I can think of a few reasons that would make more sense than a false flag bombing. See below.

!!!!!!!!Yeah, right. Your normal security consultant walks around with 9mm automatics and military style grenades. Security consultant my ass.

Who said anything about “MILITARY style grenades”, what kind of gun would you expect a “security consultant” to use an Uzi, a 22?

“In 2000, after becoming security consultant to Gen. Alexander Aguirre, former President Joseph Estrada’s national security adviser, Kintanar was designated project officer in an assassination plot against Prof. Jose Maria Sison in the Netherlands.

<snip>

At the time of his death, Kintanar was with two bodyguards and was personally armed with three guns: a .45 caliber pistol, an HK machine pistol and a Glock 9mm pistol (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 6 February 2003, Kintanar lost Rolex, Cash, 3 Guns, Golf Set). “

“PROFILE: Highly trained personal protection specialist, and security consultant…

<SNIP>

SPECIAL SKILLS: Special weapons small/arms, qualified with a variety domestic pistols and assault weaponry”

“PROFILE: Highly Trained Protection Specialist with 12 Years Experience both National and International. Provided Close Quarters Protection for a Variety of Clientele that Included Foreign Dignitaries, Royal Families, Corporate Executives and Internationally Known Music and Sports Personalities. Current Security Consultant… President of Genesis Security Consultants Inc. Ontario, Canada. …

SPECIAL SKILLS: Special Weapons Small/Arms Qualified (9mm. and Mp5). “

<SNIP>

SPECIAL SKILLS: Special Weapons/Small Arms Qualified (38cal, 380, 9mm, 45cal, And 12 gauge). P.C. Literate, Excellent Management And Communications Skills. High Tech Security Systems Experience. 8 Years As Security Consultant….

PROFILE: Former Special Agent for the Federal Bureau Of Investigation …Principle protection security and operations including principle/personnel safety, asset protection, risk management, and security requirements to successfully provide protection to FBI Directors William Sessions, Louis Freeh, Robert Mueller and Attorney Generals of the United States Janet Reno, and John Ashcroft . Experienced in conducting threat assessments,… Presently a state license private investigator and security consultant…..

SPECIAL SKILLS: Special weapons’ small/arms, qualified with a variety specialized paramilitary assault weaponry.

<snip>

PROFILE: …Expertise in high profile Executive Protection,...Antiterrorist Consultant [certified] ...A security consultant who is multi-task and specializes in a variety of security matters to include: threat assessment, international consultation in all areas of countermeasures...A recognized security expert in the industry...

SPECIAL SKILLS: Special weapons small/arms, qualified with a variety domestic and foreign para-military assault weaponry. ...A proven track record of leadership clearly demonstrated in the field of security consulting executive protection, and private investigations.

Perhaps it didn’t get wider attention because they didn’t deem it newsworthy.

Yeah right. A terrorist threat not newsworthy in the West. I can see the sub-editors meeting now. "Let's just forget about it---people are getting tired of hearing about terror attacks".

1) There is no hard evidence they were going to carry out a terrorist attack, the facts seem to contradict this thesis.

2) Funny how you ignored my point that the story didn’t seem to have been picked up by Western language Arab/Muslim media or the Chinese, Cuban and Venezuelan press or even the neo-Nazi published American Free Press are they all controlled by apologists for Israel as well? Maybe they realized that the story wasn’t as newsworthy as Sid and you imagine.

If the Israel lobby is so powerful and adept at keep such stories out of the news then how do you explain Cameron’s “Israeli Art Student” series on Fox or all the media accounts of Israelis getting arrested after 9/11?

Because once a story is corroborated by a sufficient amount of sources, then it can't be ignored. The authorities must then provide an explanation. The Israeli Art Student stories were reported more widely than this incident in the Mexican Congress----and it was all over the internet. The mainstream press was forced to provide an explanation. The media then spun the story to its satisfaction.

No, Mark you got that a bit backwards, the “art students” story didn’t get much attention till it was covered by Cameron. If you think the Fox series was “spun” to the satisfaction of the “Israel Lobby” you obviously have seen it or read the transcript. If really were so spun one wonders why it linked to, referred to and/or reproduced on most inside job, anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic websites (no I’m not equating these types of websites)

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) What possible benefit would Israel derive from Mexico entering the “war on terror”?

It's in Israel's interest to keep the West's 'war on terror' at fever pitch. If you don't believe me, you only have to listen to Israel's carefully groomed mouthpiece Mark Regev, who is constantly exhorting the West to confront the 'terrorist threat' that countries like Iran and Syria 'represent'. Keeping the war on terror at boiling point helps to permanently sabotage relations between the Arab nations and the West. Israel sells the war on terror to any nation that will listen.

That’s a rather tenuous motive for such a risky operation and based on logic that is rather dubious to say the least it smacks of trying to get the evidence to fit a pre-conceived notion rather than finding an explanation that conforms to the evidence.

1) Why would Israeli particularly care what relations were between Mexico and Syria for example? Why would we expect such an attack to worsen such relations.

2) Cite an example of a country that wasn’t already a strong ally of Israel whose relations with Arab nations worsened after suffering a terrorist attack. In Spain we saw the contrary, the Madrid bombings led directly to that country pulling out of Iraq, attacks in the UK and Italy led to increased pressure for them to pull out of Iraq and Afgahistan. In the 70’s and 80’s European governments were infamous for giving in to the demands of terrorist groups

3) Few people reasonably doubt Iran and Syria’s ties to terrorist groups like Hezbollah but they rarely attack Western targets

35) The behavior of the “Israelis” doesn’t seem consistent with “black ops” agents on a ‘false flag’ mission. Presumably they would want to attract as little attention to themselves as possible but according to the “La Voz de Aztlan” they were posing as press photographers drew the attention of the sugar plantation workers due to their suspicious behavior. This basically correlates with an account given in a forum posting on the official Mexican Presidential cite which indicates “Salvador Gerson Smike” (sic) was taking photos of the workers and drew their attention due to his suspicious behavior, only taking photos from the waist down (“sólo les tomaba fotos de la cintura para abajo”) and was carrying a pistol (“armado con una pistola”). As with other accounts it only mentions “Smike” as carrying a gun. Why would they draw attention to themselves photographing the sugar workers? Why would one (or both) of them be carrying a not very well concealed 9mm? None on the accounts said they had a working bomb. What do we suppose their plan was to hook up the bomb after they had drawn attention to themselves? Wouldn’t the most logical thing been to have gone in with the bomb already ready discretely left it some where and left? Why enter the ground of the Congress? A car bomb or flying a plane into a target would have been much easier to pull off.

I don't agree at all. Who knows what the grand plan was?

The circumstances especially their conspicuous behavior don’t fit the planned terrorist attack scenario. There are numerous easier and less risky ways they could have done more damage. See if you can come up with a better reply than “I don’t agree” and ‘I can’t explain’ (“Who knows what the grand plan was?”)

The grenades thing also makes the terrorist attack scenario seem very unlikely unless they were on a suicide mission. The congressional compound was described as heavily secured, how far do you think they would have gotten if the stated lobbing grenades?

The fact is, they were caught with dangerous weapons inside the Mexican Congress. Under normal circumstances that's probable jail time and a storm of publicity. In this case, it didn't happen. That's highly suspicious.
Sunke’s gun was licensed he was also the employee of a Mexican security company how familiar are you with Mexican law and what normally happens in that country?
I didn't ask you for furthur examples I pointed 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.

Debating the Liberty issue would take more time than I have available right now especially if I would be doing so with Sid who has a tendency to change the subject or simply not reply when the facts don’t go his way.

One problem with the belief the Israeli’s knowingly attacked an American ship is that I have yet to see a realistic motive proposed for them having done so.

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.
I haven’t really had time to look into the Hicks case in depth but it seems to me his punishment was overly harsh. His biggest crimes were supporting and fighting for one of the world’s most brutal dictatorships and aiding al-Qaeda (according to media reports he translated some of the group’s training material into English. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/11/1086749867034.html )

Can you cite any evidence for your belief that he was punished due to his conversion and opposition to Israel? I never even head any references to what he has to say about that country though I doubt it’s favorable.

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.

Total casualties of the 2002 Bali bombings were over 400 and over 200 people from all over the world including 88 Australians were killed. I believe it was the greatest number of Australians killed or wounded in a single peacetime incident. Bali is a popular destination for Australian vacationers. Indonesia is a neighbor of Australia with about 12 times its population. It had only recently emerged from decades of oppressive dictatorship and was politically unstable, 9/11 has happened just over a year earlier, the prospect of the rise of radical Islam there must have been a frightening prospect for most Australians.

There is no hard evidence the Mexicans had foiled an attempted terrorist attack.

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 never said that I said “He (MC Piper) claimed that Meyer Lansky was the true head of the mob a claim I've never seen elsewhere.” Organized crime was never a subject that especially interested me, I was wrong I admitted it. Funny how you keep harping on that as if it was the only factual error you could find 1400 posts.
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.

See my reply to the same point in my previous post.

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.

The NY Times ran several stories about the incident in 1967 including at least 2 on the front page.

http://tinyurl.com/33ak44

http://preview.tinyurl.com/33ak44

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

There are people who believe that the LNT/SBT, “Chemtrails” and the “Apollo Hoax” are “proven beyond reasonable doubt”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The NY Times ran several stories about the incident in 1967 including at least 2 on the front page.

http://tinyurl.com/33ak44

http://preview.tinyurl.com/33ak44

A quick comment on this one point.

You are quite correct, Len. When I wrote "no coverage at all", it was not accurate.

Had I used the qualifier 'almost', however, I think I would be on quite firm ground.

In years of watching TV news and current affairs, for instance, I cannot recall ever seeing a mention of this remarkable episode.

Likewise, I have never once noticed the Lavon Affair mentioned. In all the dicussion, post 9-11, about terrorism and historical precedents, it was simply absent from mainsteam public discourse.

Interesting also to see HOW the USS Liberty attack was covered in 1967.

I refuse to pay for the full article. But here's the first paragraph of the archived NYT article from June 9th 1967:

ISRAEL, IN ERROR, ATTACKS U.S. SHIP; 10 Navy Men Die, 100 Hurt in Raids North of Sinai

June 9, 1967, Friday

By WILLIAM BEECHER Special to The New York Times

Page 1, 893 words

WASHINGTON, June 8 --An American naval vessel was mistakenly attacked by Israeli planes and torpedo boats today in international waters about 15 miles north of the Sinai Peninsula. Reports tonight listed the toll as 10 dead and 100 wounded. Twenty of the wounded were hurt critically.

This report was featured on the front page. However, at least in the lead paragraph, it:

(1) uncritically promoted the notion that the attack was accidental

(2) significantly understated US casualties. (The accepted eventual toll was 34 US sailors dead and 174 wounded).

By the next day, the NYT relegated the story to page 32.

Death on the Liberty

June 10, 1967, Saturday

Page 32

To die in action against an enemy of the nation is tragic but purposeful. To die by accident and mistake, as 31 Americans died aboard the U.S.S. Liberty in the eastern Mediterranean, is heart-rending, bitter and pointless.

This second NYT report was more accurate with casualty figures, but seems to have been even more emphatic than the assault was accidental.

By that time, of course, the story as a whole was heading for the Memory Hole.

Would this story of a vicious attack on a US naval vessel have received similar treatment in the US media had the Eygptian or Syrian armed forces been responsible for this 'accidental' attack?

I think not.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick comment on this one point.

You are quite correct, Len. When I wrote "no coverage at all", it was not accurate.

Actually Mark wrote that, are you his sock puppet or do you not remember what you did and didn’t write? :pop:)

Had I used the qualifier 'almost', however, I think I would be on quite firm ground.
No you'd be (or Mark would be) standing on quicksand! The amount of coverage the story received at the time was comparable to shootdowns of KAL 007 and Iran Air 655.
In years of watching TV news and current affairs, for instance, I cannot recall ever seeing a mention of this remarkable episode.
Perhaps that’s because “news and CURRENT affairs” are by definition of recent events not ones that happened 20 – 40 years ago.
Likewise, I have never once noticed the Lavon Affair mentioned. In all the dicussion, post 9-11, about terrorism and historical precedents, it was simply absent from mainsteam public discourse.
Such coverage focused on Arab/Islamic terrorism because that is the meilu that OBL rose out of. I don't remenber much discussion of the IRA either. As for the Lavon Affair the planned bombings were only meant to inflict property dammage
Interesting also to see HOW the USS Liberty attack was covered in 1967.

I refuse to pay for the full article. But here's the first paragraph of the archived NYT article from June 9th 1967:

ISRAEL, IN ERROR, ATTACKS U.S. SHIP; 10 Navy Men Die, 100 Hurt in Raids North of Sinai

<SNIP>

This report was featured on the front page. However, at least in the lead paragraph, it:

(1) uncritically promoted the notion that the attack was accidental

There was no reason at the time to doubt that the attack was a mistake, in a similar vein it was assumed the US Navy erred when it shot down an Iranian airliner. Though the Reagan administration milked it for propaganda purposes must people made a similar assumption about KAL 007. All three events received a comparable amount of coverage in the NY Times.
,

1) The crew had not yet spoken out and when they did the Times covered it.

2) There was no reason to believe the Israelis would intentionally attack their most important ally and benefactor one of the few countries that would sell them weapons and one of the two most powerful nations on earth. Even now 40 years later I still haven’t heard any realistic motive for them to have done so.
(2) significantly understated US casualties. (The accepted eventual toll was 34 US sailors dead and 174 wounded).

It’s normal for the number of casualties to be inaccurate in preliminary accounts and normally the earliest numbers are undercounts. Just about every time a natural or manmade disaster strikes we are rejoined with an ever grown number of fatalities.

By the next day, the NYT relegated the story to page 32.
In case you failed to notice, that was an editorial. The editorial page of the Times gets almost as much attention as the front page.
By that time, of course, the story as a whole was heading for the Memory Hole.
No there were over 20 more stories about the incident through July 31 including one on page 1, coverage was roughly comparable to that surrounding the two most famous shoot downs civilian airliners.

In a few years how many people will talk about the death of Pat Tillman or the Canadian troops bombed by the US?

How many people know that after D-Day the RAF attacked 6 ships from the Royal Navy in broad daylight of the French coast sinking 2 and damaging 2 others resulting in 78 deaths and 149 wounded.

http://www.halcyon-class.co.uk/FriendlyFir...iendly_fire.htm

How many know that a US destroyer accidentally fired a torpedo at the USS Iowa while US President Franklin D. Roosevelt was on board?

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-w/dd579.htm

Would this story of a vicious attack…
Are wartime attacks on enemy targets supposed to be humane?

"…on a US naval vessel have received similar treatment in the US media had the Eygptian or Syrian armed forces been responsible for this 'accidental' attack?

I think not."

No it wouldn’t have but that’s because the US and Israel were allies and relations with Egypt and Syria strained to say the least. If theoretically Kuwaiti or Saudi forces had attacked an American target shortly before either Gulf war it would have been perceived as accidental and but if Iraqis have done so it would have been perceived differently.

Assuming the Iranians really thought the British sailors were in their territorial waters don’t you think they would have reacted quite differently if it had been Russian sailors?

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick comment on this one point.

You are quite correct, Len. When I wrote "no coverage at all", it was not accurate.

Actually Mark wrote that, are you his sock puppet or do you not remember what you did and didn’t write? :) :)

Had I used the qualifier 'almost', however, I think I would be on quite firm ground.
No you'd be (or Mark would be) standing on quicksand! The amount of coverage the story received at the time was comparable to shootdowns of KAL 007 and Iran Air 655.
In years of watching TV news and current affairs, for instance, I cannot recall ever seeing a mention of this remarkable episode.
Perhaps that’s because “news and CURRENT affairs” are by definition of recent events not ones that happened 20 – 40 years ago.
Likewise, I have never once noticed the Lavon Affair mentioned. In all the dicussion, post 9-11, about terrorism and historical precedents, it was simply absent from mainsteam public discourse.
Such coverage focused on Arab/Islamic terrorism because that is the meilu that OBL rose out of. I don't remenber much discussion of the IRA either. As for the Lavon Affair the planned bombings were only meant to inflict property dammage
Interesting also to see HOW the USS Liberty attack was covered in 1967.

I refuse to pay for the full article. But here's the first paragraph of the archived NYT article from June 9th 1967:

ISRAEL, IN ERROR, ATTACKS U.S. SHIP; 10 Navy Men Die, 100 Hurt in Raids North of Sinai

<SNIP>

This report was featured on the front page. However, at least in the lead paragraph, it:

(1) uncritically promoted the notion that the attack was accidental

There was no reason at the time to doubt that the attack was a mistake, in a similar vein it was assumed the US Navy erred when it shot down an Iranian airliner. Though the Reagan administration milked it for propaganda purposes must people made a similar assumption about KAL 007. All three events received a comparable amount of coverage in the NY Times.
,

1) The crew had not yet spoken out and when they did the Times covered it.

2) There was no reason to believe the Israelis would intentionally attack their most important ally and benefactor one of the few countries that would sell them weapons and one of the two most powerful nations on earth. Even now 40 years later I still haven’t heard any realistic motive for them to have done so.
(2) significantly understated US casualties. (The accepted eventual toll was 34 US sailors dead and 174 wounded).

It’s normal for the number of casualties to be inaccurate in preliminary accounts and normally the earliest numbers are undercounts. Just about every time a natural or manmade disaster strikes we are rejoined with an ever grown number of fatalities.

By the next day, the NYT relegated the story to page 32.....

By that time, of course, the story as a whole was heading for the Memory Hole.

In case you failed to notice, that was an editorial. The editorial page of the Times gets almost as much attention as the front page.

No there were over 20 more stories about the incident through July 31 including one on page 1, coverage was roughly comparable to that surrounding the two most famous shoot downs civilian airliners.

In a few years how many people will talk about the death of Pat Tillman or the Canadian troops bombed by the US?

How many people know that after D-Day the RAF attacked 6 ships from the Royal Navy in broad daylight of the French coast sinking 2 and damaging 2 others resulting in 78 deaths and 149 wounded.

http://www.halcyon-class.co.uk/FriendlyFir...iendly_fire.htm

How many know that a US destroyer accidentally fired a torpedo at the USS Iowa while US President Franklin D. Roosevelt was on board?

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-w/dd579.htm

Would this story of a vicious attack…
Are wartime attacks on enemy targets supposed to be humane?

"…on a US naval vessel have received similar treatment in the US media had the Eygptian or Syrian armed forces been responsible for this 'accidental' attack?

I think not."

No it wouldn’t have but that’s because the US and Israel were allies and relations with Egypt and Syria strained to say the least. If theoretically Kuwaiti or Saudi forces had attacked an American target shortly before either Gulf war it would have been perceived as accidental and but if Iraqis have done so it would have been perceived differently.

Assuming the Iranians really thought the British sailors were in their territorial waters don’t you think they would have reacted quite differently if it had been Russian sailors?

I'm distressed to say that you are right and I am wrong Len.

Mark did write "no coverage at all". I did not. Because I had written something quite similar, I mistook your reply to him as a reply to me. My apologies to both!

You have found one fault in my arguments, Len. Congratulations are in order. It has only taken you a year :)

Back to the USS Liberty.

I think the truth is that we are both right in parts. My parts, I'm pleased to say, are much larger than yours. :pop

The attack on the USS Liberty did receive some coverage in the US mass media.

I doubt it received a level of coverage equivalent to the shoot down of KAL 007. I don't have the time or resources to do a comparison that proves that - but I'd wager good money on it. Mass media coverage of the Liberty assault may have been comparable to coverage of the shoot down of the Iranian civilian airliner - or to coverage of the lethal Israeli attack on a Libyan civilian airliner in 1973.

However, the coverage it did receive amounted to promotion of the bogus story that the USS Liberty attack was an accident. That simply wasn't true.

Was the mass media misled by US and Israeli Government officials who deliberately lied? I'm sure that happened to some extent. But the US mass media also showed no enthusiasm for digging beneath the official story and uncovering the truth.

No protests from the media, for example, that the US Navy blocked all testimony about Israeli actions.

In the words of James M. Ennes Jr, the lieutenant on the bridge of the USS Liberty on the day of the attack, discussing the Liberty attack in 1993:

Instead of determining whether the attack was deliberate, the Navy blocked all testimony about Israeli actions. No survivor was permitted to describe the close in machine-gun fire that continued for 40 minutes after Israel claims all firing stopped. No survivor was allowed to talk about the life rafts the Israeli torpedo men machine-gunned in the water. No survivor was permitted to challenge defects and fabrications in Israel's story. Even my eyewitness testimony as officer-of-the deck was withheld from the official record. No evidence of Israeli culpability was "found" because no such testimony was allowed. To survivors, this was not an investigation. It was a cover-up.

Public exposure of what really took place when the USS Liberty was attacked was a slow process. It occurred in spite of - not because of - the US mass media.

Intimidation by the Israel Lobby also played a role in the cover-up.

To support Liberty survivors in their quest for justice was not a great career step for US politicians.

See this story, for example:

Senator Adlai Stevenson III in 1980, his last year as a United States Senator from Illinois, invited Jim Ennes to his Senate office for a private, two hour meeting to discuss the USS Liberty attack and cover-up. Following the private meeting, Ennes was invited back the next day to discuss the attack with members of Stevenson's staff, along with members of the staff of Senator Barry Goldwater and members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

In that meeting, staff members told Ennes that they found his story convincing, but that they would recommend to both senators that they not pursue an investigation because an investigation would only antagonize Israeli interests while "nothing good could come of it."

Goldwater accepted that staff recommendation. Stevenson did not. Instead, Stevenson called a news conference in which he announced that he was convinced that the attack was deliberate and that the survivors deserved an investigation. He would, he said, spend the remaining few weeks of his Senate term attempting to arrange for an inquiry.

Almost immediately, the government of Israel contacted the White House and offered to settle the outstanding $40-million damage claims for $6-million -- an amount equal to one dollar for each Jewish victim of the Holocaust.

Vice President Walter Mondale quickly agreed to that offer just before Christmas while Congress and President Carter were on vacation. The Department of State followed immediately with a press release, reported on the front page of the New York Times, which announced, "The book is now closed on the USS Liberty." Indeed, from that point on, it was impossible to generate any congressional interest in the Liberty at all. Senator Stevenson's staff told me later that they felt the settlement was directly related to Senator Stevenson's announced plan to hold an inquiry, and was engineered to block forever any inquiry plans.

Israel did subsequently pay $6-million in three annual installments of $2-million each. Secretary of State Dean Rusk said later that he considered the payments meaningless, as Congress merely increased the annual Israeli allotment by that amount.

Adlai Stevenson later ran for Governor of Illinois. He was strongly opposed by Israeli and Jewish interests. He lost. Many feel it was his support for the Liberty that cost him the election. Many also feel it was Stevenson's experience with the Liberty that has intimidated other Members of Congress who might otherwise support the survivors.

Finally, Len, you wrote:

There was no reason to believe the Israelis would intentionally attack their most important ally and benefactor one of the few countries that would sell them weapons and one of the two most powerful nations on earth. Even now 40 years later I still haven’t heard any realistic motive for them to have done so.

I agree with the first of those two sentences. Once again, Len, you are partly right!

The second is more problematic, to say the least.

Anyhow, this is already a long post.

Let's leave the topic of motive for further posts...

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :lol:. (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!

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“You have found one fault in my arguments, Len. Congratulations are in order. It has only taken you a year”

Your memory seems to be failing you once again as I have pointed out numerous errors in your arguments as the long list of points and questions I have raised that you refuse to reply to serves as evidence.

“The attack on the USS Liberty did receive some coverage in the US mass media.

I doubt it received a level of coverage equivalent to the shoot down of KAL 007. I don't have the time or resources to do a comparison that proves that - but I'd wager good money on it.”

You could be right, I meant to say the coverage both incidents got in the NY Times was roughly similar based on the number of articles they got in the subsequent 2 months. The Iranian case got a similar amount of coverage in the Times as well.

“Mass media coverage of the Liberty assault may have been comparable to coverage of the shoot down of the Iranian civilian airliner - or to coverage of the lethal Israeli attack on a Libyan civilian airliner in 1973.”

Hum an anonymous account which doesn’t cite any sources from an obscure obviously partial website.

Yes the shoot down was horrific unjustified just as the KAL an Iran Air shoot downs were. The circumstances were quite similar to the KAL incident, a flight crew mistakenly flying their plane over “enemy” territory near sensitive locations at a time of heightened tensions, internationally recognized signals from fighters to land given but either not seen, recognized or obeyed. No evidence is given for the assertion that the order was made by “Israel’s leader” or went any higher than the Chief of Staff of the IDF

Less biased accounts can be read here

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record...1-1〈=en

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Arab_Airlines_Flight_114

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...03879-1,00.html (not at all sympathetic to Israel but more balanced than Sid’s link)

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/640/eg7.htm (from an Egyptian newspaper)

http://www.libyanwritersclub.com/uk/?cat=14 (“reprint” of an al-Jazeerah condemns Israel but still less inflammatory)

“However, the coverage it did receive amounted to promotion of the bogus story that the USS Liberty attack was an accident. That simply wasn't true.”

Whether or not it was a case of mistaken identity or not is of course hotly disputed. It is not established fact that it wasn’t as you imply.

“Was the mass media misled by US and Israeli Government officials who deliberately lied? I'm sure that happened to some extent. But the US mass media also showed no enthusiasm for digging beneath the official story and uncovering the truth.”

Begging the question.

“No protests from the media, for example, that the US Navy blocked all testimony about Israeli actions.

In the words of James M. Ennes Jr, the lieutenant on the bridge of the USS Liberty on the day of the attack, discussing the Liberty attack in 1993:”

I am not familiar with this aspect of the story. I’ll have to look into it when I find the time. Is there any corroboration of Ennes’ account?

”Intimidation by the Israel Lobby also played a role in the cover-up.”

See if you can come up with evidence to back this assertion.

‘To support Liberty survivors in their quest for justice was not a great career step for US politicians.

<SNIP>

Adlai Stevenson later ran for Governor of Illinois. He was strongly opposed by Israeli and Jewish interests.”

Evidence?

“He lost. Many feel it was his support for the Liberty that cost him the election.”

Who feels that way? ‘Many people’ still think Bush is a good president and invading Iraq was a good idea.

Stevenson lost to James R. Thompson, the incumbent; it is very uncommon for the incumbent to loose reelection barring some extenuating circumstances. Thompson it seems was very popular serving from 1977 – 1991 longer than anyone else. He won his first term by 1.3 million votes, 65 – 35 % the biggest margin in “over a century”, was reelected in 1978 with 60% of the vote, he got 60% of the vote again in 1986 (also against Stevenson) in 1982 however Thompson won the closest election in state history 1/7 % (5074 out of 3.7 million votes) ahead of Stevenson and this was possibly due to fraud. Illinois elected Republican governors in 7 consecutive elections from 1976 – 1998, they elected a Democrat in 2002, for the first time in 30 years, largely because the Republican incumbent who was not running for reelection had been indicted on bribery charges

So the big bad Israel lobby

1) caused Thompson to get 10 – 15% LESS in 1982 than he did in the other three lections and his party to come closer to loosing than any other election between 1972 and 1992

2) didn’t prevent Stevenson from getting the nomination of the Democratic party (the party in which presumably they were strongest in during the 80’s). Stevenson in fact got 100% of the primary vote in 1982 thus presumably he was unopposed (Thompson though.

http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1976/ii761205.html

http://genealogytrails.com/ill/governors.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adlai_Stevens...olitical_career

http://www.unc.edu/~beyle/Expenditures/1982.doc

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/ti...amp;match=exact

http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1991/ii910317.html

“Many also feel it was Stevenson's experience with the Liberty that has intimidated other Members of Congress who might otherwise support the survivors.”

No evidence has been presented to support the almost certainly false theory that Stevenson lost the election due to speaking up about the Liberty let alone that it intimidated others from speaking out.

”Finally, Len, you wrote:

There was no reason to believe the Israelis would intentionally attack their most important ally and benefactor one of the few countries that would sell them weapons and one of the two most powerful nations on earth. Even now 40 years later I still haven’t heard any realistic motive for them to have done so.

I agree with the first of those two sentences. Once again, Len, you are partly right!

The second is more problematic, to say the least.

Anyhow, this is already a long post.

Let's leave the topic of motive for further posts...”

I’m anxious to hear your proposed motive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be worth starting a thread on the USS LIBERTY incident?

I believe the topic merits its own thread, Evan and clearly Len has a lot of material to contibute.

Is it possible to port across any of the previous discussion - or at least put in a link to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can merge posts - but that might remove other material from the same post that rightly belongs in the thread.

I'll see if I can just do quotes of the various portions. If anything is omitted, a new quote can be added or a link placed to the original post... or just restated!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...