Author Topic: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty  (Read 9167 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline WindRiverShoshoni

  • Group Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1431
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #20 on: June 14, 2009, 06:55:12 PM »
They long ago realized that the sworn testimony of their own crewmates undermines many of their claims regarding the attack.

Actually it does not.  It simply recounts some of the physical facts of the attack and says nothing about what the crewmen did not know, which included whether the Israelis knew they were attacking an American vessel.  There is no testimony on this one way or the other, and any speculation that appeared in their testimony, based on the jamming of the American emergency radio frequencies, the surveillance prior to the attack, the visibility of the large flag that was among the first things (along with the radio antennae) to be shot down by the attacking planes, was simply "stricken from the record."

In other words, the record of the Court of Inquiry does not contain testimony to establish that the Israelis, with knowledge that it was American, deliberately attacked the ship, because the crewmen did not know that and could not have known that during the attack, which is what the Court of Inquiry considered.  Neither does it contain any testimony to establish that the Israelis deliberately attacked a ship that they did not know was American, because the crewmen did not know that and could not have known that either.  The record neither undermines nor contradicts what the other crewmen have been saying:  that the attack was known by the Israelis to be against an American vessel.

I remember there was a guy on the LVA forum who was trying like hell to show how McGonagle could not have been in full control of his mental faculties due to the amount of blood he'd lost during the attack.

The Captain himself established that.  He speculated that the attack possibly could have been a mistake.  Like any other crew member, he could not have known.  His speculation does not establish any fact.

So Boston can say whatever he wants about how he really felt (and, by way of hearsay, how Kidd supposedly felt) about the Israelis.

How Boston felt about anything has no bearing on any fact, and what Kidd told him was a "statement against interest" ~ a statement indicting himself for wrongdoing unlikely to have been made if untrue ~ and would be admissible in court as reliable hearsay.

See how far that gets your cause when it is seen that your wild and unsupported assertion amounts to an accusation of perjury against a man who has been credited with saving the ship and the crew of the USS Liberty.

That is exactly what you try to do ~ get people to see an "accusation of perjury" against testimony that does not state, as fact, one way or another, whether the Israelis knew the ship was American, instead of seeing the mere absence of any such statement of fact.

It's a rather disingenuous approach to attempting to discredit the LVA, but then you don't have any other way to approach it.

For a witness to say "I can't believe that it was deliberate" is evidence only of his inability to believe it, it is not evidence that it was not deliberate.

Your entire effort depends on the inability of people to analyze your contentions to see how just the reasoning behind them alone makes them false or, at best, untenable speculation.  But you can't inspire doubt anywhere else but in their minds, and they rightly resent your attempts to do that.

The master of the lies deriding those who know the truth of the matter for being less capable liars ~ that's rich.

It's too dark here.

Offline gelignite

  • Lieutenant Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1557
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #21 on: June 14, 2009, 09:22:30 PM »
They long ago realized that the sworn testimony of their own crewmates undermines many of their claims regarding the attack.

Actually it does not.

Actually, it most-certainly does.

Take, for instance, the oft-repeated claim that the Israeli attack lasted for "two hours". Flatly contradicted by the testimony of McGonagle, as well as other assets, such as the engineer's bell book and the CIC log.

Or the notion that life rafts which had been lowered into the sea to rescue critically-injured sailors were machine-gunned by Israeli boats. Not supported by any crewmember testimony. In fact, there is no eyewitness testimony whatsoever as to any injured sailors being lowered into the water, nor is there any testimony regarding the attempted rescue of injured sailors who had fallen overboard.

There is a whole catalogue of claims surrounding the attack which are either:

1. Flatly contradicted by the record of sworn testimony, or;

2. Inconsistent with (or unsupported by) the same testimony that was given to the Court.

Quote
It simply recounts some of the physical facts of the attack and says nothing about what the crewmen did not know, which included whether the Israelis knew they were attacking an American vessel.

But there is plenty of crewmember testimony regarding the Israeli's actions during the attack by which we can glean (and by which we have gleaned) some sort of indication to this effect, one way or the other. For example, it was testified that the Israeli boats initially approached flashing signals (presumably requesting identification), which is not entirely consistent with the notion that they were certain of the vessel's origin at that point.

And it is through the same lens of crewmember accounts by which some have made the determination that the attack was deliberately carried out against a vessel that was known to be American. The difference, of course, is the degree to which these accounts are (or, as it happens, are not) supported by the sworn testimony that was given in 1967. Which brings us to the present discussion.  

Quote
There is no testimony on this one way or the other, and any speculation that appeared in their testimony, based on the jamming of the American emergency radio frequencies, the surveillance prior to the attack, the visibility of the large flag that was among the first things (along with the radio antennae) to be shot down by the attacking planes, was simply "stricken from the record."

This is simply not true. In fact, the Inquiry transcripts do contain testimony as to all of these things, and the findings of the Court do make mention with regard to the notion of "jamming".

Quote
In other words, the record of the Court of Inquiry does not contain testimony to establish that the Israelis, with knowledge that it was American, deliberately attacked the ship, because the crewmen did not know that and could not have known that during the attack, which is what the Court of Inquiry considered.

Once again, it was through the lens of Inquiry testimony by the crewmembers as to the Israelis actions during the attack that a determination along these lines has been made. On both sides of the issue.

Quote
Neither does it contain any testimony to establish that the Israelis deliberately attacked a ship that they did not know was American, because the crewmen did not know that and could not have known that either.  The record neither undermines nor contradicts what the other crewmen have been saying:  that the attack was known by the Israelis to be against an American vessel.

Sauce for the goose, Windy. Because, for the most part, the underlying basis by which some of these "other crewmen" have been saying that the attack was known by the Israelis to be against an American vessel is and has always been their own accounts as to the Israelis actions during the attack.

And you're absolutely correct. There is no other possible way that the crew could have known what was in the minds of the Israelis during the time that they attacked the USS Liberty, save for their own assessment as to the Israelis' intent, based upon the actions that they themselves observed.

Quote
I remember there was a guy on the LVA forum who was trying like hell to show how McGonagle could not have been in full control of his mental faculties due to the amount of blood he'd lost during the attack.

The Captain himself established that.  He speculated that the attack possibly could have been a mistake.  Like any other crew member, he could not have known.  His speculation does not establish any fact.

Not in itself, but I would submit that his speculation along these lines was not made in a vacuum, but, rather on the basis of his own personal observations at the time.

Crewmembers such as Ennes, on the other hand, were not in a position to observe the things to which McGonagle testified (and which formed the underlying basis for his speculation).

Quote
So Boston can say whatever he wants about how he really felt (and, by way of hearsay, how Kidd supposedly felt) about the Israelis.

How Boston felt about anything has no bearing on any fact, and what Kidd told him was a "statement against interest" ~ a statement indicting himself for wrongdoing unlikely to have been made if untrue ~ and would be admissible in court as reliable hearsay.

It's funny how you like to waffle on this point. Earlier, when I asserted that Boston's affidavit constituted an admission of "wrongdoing", you downplayed this notion, insisting that Boston was under no obligation to report anything to anybody regarding the cover-up, as he alleges.

Now you're using the very point I was making in order to underscore the reliability of Boston's hearsay testimony with regard to Isaac Kidd.

I think this is what they call, "Wanting It Both Ways".

Quote
See how far that gets your cause when it is seen that your wild and unsupported assertion amounts to an accusation of perjury against a man who has been credited with saving the ship and the crew of the USS Liberty.

That is exactly what you try to do ~ get people to see an "accusation of perjury" against testimony that does not state, as fact, one way or another, whether the Israelis knew the ship was American, instead of seeing the mere absence of any such statement of fact.

Hold on a minute. I am simply responding to E_T's repeated assertion that the Navy Inquiry was "falsified". In fact, it is this very assertion (that the Navy Inquiry was "falsified") with which she has been critical of my use of McGonagle's testimony in defense of my argument.

As I say, it's called "Wanting It Both Ways". Liz won't come right out and say that McGonagle lied under oath, or that his Inquiry testimony had been altered after the fact (indeed, Ward Boston's own affidavit never makes this specific allegation). And yet, she dismisses McGonagle's testimony out of hand by virtue of the fact that it has been somehow tainted with a brush being held in Boston's hand.

I say that one has to either accept McGonagle's testimony as being truthful and honestly given, else go along with the notion that it, along with every other aspect of the Navy Inquiry, has been "falsified".

Quote
It's a rather disingenuous approach to attempting to discredit the LVA, but then you don't have any other way to approach it.

For a witness to say "I can't believe that it was deliberate" is evidence only of his inability to believe it, it is not evidence that it was not deliberate.

And, by the same token, for a witness to say "I do believe that it was deliberate" is evidence only of his compulsion to believe it, and is not evidence that it was, in fact, deliberate.

Quote
Your entire effort depends on the inability of people to analyze your contentions to see how just the reasoning behind them alone makes them false or, at best, untenable speculation.

I would submit that my "contentions" are largely based upon crewmember accounts as to the Israeli's actions during the attack, same as everyone else's. Unlike some others, however, I tend to favor the testimony of people who were in a position to observe key events which bear some relevance in the assessment as to the Israelis intentions, and to which were testified under oath by the ones who observed them.

I tend not to favor thirty-some-odd year old rememberaces of those who were, by their own admission, taken downladder during the beginning of the attack, and who therefore could not have witnessed (and so cannot intelligently comment upon) these same key events.  

Quote
But you can't inspire doubt anywhere else but in their minds, and they rightly resent your attempts to do that.

The master of the lies deriding those who know the truth of the matter for being less capable liars ~ that's rich.

What's rich is when those who have been caught, red-handed, repeating lies have the audacity to accuse others of such behaviour with zero evidence to that effect.


Now that's rich, Windy.
I'm quite certain that you honestly believe in the purposes of your advocacy... And I am definitely opposed to banishment ~ your mere presence is a testimony to the value of this forum... Your absence would suggest that we are wasting our time here...

-WindRiverShoshoni (RIP)

Offline TheFetch

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 419
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #22 on: June 15, 2009, 01:56:06 AM »
Having read all of what you have said, Gefiltetraitor - I believe I got the jest of what you are saying.

What Gelignite is saying is that he as full knowledge that Israel massacred US sailors and that he and many of his stooges continue to try to cover up this act of war against the United States.  What Gelignite is saying is that he knows he is a liar and yet he goes on ad nauseum with really lame and simplistic crafting of words that are so stupid that you have to laugh at the way in which Jews can lie in your face and yet they expect to be taken seriously.

What Gelignite is saying is that for Jews there is a whole set of criteria acceptable to be imposed onto others and for the rest of humanity, Jews get to pick and choose what they find to be acceptable.

So what Gelignite is saying is that he is a willful moron for the Jewish state and that he willfully engages in TREASON to aid and abet mass murder.  In fact, his willingness to aid and abet mass murder makes him a defacto accomplice to mass murder - which should not be surprising - for Jews are always supportive of mass murder if it advances Jewish causes.

More to the point -

What Gelignite admits to is that he knows for a FACT THAT ISRAEL IS A LYING TRASH BAG CULTURE for which he feels affinity for because as his TROLLING REVEALS and his THREATS (laughable as they were) to highlight VILE JEWISH BEHAVIOR AGAINST AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR DARING TO ACTUALLY SPEAK against this race of haughty arrogant INTOLERANT BIGOTS.

I mean - Gelignite.

I actually read that garbage you TROLL US WITH.

Are you REALLY THIS EFFING STUPID OR WHAT?

Offline TheFetch

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 419
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #23 on: June 15, 2009, 02:17:26 AM »
Horseshit.

Trolls do not defend their arguments.

I do. Very effectively.

Umm...you do know that you are coming off as a TOTAL DELUSIONAL IDIOT.  Can you point to ONE counter-arguement where you have defended ANYTHING? I have read your lies thoroughly and you clearly are stupid and only here to troll with Jewish TALKING POINTS that make NO SENSE relative to the FACTS of this ACT OF WAR by Israel against the United States.

Quote
And, to date, I am the only one on this forum who is willing and able to counter the lies which get repeated about this topic and others.

So your LIES are supposed to counter the presumed LIES or others?  My what a childish sad little boy you come off as?  Are you an idiot or is your IQ reached a whole level of 12 now?

Quote
And I do it very well.

Umm....actually, YOU SUCK.  You come off as a total uneducated bigot and MORON.  Jewish actually.  But reading your pre-canned crap is nauseating and insulting.  I have not read such childish tripe since I read about the glee at killing babies to set Jews free.  You know that belief in such does create a culture of psychopaths? 

Quote
I've caught E_T repeating lies. I've caught you repeating lies. I've exposed countless myths and falsehoods for what they are.

Actually, ALL YOU HAVE DONE is fill the boards with CHILDISH JEW ORIGINATED TRIPE.  STUPID INSULTING CRAP.  I have yet to read anything that is even REMOTELY INTELLIGENT from you, which is no surprise seeing how you lie like a 12 year old, or was that your IQ?

Quote
But if that's what you call trolling, then, yes, I suppose that's what I do.

Yes.  You are a EFFING TROLL of the worst kind and YES - YOU AND WE UNDERSTAND that you Jews are SO DESPERATE to keep your childish fairytale realities as the defacto reality for the human race.

Sick and deranged, when you look at the way in which you idiots actually engage in these activities.

Life can be so grand and fascinating - and yet you make your way imposing lies onto others as if somehow you are ordained as their "god".

You are a very sick culture - a spiritual disease in a very real way.

And will continue to do so.


[/quote]

Offline gelignite

  • Lieutenant Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1557
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #24 on: June 15, 2009, 06:58:18 AM »
Having read all of what you have said, Gefiltetraitor - I believe I got the jest of what you are saying.

No, you don't.

Not in the slightest. You are incapable of understanding it. At least with WRS I can have something of an intelligent conversation.

All you can do is heap insults and abuse... in every thread and in every post.


Run along now, please.
I'm quite certain that you honestly believe in the purposes of your advocacy... And I am definitely opposed to banishment ~ your mere presence is a testimony to the value of this forum... Your absence would suggest that we are wasting our time here...

-WindRiverShoshoni (RIP)

Offline gelignite

  • Lieutenant Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1557
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #25 on: June 15, 2009, 07:05:17 AM »
You are a EFFING TROLL of the worst kind ...

Fetch, if you have nothing substantive to contribute, then I'd suggest that you stay off this thread.
I'm quite certain that you honestly believe in the purposes of your advocacy... And I am definitely opposed to banishment ~ your mere presence is a testimony to the value of this forum... Your absence would suggest that we are wasting our time here...

-WindRiverShoshoni (RIP)

Offline TheFetch

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 419
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #26 on: June 15, 2009, 10:28:25 AM »
No, you don't.

Not in the slightest. You are incapable of understanding it. At least with WRS I can have something of an intelligent conversation.

All you can do is heap insults and abuse... in every thread and in every post.


Run along now, please.

My my my.  What a haughty little arrogant punk now!  LOL

Dippy, your crap is so trite and naive that you have to be an idiot to even PRETEND to believe it - and seeing how YOU PRETEND TO BELIEVE IT, then I guess the logical conclusion is that you are an idiot, which you have pretty much admitted to.

Your crap is literally so riddled with arrogant Jewish denial and puffery that it has become OFFENSIVE and INSULTING to have to put up with such third grade stupidity.

Why do you PERSIST in being an IDIOT?

Offline TheFetch

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 419
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #27 on: June 15, 2009, 10:44:39 AM »
Fetch, if you have nothing substantive to contribute, then I'd suggest that you stay off this thread.

Look you TROLLING PIECE OF CRAP..."substantive" is a wholly relative term, and to try to use this term in the context that you are using is asinine.  My work on this thread is WHOLLY SUBSTANTIVE to the TOTAL insanity of and trash that you are contributing.

AND YOU KNOW IT.  So go F yourself.

Gelignite has ADMITTED TO THE ACT OF WAR BY ISRAEL against the United States as a result of the Liberty Incident.  I heard it on Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Gelignite as ADMITTED TO THE ACT OF WAR by Israel as a result of Israel's attack against the United States on 9-11 and that Jews in government covered up the attack while Jewish press organs spun a massive LIE to cover-up the total TREASON OF JEWISH political leadership in the United States.

Gelignite - seeing how you have ALREADY ADMITTED TO US that Israel is a TOTAL RACIST HELL HOLE, why are you now trying to hide these crimes of this rather hate filled culture that is Israel.

Are you a supporter of mass murderers and psychopaths or are you just insane and stupid?

Offline gelignite

  • Lieutenant Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1557
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #28 on: June 15, 2009, 11:04:51 AM »
Look you TROLLING PIECE OF CRAP...

I'm sorry, Fetch, but I simply will not stand for your excessive abuse any longer.

I'm afraid that, for the good of the forum, I'm gonna have to go back to ignoring you.
I'm quite certain that you honestly believe in the purposes of your advocacy... And I am definitely opposed to banishment ~ your mere presence is a testimony to the value of this forum... Your absence would suggest that we are wasting our time here...

-WindRiverShoshoni (RIP)

Offline beowolf

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 79
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #29 on: June 15, 2009, 11:43:52 AM »
I'm sorry, Fetch, but I simply will not stand for your excessive abuse any longer.

I'm afraid that, for the good of the forum, I'm gonna have to go back to ignoring you.
Da Fetch!

I can see that you are mellowing out in your old age. That's a good thing... ;D


Offline TheFetch

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 419
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #30 on: June 15, 2009, 01:17:07 PM »
Gelignite has ADMITTED THAT ISRAEL HAS COMMITTED AN ACT OF WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES when it deliberately attacked the Liberty during the 7 Day Land Grab. 

Gelignite HAS ADMITTED that Israel was behind 9-11 and that the Jewish State is the ONLY FOREIGN POWER with the necessary INTERNAL US INTELLIGENCE ASSETS able and capable of pulling off the attack on the World Trade Center and then covering up this MASS MURDER for the benefit of Jews and their "state".

You see Gelignite - YOU FREELY ADMITTED to these CRIMES -

I believe the same source was Encyclopedia Dramatica...your NEWS SOURCE FOR JEWS AND THEIR SELF ADMITTED CYBERSTALKING OF AMERICANS in their effort to HARASS AMERICANS and SILENCE them so that YOU AND YOUR LYING MORONS could INSULT US with your FAR FROM COUTH stupidity.

Why are you CRYING about your being TROLLED when you are an ADMITTED TROLL AND SUPPORTER OF MASS MURDER BY THE JEWISH STATE against the United States?

Offline TheFetch

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 419
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #31 on: June 15, 2009, 01:25:39 PM »
I'm sorry, Fetch, but I simply will not stand for your excessive abuse any longer.

I'm afraid that, for the good of the forum, I'm gonna have to go back to ignoring you.

You know, Gelignite -

SEEING HOW YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT ISRAEL WILLFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY ATTACKED THE LIBERTY, what remains is for an inquiry to understand WHY ISRAEL ALWAYS ATTACKS THE UNITED STATES AND GETS AWAY WITH IT, for starters.

And regarding the "excessive abuse", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Aren't you the INTERNET COWARD who is TOO AFRAID to put a REAL NAME AND FACE to your EXCESSIVE TROLLING STUPIDITY on behalf of Israel?

It is SO IRONIC to see you EXCESSIVELY ABUSING US and yet you WHINE LIKE A LITTLE GIRL about being treated in EQUAL ACCORD as you KNOW YOU ARE INTENDING TO TREAT EVERYONE HERE.

Why are you WHINING LIKE A GIRL in YOUR WORDS, you little COWARDLY TROLLING PUNK?

Offline TheFetch

  • Sergeant Major
  • *
  • Posts: 419
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #32 on: June 15, 2009, 01:53:03 PM »
Da Fetch!

I can see that you are mellowing out in your old age. That's a good thing... ;D



Thanks - I have indeed learned to keep my blood pressure in check, even in the face of intended intellectual assaults and abuse by the typical dumb and dumber Israel supporters.  Now I just go with the flow - if the Israel morons want to waste their time being idiots (as Gelignite obviously likes to do), then we just grab our time tested formulas for dealing with trolling idiots.

I get a laugh now at how stupid Gelignites canned arguments appear.

I wonder if these Jews think they are being clever or if they are just idiots who actually think they are making progress.

Gelignite - comments from the local Israel moron?  I am sure you trolls have got to have something for us to shed more light on the known ASSAULT ON THE LIBERTY that was an ACT OF WAR that Israel and its agents continue to try to shill and cover for.

Gelignite even admitted that the attack on the Liberty was intentional - his actions and statements confirm his admission.

It is the only way he could conceivably be so stupid and abusive...I guess he is ashamed at how vile Israel really is so he compensates by going overboard with his dippy arguments.

Gelignite - you LIE WAY TOO MUCH to be taken seriously.

Deal with it.

Offline WindRiverShoshoni

  • Group Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1431
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #33 on: June 15, 2009, 04:06:26 PM »
Actually it does not.

Actually, it most-certainly does.


"Does not." "Does." "Does not." "Does."

No, I don't think I'll play.

There is nothing in the report of the Court of Inquiry that supports the contention that the Israelis knowingly ordered an attack on an American ship, and there is nothing in it that supports an opposite contention either.  Disputes over other details do not change this, nor do speculations about disputed details.

The ship was attacked by air and by sea in separate waves of attack.  Some among the attacking forces appear to have not known that it was an American ship.  The attacks produced a lot of smoke.

But no amount of smoke and mirrors will obscure the facts not known to the men aboard the Liberty or to the men in the planes or torpedo boats before they arrived at the scene to discover that the ship was American.  And those facts that could not have appeared in the report of the Court of Inquiry relate to the knowledge of those who ordered the attack that the ship was the U.S.S. Liberty that Israel had threatened, the day before, to attack, according to testimony not available to the Court of Inquiry.

How Boston felt about anything has no bearing on any fact, and what Kidd told him was a "statement against interest" ~ a statement indicting himself for wrongdoing unlikely to have been made if untrue ~ and would be admissible in court as reliable hearsay.

It's funny how you like to waffle on this point.  Earlier, when I asserted that Boston's affidavit constituted an admission of "wrongdoing", you downplayed this notion, insisting that Boston was under no obligation to report anything to anybody regarding the cover-up, as he alleges.


Another misdirection.  Kidd's statement to Boston was an admission of the wrongdoing of obeying an unlawful order.  Boston's affidavit was not Kidd's admission.  Boston had no wrongdoing to admit, and no wrongdoing that he was obligated to report to anyone other than those who were doing it.

I am simply responding to E_T's repeated assertion that the Navy Inquiry was "falsified".

It was falsified.  Testimony was not reported and the report was altered after it had been finalized and submitted.

Liz won't come right out and say that McGonagle lied under oath, or that his Inquiry testimony had been altered after the fact (indeed, Ward Boston's own affidavit never makes this specific allegation). And yet, she dismisses McGonagle's testimony out of hand by virtue of the fact that it has been somehow tainted with a brush being held in Boston's hand.

McGonagle's testimony could not address the knowledge of those who ordered the attack that the ship was American.  His testimony and its veracity are immaterial, just as the falsified character of the report is immaterial to any of its elements including his testimony.

For a witness to say "I can't believe that it was deliberate" is evidence only of his inability to believe it, it is not evidence that it was not deliberate.

And, by the same token, for a witness to say "I do believe that it was deliberate" is evidence only of his compulsion to believe it, and is not evidence that it was, in fact, deliberate.


Misdirection again.  It is facts, not the beliefs of anyone, that prove the case and lead either to a belief or its refutation.  That one set of beliefs is not "evidence" does not disprove what facts prove.

I would submit that my "contentions" are largely based upon crewmember accounts as to the Israeli's actions during the attack, same as everyone else's.

Yes, you focus on those accounts, which could bear no evidence of the knowledge of those who ordered the attack, that they were ordering an attack on the U.S.S. Liberty.  Not "everyone else" restricts their examination of facts to sources where no relevant facts could exist.

Your "lie" is your contention that the "evidence" you cite proves your contention that the attack was not a knowing and deliberate attack on an American ship.  That evidence could not prove that, one way or the other, and you know that.

And people reply to that.  Even I reply to it.

That's rich, yes it is.

It's too dark here.

Offline gelignite

  • Lieutenant Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1557
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #34 on: June 16, 2009, 08:17:10 AM »
But no amount of smoke and mirrors will obscure the facts not known to the men aboard the Liberty or to the men in the planes or torpedo boats before they arrived at the scene to discover that the ship was American.  And those facts that could not have appeared in the report of the Court of Inquiry relate to the knowledge of those who ordered the attack that the ship was the U.S.S. Liberty that Israel had threatened, the day before, to attack, according to testimony not available to the Court of Inquiry.

And yet Ennes, by his own admission, firmly believed that the attack was "deliberate" before any such extra-Inquiry knowledge was made available to him. And it was with such conviction that began to write his own book on the subject. Would that you were there to convince him that, based on his own experiences alone, there was no way that he could have known one way or the other. He might have turned out an altogether different book.

In any event, there are plenty of other sources (testimony, whathaveyou) not available to the Court of Inquiry which do not support (and, indeed, do contradict) the deliberate attack scenario. The transcript of UHF communications between the attacking pilots and their controllers comes to mind, wherein the planes were ordered to "leave her" when they began reading English characters off the hull.

Quote
How Boston felt about anything has no bearing on any fact, and what Kidd told him was a "statement against interest" ~ a statement indicting himself for wrongdoing unlikely to have been made if untrue ~ and would be admissible in court as reliable hearsay.

It's funny how you like to waffle on this point.  Earlier, when I asserted that Boston's affidavit constituted an admission of "wrongdoing", you downplayed this notion, insisting that Boston was under no obligation to report anything to anybody regarding the cover-up, as he alleges.


Another misdirection.  Kidd's statement to Boston was an admission of the wrongdoing of obeying an unlawful order.  Boston's affidavit was not Kidd's admission.  Boston had no wrongdoing to admit, and no wrongdoing that he was obligated to report to anyone other than those who were doing it.

This is my point, Windy. If Boston's affidavit is not an admission of Boston's wrongdoing, then how would his allegations as to Kidd's statements be admissible in court as "reliable hearsay"? How can it be made "reliable", unless Boston makes an affidavit that is, in effect, self-incriminating?

Quote
I am simply responding to E_T's repeated assertion that the Navy Inquiry was "falsified".

It was falsified.  Testimony was not reported and the report was altered after it had been finalized and submitted.

According to Boston's remembrances. In any case, it doesn't materially change the substance of McGonagle's testimony, which I have been using in support of my position.

Quote
Liz won't come right out and say that McGonagle lied under oath, or that his Inquiry testimony had been altered after the fact (indeed, Ward Boston's own affidavit never makes this specific allegation). And yet, she dismisses McGonagle's testimony out of hand by virtue of the fact that it has been somehow tainted with a brush being held in Boston's hand.

McGonagle's testimony could not address the knowledge of those who ordered the attack that the ship was American.

You are slowly but steadily attempting to switch gears here, and I won't have it, Windy.

Once again, my whole point is that the transcript of McGonagle's testimony flatly contradicts several oft-repeated claims which have been cited in support of the notion that the attack was deliberately carried out against a vessel that was known to be American. And they are being cited as such.

When people claim (and I'm paraphrasing here), "It was a sustained attack that lasted for over two hours", or "They machine-gunned our life rafts", it's meant to underscore the notion that the attack could not have been an "accident", but, rather, was "deliberate". But you already know this.

In any case, I'm not talking about what was in the minds of "those who ordered the attack". Such is a strawman that you are slowly piecing together. What I'm saying is that these oft-repeated claims (above) are flatly contradicted by the sworn testimony of the crew.

Quote
...you focus on those accounts, which could bear no evidence of the knowledge of those who ordered the attack...

Once again, such is not what I'm arguing here.


And don't think I can't see what you're trying to do now.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2009, 09:44:48 AM by gelignite »
I'm quite certain that you honestly believe in the purposes of your advocacy... And I am definitely opposed to banishment ~ your mere presence is a testimony to the value of this forum... Your absence would suggest that we are wasting our time here...

-WindRiverShoshoni (RIP)

Offline E_T

  • Lieutenant Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1580
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #35 on: June 16, 2009, 11:23:35 AM »
Quote
Actually it does not.

Actually, it most-certainly does.


"Does not." "Does." "Does not." "Does."

No, I don't think I'll play.

Well illustrated.   :D 

Speaking of dead in the water...

These waters have become befuddled and bemuddled.  Napalm's intended consequence.
Rest satisfied with doing well, and leave others to talk of you as they will.
Pythagoras (BC 582-BC 507) Greek philosopher

Offline WindRiverShoshoni

  • Group Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1431
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #36 on: June 16, 2009, 11:31:07 AM »
And yet Ennes, by his own admission, firmly believed that the attack was "deliberate" before any such extra-Inquiry knowledge was made available to him.  And it was with such conviction that began to write his own book on the subject.  Would that you were there to convince him that, based on his own experiences alone, there was no way that he could have known one way or the other.

Ennes' belief was not unreasonable, it was based on what he knew first-hand.  Note that he "firmly believed" it was deliberate, while McGonagle speculated that it "might have been possible" that the attack was a "mistake."  McGonagle clearly did not suggest or intimate that he believed or even suspected that it was a mistake, let alone that he "firmly believed" that it was a mistake, again based on what he knew first-hand.

In other words, the facts led one witness to firmly believe the attack was deliberate, while they did not lead another witness to believe it was not deliberate.  Not conclusive "evidence," but certainly enough to establish "probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed," which would take any other case to a jury.

And in the intervening years, an abundance of evidence has convicted Israel, just not in the "proper forum," the Congress, but in the public forum.

Your interminable appeals amount to "that evidence wasn't presented in the Navy forum, therefore it's a lie."

Doesn't work, Jelly.

This is my point, Windy.  If Boston's affidavit is not an admission of Boston's wrongdoing, then how would his allegations as to Kidd's statements be admissible in court as "reliable hearsay"?  How can it be made "reliable", unless Boston makes an affidavit that is, in effect, self-incriminating?

Kidd's statements are self-incriminating, which makes them admissible when presented by someone who witnessed those statements.  The witness who heard the statement is simply testifying to what he heard, which is presumed to be reliable unless the witness is impeached.  The question is whether the hearsay statement itself is reliable ~ and it is considered reliable when it is a "statement against interest," or "self-incriminating."  It is not "made reliable" by any act of the witness, it is within the discretion of the court to allow the jury to consider hearsay evidence and whether it is "reliable" or not, and testifying does not "incriminate" the witness who heard it.

Stop trying to confuse the mind of the jury, Jelly.

McGonagle's testimony could not address the knowledge of those who ordered the attack that the ship was American.

You are slowly but steadily attempting to switch gears here, and I won't have it, Windy.


You don't have it, because I haven't "switched gears" at all.  Evidence is evidence, it proves facts or it doesn't, and testimony from witnesses on the ship could not prove any facts about the knowledge of those who ordered the attack.  I have never argued otherwise.

On the issue of whether Israel knowingly and deliberately attacked an American naval vessel, the previous day's warning of that specific attack is direct evidence, radio transmissions showing knowledge are direct evidence, and testimony of the pilots of the planes or torpedo boats is direct evidence.  Evidence of the attack ~ the holes in the ship, the blood, the bodies, the recollections of the survivors ~ is all "circumstantial" evidence, much of which supports the direct evidence, but cannot by itself independently prove conclusively whether Israel knew the ship was American before attacking it.  I have never argued otherwise.

In any case, I'm not talking about what was in the minds of "those who ordered the attack". Such is a strawman that you are slowly piecing together.

Then you're wasting your and everybody else's time, because that's the only issue that's meaningful.  Either Israel deliberately attacked an American ship, murdering 34 and injuring five times as many, committed a war crime, and required Johnson and all successive Administrations and Congresses to cover it up, or not.  There's no "straw man" there, someone ordered the attack.  Israeli air and naval forces carried it out.  Did those who ordered the attack know it was American, or not?  There are no other questions here that are of interest to the American people.

The only "straw man" here is the one who claims that the testimonial evidence of the naval hearing "proves" that the attack was accidental.  Like Scarecrow, that's a "no-brainer" ~ it couldn't prove a nonexistence of knowledge no matter what they saw or said.
It's too dark here.

Offline E_T

  • Lieutenant Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1580
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #37 on: June 16, 2009, 11:33:01 AM »
Dude,

You have kicked arse with a most concise touch!  : ))

don't waste your time on the operative... like a shark, he feeds off of the blood in the waters.
Rest satisfied with doing well, and leave others to talk of you as they will.
Pythagoras (BC 582-BC 507) Greek philosopher

Offline E_T

  • Lieutenant Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1580
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #38 on: June 16, 2009, 11:53:24 AM »
Excellent post, once again, WRS.
Rest satisfied with doing well, and leave others to talk of you as they will.
Pythagoras (BC 582-BC 507) Greek philosopher

Offline WindRiverShoshoni

  • Group Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1431
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: A reflection on the anniversary of the attack against the USS Liberty
« Reply #39 on: June 16, 2009, 11:55:50 AM »
Well illustrated.

Thanks.  Clarifying the deliberately obscured is occasionally possible.

Speaking of dead in the water ...

The Israeli apologia has gone from "Oops!" to "They were aiding the enemy" to "The Devil made me do it."  Jelly is behind the times.

These waters have become befuddled and muddled.  Napalm's intended consequence.

Divert, distort, denigrate, disrupt or destroy any
discussion of the corruption of American liberty
by the organized lobby of a foreign power

Mention Kennedy, the Liberty, or 9/11, anywhere, and the hasbara battalions are ready and waiting with a complete set of false flags and masks, playbooks and notepads in hand.

And we can't organize a discussion without insuring that no unified effort can come from it.

Go figure.
It's too dark here.