Elk County Forum

Sixty-two Years Ago Today, Nov. 29th 1947, the UN Voted to Create Israel.... and they have Been Trying to Reverse the Vote Ever Since

With that, the United Nations partitioned Palestine...creating an Arab state and a Jewish State.

And on that very same day, November 29th, 1947 the Arab world declared war on the nascent Jewish State, sixty-two years later they still refuse to acknowledge that Jewish State's existence, nor will they allow her citizens to raise their children in peace:

Even as we look toward the horizon, we must be firmly connected to reality, to the truth. And the simple truth is that the root of the conflict was, and remains, the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own, in their historic homeland.

In 1947, when the United Nations proposed the partition plan of a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the resolution.  The Jewish community, by contrast, welcomed it by dancing and rejoicing.

The Arabs rejected any Jewish state, in any borders.

Those who think that the continued enmity toward Israel is a product of our presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is confusing cause and consequence.

The attacks against us began in the 1920s, escalated into a comprehensive attack in 1948 with the declaration of Israel's independence, continued with the fedayeen attacks in the 1950s, and climaxed in 1967, on the eve of the Six Day War, in an attempt to tighten a noose around the neck of the State of Israel.

All this occurred during the 50 years before a single Israeli soldier ever set foot in Judea and Samaria.

Quote from: Warph on November 30, 2009, 01:53:13 AM


The attacks against us began in the 1920s, escalated into a comprehensive attack in 1948 with the declaration of Israel's independence, continued with the fedayeen attacks in the 1950s, and climaxed in 1967, on the eve of the Six Day War, in an attempt to tighten a noose around the neck of the State of Israel.

All this occurred during the 50 years before a single Israeli soldier ever set foot in Judea and Samaria.[/b]

Attacks against us?  are you american or isreali?

And although no formal zionist military group was in palestine before 1948, there were zionist terrorist groups operating in the area.  Even the video you posted cites "secret groups undertaking clandestine operations" while showing pictures of british victims of zionist attacks.  

So lets see, in the 1940's you have a large group of illegal aliens coming into someone's country, committing acts of terrorism amongst the local populace, then the UN sticks its nose in and decides to give half the country to the people who are there illegally.  

Today, they are still fighting.

No speakie raghead, mooncalf..... but from what I interpreted, you hate Israel.... why is that?  Are you american or muslim?

oh come on warph, is that the best you can come up with?  I was hoping for a better distraction from work this morning.

Quote from: Anmar on November 30, 2009, 11:29:55 AM
oh come on warph, is that the best you can come up with?  I was hoping for a better distraction from work this morning.

I'll see what I can do to please you.... but first I have a a gourmet lunch at the 19th Hole waiting for me (Reuben sandwich and a very cold alaskan amber) and a 1:15 for 18 holes ..... Mazel tov, Mooncalf.

ahh good.  I'll be here working and paying taxes so you can keep collecting your socialist payments.

ANMAR, you are so full of yourself, you seem to have a very distinct inferiority complex. You try to cut down everything everyone says. Everyone else's opinions are wrong and you think your opinion's are fact, you need some serious counseling.
Our group here  feels sure that you are Muslim, which is your business, we also are sure that you are sexually confused, some think you are a male wanting to be a female and some think you are a female wanting to be a male. Hopefully you will get some help, in any case it is evident that you have never spent anytime in rural America and your values are not what the people of Elk County have. You belong on a California Pelosi forum.

I'm actually from Grenola, I'm a man and i want to be a man.  A true patriot recognizes that Americans need to stand for America first, and that means not involving ourselves in the foreign affairs of other countries, not allowing those countries to maintain the most powerful lobby of our government like Isreal does, not allowing them to spy on us and steal our military secrets and sell them to China and India like Isreal does.  To not pay out billions of dollars like we do to isreal, and to not pay other countries to make peace with isreal.  A true patriot supports the troops, not just in lip service or when it's easy, but to seek out the real answers, like why has Isreal never answered for its attacks on American troops.


And you are damn right i'm full of myself, and that actually happens to be the opposite of what an inferiority complex is.  Would you like to know how full of myself i am?  I bet that there are some people who read this forum just because they love to hate me.  You know, like how some libs listen to Limbaugh and Hannity.  You see, i don't have a problem talking about myself.  I'm not the person who needs to hide behind an online personality.  I don't need to mask my identity while I sit around and try to guess who other people are as you and your group are apparantly doing about me.

I know the truth.  I have manners and i have values.  If calling people names is the values you think best represent elk county, then YOU are the person out of place.  You and your "group" whomever that might be need to check yourselves and find out what your values really are. 

I am curious, is there a moderator on this forum or not?

QuoteA true patriot recognizes that Americans need to stand for America first, and that means not involving ourselves in the foreign affairs of other countries, not allowing those countries to maintain the most powerful lobby of our government like Isreal does, not allowing them to spy on us and steal our military secrets and sell them to China and India like Isreal does.  To not pay out billions of dollars like we do to isreal, and to not pay other countries to make peace with isreal.  A true patriot supports the troops, not just in lip service or when it's easy, but to seek out the real answers, like why has Isreal never answered for its attacks on American troops.

Exactly

Quote from: jerry wagner on November 30, 2009, 01:48:53 PM


I am curious, is there a moderator on this forum or not?

Of course there's a moderator on this forum.  But imnsho this particular forum, 'Politics', is unique in some ways.  In over 25 years of participating in blogs, online chat groups and forums, I have found that 'political' forums are usually created and maintained with the idea that totally open and free expression (no matter how offensive it may seem to some) is a venue allowing people to often vent openly and sometimes clear the air and/or open doors to better understanding.

I realize that sometimes we all think (and oft express outwardly) views, thoughts, etc. that are less than tactful.  But in a political forum, of all places, we should be able to respect one overriding principal:  In this country, we are guaranteed by law the right of free and open speech.  We are not guaranteed any rights not to be offended by the speech of another.  In the long run, to guarantee such a right (protection from offense) leads to censorship and the repression of the free exchange of ideas.

Yes, most forums impose certain censorship on language and such.  That is, of course, within the scope and right of a 'closed group'.  This political forum could well resort to such limitations.  And, probably does at times.  But generally speaking, I like to see political forums have a certain degree of 'free for all'.  If for no other reason than to reinforce the most basic of rights granted by Providence:  Free Will.  We don't have to accept, or even like what others say (personally or otherwise), but they are, nonetheless, entitled to those views, thoughts and expressions.  With, of course, the exception of yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is none.  But that is for the prevention of physical injury to others.

One last thought on my former post....

When we have such an open forum (even to the extent that 'personal attacks') sometimes flare up, we also can demonstrate how our free will can be used to avoid engaging in fruitless exchanges.  We can learn something about 'self control' and regaining 'self control'.  And we can do it without a mommy figure (be it a moderator or co-dependent participant) standing on the sidelines yelling 'Foul'. 

.....

I just re-read that last sentence.  So it's clear, that was NOT a reference to any particular poster on this forum, lest I be .. uh... censured?   ;D

Quote from: Patriot on November 30, 2009, 02:56:15 PM
Of course there's a moderator on this forum.  But imnsho this particular forum, 'Politics', is unique in some ways.  In over 25 years of participating in blogs, online chat groups and forums, I have found that 'political' forums are usually created and maintained with the idea that totally open and free expression (no matter how offensive it may seem to some) is a venue allowing people to often vent openly and sometimes clear the air and/or open doors to better understanding.

I realize that sometimes we all think (and oft express outwardly) views, thoughts, etc. that are less than tactful.  But in a political forum, of all places, we should be able to respect one overriding principal:  In this country, we are guaranteed by law the right of free and open speech.  We are not guaranteed any rights not to be offended by the speech of another.  In the long run, to guarantee such a right (protection from offense) leads to censorship and the repression of the free exchange of ideas.

Yes, most forums impose certain censorship on language and such.  That is, of course, within the scope and right of a 'closed group'.  This political forum could well resort to such limitations.  And, probably does at times.  But generally speaking, I like to see political forums have a certain degree of 'free for all'.  If for no other reason than to reinforce the most basic of rights granted by Providence:  Free Will.  We don't have to accept, or even like what others say (personally or otherwise), but they are, nonetheless, entitled to those views, thoughts and expressions.  With, of course, the exception of yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is none.  But that is for the prevention of physical injury to others.

I understand that we are guaranteed freedom of expression, does not mean we are free from consequences for that expression. 

Quote from: jerry wagner on November 30, 2009, 03:29:23 PM
I understand that we are guaranteed freedom of expression, does not mean we are free from consequences for that expression. 

Ayup.... I'll gladly let you use some of my rope... or one of my firearms... or one of my knives to administer the consequences you deem appropriate.  That is if you feel so inclined.  Personally, I think I'll just let em talk and get it out of their systems.

Quote from: Patriot on November 30, 2009, 03:35:57 PM
Ayup.... I'll gladly let you use some of my rope... or one of my firearms... or one of my knives to administer the consequences you deem appropriate.  That is if you feel so inclined.  Personally, I think I'll just let em talk and get it out of their systems.

Funny... not really what I meant.... merely saying that it would be appropriate to warn them for their statements.... that that would be the consequence.

We have a forum mod, but he jumps right in there with them when it comes to making personal attacks.  He issues gerenal warnings every now and then, but then makes cheap personal attacks (sometimes in the same thread that he's warning people)

Quote from: Anmar on November 30, 2009, 05:27:34 PM
We have a forum mod, but he jumps right in there with them when it comes to making personal attacks.  He issues gerenal warnings every now and then, but then makes cheap personal attacks (sometimes in the same thread that he's warning people)

The post querying whether or not we had a forum moderator was in jest.

ahh, you know jerry, i only spend time on these forums when I'm at work.  Sometimes i just read through things and don't let the whole thing soak in.  My apologies.

Quote from: ELK@KC on November 30, 2009, 12:20:08 PM
ANMAR, you are so full of yourself, you seem to have a very distinct inferiority complex. You try to cut down everything everyone says. Everyone else's opinions are wrong and you think your opinion's are fact, you need some serious counseling.
Our group here  feels sure that you are Muslim, which is your business, we also are sure that you are sexually confused, some think you are a male wanting to be a female and some think you are a female wanting to be a male. Hopefully you will get some help, in any case it is evident that you have never spent anytime in rural America and your values are not what the people of Elk County have. You belong on a California Pelosi forum.

Ignoring the personal attacks that I had commented on previously.... Why are people not permitted to have values that are different than your own?  Also, what is with the California attack?  I really do not understand.... Free speech is embraced so long as your viewpoint is the only one expressed otherwise it is "not the values we have".  How can you value free speech and freedom of religion and not have some values than people in Elk County possess?  Are you trying to say that Elk County does not value freedom of speech, religion, etc.... That Elk County does not value freedom of sexual preference and exercise?

Quote from: jerry wagner on November 30, 2009, 08:12:08 PM
Ignoring the personal attacks that I had commented on previously.... Why are people not permitted to have values that are different than your own?  Also, what is with the California attack?  I really do not understand.... Free speech is embraced so long as your viewpoint is the only one expressed otherwise it is "not the values we have".  How can you value free speech and freedom of religion and not have some values than people in Elk County possess?  Are you trying to say that Elk County does not value freedom of speech, religion, etc.... That Elk County does not value freedom of sexual preference and exercise?

Might be that there is no constitutional guarantee on values.  Right is right and wrong is wrong.  You are guaranteed free speech.  As far as the sexual preference issue and exercise thereof, thats because its wrong.  Period.  You want to get technical about it any sexual expression outside of a marraige between man and woman is wrong.

Quote from: srkruzich on November 30, 2009, 08:20:30 PM
Might be that there is no constitutional guarantee on values.  Right is right and wrong is wrong.  You are guaranteed free speech.  As far as the sexual preference issue and exercise thereof, thats because its wrong.  Period.  You want to get technical about it any sexual expression outside of a marraige between man and woman is wrong.

In your opinion based on your religious preference sexual expression outside of marriage is wrong.... however, we have the right to our opinion and I would hope that even residents of Elk County (to quote Elk@KC) would support the value that we should have the right to our own opinion.  Or do you want to brainwash citizens regarding this?

Quote from: jerry wagner on November 30, 2009, 08:22:42 PM
In your opinion based on your religious preference sexual expression outside of marriage is wrong.... however, we have the right to our opinion and I would hope that even residents of Elk County (to quote Elk@KC) would support the value that we should have the right to our own opinion.  Or do you want to brainwash citizens regarding this?

Thats because you base your values in humanistic philosophy of if it feels good do it.  That philosophy also allows for anything.  Killing, molesting kids, theft, its also what drives the fraud in this country from the rich down to the dirt poor.  This belief system also goes hand in hand with the politics of envy.

Holy Crap, would you all just whip it out and see whose is biggest and get it over with.  ALL of you sound like a bunch of damn kids.  It would be nice to actually relate to the thread once in a while.

Quote from: srkruzich on November 30, 2009, 08:39:00 PM
Thats because you base your values in humanistic philosophy of if it feels good do it.  That philosophy also allows for anything.  Killing, molesting kids, theft, its also what drives the fraud in this country from the rich down to the dirt poor.  This belief system also goes hand in hand with the politics of envy.

That would be inaccurate.  Interesting where you assume where I based my values.  In fact I base my values of equality which is not a "feel good" philosophy.  This philosophy does not allow for anything, but while we are on the subject of philosophies allowing for anything.... what philosophy do you live by because based on your expressed opinions I would believe that you would "allow for" killing, etc as well.  Politics of envy is an interesting discussion point, perhaps I believe that as part of my belief in equality, I believe that they should be permitted "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which means to some degree that we are all permitted to a certain expectation of living (education/not dying from exposure/hunger/disease/health), liberty to express ourselves/make our own choices/lifestyles, and the pursuit of happiness (choosing our own lifestyle/freedom of direction/expression/etc.)

Quote from: jerry wagner on November 30, 2009, 09:01:03 PM
That would be inaccurate.  Interesting where you assume where I based my values.  In fact I base my values of equality which is not a "feel good" philosophy.  This philosophy does not allow for anything, but while we are on the subject of philosophies allowing for anything.... what philosophy do you live by because based on your expressed opinions I would believe that you would "allow for" killing, etc as well.  Politics of envy is an interesting discussion point, perhaps I believe that as part of my belief in equality, I believe that they should be permitted "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which means to some degree that we are all permitted to a certain expectation of living (education/not dying from exposure/hunger/disease/health), liberty to express ourselves/make our own choices/lifestyles, and the pursuit of happiness (choosing our own lifestyle/freedom of direction/expression/etc.)

Well if thats what you want to delude yourself.  I have heard that ignorance is bliss.

I appologize varmit, got caught up in it again. 

Don't worry about it Srkruzich.  And quite frankly, to hell with it.  Most of us on here at one point in time have called names, said things in an offensive manner, etc.  And then when we try and stop we get responses like..."thats a cheap shot"..."aren't you a jew"..."you just want to brainwash people"...."since you're from a rural area you wouldn't understand"....etc.  Respect on all sides is completely out the window here.  Instead of countering an argument with facts or at least logic we get things like..."Sorry Mooncalf no speakie raghead"...."You must be a gay muslim lover"....whatever. 

Didn't mean to "go off" on you personally, pretty much directed at everybody.  Rants over.

Quote from: jerry wagner on November 30, 2009, 01:51:02 PM
I am curious, is there a moderator on this forum or not?

yes Jerry, there is a moderator.  Sorry I couldn't here earlier.  I was at work.  And unlike others I have a job where I am actually required to do something other than spend time on the forum.   :P

kinda like bein in charge of a bunch of two years olds ain't it LOL me included :P (but only on occasion LOL)

Why hells bells Billy. Your lack of time to be a moderator can be solved real damn easy. Quit that damn job---get on welfare---and kazam----you be the man---a full time moderator !!! Don't you just love it when your problems can be solved so easy ? :)

Hey Cuz, you been doing some serious thinking!  You better rest now. ;D ;D ;D

Jarhead, while my moderator time issue might be solved, if I followed your plan of attack my self respect and dignity would be trashed.  Although I'm pretty sure I could make more on welfare.  Alas, I'm afraid that I'll just have to get here when I can.  You know, on my own time, while I'm NOT at work.  Oh well, thats life.

Varmit, we do have something in common afterall.  I like you have no access to a computer at work.  How do we survive? ;D ;D

Quote from: Anmar on November 30, 2009, 01:07:00 PM
A true patriot recognizes that Americans need to stand for America first, and that means not involving ourselves in the foreign affairs of other countries, not allowing those countries to maintain the most powerful lobby of our government like Isreal does, not allowing them to spy on us and steal our military secrets and sell them to China and India like Isreal does.  To not pay out billions of dollars like we do to isreal, and to not pay other countries to make peace with isreal.  A true patriot supports the troops, not just in lip service or when it's easy, but to seek out the real answers, like why has Isreal never answered for its attacks on American troops.

You forgot just a few, like...not telling Isreal to stop with the settlements in Gaza, or telling them to not attack iran nuclear facilities.  Just thought I'd throw those out there. 

By the way, a true patriot doesn't just support the troops, he joins them if he is able.  What was it you did again??

Quote from: Varmit on November 30, 2009, 10:27:34 PM
Don't worry about it Srkruzich.  And quite frankly, to hell with it.  Most of us on here at one point in time have called names, said things in an offensive manner, etc.  And then when we try and stop we get responses like..."thats a cheap shot"..."aren't you a jew"..."you just want to brainwash people"...."since you're from a rural area you wouldn't understand"....etc.  Respect on all sides is completely out the window here.  Instead of countering an argument with facts or at least logic we get things like..."Sorry Mooncalf no speakie raghead"...."You must be a gay muslim lover"....whatever. 

Didn't mean to "go off" on you personally, pretty much directed at everybody.  Rants over.

Billy... what the hell do you mean, "...Instead of countering an argument with facts or at least logic....?  I stated the FACTS at the begining of this thread!  They are the facts... Period!   As far as "Sorry Mooncalf no speakie raghead".... the guy gave me a smart-ass arab answer and I came back at him.  He expected it and knew it was coming, that's why he didn't seem too upset.  As far as "You must be a gay muslim lover".... I don't know where the f%@# that came from because it wasn't me that said that! 

Quote from: Warph on December 02, 2009, 03:03:51 AM
Billy... what the hell do you mean, "...Instead of countering an argument with facts or at least logic....?  I stated the FACTS at the begining of this thread!  They are the facts... Period!   As far as "Sorry Mooncalf no speakie raghead".... the guy gave me a smart-ass arab answer and I came back at him.  He expected it and knew it was coming, that's why he didn't seem too upset.  As far as "You must be a gay muslim lover".... I don't know where the f%@# that came from because it wasn't me that said that! 

You stated your facts.... it is doubtful whether they are all actually facts.

Varmit, we solved the "who is a patriot" question some time ago. Is it really necessary to revisit that?

Quote from: jerry wagner on December 02, 2009, 07:47:28 AM
You stated your facts.... it is doubtful whether they are all actually facts.

Jerry... it is good that you have an opinion on this.  You've heard mine and you've heard Anmar's.  Now I've been to Israel a number of times in the service of my country as has Billy, I believe.  Anmar has also visited.  We three have formed our own opinions as to what we think, seen and experienced while "in country."  Now, I gather you don't think too much of mine.  Why is that, Jerry?  Have you ever been to Israel to get a first hand prospective on what is really going on with Arab-Israeli problems today?  Or for that matter, the other side of the coin, how about Jordon, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt to get the Arab perspective on how they feel?  Just curious.  If not, I would still like to hear your opinion on what you think.  While you are making up your mind, here a few more facts:



In human terms, the War of Independence was Israel's costliest war, with over 6,000 Israelis were killed and 15,000 wounded. The war consisted of 39 separate operations, fought from the borders of Lebanon to the Sinai Peninsula and Eilat.

In December 1946 - at the first post-war Zionist Congress in Basle - David Ben Gurion assumed the defense portfolio, including responsibility for the Haganah, which at the time concentrated on the struggle against the British.

Although British restrictions, searches and detentions made the building of a clandestine force - with armor and artillery, air and sea power - well-nigh impossible, Ben-Gurion decided early on that this was the decisive task: to build up a force in preparation for an assault by the regular armies of the Arab countries, which the yishuv would have to face alone, without outside help.

He found the Haganah woefully ill prepared for such an eventuality and set about energetically to rectify this. Since import and deployment of heavy weapons were not practicable as long as the British held sway over Palestine, it was decided that manpower should be readied in the country and equipment purchased abroad - to be "married" in time to throw back an Arab assault, if not to prevent it; in time for 15 May 1948, the day envisaged for the termination of the British Mandate and the day after Israel would declare its independence.



The War of Independence (1947-49)

The war was fought along the entire, long border of the country: against Lebanon and Syria in the north; Iraq and Transjordan - renamed Jordan during the war - in the east; Egypt, assisted by contingents from the Sudan - in the south; and Palestinians and volunteers from Arab countries in the interior of the country.

It was the bloodiest of Israel's wars. It cost 6,373 killed in action (from pre-state days until 20 July 1949) almost 1% of the yishuv (the Jewish community) - although that figure includes quite a number of new immigrants and some foreign volunteers.

In the First Phase (29 November 1947 - 1 April 1948), it was the Palestinian Arabs who took the offensive, with the help of volunteers from neighboring countries; the yishuv had little success in limiting the war - it suffered severe casualties and disruption of passage along most of the major highways.

In the Second Phase (1 April - 15 May) the Haganah took the initiative, and in six weeks was able to turn the tables - capturing, inter alia, the Arab sections of Tiberias, Haifa and later also Safed and Acre, temporarily opening the road to Jerusalem and gaining control of much of the territory alotted to the Jewish State under the UN Resolution.

The Third Phase (15 May - 19 July), considered the critical one, opened with the simultaneous, coordinated assault on the fledgling state by five regular Arab armies from neighboring countries, with an overwhelming superiority of heavy equipment - armor, artillery and airforce.
On 31 May the Haganah was renamed the "Israel Defence Forces". The IDF suffered initial setbacks, including the loss of the Etzion Bloc in Judea, the area of Mishmar Hayarden in the north and Yad Mordehai in the south, but after three weeks was able to halt the offensive, to stabilize the front and even initiate some local offensive operations.

The Fourth Phase (19 July 1948 - 20 July, 1949) was characterized by Israeli initiatives: Operation Yoav, in October, cleared the road to the Negev, culminating in the capture of Be'er Sheva; Operation Hiram, at the end of October, resulted in the capture of the Upper Galilee; Operation Horev in December 1948 and Operation Uvda in March 1949, completed the capture of the Negev, which had been alotted to the Jewish State by the United Nations.

Simultaneously, the Arab countries signed Armistice Agreements: first came Egypt - 24 February 1949; followed by Lebanon - 23 March; Jordan - 3 April; and Syria - 20 July. Only Iraq did not sign an armistice agreement with Israel. It preferred to withdraw its troops and hand over its sector to the Arab Legion of Jordan.

In the end Israel not only ejected the invading Arab forces - it also captured and held some 5,000 km2 over and above the areas allocated to it by the United Nations.

In the middle of the War of Independence, the IDF was born, not on 15 May, but two weeks later; for two more weeks Ben-Gurion negotiated with the "dissident" armed organizations, the Etzel and Lehi, convincing them to disband voluntarily before he disbanded them in the Order of the Establishment of the IDF on 31 May 1948. That order provided for only one armed force, subordinate to the constitutional government. There was complete continuity between the Haganah and the IDF: Ya'acov Dori, the Chief of Staff; the members of the General Staff; the commanders from brigade-level downwards - all were automatically confirmed in their appointments.

At the end of the war the IDF had over 100,000 full-time men and women in uniform, as compared to the mere handful of full-time soldiers at its beginning. In addition to 12 brigades, mostly infantry, it had several regiments of artillery. The first armored regiments were equipped with light armored vehicles, some captured, some "requisitioned" from the departing British troops; and a few tanks - two Cromwells "bought" from the withdrawing British and some reconstituted from American scrap.

The Navy consisted at first of reconverted illegal immigrant vessels. There were the elements of an Air Force - Spitfires and Messerschmidts, acquired mainly in Czechoslovakia, in addition to the light civilian planes which the Haganah had used for reconnaissance and communications purposes. Some World War II US war surplus bombers were bought as scrap. These carried out their first "strategic attack" on Cairo, en route to Israel, even before reaching their homebase. Armed with a Baedeker tourist guide, one of them bombed and strafed Abdeen Palace: rudimentary, to be sure, but entirely unexpected and, therefore, psychologically effective.

As soon as the armistice agreements were signed and the immediate danger had passed, the IDF - except for a small nucleus - was not only demobilized, but effectively disbanded. The new state had urgent tasks which required all its resources, above all that of absorbing the flood of new immigrants, who at last were able to come "home". An attempt to keep the demobilized soldiers in some sort of reserve framework failed. However, for the time being there was little inclination on the Arab side to renew full-scale fighting. Not that they had come to face reality and recognized Israel - far from it; but they did realize that to fight against Israel required thorough preparation.

In the meantime they found what was considered a perfect tool to show their own people that the war was not over yet and at the same time both to harrass Israel and embarrass her. Palestinian fedayun (suicide troops) infiltrated across the long and ill-protected border - and it should be recalled that no place in Israel was far from the border: infiltrations for the purpose of stealing farm equipment were followed by the laying of mines, the killing of individuals, and wholesale massacres. The fedayun were trained, equipped and paid for by Egyptian Intelligence, although they operated mainly from bases in Jordan, so that Jordan would bear the brunt of Israel's retaliation, which inevitably followed. And each time Israel retaliated, the Security Council condemned it; condemnation of an Arab government had long since become an impossibility, because of the Soviet veto.

The infiltrations - however painful, militarily and diplomatically - were no more than a diversion from the main concern of the IDF: preparations for the second round.

Yigael Yadin, who had taken over from Ya'akov Dori as Chief of the General Staff, devoted his energy to organizing the reserves and streamlining the command structure - elements of which remain in effect to this day. At the same time, particular attention was paid to the development of armor. Israel's numerical inferiority to its neighbors and potential enemies; its realization that because of the lack of strategic depth it was bound to transfer fighting as soon as possible to enemy territory and its proven advantage at swift, often improvised manoeuvers - all pointed to the need for armor. The newly found alliance with France at the time of the Suez crisis provided the unique opportunity to equip a major part of the IDF with French-made tanks. This "miracle" occurred at a moment of desperation, when no other country, East or West, was willing to supply Israel with arms, whereas countries from both East and West rushed to offer their wares to the Arabs. Particularly worrisome was the Czech- Egyptian arms deal, which threatened Israel with a whole range of state-of-the-art Russian hardware.


Jerry..... Let me go on, with a few more facts on the some of the Wars that Israel has had to fight to keep its indepenence:


The Sinai Campaign of 1956 (Operation Kadesh)
In a swift, sweeping operation of 100 hours, under the leadership of then Chief of the General Staff, Moshe Dayan, the entire Sinai peninsula fell into Israeli hands, at a cost of 231 soldiers killed. Reserve units, about which many misgivings had been uttered before the war, conducted themselves honorably. A reserve brigade, equipped with requisitioned civilian buses, negotiated the difficult desert track and captured Sharm e-Sheikh at the southernmost tip of the Sinai peninsula. The Air Force was still deficient; its development was one of the lessons learned from that war; armor had proven its ability and was there to stay. If 1948 was undoubtedly the War of the Infantry, the uncontested queen of the battlefield in the war of 1956 was Armor.

Once more Israel gained a breathing space of about ten years. Attention now turned to the north, where the Syrians - since 1953 - had been attempting to thwart Israel's National Water Project. Having failed, they undertook to divert the headwaters of the Jordan (originating in Syria), by a manouever designed to leave Israel high and dry. Water is a classical reason for war in the Middle East ; but a brief, resolute employment of artillery and tanks prevailed on the Syrians to refrain from their spiteful exercise.

Although Israel had been compelled to withdraw from Sinai without any security guarantee, UNEF - the United Nations Emergency Force, was established to guard against a recurrence of past events. As a result the fedayun ceased to exist. On the other hand, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), was reorganized and its principal military arm, the Fatah - one of a confusing array of para-military and terrorist organizations - began operations on 1 January 1965, at first from across the Lebanese border. Never an existential threat to Israel, it was a constant nuisance from there on and a temptation to divert attention and energy from the main task, preparations for yet another round.



The Six-Day War (June 1967)
The year 1967 began with confident predictions that it would not bring war. Nasser, it was argued in Israel, had learned the lesson of 1956 and would not start a war unless he was ready. In any case, his relations with Jordan were notoriously bad and a coalition between Nasser and King Hussein was out of the question. In quick succession, events gave the lie to these predictions. A clash in the air, in which Syria - Russia's closest ally in the Middle East - lost 13 planes, provided the opening signal. As a result of Soviet prodding, Nasser mobilized and sent 100,000 troops to Sinai. He demanded that the Secretary General of the United Nations withdraw UNEF forthwith, and - probably to his own surprise - succeeded immediately and the "firemen" departed. Then Nasser announced the closing of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping - a clearcut casus belli. He ended by taunting Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff: "Let him come, I'm waiting." Meanwhile he succeeded in bringing about close coordination with the Syrian army. King Hussein, in an abrupt about-face, flew to Egypt and signed an agreement placing his forces under overall Egyptian comand. It was to cost him half his kingdom.

Israel, its reserves fully mobilized, its nerves taut to the snapping point, waited for three long weeks. The situation seemed the reverse of 1956; Israel was alone, against a powerful Arab coalition. The Big Powers, vague promises notwithstanding, did nothing to reopen the Straits and Israel decided to go it alone.

On 5 June 1967 a cluster of planes flying from Egypt to Israel was seen on King Hussein's radar screen. Convinced by the Egyptians that the planes were theirs, he promptly gave the order to attack - in Jerusalem! In fact the planes were Israel's, returning from their devastating attack against the Egyptian airforce, which surprisingly had been taken by surprise; after taunting Rabin, Egypt was not ready when he came.

Within the brief span of six days, the IDF overran the whole Sinai peninsula, up to the Suez Canal; took the entire West Bank of the River Jordan; and in the last days, without the benefit of surprise, captured a great part of the Golan Heights, including the dominant Mount Hermon - from then on "the eyes and ears of Israel". The culminating event was the capture of the Old City of Jerusalem and the re-encounter with the place most revered by Jews, the Western (Wailing) Wall. The blowing of the shofar at the Western Wall reverberated throughout the world.

776 Israeli soldiers fell in the Six-Day War.

Whilst all branches of the service had performed well, the Air Force had, for the first time, played a decisive role: clearing the skies at the outset made all that followed possible. This was the War of the Air Force

Diplomatic efforts to bring to an end the by-now 40 years of conflict, which predated the establishment of Israel by more than two decades, came to nought. In November 1967, after months of deliberations, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 242, calling for peace and recognition of the "right of every nation to live free from threat within secure and recognized boundaries", in return for Israel's withdrawal "from territories", not "all the territories", nor "the territories captured in the course of the recent hostilities". However, the Arab League, in its session in the Sudan (1967) adopted a different resolution, the "Three No's" of Khartoum: No peace, No negotiations, No recognition of Israel.

The War of Attrition (1968-70)
Soon after hostilities came to a halt, President Nasser embarked on what was to be a bloody, lengthy and inconclusive war: the War of Attrition - a static exchange of artillery fire along the entire Bar Lev line on the Suez Canal, which escalated rapidly. The IDF engaged in a number of daring raids - the most spectacular was probably the capture and safe transportation to Israel of a complete Russian-made radar installation in good working order. When the Israel Air Force began its bombing attacks against targets in Egypt's depth, Nasser in desperation turned to the Soviet Union to provide Egypt not only with Russian equipment - but also with Russian air and ground troops. Russia reluctantly agreed. Soon afterwards the US, afraid that Big-Power direct involvement would escalate into nuclear confrontation, agreed with the USSR to put an end to the war under the "cease-fire stand-still" formula of the Security Council (July 1970). 1,424 soldiers were killed in action between 15 June 1967 and 8 August 1970.

The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was at first considered by leaders of the PLO as ideal for armed resistance, i.e. terrorist activities. The terrorist attacks failed, however, to have a significant impact. Arab terrorist organisations therefore transferred their activities abroad: kidnapping and hijacking planes and blowing them up. At first benevolently neglected by the Western Powers - after all, they concerned only Israel - the terror acts increased in number and importance. The terrorists' most spectacular and bloody operation was the massacre of 11 Israeli sportsmen in Munich, at the Olympic Games of 1972.
Meanwhile Egypt, in secret coordination with Syria, prepared for another round. Israel was aware of these preparations, but wed to its concept that President Sadat of Egypt would not embark on war unless he had achieved at least parity, if not superiority in the air, ignored the writing on the wall.


The Yom Kippur War (October 1973)

The war was so called because it started on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, the Day of Atonement (October 6, 1973). It came almost as a complete surprise and warning notice was given too late for an orderly call-up of the reserves before zero hour.

The Egyptians and the Syrians made some significant initial gains: the former crossed the Suez Canal and established themselves along its entire length on the east bank; the latter overran the Golan Heights and came within sight of the Sea of Galilee. However, the wheel turned very quickly. Counterattacking swiftly, sometimes even foolhardily, within a few days the IDF was on the west bank of the Suez Canal, at a distance of 100 kms from the Egyptian capital, Cairo, and within artillery range of the airfields around the Syrian capital, Damascus.

Egypt, which at first had refused a cease-fire, now accepted it avidly, as did Syria. Considering the adverse initial circumstances, the speed and the thoroughness with which the IDF had been able to reverse its fortunes was remarkable. Yet the Yom Kippur War went down in Israel's history as a qualified failure.The surprise rankled; and the cost was heavy: 2,688 soldiers fell.

Intelligence was faulted for failing to sound the alarm in time - the Chief of Staff, David (Dado) Elazar and his Chief of Intelligence had to resign. Too many airplanes were lost to Russian-made SAM-missiles. Some experts reached the sweeping conclusion that the tank had seen its day, in view of its vulnerability to Sagger missiles and infantry-operated RPGs. Of 265 Israeli tanks in the first echelon, only 100 survived.

The branch that distinguished itself during the Yom Kippur War was the Navy, which only now came of age: without a single loss of its own, it had sunk 34 enemy vessels; had secured the coasts of the country; and had succeeded in restricting the enemy to his bases. This was indeed the Navy's War.

The IDF deterrent capacity had been weakened as a result of the war. It was, however, partially restored in a spectacular and successful operation: the Entebbe Raid of 1976 - renamed Operation Jonathan, after the young commander of the ground forces who was its only military casualty. The Jewish and Israeli passengers of a hijacked Air France liner - carefully selected by the hijackers - were rescued from the hands of a German group of terrorists, in far-away Uganda. The resourcefulness and daring of the operation - down to transportation by plane of a black Mercedes of the sort used by Uganda's dictator, to confuse the enemy - aroused the imagination of the world.

The Yom Kippur War was followed by a series of Separation-of-Forces Agreements with Egypt and Syria. These envisaged a strip of territory in which no troops would be allowed, backed by another strip, where the presence of troops was carefully restricted.

The agreement with Syria is still in force and UNDOF, the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, is still there to supervise its implementation. The agreement with Egypt has been replaced - after lengthy negotiations which began with the dramatic visit to Jerusalem of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat (November 1977) - by the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty of 1979, the first to be signed between Israel and one, the most important, of its Arab neighbors. It was based on the withdrawal of Israel from the whole of the Sinai peninsula and its demilitarization in return for full recognition of Israel by Egypt and establishment of embassies and full trade and tourist relations.

The Palestinian terrorist organisations again came to the fore. They were able to establish their bases in Lebanon. Not that Lebanon was more hostile to Israel than other Arab countries, on the contrary; but the central government of Lebanon was too weak to prevent the establishment of "a state within a state". After a particularly bloody terrorist raid on two civilian passenger buses travelling on the coastal road near Tel Aviv, which resulted in 37 killed and 76 wounded (March 1978), the IDF undertook a swift operation: Operation Litani (March 1978) against terrorist bases in Lebanon. Its impact, however, did not last very long. 


Operation Peace for Galilee (1982)
In June 1982 a Palestinian terrorist group led by Abu Nidal carried out an assassination attempt on Israel's Ambassador to Great Britain, Shlomo Argov (which has left him crippled and hospitalized ever since). In retaliation, the IDF attacked Lebanon once again and succeeded in its original purpose to wipe out terrorist bases in the south of Lebanon. A series of simultaneous, amphibious operations was remarkably successful. Subsequently, however, the mission was enlarged and the capture of Beirut signalled the transition to a long drawn-out war. It failed to achieve its ultimate purpose. A peace treaty with Lebanon was signed, but not ratified; the Christian government of fragmented Lebanon was too weak to prevail.

For a short period (7 -11 June 1982) the Syrians were involved in the war. not on the Golan Heights where the disengagement agreement was kept to the letter, but in Lebanon itself, where the Syrians had a considerable expeditionary force. The ground fighting against the Syrians did not go well for the IDF and the mission of neutralizing the Syrians and cutting off the Beirut-Damascus highway was accomplished at a high price. Not so the battle for control of the skies: of 19 Syrian batteries - Russian-made SAMs 2, 3 and 6 deployed in Lebanon - 14 were destroyed and four more damaged; the Syrian Air Force, now shorn of its ground support, lost 29 MIG fighter planes in one day, without a single Israeli loss. It was the most intensive, concentrated air battle known to that date: 200 planes from both sides grappling within a "box" of 50x50 kms. This was the result of lessons learned after the Yom Kippur War - a combination of training and equipment, planning and control, surprise and inventiveness, among which secret means of electronic warfare took pride of place. This war, therefore, may be characterized as that of Electronic Warfare.

Meanwhile, daily ambushes against Israeli occupying forces increased, with a corresponding increase in casualties - 1,216 soldiers killed between 5 June 1982 and 31 May 1985. One of its first and most important victims was the national consensus. For the first time in the history of Israel not only was the conduct of war debated - for this there had been ample precedent - but the very justification of the war. The Prime Minister, Menahem Begin, himself provided the watchword: a War of Choice, unlike all previous wars, which were perceived as dire necessities.

The failure of Operation Peace of Galilee to achieve its objective prevailed upon the new national coalition government, which took office in 1984, to withdraw forthwith from Lebanon. A token force was left behind, to help the citizens of south Lebanon to patrol the Security Zone - a narrow strip of territory adjacent to Israel's border, which was an essential tripwire for Israeli settlements, some of which are located next to the border.

The towns and villages along the northern border were on the whole relatively safe - with some notable exceptions. Katyusha attacks concentrated on Kiryat Shmona in July 1993, provoked Israel to undertake Operation Din Veheshbon, a major raid into Lebanon, and again in April 1995, to mount Operation Grapes of Wrath. The latter was a "clean" operation, with no Israeli casualties; but its effect was marred by Israeli artillery mistakenly bombarding a camp near a UN base in Kafr Kana, resulting in the death of almost a hundred civilians. Following that operation a Joint Monitoring Machinery was established, including US, French, Syrian, Lebanese and Israeli representatives to watch over the implementation of a number of basic "understandings" - first amongst them the prohibition of unprovoked attacks against civilian populations and utilizing such populations as cover and shield for military units.

Meanwhile, attacks - mainly by members of Hizballah (Party of God), a fanatic Shi'ite sect supported by Iran and tolerated, at least, by Syria - against Israeli and South Lebanese Forces in the Security Zone continue unabated.

In December 1987 Palestinian Arabs embarked on the intifada (literally awakening), which was to keep the IDF occupied for the coming three years. It entailed a great deal of patrolling of Arab population centers; daily clashes with stone-throwing groups of youngsters, often barely in their teens. It did not present a military problem, but a moral one. The IDF was under strict orders to open live fire only in a situation of real danger to life. What was one to do with a mere boy, throwing a stone? It was a most distasteful task for a citizen army trained for warfare and tested the army's morale to the utmost.

The intifada, however troublesome, was never allowed to divert attention from the main task: preparing for another round. Peace with Egypt was relatively secure - a "cold peace", but peace all the same. Jordan was anxious, for very good reasons of its own, to maintain quiet along the border with Israel, the longest between Israel and any of its neighbors. Syria was considered the most hostile, and the IDF had to prepare for the day it would achieve "strategic parity" with Israel.

But then the eight-year long Iraq-Iran War ended and Saddam Hussein openly declared his readiness, even his eagerness, to put his forces at the disposal of the Palestinian cause. This would automatically guarantee Iraq leadership of the Arab world. Although it had no common border with Israel, Iraq had participated in most of the wars against the Jewish state.

Even before the war with Iran ended, the IAF - in one more spectacular and precise raid - Operation Tamuz - took out the Iraqi nuclear plant Osirak, which, established with French assistance, had come close to the production of a nuclear device. Israel was condemned by the Security Council.


The Gulf War (1991)

After the end of his war with Iran, Saddam Hussein had a huge, battlewise army sitting idle and his threats to "burn half of Israel" had to be taken seriously. The IDF was concerned at the availability to Saddam Hussein of considerable quantities of Russian-made Scud missiles with a range of 600 kms., against which no effective countermeasure was as yet in Israel's arsenal; particularly if those missiles were to be equipped with chemical warheads, which Saddam was reputed to have perfected with the help of German companies.

At the urging of the US, which was concerned that it might be deserted by its Arab coalition partners, Israel refrained from active participation in the war.

In view of the unprecedented danger to the civilian rear, special attention was paid to its organization: the IDF was responsible for the procurement and distribution of gas masks to the entire population; it readied the medical aid network; and instructed the population in preparing "safe rooms" for use in case the alarm was sounded.

For Israel, this war was characterized as the War of the Civilian Rear, and the Gadna, the Youth Batallions, once more had a useful role to play, which they faithfully carried out.

Conclusions

1947-49; 1956; 1967; 1973; 1982; 1991: at almost regular intervals the IDF has been faced with a major, violent outburst. Will this continue into the indefinite future? "Shall the sword devour for ever?" (Samuel II, 2:23).

The price was enormous for a small country. A total of 20,093 soldiers fell in action up to the end of March 1997.

The outlook is not entirely bleak. Slowly but surely, the world has come to recognise Israel's right to exist: in November 1917 it was one lonely power - Great Britain - which issued the Balfour Declaration; in November 1947, after an interval of thirty years, a large majority of the United Nations voted in favor of the Partition Resolution, but not one Arab or Moslem country among them; and in November 1977, after another thirty years, President Sadat of Egypt came to Jerusalem and from the rostrum of the Knesset declared that his country was willing to live in peace with Israel.

On 30 October 1991 a Peace Conference, co-sponsored by the US and the USSR, was convened in Madrid. It was followed - after two years of secret negotiations - by the signing of a Declaration of Principles between Israel and the PLO, marking a significant step towards conciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. Next came the Gaza-Jericho Agreement of May 1994 and subsequent agreements detailing the gradual handing-over to the Palestinian Authority of more territory and more responsibilities.

The Madrid Conference also opened the way to negotiations culminating in the Treaty of Peace with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, signed by prime ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Abdul Salam Majali on 26 October 1994. Israel also established relations - primarily commercial relations - with several Arab countries in the Persian Gulf and North Africa.

Thus the peace process has progressed over the years; but as long as some countries - and not only Israel's immediate neighbors - refuse to recognize its rightful existence, the possibility of war cannot be ignored and the IDF - Israel's guardian and shield - "shall neither slumber nor sleep." (Psalms 121:4).

Netanel Lorch, Ph. D., Lt.Col.(Res), Ambassador and former Secretary-General of the Knesset

Unfortunately warph, people in this world will always be against Gods people.  I hear all the time anmar and jerry and others talk about hate and racism, but as you can see the attitude for the israeli's is nothing but racism, anti Semitism.   Oh well, pity the man who takes up the sword against Gods chosen people.  They will be crushed.

Go back and read my post.  This isn't about Israel's relations with Arabs, i'm concerned with ISrael's parasitic relations with America

Warph, your little "no speaky raghead" comment was in response to arab propaganda?  Are you blind?  Those arguments came from a Jewish member of parliament and found of the state of Israel.

Steve,  God's chosen people is your opinion.  Christian scholars would argue that the Jewish people left the graces of God when they decided to kill their prophets, forsake moses and worship the golden calf, and refute the teachings of Jesus.

My stance is not anti-semetic in any way.  I am anti zionist.  Zionisim is a political movement and has NOTHING to do with race or religion.

I'll "take up the sword" against foreign nations who seek to control our government.  Right now, that happens to be Israel.  Warph, why don't you actually try to argue some relavant facts instead of attacking my character and posting a long boring history lesson.

Start with the spying, why does Israel spy on the US, and sell our military secrets to China and India? 

Why is it that the Mossad didn't tell our government that 9/11 was coming then the FBI has stated that the ISraeli government had prior knowledge of the attacks?

Why does the Israeli government spend billions of dollars running a continuous PR campaign here in the states?

Why does ISrael spend hundreds of millions of dollars influencing American Elections through campaign contributions and lobbyists?

Why does our government give 8 billion a year to one of the most developed countries in the world?  Why do we have to pay Arab countries to make peace with Israel?

Why has Israel never had to answer for its attacks on American Military targets?  Why don't you and Billy stand up for Veterans on this issue?

These issues have nothing to do with Arabs, Muslims, Terrorism, Jews, Semites, name calling, or any of the other diversions that you have constantly tried to throw out there.  These are Issues between Israel and America.  You and yours have decided to stand with Israel, well dammit, I stand with America and you can call me what you want.

Anmar:  Why are you against America standing with Israel?   We've always stood behind our allies.  I see nothing wrong with it.  And Israel doesn't always stand with us.  They've had their times when we've told them to do or stop doing something and they've flat out refused, so I think parasitic is a strong word since that denotes something that can't live without it's host.  They seem to do quite well on their own. 

The fact that we do support Israel, I think, is one of the reasons why this country experiences God's blessing.  I could be wrong, but I do feel that's at least a part among other things.

Quote from: Sarah on December 02, 2009, 03:00:35 PM
Anmar:  Why are you against America standing with Israel?   We've always stood behind our allies.  I see nothing wrong with it.  And Israel doesn't always stand with us.  They've had their times when we've told them to do or stop doing something and they've flat out refused, so I think parasitic is a strong word since that denotes something that can't live without it's host.  They seem to do quite well on their own. 

The fact that we do support Israel, I think, is one of the reasons why this country experiences God's blessing.  I could be wrong, but I do feel that's at least a part among other things.

Our founders did, after all, caution us against too many 'foreign entanglements'.  And failing to heed that warning has caused America some problems over the years.  I agree, however, we need to stand by our allies, knowing full well that they are imperfect just as we are imperfect.  Realizing and accepting that their national interests may not always coincide with ours.  Of course, Anmar could also have also referenced Mr. Clinton's approval to sell high end missile technology to China.  Technology that may well be finding its' way to places like Korea and Iran today.  Seems Israel isn't the only problem Americans are faced with. 

With respect to God's blessings on America, many today in their apostate situations (yes, I'm speaking of church going 'Christians') have, in their hypocrisy, failed to honor the Bible they claim to embrace.  They have forgotten that it says:  "I will bless those who bless Israel, and I will curse those who curse Israel."  What evidence is there?  Do some research on Replacement Theology and you will find that as that movement grew, so has the decline of our society.  Heck, look at what happened in Germany when their leader(s) decided that the Jew was 'the problem'.  They came up with 'The Final Solution'.  Trouble is, it turned out far differently than they had planned!  Those who want to deny our spiritual obligations don't avoid the consequences of doing so.  I'm reminded of an example where a man says he doesn't believe in hell, and another man reminds him that denying hell's existence won't keep one from going there.

Quote from: Patriot on December 02, 2009, 03:26:20 PM
Our founders did, after all, caution us against too many 'foreign entanglements'.  And failing to heed that warning has caused America some problems over the years.  I agree, however, we need to stand by our allies, knowing full well that they are imperfect just as we are imperfect.  Realizing and accepting that their national interests may not always coincide with ours.  Of course, Anmar could also have also referenced Mr. Clinton's approval to sell high end missile technology to China.  Technology that may well be finding its' way to places like Korea and Iran today.  Seems Israel isn't the only problem Americans are faced with. 

With respect to God's blessings on America, many today in their apostate situations (yes, I'm speaking of church going 'Christians') have, in their hypocrisy, failed to honor the Bible they claim to embrace.  They have forgotten that it says:  "I will bless those who bless Israel, and I will curse those who curse Israel."  What evidence is there?  Do some research on Replacement Theology and you will find that as that movement grew, so has the decline of our society.  Heck, look at what happened in Germany when their leader(s) decided that the Jew was 'the problem'.  They came up with 'The Final Solution'.  Trouble is, it turned out far differently than they had planned!  Those who want to deny our spiritual obligations don't avoid the consequences of doing so.  I'm reminded of an example where a man says he doesn't believe in hell, and another man reminds him that denying hell's existence won't keep one from going there.

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with Replacement Theology, but will have to look it up.  You are right, the Bible does state that. 

I'm not saying that standing or not standing with Israel is why God's blessing has been on this country.  There's a lot of reasons among them being that this country was founded on Biblical principles.........but I guess that's opening a whole nother can of worms.   ;D

OK, now I know what the replacement theology is.  Had to go look it up.  LOL

I believe that there were certain promises made to Israel and that they are still God's chosen people.  My dad calls Christians, "Spiritual Jews", meaning we are also God's chosen people, but we never "replaced" Israel.  But I also believe that there are certain promises in the Bible that pertain only to Christians and not Jews, but Jews always were and always will be God's chosen. 

Just because some are called "Christian scholars" doesn't mean much.
They've either their own private intrepretation of the Bible or they might
not even be Christain.  It seems like a lot of that going on nowadays.

Quote from: redcliffsw on December 02, 2009, 07:41:44 PM
Just because some are called "Christian scholars" doesn't mean much.
They've either their own private intrepretation of the Bible or they might
not even be Christain.  It seems like a lot of that going on nowadays.

Well, if you believe in the rapture than I would say it's getting close to the end.

Yeah, well things are not getting any better and probably never will.
Until, we're out of here, we ought to stand right as we can.

Funny, Sarah Palin's pastor was quoted as saying that God has damned Israel.

Quote from: Anmar on December 02, 2009, 08:26:47 PM
Funny, Sarah Palin's pastor was quoted as saying that God has damned Israel.

LIES, LIES, LIES!  (To quote you, Anmar)...

Now, source and authoritative references please.

Quote from: redcliffsw on December 02, 2009, 07:48:14 PM
Yeah, well things are not getting any better and probably never will.
Until, we're out of here, we ought to stand right as we can.

Good point, red... I read the last book, and as I recall, things get real nasty! 

Patriot, you mentioned apostate and that's a good point.
Lots of that in the mainliners. 

Quote from: redcliffsw on December 02, 2009, 09:02:15 PM
Patriot, you mentioned apostate and that's a good point.
Lots of that in the mainliners. 

Funny how nobody is permitted to have a different religious viewpoint to you..... one must wonder how high you can aim your nose.

One of Palin's church leaders is David Brickner, who is the founder of Jews for Jesus.  You can do the rest if you're interested.  Which also brings up another point,  If you love Israel more than you love America, why don't you move there?  Go preach the gospel in Tel Aviv and see how long you last.

Quote from: Warph on December 02, 2009, 03:03:51 AM
Billy... what the hell do you mean, "...Instead of countering an argument with facts or at least logic....?  I stated the FACTS at the begining of this thread!  They are the facts... Period!   As far as "Sorry Mooncalf no speakie raghead".... the guy gave me a smart-ass arab answer and I came back at him.  He expected it and knew it was coming, that's why he didn't seem too upset.  As far as "You must be a gay muslim lover".... I don't know where the f%@# that came from because it wasn't me that said that! 

Warph, my post wasn't meant as an insult.  Some of the quotes I used were taken directly from posts, some were just paraphrased.  The whole point of my post was that instead of letting our emotions get the better of us we should counter with relevent facts.  In debate, as with any fight, once you've lost your focus, you've lost the fight. 

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." ---Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001

Quote from: Diane Amberg on December 02, 2009, 10:48:00 AM
Varmit, we solved the "who is a patriot" question some time ago. Is it really necessary to revisit that?

When my patriotism is called into question, you're damn right its necessary to revisit it.

Quote from: Sarah on December 02, 2009, 07:43:15 PM
Well, if you believe in the rapture than I would say it's getting close to the end.

I think that we have a ways to go yet. 

Quote from: Anmar on December 03, 2009, 01:31:21 AM
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." ---Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001

So Sharon said that.  Big Deal.  Al Gore said that humans were to blame for Global Warming, didn't make it true.

Quote from: Anmar on December 02, 2009, 08:26:47 PM
Funny, Sarah Palin's pastor was quoted as saying that God has damned Israel.

Again, so what?  What difference does it make what her pastor said? 

Quote from: Varmit on December 03, 2009, 01:36:51 AM
I think that we have a ways to go yet. 

I hope not.   :P :P

Quote from: Varmit on December 03, 2009, 01:41:41 AM
So Sharon said that.  Big Deal.  Al Gore said that humans were to blame for Global Warming, didn't make it true.

Again, so what?  What difference does it make what her pastor said? 

Very true.  There's a lot of pastors NOT saying that.  shrug

Quote from: Varmit on December 03, 2009, 01:41:41 AM
So Sharon said that.  Big Deal.  Al Gore said that humans were to blame for Global Warming, didn't make it true.

Again, so what?  What difference does it make what her pastor said? 

I guess the same goes for Obama's pastor then?

Quote from: Varmit on December 03, 2009, 01:36:51 AM
I think that we have a ways to go yet. 

Quote from: Sarah on December 03, 2009, 07:19:19 AM
I hope not.   :P :P

I just can't leave this alone no matter HOW good my intention of stayin out of here..........I sinCERELY hope we have CENTURIES left if not eons. To look forward to what revelations says is gonna happen is the definition of evil to me whether you think you are gonna miss out on it or not. What if somebody you love don't make it? What if one of your kids don't make it? Your spouse? your parent? your best friend? No I don't look forward to it at all. It means we LOST not that we won.

Varmit, why do you think your patriotism is being called into question? Why do you think ANYBODY would question it? That all happened back during Viet Nam. It's my generation that is waving the flag and making sure you and your brothers and sisters are treated right and respected.

Quote from: Anmar on December 03, 2009, 09:25:43 AM
I guess the same goes for Obama's pastor then?

My question is what does it matter what Palins pastor said?  What makes him so special? 

Quote from: pamsback on December 03, 2009, 09:27:08 AM
I just can't leave this alone no matter HOW good my intention of stayin out of here..........I sinCERELY hope we have CENTURIES left if not eons. To look forward to what revelations says is gonna happen is the definition of evil to me whether you think you are gonna miss out on it or not. What if somebody you love don't make it? What if one of your kids don't make it? Your spouse? your parent? your best friend? No I don't look forward to it at all. It means we LOST not that we won.

I guess that depends on who "we" are??  True, those that miss the rapture will face a time so evil the likes of which have never been seen.  However, they are still given an "out" if you will.  They missed the rapture because up until that time they had choosen to reject Christ, yet until they die they still have the choice to accept Him.  Hopefully, the rapture would wake them up.  As far as someone I love not making it, although tragic, it was their choice. 

The ultimate out come has already been decided, that battle was already won.  Granted we still have to go through the motions but in the end the victor has already been crowned.  It will be hell on earth for a short time, but the reward at the end of the journey is more than worth it.

Just gonna have to agree to disagree Billy.........I could not enjoy any such reward. It would NOT be worth it. It would be as ashes.......

Quote from: Anmar on November 30, 2009, 01:07:00 PM
  A true patriot recognizes that Americans need to stand for America first, and that means not involving ourselves in the foreign affairs of other countries, not allowing those countries to maintain the most powerful lobby of our government like Isreal does, not allowing them to spy on us and steal our military secrets and sell them to China and India like Isreal does.  To not pay out billions of dollars like we do to isreal, and to not pay other countries to make peace with isreal.  A true patriot supports the troops, not just in lip service or when it's easy, but to seek out the real answers, like why has Isreal never answered for its attacks on American troops.

Diane, the above quote, I felt, called into question my patriotism.  By the way, when Anmar gave his definition of a "true patriot" why did you remain silent, yet when I gave my definition you stated that "...we already decided what a patriot is, why do you feel the need to bring it up again..." blah blah blah?  As far as "your generation" goes, aren't they the ones responsible for instilling values like Loyalty, Honor, Duty, and a Love of the Country into the younger generation today?  Aren't they responsible for the bastards that have been in office for years and years?  Aren't they the ones that brought us policies like No Child Left Behind, Affirmative Action, Gun Control, The abolishion of teacher led prayer in school, legal abortions?  Greatest Generation my ass.

Quote from: pamsback on December 03, 2009, 10:03:58 AM
Just gonna have to agree to disagree Billy.........I could not enjoy any such reward. It would NOT be worth it. It would be as ashes.......

Okay then, your loss...but I do hope you change your mind...and heart. 

Varmit, have you stopped beating your wife?  I will never, ever say anything you will ever agree with, just because I'm me, so I'll stop now. You don't know me or you wouldn't treat me like the enemy. Enjoy your life.

Billy, anyone who would put another country's interests before America's interests is UNPATRIOTIC.

Look at the definition

Quotepa⋅tri⋅ot
  /ˈpeɪtriət, -ˌɒt or, especially Brit., ˈpætriət/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pey-tree-uht, -ot or, especially Brit., pa-tree-uht] Show IPA

–noun
1.    a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.

If you oppose your country's bests interests in favor of the interests of another country, you are not a patriot. 

Beating my wife??...What the hell is that supposed to mean?  

You're right Diane, I don't know you, only what you post.  And yes, a great bit of it I competely disagree with.  Espcially when someone calls you out on something and instead of defending your answer, or even giving an answer, you come up with some "oh, well you're just saying that because you don't like me" bullshit excuse, tuck your tail and run.  

Sorry, but I view that type of evasion as a personal weakness.  Being the type of person that I am, I feel that character weakness is something that should be done away with.  

The problem with that Anmar, is what a person sees as being in the best interest of the country.  I for one, see the support of Isreal as being in line with Americas best interest.  Yes, those beliefs are based on a reglious viewpoint.  Let me be clear on this point, my support of Isreal is not exclusive to the Isreali gov't but for the Isreali people as a whole and for their cause.  I know that there is not a gov't on the planet that is perfect and that hasn't made mistakes. 

Billy, why don't you go back in this thread, look at the things Israel has been doing to the United States, and then tell me exactly how our relationship with Israel has been beneficial to us.  I've given many examples of how it hasn't, yet i have yet to see ONE SINGLE BENEFIT of our alliance.

Frankly, the only reason we are allied with them is because our congress has been bought and paid for.

We ought to support Israel.  It's one of the few things the USA has right.

Alright Anmar, and I know that you aren't going to agree with this, but here goes...

Our relationship with Isreal and our support for the Isreali people has benefited us in that God has bestowed upon us many blessings.  When compared to the major countries around the world America is one of the youngest, but also one of the richest, and the most free.  That doesn't just "happen" because folks work hard or whatever.  God had us in his favor.  Look at those countries that stand against Isreal.  Their people are poor, in many cases starving, they're under tryannical rulers, in many cases the countries are being torn apart by internal strife, folks are gunned down or jailed for speaking out.  To me, the benefits are obvious. 

Quote from: Varmit on December 03, 2009, 11:05:49 AM
Alright Anmar, and I know that you aren't going to agree with this, but here goes...

Our relationship with Isreal and our support for the Isreali people has benefited us in that God has bestowed upon us many blessings.  When compared to the major countries around the world America is one of the youngest, but also one of the richest, and the most free.  That doesn't just "happen" because folks work hard or whatever.  God had us in his favor.  Look at those countries that stand against Isreal.  Their people are poor, in many cases starving, they're under tryannical rulers, in many cases the countries are being torn apart by internal strife, folks are gunned down or jailed for speaking out.  To me, the benefits are obvious. 

Totally agree.  Our blessing from support Israel tends to be a triangular thing, rather than a horizontal thing.

Quote from: Diane Amberg on December 03, 2009, 10:15:26 AM
Varmit, have you stopped beating your wife?  I will never, ever say anything you will ever agree with, just because I'm me, so I'll stop now. You don't know me or you wouldn't treat me like the enemy. Enjoy your life.

Varmit beats his wife???  Well, at least the vote a consistent bloc and don't void each others votes!   ;D

It would be my guess that he will enjoy his life.  Even if it isn't the utopia that some are foolish enough to believe can be man made right here on planet earth.

Quote from: Anmar on December 03, 2009, 10:45:39 AM
Frankly, the only reason we are allied with them is because our congress has been bought and paid for.

LIES! LIES! LIES!   Please provide authoritative source, reference and evidence.

Quote from: Patriot on December 03, 2009, 11:25:18 AM

LIES! LIES! LIES!   Please provide authoritative source, reference and evidence.

Are you saying you didn't know?

Have you been living in a cave?

Quote from: Anmar on December 03, 2009, 11:34:31 AM
Are you saying you didn't know?

Have you been living in a cave?

I'm saying that you are making a blanket statement that indicts the US without providing any evidence of your claim.  Where I have been living and what I may or may not know isn't the issue.  Your inability or unwillingness to prove your claim is the issue.  If you are going to make the statement, than at least be willing to defend your statement with some factual reference.  Not some deflection and misdirection.

It is retorts that like the one you've provided here that cause some to believe you have been drinking from the liberal kool-aide fountain.  Giving such responses is a very political (and heavily liberal) way of answering a challenge.

Now, please try to make a reasoned response to the following:

1.  Who has paid whom in the US Congress to maintain alliances with Israel?
2.  How much and in what manner has it been paid?
3.  When and how often have such payments been made?
4.  Who made and what promises were made to any Israeli operative in return for any payments?

Now, toddle on off from that business you claim to own (surely you can take an hour or so), do some hard research, and return with some facts and figures.  Otherwise, be big enough to openly say that your statement was an opinion and not a fact.

Damn Patriot, you beat me to it :)...who paid who when and how much.

Quote from: Varmit on December 03, 2009, 11:55:34 AM
Damn Patriot, you beat me to it :)...who paid who when and how much.

Life's a beach!  He who snoozes, loses.  The early bird gets the worm.... oh well, off to do some productive work for my family and the local economy!  Have a great day!

From CNN.com-----------

U.S.: Israel was negligent in 1967 ship attack
Survivors not satisfied with review's conclusion
From Elise Labott
CNN Washington Bureau
Monday, January 12, 2004 Posted: 9:21 PM EST (0221 GMT)


 
The USS Liberty was damaged in the attack.

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

Story Tools
     
     

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

RELATED
• USS Liberty tapes and documents 
• National Security Agency 
• USS Liberty memorial 
Interactive: Six-Day War 

USS LIBERTY
• 7,725 ton Belmont class technical research ship
• Built in 1945 as civilian cargo ship Simmons Victory
• Acquired by U.S. Navy in 1963, commissioned 1964
• Mission: To collect, process foreign communications
• Attacked June 8, 1967
• Escorted to Malta for repairs
• Decommissioned in June 1968
• Sold for scrap in 1970
Source: U.S. Navy


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After reviewing documents dating back 36 years, the State Department has concluded that Israel's attack on a U.S. spy ship in 1967 was an act of gross negligence for which it should be held responsible.

The USS Liberty was attacked off the Egyptian coast June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War, while gathering electronic intelligence. The attack killed 34 Americans and injured another 171.

"In many respects this is kind of a classic bi-national case of Murphy's Law," a State Department official said Monday. "Everything that could possibly go wrong, on either side, did."

The official said that though Israel should be held responsible for the attack, the United States was also negligent for failing to notify Israel the Liberty was in international waters and for failing to withdraw the ship from the war zone.

"This is a ship that should have been hundreds of miles away from the war zone," the official said.

Israel fought the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and other Arab states, emerging victorious after six days.

The State Department opened a two-day conference on U.S. foreign policy during the period, with a panel dealing with the USS Liberty attack. The conference was scheduled around the release of historical documents about the war.

The Israelis have always said the attack on the Liberty, which was monitoring communications in the war, was a tragic accident. The Johnson administration never formally challenged the Israelis' account. But some survivors and senior U.S. officials at the time have said they believe the attack was a deliberate effort to stop American surveillance of Israeli activities during the conflict.

In July the National Security Archive released tapes of Israeli pilots and ground control speaking in Hebrew, along with English transcripts. The recordings were made by a nearby American surveillance aircraft after the attack. (Full story)

The NSA released the tapes and transcripts under the Freedom of Information Act in response to a request from Judge Jay Cristol of Miami, Florida. Cristol, who wrote a book about the attack, said the tapes show it was a tragic accident in a time of war -- that the Israelis mistook the ship for an Egyptian one.

"There was no indication they had any knowledge they were attacking a U.S. ship," Cristol told participants at the conference.

The State Department official said that though some maintain the Israeli military was too good to make such a mistake, "if they were that good and if they were that efficient and they deliberately sought to sink a ship, they damned well would have sunk it."

The official noted the Israelis attacked the ship first with cannon fire and then napalm, not specialized air-to-sea weapons.

The State Department's analysis, the official said, is "that if it was a deliberate, planned attack, you would think an air force as good as the Israelis' would have served up their best bombers, with their biggest bombs. They would have sunk this ship in 30 seconds flat, no witnesses, no evidence, no fingerprints. That didn't happen."

James Bamford, the author of a history of the NSA, believes the released tapes suggest the Israelis may have deliberately attacked the Liberty, perhaps fearing -- for some reason not known -- that it was spying on them.

Calling for a formal investigation of the incident, Bamford said, "The Israelis said it was a mistake. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't.

"There were cover-ups," he added, referring to an affidavit by a retired Navy captain, Ward Boston, who charged that then-President Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara ordered a Navy inquiry to "conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

Phil Tourney, who was injured in the attack and is now president of the USS Liberty Survivors' Association, said the association is not satisfied with the "gross negligence" conclusion. Tourney said the survivors were kept from telling their ordeal.

"War crimes were committed by the Israelis that day," Tourney said. "A thorough investigation should be done, and the Israelis should be held accountable."

CNN's David Ensor and Beth Lewandowski contributed to this report
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quite frankly, I don't blame them.  If I were at war with 4 or 5 different countries at the same time, being as small as Isreal is, and a ship showed up that I didn't know about and didn't know why they were there, I would attack first and ask questions later.  A cold, hard fact about war....shit happens...so does friendly fire.  If we are going to hold Isreal accountable then we should also hold our own people accountable when they screw up a fire mission, give the wrong cordinates, and end up killing our own soldiers. 

I'm working, i don't have time to answer your questions now.  But you haven't answered my questions from a few pages ago, so i don't really feel inclined to answer yours.

As far as the attack on the USS Liberty, the ship was a communications monitering ship, not a battleship.  It was flying a huge American flag.  Every survivor aboard the ship insists that Israel knew exactly what it was doing.  The sitting Admirals at the time have stated that Israel's attack was deliberate.  They were in constant contact with the Israeli armed forces during the war and the Israeli's knew the ship would be there. 

Regardless, I stand with the troops and I can't believe that you would try to blame an American Ship for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You guys just crack me up. Varmit, I keep forgetting how young you are.The statement "have you stopped beating your wife" (unless you really do) isn't personal, it's just an old and oft used example of a question that really can't be answered. You don't need to keep hammering on me. And I don't run away, I'm just tired of it and have other things to do. I'm already accused of saying something after every post, which is false. But now that I've been labeled it will never go away.
Teresa says it's an open forum, say what you want, but then I get personal messages telling me I'm an outsider and I should keep my opinions to myself. I don't think that's fair. But you know what ignorant people have always said, "if you can't attack the principle, attack the person.There are a couple of people who are very good at that. Besides, if I had spoken up when you felt Anmar was questioning your patriotism, you would have told me to butt out, you weren't talking to me, and you would never need "back up" from the likes of me anyway. So why would I bother? I'm scrappy but I'm not crazy.

Lol, Diane, you should see the private messages i get from some of these people.  Maybe i'll forward you some.

Diane, sorry for the misunderstanding about the wife beating statement, you're right, I'd never heard that before. 

As for the personal messages...I can't answer for those, I've never sent you any.  But if they are the types of messages you say they are then I don't agree with them.  You have just as much right to post your opinion as the next guy.

Diane, you don't know me as well as you think you do.  If you had spoken up about Anmars post it would have surprised me, but I wouldn't have told you to butt out.  Although, for the most part we disagree on just about everything, there have been a few exteremely rare times when I agree with something you said. 

Anmar, would you please site your sources of information on the USS Liberty attack.

Another example of "When Shit Happens..."
Wheres the outcry for this attack??...................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Troops' anger over US 'friendly fire'

By Patrick Barkham
On the RFA Argus in the Gulf 


Three wounded UK soldiers have described how they survived an attack by a US A-10 Thunderbolt anti-tank aircraft that killed one of their troop and destroyed two armoured vehicles.
One of the survivors criticised the US pilot for showing "no regard for human life" and accused him of being "a cowboy" who had "gone out on a jolly".


The US A-10 aircraft circled and came around for a second attack
Another survivor said he stumbled out of the burning wreckage of his light tank and waved frantically to the American pilot to try to halt his second attack.

The so-called friendly fire incident, 40 kilometres (24.8 miles) north of Basra, left one soldier missing, presumed dead, and another in intensive care on RFA Argus, the UK forces' hospital ship in the Gulf.

Another soldier who had been in one of the two destroyed Scimitar light reconnaissance tanks, manned by the Household Cavalry, escaped without injury.

Nursing shrapnel wounds and burns, the three injured soldiers, Lieutenant Alex MacEwen, 25, Lance Corporal of Horse Steven Gerrard, 33, and Trooper Chris Finney, 18, spoke of their bewilderment and anger.

They said the US pilot apparently failed to recognise that their tanks were a British make, with special coalition identification aids and even a large Union flag on another machine in the five-vehicle convoy.

Advanced technology

Lance Corporal Gerrard said: "All this kit has been provided by the Americans. They've said if you put this kit on you won't get shot.

"We can identify a friendly vehicle from 1,500 metres [4,921 ft].

"You've got an A-10 with advanced technology and he can't use a thermal sight to identify whether a tank is a friend or foe. It's ridiculous.

I felt I was going to burn to death. I just shouted 'reverse, reverse, reverse'

Lance Corporal of Horse Steven Gerrard 
"Combat is what I've been trained for. I can command my vehicle. I can keep it from being attacked.

"What I have not been trained to do is look over my shoulder to see whether an American is shooting at me."

The two Scimitars, followed by two armoured engineers' vehicles and another Scimitar light tank, set out on a "recce" of a road north west of Ad Dayr, north of Basra in southern Iraq, on Friday.

After coming under fire from Iraqi artillery, they were instructed to investigate a shanty town.

Troop leader Lieutenant MacEwen, 25, with special plastic bags now tied around his hands to treat his burns, described how the convoy tensed as villagers waving white flags approached from behind a large bank on the marshland by the Shatt al-Arab river.

"You could see the white flags above the bank but you didn't know whether they had any intention of surrendering or ambushing us," he said.

White light

Lance Corporal Gerrard said he suddenly heard the distinctive, relentless roar of an A-10's anti-tank gunfire.

"I will never forget that noise as long as I live. It is a noise I never want to hear again," he said.




Widow's emotional tribute 
"There was no gap between the bullets. I heard it and I froze. The next thing I knew the turret was erupting with white light everywhere, heat and smoke.

"I felt I was going to burn to death. I just shouted 'reverse, reverse, reverse'.

"My gunner was screaming 'get out, get out'. How I got out of that hole I don't know. Then I saw the A-10 coming again and I just ran."

Lying on his hospital bed, he said the A-10 circled and made a return attack run.

"On the back of one of the engineers' vehicles there was a Union Jack," he said.

"For him to fire his weapons I believe he had to look through his magnified optics. How he could not see that Union Jack I don't know."

Tempting fate

The front two Scimitars, packed with hundreds of rounds of ammunition, grenades, rifle rounds and flammable diesel fuel tanks, exploded into flames.

One of the soldiers' colleagues, Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, did not escape the explosion.


The British Scimitars have distinctive markings 
Lance Corporal Gerrard also criticised the pilot for shooting when there were civilians so close to the tanks.

"There was a boy of about 12-years-old. He was no more than 20 metres [65.6 ft] away when the Yank opened up. There were all these civilians around.

"He [the pilot] had absolutely no regard for human life. I believe he was a cowboy. He'd just gone out on a jolly."

He added: "I'm curious about what's going to happen to the pilot.

"He's killed one of my friends and he's killed him on the second run."

Trooper Finney, who was hit in the leg when the A-10 made its second attack, said all the British soldiers and their families joked about "friendly fire".

He said: "I got a letter off my dad the day before the attack and it said 'Be careful, come home soon and watch out for those damn Yanks'.

"Looks like he tempted fate a bit there."


This is pooled copy from Patrick Barkham of the Times on RFA Argus in the Gulf.

my sources are the veterans of the USS Liberty.  They have an organization for the survivors and they actively seek justice for what they went through and the deaths of their brothers in Arms. 

You make it sound like this was a little mistake.  IT's not, the attack went on for hours and hours.  The not only bombed the ship with planes, they came back later with torpedo boats.  Then, they sent gunner boats and machine-gunned American sailors in the life boats and water as they tried to rescue people who had fallen overboard.

Accident my ass.

Quote from: Anmar on December 03, 2009, 12:58:26 PM
my sources are the veterans of the USS Liberty.  They have an organization for the survivors and they actively seek justice for what they went through and the deaths of their brothers in Arms. 

You make it sound like this was a little mistake.  IT's not, the attack went on for hours and hours.  The not only bombed the ship with planes, they came back later with torpedo boats.  Then, they sent gunner boats and machine-gunned American sailors in the life boats and water as they tried to rescue people who had fallen overboard.

Accident my ass.

Really...thats quite a coincidence.  Because the way you stated it is almost word for word from Jeffrey St. Clair "The Politics of Anti-Semitism"

Heres the link [url][http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair1126.html/url]

If it sounds the same, its because thats what happened genius.  Those are the accounts of the AMERICAN NAVY VETERANS WHO WERE THERE.

let me also add, i find it interesting that now you want to be politically correct. 

Quote from: Anmar on December 03, 2009, 01:10:24 PM
If it sounds the same, its because thats what happened genius.  Those are the accounts of the AMERICAN NAVY VETERANS WHO WERE THERE.

So, then you did get your info from that book?  Or have you spoken directly with the veterans of the USS Liberty?

Quote from: Anmar on December 03, 2009, 01:14:25 PM
let me also add, i find it interesting that now you want to be politically correct. 

Really...how so?

I did not get my info from that book, it's from an interview with a survivor.

Its interesting that you are now interested in political correctness because a few weeks ago, when the Ft hood incident happened, you were one of the people saying how terrible political correctness is.  Now you want me to be politically correct.  You cry that people call you a racist for using terms like "rag-head" but now you want to call me racist because I'm telling the story of something that Actually happened.

I don't know about Elk county, but out here we call that hypocrisy.

Something i left out, he also says they used Naplam on the american soldiers.

Quote from: Anmar on December 03, 2009, 04:43:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4118r-E3dA8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3E2NcC0x20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujoc1DYjuPE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH-oZHBzOe8



Something i left out, he also says they used Naplam on the american soldiers.

Now why were soldiers on a Naval Vessel?   Soldiers do not hitch a ride on a naval Vessel unless the military intends to use them in a land assault.

bah, sailors, not soldiers.  My mistake

sheesh, talk about nitpicking.

Quote from: Anmar on December 03, 2009, 05:11:26 PM
bah, sailors, not soldiers.  My mistake

sheesh, talk about nitpicking.

Well if ya were to call a marine a soldier, he would kick your Butt!

Quote from: srkruzich on December 03, 2009, 06:32:37 PM
Well if ya were to call a marine a soldier, he would kick your Butt!

lol, yeah i know he would.  But from what my grandfather tells me, navy servicemen would love to be confused for soldiers   :D

Quote from: Anmar on December 03, 2009, 04:13:24 PM
I did not get my info from that book, it's from an interview with a survivor.

Its interesting that you are now interested in political correctness because a few weeks ago, when the Ft hood incident happened, you were one of the people saying how terrible political correctness is.  Now you want me to be politically correct.  You cry that people call you a racist for using terms like "rag-head" but now you want to call me racist because I'm telling the story of something that Actually happened.

I don't know about Elk county, but out here we call that hypocrisy.

When have I called you a racist?  And when have I stated that I want you or anybody else to be politically correct? 

Lets say, for the sake of argument that you are right, what would you have Isreal or America do?  What would be the consequence?  And would you hold America to the same standards in regards to its attacks on "friendlies"?

anti-semite  = racist

You keep referring to the attack as an accident.  It wasn't. 

I think the vets should be given justice,  they have a reasonable list of things they are asking for.  I support them

I never said that you were anti-semite, in fact the only time I used those words was when I posted a title of a book. 

You say it wasn't an accident...well neither were the attacks on british convoy by american forces, those british tanks were clearly marked. 

Billy, my apologies if i mistook your post.

Which attack are you referring to.

Unfortunately there have been many.  These are just a few........

Three men from the 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment August 2007
Killed in Helmand province the soldiers came under fire from two American F15 aircraft which had been called in to support the British.

Seven Afghan police officers June 2007
The officers were killed by US troops who returned fire in the belief that they were targeting Taleban fighters. Afghan President Karzai said it was a "heartbreaking incident".


Nicola Calipari an Italian intelligence agent March 2005
US forces opened fire on the car in which he was travelling after he had helped to rescue a kidnapped Italian journalist in Baghdad.

US Army Ranger Pat Tillman April 2004
When he was shot dead in Afghanistan the US military lauded him as an all-American hero who served his country rather than pursue a lucrative football career. The US military then announced that he died through “friendly fire” – his family insist he was murdered.

Sergeant Patrick McCaffrey June 2004
His family was told that the US soldier was killed after "an ambush by insurgents". Two years later they discovered he had died as a result of a training accident with Iraqi troops.

Flight Lieutenant David Williams and Flight Lieutenant Kevin Main March 2003
The pilot and navigator of an RAF Tornado, returning from a bombing mission in Iraq, were killed when a US Patriot missile battery unit opened fire, believing the aircraft to be an Iraqi missile.

Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull March 2003
He was killed when a US A10 aircraft attacked his convoy in southern Iraq. The British armoured vehicles were marked with yellow identification panels, but the US pilot thought they were Iraqi rockets. A UK coroner said it was a criminal and unlawful killing, but the Pentagon refused to allow the US troops to be questioned.

Terry Lloyd, ITN journalist March 2003
Killed when he was caught in crossfire between American troops and Iraqis on the road to Basra, nicknamed the Highway of Hell.

Fifteen people April 2003
The deaths came when American aircraft attacked a Kurdish and US special forces convoy in Kurdistan, northern Iraq. John Simpson, the BBC journalist, was injured in the attack.

Four Canadian soldiers April 2002
Killed in Kandahar in southern Afghanistan when an American F16 dropped a laser-guided bomb on their position.

A Nato delegation of 26 people April 1994
The delegation included two high-ranking British Army officers Major Harry Shapland and Lieutenant-Colonel Jonathan Swann, they died when their US Black Hawk helicopter was shot down in Iraq by American fighters.

Nine British soldiers February 1991
A US A10 “tank-buster” launched an attack on a British armoured patrol in the desert during the Gulf War, and killed nine young soldiers from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and The Queen's Own Highlanders.

The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers' victims were : Paul Atkinson, Conrad Cole, Richard Gillespie, Kevin Leech, Lee Thompson, Stephen Satchell, Neil Donald, Martin Ferguson, and John Lang.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I watched the youtube videos you posted.  I didn't hear the list of things they were asking for other than an investigation into the incident.  Is that all they want?

Also, a question that comes to mind is why would Isreal use unmarked planes, and how if they were unmarked did the sailors know that they were isreali? 

Also, so what if they used Napalm?  In '67 WE were using napalm. 

All this aside, given the situation that Isreal was in, I would have attacked also.  The USS Liberty was a spy ship.

There will always be accidents in war.  When dealing with fallible humans, it's just bound to happen.  And there will always be someone crying out "conspiracy!!  It was done on purpose!!"  People just have to come to grips with the fact that people die in war and sometimes they die at the hands of their comrades. 

Quote from: Sarah on December 04, 2009, 06:19:07 AM
There will always be accidents in war.  When dealing with fallible humans, it's just bound to happen.  And there will always be someone crying out "conspiracy!!  It was done on purpose!!"  People just have to come to grips with the fact that people die in war and sometimes they die at the hands of their comrades.  

Well said, Sarah.  Was it Murphy' Law, a Catch-22 situation that caused this snafu?  Keep in mind while you read this account of what happened, that the Liberty was only 20 miles off of the Israeli coast, in the middle of a 6-Day War between Eygpt and Israel.  Many of those who believe the Liberty was purposely attacked have suggested that the Israelis feared the ship might intercept communications revealing its plans to widen the war, which the U.S. opposed.  But no one has ever produced any solid evidence to support that theory, and the Israelis dismiss it.  The NSA's deputy director, Louis Tordella, speculated in a recently declassified memo that the attack might have been ordered by some senior commander on the Sinai Peninsula who wrongly suspected that the LIBERTY was monitoring his activities.  So.... no contact between the Liberty and Israel was in play and hadn't been as to why it was there, 20 miles off the coastline.  Who was at fault?  Israel?  The U.S.?  Both Sides?  You make the call.

......Warph



The following is what happened June 8, 1967.....How the attack unfolded:

National Security Agency documents recount the hours leading up to, during and after the attack on the USS Liberty by Israeli forces that killed 34.

EVENTS OF JUNE 8, 1967

6 a.m. An Israeli reconnaissance plane spots an unidentified ship 70 miles west of Tel Aviv.

9 a.m. A second Israeli reconnaissance plane spots an unidentified ship 20 miles north of El-Arish. Liberty's position is plotted on a map in green, designating a "neutral ship."

10:55 a.m. A naval liaison officer at Israeli Air Force headquarters informs Israeli Naval Headquarters that the previously unidentified ship is an "audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy" named Liberty.

11 a.m. The acting chief of Israeli naval operations orders removal of Liberty from a plot table because he is no longer certain of its position.

11:30 a.m. The Israeli Navy receives an erroneous report that El-Arish is being shelled from the sea.

12:05 p.m. Three motor torpedo boats (MTBs) are ordered to proceed toward El-Arish.

THE ATTACK ON THE LIBERTY

1:56 p.m. Two Israeli Mirage III aircraft, followed by two Super Mystere aircraft, begin their attack on the Liberty.

2:14 p.m. The chief Israeli air controller in Tel Aviv tells the controller who is directing the attack on the Liberty that the ship is "apparently American."

2:20 p.m. The Israeli naval commander orders the commander of the Torpedo Boat Division to attack the Liberty. At almost the same time, the Naval Operations Branch orders: "Do not attack. It is possible that the aircraft have not identified correctly." The commander of the Torpedo Boat Division says he never got any order to cease the attack, although the deputy commander says he passed the message to the commander.

2:24 p.m. Liberty sights three MTBs 4-5 miles away and closing fast.

2:26 p.m. Liberty raises its largest American flag, the "Holiday colors."

2:27 p.m. Three torpedo boats begin strafing the Liberty and launch their six torpedoes.

2:28 p.m. Five torpedoes miss the ship, but one strikes the Liberty's right side, leaving a 39-foot hole.

THE AFTERMATH

2:29 p.m. Starting time for an NSA tape of Israeli communications after the attack. A previous tape, which presumably would have captured the air and torpedo attacks, is missing.

3:07 p.m. Israeli helicopters sent to rescue Liberty crewman from the sea arrive and "orbit" the heavily damaged vessel.

3:12 p.m. The helicopters' communications with the ground are intercepted by an American aircraft circling high above the scene. One helicopter pilot reports that he sees an American flag flying from the Liberty's mast.

3:16 p.m. An Israeli ground controller orders the helicopters to return to El Arish

Sources: National Security Agency documents


=====================================================

From the Chicago Tribune:



Bryce Lockwood, Marine staff sergeant, Russian-language expert, recipient of the Silver Star for heroism, ordained Baptist minister, is shouting into the phone.

"I'm angry! I'm seething with anger! Forty years, and I'm seething with anger!"

Lockwood was aboard the USS Liberty, a super-secret spy ship on station in the eastern Mediterranean, when four Israeli fighter jets flew out of the afternoon sun to strafe and bomb the virtually defenseless vessel on June 8, 1967, the fourth day of what would become known as the Six-Day War.

For Lockwood and many other survivors, the anger is mixed with incredulity: that Israel would attack an important ally, then attribute the attack to a case of mistaken identity by Israeli pilots who had confused the U.S. Navy's most distinctive ship with an Egyptian horse-cavalry transport that was half its size and had a dissimilar profile. And they're also incredulous that, for years, their own government would reject their calls for a thorough investigation.

"They tried to lie their way out of it!" Lockwood shouts. "I don't believe that for a minute! You just don't shoot at a ship at sea without identifying it, making sure of your target!"

Four decades later, many of the more than two dozen Liberty survivors located and interviewed by the Tribune cannot talk about the attack without shouting or weeping.

Their anger has been stoked by the declassification of government documents and the recollections of former military personnel, including some quoted in this article for the first time, which strengthen doubts about the U.S. National Security Agency's position that it never intercepted the communications of the attacking Israeli pilots -- communications, according to those who remember seeing them, that showed the Israelis knew they were attacking an American naval vessel.

The documents also suggest that the U.S. government, anxious to spare Israel's reputation and preserve its alliance with the U.S., closed the case with what even some of its participants now say was a hasty and seriously flawed investigation.

In declassifying the most recent and largest batch of materials last June 8, the 40th anniversary of the attack, the NSA, this country's chief U.S. electronic-intelligence-gatherer and code-breaker, acknowledged that the attack had "become the center of considerable controversy and debate." It was not the agency's intention, it said, "to prove or disprove any one set of conclusions, many of which can be drawn from a thorough review of this material," available at http://www.nsa.gov/liberty .

An Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, called the attack on the Liberty "a tragic and terrible accident, a case of mistaken identity, for which Israel has officially apologized." Israel also paid reparations of $6.7 million to the injured survivors and the families of those killed in the attack, and another $6 million for the loss of the Liberty itself.

But for those who lost their sons and husbands, neither the Israelis' apology nor the passing of time has lessened their grief.

One is Pat Blue, who still remembers having her lunch in Washington's Farragut Square park on "a beautiful June afternoon" when she was a 22-year-old secretary for a law firm.

Blue heard somebody's portable radio saying a U.S. Navy ship had been torpedoed in the eastern Mediterranean. A few weeks before, Blue's husband of two years, an Arab-language expert with the NSA, had been hurriedly dispatched overseas.

As she listened to the news report, "it just all came together." Soon afterward, the NSA confirmed that Allen Blue was among the missing.

"I never felt young again," she said.

Aircraft on the horizon

Beginning before dawn on June 8, Israeli aircraft regularly appeared on the horizon and circled the Liberty.

The Israeli Air Force had gained control of the skies on the first day of the war by destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground. America was Israel's ally, and the Israelis knew the Americans were there. The ship's mission was to monitor the communications of Israel's Arab enemies and their Soviet advisers, but not Israeli communications. The Liberty felt safe.

Then the jets started shooting at the officers and enlisted men stretched out on the deck for a lunch-hour sun bath. Theodore Arfsten, a quartermaster, remembered watching a Jewish officer cry when he saw the blue Star of David on the planes' fuselages. At first, crew members below decks had no idea whose planes were shooting at their ship.

Thirty-four died that day, including Blue, the only civilian casualty. An additional 171 were wounded in the air and sea assault by Israel, which was about to celebrate an overwhelming victory over the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and several other Arab states.

For most of those who survived the attack, the Six-Day War has become the defining moment of their lives.

Some mustered out of the Navy as soon as their enlistments were up. Others stayed in long enough to retire. Several went on to successful business careers. One became a Secret Service agent, another a Baltimore policeman.

Several are being treated with therapy and drugs for what has since been recognized as post-traumatic stress disorder. One has undergone more than 30 major operations. Another suffers seizures caused by a piece of shrapnel still lodged in his brain.

After Bryce Lockwood left the Marines, he worked construction, then tried selling insurance. "I'd get a job and get fired," he said. "I had a hell of a time getting my feet on the ground."

With his linguistic background, Lockwood could have had a career with the NSA, the CIA, or the FBI. But he was too angry at the U.S. government to work for it. "Don't talk to me about government!" he shouts.

U.S. Navy jets were called back

An Israeli military court of inquiry later acknowledged that their naval headquarters knew at least three hours before the attack that the odd-looking ship 13 miles off the Sinai Peninsula, sprouting more than 40 antennas capable of receiving every kind of radio transmission, was "an electromagnetic audio-surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy," a floating electronic vacuum cleaner.

The Israeli inquiry later concluded that that information had simply gotten lost, never passed along to the ground controllers who directed the air attack nor to the crews of the three Israeli torpedo boats who picked up where the air force left off, strafing the Liberty's decks with their machine guns and launching a torpedo that blew a 39-foot hole in its starboard side.

To a man, the survivors interviewed by the Tribune rejected Israel's explanation.

Nor, the survivors said, did they understand why the American 6th Fleet, which included the aircraft carriers America and Saratoga, patrolling 400 miles west of the Liberty, launched and then recalled at least two squadrons of Navy fighter-bombers that might have arrived in time to prevent the torpedo attack -- and save 26 American lives.

J.Q. "Tony" Hart, then a chief petty officer assigned to a U.S. Navy relay station in Morocco that handled communications between Washington and the 6th Fleet, remembered listening as Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, in Washington, ordered Rear Adm. Lawrence Geis, commander of the America's carrier battle group, to bring the jets home.

When Geis protested that the Liberty was under attack and needed help, Hart said, McNamara retorted that "President [Lyndon] Johnson is not going to go to war or embarrass an American ally over a few sailors."

McNamara, who is now 91, told the Tribune he has "absolutely no recollection of what I did that day," except that "I have a memory that I didn't know at the time what was going on."

The Johnson administration did not publicly dispute Israel's claim that the attack had been nothing more than a disastrous mistake. But internal White House documents obtained from the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library show that the Israelis' explanation of how the mistake had occurred was not believed.

Except for McNamara, most senior administration officials from Secretary of State Dean Rusk on down privately agreed with Johnson's intelligence adviser, Clark Clifford, who was quoted in minutes of a National Security Council staff meeting as saying it was "inconceivable" that the attack had been a case of mistaken identity.

The attack "couldn't be anything else but deliberate," the NSA's director, Lt. Gen. Marshall Carter, later told Congress.

"I don't think you'll find many people at NSA who believe it was accidental," Benson Buffham, a former deputy NSA director, said in an interview.

"I just always assumed that the Israeli pilots knew what they were doing," said Harold Saunders, then a member of the National Security Council staff and later assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs.

"So for me, the question really is who issued the order to do that and why? That's the really interesting thing."

The answer, if there is one, will probably never be known. Gen. Moshe Dayan, then the country's minister of defense; Levi Eshkol, the Israeli prime minister; and Golda Meir, his successor, are all dead.

Was the U.S. flag visible?

Though the attack on the Liberty has faded from public memory, Michael Oren, a historian and senior fellow at The Shalem Center in Jerusalem, conceded that "the case of the assault on the Liberty has never been closed."

If anything, Oren said, "the accusations leveled against Israel have grown sharper with time." Oren said in an interview that he believed a formal investigation by the U.S., even 40 years later, would be useful if only because it would finally establish Israel's innocence.

Questions about what happened to the Liberty have been kept alive by survivors' groups and their Web sites, a half-dozen books, magazine articles and television documentaries, scholarly papers published in academic journals, and Internet chat groups where amateur sleuths debate arcane points of photo interpretation and torpedo running depth.

Meantime, the Liberty's survivors and their supporters, including a distinguished constellation of retired admirals and generals, have persisted in asking Congress for a full-scale formal investigation.

"We deserve to have the truth," Pat Blue said.

For all its apparent complexity, the attack on the Liberty can be reduced to a single question: Was the ship flying the American flag at the time of the attack, and was that flag visible from the air?

The survivors interviewed by the Tribune uniformly agree that the Liberty was flying the Stars and Stripes before, during and after the attack, except for a brief period in which one flag that had been shot down was replaced with another, larger flag -- the ship's "holiday colors" -- that measured 13 feet long.

Concludes one of the declassified NSA documents: "Every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmen gave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty was flying an American flag -- and, further, the weather conditions were ideal to ensure its easy observance and identification."

The Israeli court of inquiry that examined the attack, and absolved the Israeli military of criminal culpability, came to precisely the opposite conclusion.

"Throughout the contact," it declared, "no American or any other flag appeared on the ship."

The attack, the court said, had been prompted by a report, which later proved erroneous, that a ship was shelling Israeli-held positions in the Sinai Peninsula. The Liberty had no guns capable of shelling the shore, but the court concluded that the U.S. ship had been mistakenly identified as the source of the shelling.

Yiftah Spector, the first Israeli pilot to attack the ship, told the Jerusalem Post in 2003 that when he first spotted the Liberty, "I circled it twice and it did not fire on me. My assumption was that it was likely to open fire at me and nevertheless I slowed down and I looked and there was positively no flag."

But the Liberty crewmen interviewed by the Tribune said the Israeli jets simply appeared and began shooting. They also said the Liberty did not open fire on the planes because it was armed only with four .50-caliber machine guns intended to repel boarders.

"I can't identify it, but in any case it's a military ship," Spector radioed his ground controller, according to a transcript of the Israeli air-to-ground communications published by the Jerusalem Post in 2004.

That transcript, made by a Post reporter who was allowed to listen to what the Israeli Air Force said were tapes of the attacking pilots' communications, contained only two references to "American" or "Americans," one at the beginning and the other at the end of the attack.

The first reference occurred at 1:54 p.m. local time, two minutes before the Israeli jets began their first strafing run.

In the Post transcript, a weapons system officer on the ground suddenly blurted out, "What is this? Americans?"

"Where are Americans?" replied one of the air controllers.

The question went unanswered, and it was not asked again.

Twenty minutes later, after the Liberty had been hit repeatedly by machine guns, 30 mm cannon and napalm from the Israelis' French-built Mirage and Mystere fighter-bombers, the controller directing the attack asked his chief in Tel Aviv to which country the target vessel belonged.

"Apparently American," the chief controller replied.

Fourteen minutes later the Liberty was struck amidships by a torpedo from an Israeli boat, killing 26 of the 100 or so NSA technicians and specialists in Russian and Arabic who were working in restricted compartments below the ship's waterline.

Analyst: Israelis wanted it sunk

The transcript published by the Jerusalem Post bore scant resemblance to the one that in 1967 rolled off the teletype machine behind the sealed vault door at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, where Steve Forslund worked as an intelligence analyst for the 544th Air Reconnaissance Technical Wing, then the highest-level strategic planning office in the Air Force.

"The ground control station stated that the target was American and for the aircraft to confirm it," Forslund recalled. "The aircraft did confirm the identity of the target as American, by the American flag.

"The ground control station ordered the aircraft to attack and sink the target and ensure they left no survivors."

Forslund said he clearly recalled "the obvious frustration of the controller over the inability of the pilots to sink the target quickly and completely."

"He kept insisting the mission had to sink the target, and was frustrated with the pilots' responses that it didn't sink."

Nor, Forslund said, was he the only member of his unit to have read the transcripts. "Everybody saw these," said Forslund, now retired after 26 years in the military.

Forslund's recollections are supported by those of two other Air Force intelligence specialists, working in widely separate locations, who say they also saw the transcripts of the attacking Israeli pilots' communications.

One is James Gotcher, now an attorney in California, who was then serving with the Air Force Security Service's 6924th Security Squadron, an adjunct of the NSA, at Son Tra, Vietnam.

"It was clear that the Israeli aircraft were being vectored directly at USS Liberty," Gotcher recalled in an e-mail. "Later, around the time Liberty got off a distress call, the controllers seemed to panic and urged the aircraft to 'complete the job' and get out of there."

Six thousand miles from Omaha, on the Mediterranean island of Crete, Air Force Capt. Richard Block was commanding an intelligence wing of more than 100 analysts and cryptologists monitoring Middle Eastern communications.

The transcripts Block remembered seeing "were teletypes, way beyond Top Secret. Some of the pilots did not want to attack," Block said. "The pilots said, 'This is an American ship. Do you still want us to attack?'

"And ground control came back and said, 'Yes, follow orders.'"

Gotcher and Forslund agreed with Block that the Jerusalem Post transcript was not at all like what they remember reading.

"There is simply no way that [the Post transcript is] the same as what I saw," Gotcher said. "More to the point, for anyone familiar with air-to-ground [communications] procedures, that simply isn't the way pilots and controllers communicate."

Block, now a child protection caseworker in Florida, observed that "the fact that the Israeli pilots clearly identified the ship as American and asked for further instructions from ground control appears to be a missing part of that Jerusalem Post article."

Arieh O'Sullivan, the Post reporter who made the newspaper's transcript, said the Israeli Air Force tapes he listened to contained blank spaces. He said he assumed those blank spaces occurred while Israeli pilots were conducting their strafing runs and had nothing to communicate.

'But sir, it's an American ship!'

Forslund, Gotcher and Block are not alone in claiming to have read transcripts of the attack that they said left no doubt the Israelis knew they were attempting to sink a U.S. Navy ship.

Many ears were tuned to the battles being fought in and around the Sinai during the Six-Day War, including those belonging to other Arab nations with a keen interest in the outcome.

"I had a Libyan naval captain who was listening in that day," said a retired CIA officer, who spoke on condition that he not be named discussing a clandestine informant.

"He thought history would change its course," the CIA officer recalled. "Israel attacking the U.S. He was certain, listening in to the Israeli and American comms [communications], that it was deliberate."

The late Dwight Porter, the American ambassador to Lebanon during the Six-Day War, told friends and family members that he had been shown English-language transcripts of Israeli pilots talking to their controllers.

A close friend, William Chandler, the former head of the Trans-Arabian Pipe Line Co., said Porter recalled one of the pilots protesting, "But sir, it's an American ship -- I can see the flag!' To which the ground control responded, 'Never mind; hit it!'"

Porter, who asked that his recollections not be made public while he was alive because they involved classified information, also discussed the transcripts during a lunch in 2000 at the Cosmos Club in Washington with another retired American diplomat, Andrew Kilgore, the former U.S. ambassador to Qatar.

Kilgore recalled Porter saying that he "saw the telex, read it, and passed it right back" to the embassy official who had shown it to him. He quoted Porter as recalling that the transcript showed "Israel was attacking, and they know it's an American ship."

Haviland Smith, a young CIA officer stationed in Beirut during the Six-Day War, said that although he never saw the transcript, he had "heard on a number of occasions exactly the story that you just told me about what that transcript contained."

He had later been told, Smith recalled, "that ultimately all of the transcripts were deep-sixed. I was told that they were deep-sixed because the administration did not wish to embarrass the Israelis."

Perhaps the most persuasive suggestion that such transcripts existed comes from the Israelis themselves, in a pair of diplomatic cables sent by the Israeli ambassador in Washington, Avraham Harman, to Foreign Minister Abba Eban in Tel Aviv.

Five days after the Liberty attack, Harman cabled Eban that a source the Israelis code-named "Hamlet" was reporting that the Americans had "clear proof that from a certain stage the pilot discovered the identity of the ship and continued the attack anyway."

Harman repeated the warning three days later, advising Eban, who is now dead, that the White House was "very angry," and that "the reason for this is that the Americans probably have findings showing that our pilots indeed knew that the ship was American."

According to a memoir by then-CIA director Richard Helms, President Johnson's personal anger was manifest when he discovered the story of the Liberty attack on an inside page of the next day's New York Times. Johnson barked that "it should have been on the front page!"

Israeli historian Tom Segev, who mentioned the cables in his recent book "1967," said other cables showed that Harman's source for the second cable was Arthur Goldberg, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

The cables, which have been declassified by the Israelis, were obtained from the Israeli State Archive and translated from Hebrew by the Tribune.

Oliver Kirby, the NSA's deputy director for operations at the time of the Liberty attack, confirmed the existence of NSA transcripts.

Asked whether he had personally read such transcripts, Kirby replied, "I sure did. I certainly did."

"They said, 'We've got him in the zero,'" Kirby recalled, "whatever that meant -- I guess the sights or something. And then one of them said, 'Can you see the flag?' They said 'Yes, it's U.S, it's U.S.' They said it several times, so there wasn't any doubt in anybody's mind that they knew it."

Kirby, now 86 and retired in Texas, said the transcripts were "something that's bothered me all my life. I'm willing to swear on a stack of Bibles that we knew they knew."

One set of transcripts apparently survived in the archives of the U.S. Army's intelligence school, then located at Ft. Holabird in Maryland.

W. Patrick Lang, a retired Army colonel who spent eight years as chief of Middle East intelligence for the Defense Intelligence Agency, said the transcripts were used as "course material" in an advanced class for intelligence officers on the clandestine interception of voice transmissions.

"The flight leader spoke to his base to report that he had the ship in view, that it was the same ship that he had been briefed on and that it was clearly marked with the U.S. flag," Lang recalled in an e-mail.

"The flight commander was reluctant," Lang said in a subsequent interview. "That was very clear. He didn't want to do this. He asked them a couple of times, 'Do you really want me to do this?' I've remembered it ever since. It was very striking. I've been harboring this memory for all these years."

Key NSA tapes said missing

Asked whether the NSA had in fact intercepted the communications of the Israeli pilots who were attacking the Liberty, Kirby, the retired senior NSA official, replied, "We sure did."

On its Web site, the NSA has posted three recordings of Israeli communications made on June 8, 1967. But none of the recordings is of the attack itself.

Indeed, the declassified documents state that no recordings of the "actual attack" exist, raising questions about the source of the transcripts recalled by Forslund, Gotcher, Block, Porter, Lang and Kirby.

The three recordings reflect what the NSA describes as "the aftermath" of the attack -- Israeli communications with two Israeli helicopters dispatched to rescue any survivors who may have jumped into the water.

Two of the recordings were made by Michael Prostinak, a Hebrew linguist aboard a U.S. Navy EC-121, a lumbering propeller-driven aircraft specially equipped to gather electronic intelligence.

But Prostinak said he was certain that more than three recordings were made that day.

"I can tell you there were more tapes than just the three on the Internet," he said. "No doubt in my mind, more than three tapes."

At least one of the missing tapes, Prostinak said, captured Israeli communications "in which people were not just tranquil or taking care of business as normal. We knew that something was being attacked," Prostinak said. "Everyone we were listening to was excited. You know, it was an actual attack. And during the attack was when mention of the American flag was made."

Prostinak acknowledged that his Hebrew was not good enough to understand every word being said, but that after the mention of the American flag "the attack did continue. We copied [recorded] it until we got completely out of range. We got a great deal of it."

Charles Tiffany, the plane's navigator, remembers hearing Prostinak on the plane's intercom system, shouting, "I got something crazy on UHF," the radio frequency band used by the Israeli Air Force.

"I'll never forget it to this day," said Tiffany, now a retired Florida lawyer. He also remembers hearing the plane's pilot ordering the NSA linguists to "start taping everything."

Prostinak said he and the others aboard the plane had been unaware of the Liberty's presence 15,000 feet below, but had concluded that the Israelis' target must be an American ship. "We knew that something was being attacked," Prostinak said.

After listening to the three recordings released by the NSA, Prostinak said it was clear from the sequence in which they were numbered that at least two tapes that had once existed were not there.

One tape, designated A1104/A-02, begins at 2:29 p.m. local time, just after the Liberty was hit by the torpedo. Prostinak said there was a preceding tape, A1104/A-01.

That tape likely would have recorded much of the attack, which began with the air assault at 1:56 p.m. Prostinak said a second tape, which preceded one beginning at 3:07 p.m., made by another linguist aboard the same plane, also appeared to be missing.

As soon as the EC-121 landed at its base in Athens, Prostinak said, all the tapes were rushed to an NSA facility at the Athens airport where Hebrew translators were standing by.

"We told them what we had, and they immediately took the tapes and went to work," recalled Prostinak, who after leaving the Navy became chief of police and then town administrator for the village of Lake Waccamaw, N.C.

Another linguist aboard the EC-121, who spoke on condition that he not be named, said he believed there had been as many as "five or six" tapes recording the attack on the Liberty or its aftermath.

Andrea Martino, the NSA's senior media adviser, did not respond to a question about the apparent conflict between the agency's assertion that there were no recordings of the Israeli attack and the recollections of those interviewed for this article.

U.S. inquiry widely criticized

Rather than investigating how and why a U.S. Navy vessel had been attacked by an ally, the Navy seemed interested in asking as few questions as possible and answering them in record time.

Even while the Liberty was still limping toward a dry dock in Malta, the Navy convened a formal Court of Inquiry. Adm. John McCain Jr., the commander of U.S. naval forces in Europe and father of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chose Adm. Isaac Kidd Jr. to preside.

The court's charge was narrow: to determine whether any shortcomings on the part of the Liberty's crew had contributed to the injuries and deaths that resulted from the attack. McCain gave Kidd's investigators a week to complete the job.

"That was a shock," recalled retired Navy Capt. Ward Boston, the inquiry's counsel, who said he and Kidd had estimated that a thorough inquiry would take six months.

"Everyone was kind of stunned that it was handled so quickly and without much hullabaloo," said G. Patrick March, then a member of McCain's staff in London.

Largely because of time constraints, Boston said, the investigators were unable to question many of the survivors, or to visit Israel and interview any Israelis involved in the attack.

Rear Adm. Merlin Staring, the Navy's former judge advocate general, was asked to assess the American inquiry's report before it was sent to Washington. But Staring said it was taken from him when he began to question some aspects of the report. He describes it now as "a hasty, superficial, incomplete and totally inadequate inquiry."

Staring, who is among those calling for a full congressional investigation on behalf of the Liberty's survivors, observed in an interview that the inquiry report contained several "findings of fact" unsupported by testimony or evidence.

One such finding ignored the testimony of several inquiry witnesses that the American flag was flying during the attack, and held that the "available evidence combines to indicate the attack on LIBERTY on 8 June was in fact a case of mistaken identity."

There are also apparent omissions in the inquiry's report. It does not include, for example, the testimony of a young lieutenant, Lloyd Painter, who was serving as officer of the deck when the attack began. Painter said he testified that an Israeli torpedo boat "methodically machine-gunned one of our life rafts" that had been put over the side by crewmen preparing to abandon ship.

Painter, who spent 32 years as a Secret Service agent after leaving the Navy, charged that his testimony about the life rafts was purposely omitted.

Ward Boston recalled that, after McCain's one-week deadline expired, Kidd took the record compiled by the inquiry "and flew back to Washington, and I went back to Naples," the headquarters of the 6th Fleet.

"Two weeks later, he comes back to Naples and calls me from his office," Boston recalled in an interview. "In that deep voice, he said, 'Ward, they aren't interested in the facts. It's a political issue and we have to put a lid on it. We've been ordered to shut up.

"It's time for the truth to come out," declared Boston, who is now 84. "There have been so many cover-ups."

"Someday the truth of this will come out," said Dennis Eikleberry, a NSA technician aboard the Liberty. "Someday it will, but we'll all be gone."

James Ennes, now 74, who was officer of the deck just before the attack began, and later spent two months in a body cast, is one of the more vocal survivors. Like the others, Ennes is tired of waiting.

"We want both sides to stop lying," he said.

This was no accident.  The vets who were aboard the ship have given proof that Israel deliberatly attacked the ship.

Warph, your own post provides testimony from the NSA, and Israeli intelligence that the attack was deliberate.

QuoteSix thousand miles from Omaha, on the Mediterranean island of Crete, Air Force Capt. Richard Block was commanding an intelligence wing of more than 100 analysts and cryptologists monitoring Middle Eastern communications.

The transcripts Block remembered seeing "were teletypes, way beyond Top Secret. Some of the pilots did not want to attack," Block said. "The pilots said, 'This is an American ship. Do you still want us to attack?'

"And ground control came back and said, 'Yes, follow orders.'"

Furthermore, If this were an isolated incident, you may be able to pursaude some that this was an accident.  But this isn't an isolated incident.

Some people, including some of you, are just so in love wit Israel that you would excuse their blatant murder of Americans, you would excuse their attempt to control out foreign policy and you seek to excuse their constant spying on our government and theft of our secrets. 

You use the argument that its because of your religous beliefs.  Guess what, thats the same argument that muslim terrorists use to justify their actions.

Quote from: Anmar on December 04, 2009, 12:32:03 PM
This was no accident.  The vets who were aboard the ship have given proof that Israel deliberatly attacked the ship.

Warph, your own post provides testimony from the NSA, and Israeli intelligence that the attack was deliberate.

Furthermore, If this were an isolated incident, you may be able to pursaude some that this was an accident.  But this isn't an isolated incident.

Some people, including some of you, are just so in love wit Israel that you would excuse their blatant murder of Americans, you would excuse their attempt to control out foreign policy and you seek to excuse their constant spying on our government and theft of our secrets. 

You use the argument that its because of your religous beliefs.  Guess what, thats the same argument that muslim terrorists use to justify their actions.

You ever heard the saying kill them all and let God sort it out!?  Here you have a country that is fighting a 5 front war, and lo and behold a sixth country has one of its naval vessels approaching.  What do you do?  who can you trust?  Not a damn soul!   This is a time when they didn't really know who their friends were, who was going to stand by them when the big hairy furball hit the fan.   You can't blame israel for reacting the way they did.   I think if i were in their shoes at that time i would have made the decision to kill em all too.  Sorry but i don't see a conspiracy here.

Quote from: Anmar on December 04, 2009, 12:32:03 PM
you would excuse their attempt to control out foreign policy and you seek to excuse their constant spying on our government and theft of our secrets. 

You have made these claims several times? Got any proof?  Better yet, got any proof that the US isn't spying on Israel or other countries?   I mean if your going to set that standard that Israel and others shouldn't be spying  on us, then you'll need to apply the same set of rules on our government. But that would leave us open and vulnerable to attack now wouldn't it!

QuoteYou use the argument that its because of your religous beliefs.  Guess what, thats the same argument that muslim terrorists use to justify their actions.

Not at all. Muslims use God told them to do it as their excuse through hack n slashing anyone that isn't muslim and even to the point of hacking and slashing women and children and innocents.  At least the liberty was military action not a civilian action.   
We as well as israel have gone out of our way in wartime to keep the civilian casualty rates as low as possible to the point of endangering our own men and increasing the cost of war tremendously while muslims don't give a damn about the collateral costs and damages as long as they can kill someone. 

I have a son who trained soldiers of the georgian military.  The hardest thing he had to do to train them was to train them to live.  they are programmed from birth that it is a highest honor and a goal to achieve death in battle.  Well the Marines don't teach that, the marines teach make the other bastard die.   These people think nothing of life as it holds no value to them. 

operation suzanna

Steve,
I'm sure your sons have told you that Marines are not allowed to die without permission and the last I heard Gen Conway is not giving permission to die !! As to Marines making the other bastards die---Yes that's right. That's why God loves the Marine Corps. We keep heaven stocked with fresh souls . Hurrahh !! :)

Quote from: jarhead on December 04, 2009, 04:01:54 PM
Steve,
I'm sure your sons have told you that Marines are not allowed to die without permission and the last I heard Gen Conway is not giving permission to die !! As to Marines making the other bastards die---Yes that's right. That's why God loves the Marine Corps. We keep heaven stocked with fresh souls . Hurrahh !! :)

Yes they have.  They have a standing order that they will be considered AWOL if they die.

Okay, Anmar, lets say that it was delibrate.  Where do we go from here?  Do we cut ties with Isreal?  Do we demand that those who gave the order be made to stand before a military tribunal?  You say that the Vets of the Liberty have a list of demands, where is it?

Quote from: Varmit on December 05, 2009, 09:26:21 AM
Okay, Anmar, lets say that it was delibrate.  Where do we go from here?  Do we cut ties with Isreal?  Do we demand that those who gave the order be made to stand before a military tribunal?  You say that the Vets of the Liberty have a list of demands, where is it?

Very good questions, Varmit.  The Liberty incident could have been delibrate.... Israel could have had a reason to do what they had to do militarily.  I suppose we will never know.  It is kind of like the decision FDR made when he had prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor bombing by Japan.




Just before the 1967 Six Day War, a Palestinian terrorist organization, Fatah, headed by Yasir Arafat, conducted terrorist acts within Israel with the dual purposes of inflicting as much damage as possible on Israeli civilians, and of bringing the Arab world into a war against Israel.

Israel's retaliation against this terrorism triggered violent protests throughout the Arab world.  Radical Arab regimes, such as Syria, called for war.  More, shall we call them  "moderate" Arab states, were afraid of confronting Israel's military, stopped short of declaring war.  Meanwhile, the Europeans, led by France, condemned Israel's acts of self-defense, and the United Nations condemned Israel's actions almost DAILY.  The United States, for its part, was embroiled in its own war in Vietnam, and was reluctant to become directly involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Israel..... little Israel.... that tiny little country with most of the world against them had no one else to turn to.  They could trust no one.  Not even the United States.  At home, Israel's main support came from Diaspora Jews, who worked tirelessly to ensure the Jewish state's survival.

Amidst the so-called Intifada al-Aqsa (Palestinian uprising), Israel is revisiting its past. What Arafat started had inflicted untold damages on Israel via terrorist groups under this control, while simultaneously drawing Arab states closer to war.  Today, the international community regularly chastises Israel, and until recently, America was reluctant to get involved due to its war in Afghanistan.  Israel, all the while, must endure a grave economic crisis as it works to avoid another war.

A little history on the Six-Day War, Anmar that you might not be aware of.

The countdown to the Six-Day War began in November 1966, when a terrorist attack by Fatah against three Israeli soldiers prompted an Israeli reprisal.  A large Israeli force entered the Jordanian-occupied West Bank village of Samua, and encountered a battalion of Jordanian soldiers, leading to a firefight that left 15 Jordanian soldiers dead.  Arabs in the West Bank and Jordan reacted violently, demanding that Jordan's King Hussein make greater efforts to protect his people.  Hussein, in turn, made scathing remarks about Gamal Abd al-Nasser, Egypt's president, suggesting that he needed to do more to "liberate Palestine" and that he was hiding behind the UN, which had stationed troops in the Sinai Peninsula (between Israel and Egypt) since the 1956 Arab-Israeli war.

Thus, Nasser needed a pretext to eject the UN peacekeepers from Sinai and save face. His pretext came on May 12, 1967, when the USSR misinformed the Egyptians that Israeli forces were massed on Israel's northern border, ready to destroy Syria.  With the threat of war looming, Nasser, evicted the peacekeepers from Sinai, closed the Straits of Tiran, thereby blocking Israel's oil imports.

The degenerating situation put Israel in a dire situation.  A deepening economic crisis grew, while many in Israel criticized the government for not doing enough to protect the country.  This prompted Prime Minister Levi Eshkol to form a national unity government.  This helped ease some societal tensions, but did little to help Israel with their security problem and increasing international isolation.  The pressure was building towards war.

Just recently declassified documents reveal a number of Arab countries had extensive plans to attack Israel several days before the Six Day War began.  The Egyptian attack plan, "Operation Dawn" called for strategic bombings of major ports, airfields, cities and the Dimona nuclear reactor.  The Arab armies would then effectively cut Israel in half with an armored thrust from northern Sinai, through the Negev desert.

Nasser was intent on reversing the humiliating Arab defeats of 1948-49 and 1956.  He had provoked Israel when he closed the Straits of Tiran.  In the weeks leading up to Israel's preemptive strike, he had mobilized the Egyptian army in Sinai, and was poised to launch what he called "the operation that will surprise the world."  Abdel Amer, an Egyptian general who sought to augment and consolidate his power in Egypt, planned the operation, set to take place on May 27, 1967.

Unaware of this development, on May 26, 1967, Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban arrived in Washington to determine America's position if war broke out in the Middle East.  Upon his arrival, however, Eban received a secret telegram from Eshkol directing him to convey to U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson that Israel had just learned of the Arab attack plan.

When the two met, Johnson said he had no evidence of an impending attack.  In the event that Israeli intelligence was correct, Johnson instructed the Egyptian ambassador to send a cable warning Nasser to not attack Israel.  Additionally, the administration warned the Soviets that if Egypt attacked Israel, the U.S. would hold them responsible. Indeed, U.S. and Soviet pressure forced Nasser to cancel the attack planned for the next day.

In the weeks leading up to June 5, Israel found itself surrounded by large armies in Syria, Jordan and Egypt. The combined military forces on these three fronts gave Israel a distinct disadvantage in all areas of military readiness.  In the face of what must have looked like overwhelming odds, Israel planned to strike the Egyptian air force while still on the ground.  When Israel did strike, on June 5, 1967, it destroyed this air force in a matter of hours.

In just Six Days, Israel's defense forces successfully pushed back the Syrians on the Golan Heights, the Egyptians in Sinai and the Jordanians in the West Bank.  It was only Israel's self-restraint – a restraint shown in 1956 and later in 1973 – that kept them from further advancing into Amman, Damascus and Cairo.

The Six Day War was the result of miscalculation and misunderstandings.  For its part, Jordan wanted to avoid a war.  Declassified documents reveal that King Hussein had even attempted to send Prime Minister Eshkol a letter expressing sorrow for the death of the three soldiers in Samua.  This letter was received on a Friday afternoon by U.S. Ambassador Walter Barbour, who decided to wait to deliver the letter after the Jewish Sabbath.  Unfortunately, Israel struck before he did. Thus, if not for an American ambassador's procrastination, the Six-Day War may have been avoided. 

The war also might have been avoided if King Hussein had not feared a backlash from the Arab world for abstaining from the conflict.  In an attempt to absolve Jordan of culpability, Hussein gave control of his army to Egypt, protecting Jordan from possible Egyptian recrimination, but allowing his country to descend into war.

When the war began, Israel did its best to avoid conflict with Jordan.  But on the morning of June 5, 1967, the Jordanian army bombed West Jerusalem, the suburbs of Tel Aviv, as well as targets in the Galilee.  Eshkol sent Hussein a letter stating that Israel would take no actions against him if he ceased hostile activities.  Jordan, however, received misinformation of Arab victories emanating from Cairo, and pressed forward.  They sent troops to Mount Scopus and government hill ridge in Jerusalem.  The Jordanian forces might have faired better, if not for the Israeli discovery of a major Jordanian intelligence blunder.  Indeed, Jordanian radio broadcast its military plans roughly an hour ahead of the actual deployment.

After several decisive victories on the battlefield, Eshkol made one final attempt to end Jordanian-Israeli hostilities.  He sent Hussein a letter asking that he recall his troops.  If Hussein would comply, Israel would not take control of the old city of Jerusalem.  Eshkol's call went unanswered.  Israeli paratroopers subsequently entered the old city through the Lion gate and took control of the Temple Mount, and Jerusalem has been in Israeli hands ever since.

In spite of its short duration, the repercussions of the Six Day War were far reaching.  The Israeli conquest of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem led to quandaries that lie at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Whereas the basis of the Arab-Israeli conflict prior to 1967 was simply the Arab desire to destroy Israel, the Six Day War created a more complicated conflict.  Issues resulting from the war now include settlements in the disputed territories, the Palestinian refugee question, and sovereignty over Jerusalem.

Still, most Arab countries have adopted a position towards Israel of "no negotiation, no recognition and no peace." 

Most Arab nations have either continued to denounce Israel and her right to exist, or actively work towards hastening Israel's destruction by fueling the flames of hatred and funding terrorist operations.

In the Middle East, we know that Israel is a strong military power.  However, because of its small size and its very hostile neighbors, Israel is mortally vulnerable as well.  The same type of tinderbox situation that precipitated the 1967 is happening in Israel today, as the intifada rages with Iran helping to arm Hezbollah and Hamas .  Even today, it may only take a spark to set off another regional conflict on the scale and gravity of the Six-Day War.  That spark just might be the bombing of Iran's nuclear plants.  

The vets want a congressional investigation.

Some want US foreign aid to Isreal to stop.

Personally, i don't think we should be giving so much aid to a coutnry that spies on us.  Frankly, we shouldn't be giving foreign aid to anyone unless they are starving.  I know Warph and Varmit agree that Israel shouldn't recieve aid, they have posted that in different threads, right?

I don't think that I ever stated that we should stop aid to Isreal.

I think you did.  In the thread that red asked if you were a constitutionalist.  Its the platform of the party to stop all foreign aid,  you answered yes to that.

Nope. I never said that we SHOULD cutoff foregin aid to Isreal. I said tha tif we were to stop foregin aid to them then we should stop ALL foregin aid.  As fas as being a Constitutionalist...a person doesn't have to fully follow the party line to be a member.   

QuoteAs for Isreal, you better believe I support them.  However if we were to cut off foregin aid to them then we would have (and should) cut off all aid to everybody else.

Furthermore, if we demand that Isreal be held accountable for the attack on the USS Liberty, then WE should be held accountable for the attacks on other friendly forces.

Quote from: Anmar on December 09, 2009, 12:11:37 AM
I think you did.  In the thread that red asked if you were a constitutionalist.  Its the platform of the party to stop all foreign aid,  you answered yes to that.

You don't have to follow the complete platform to be a constitutionalist.  I believe we have a duty to protect the freedom of others since God has blessed this country with the freedom he gave us.  But that is not a platform priority.  Doesn't make me any less a constitutionalist or libertarian either.

Quote from: Anmar on December 08, 2009, 10:03:51 AM
I know Warph and Varmit agree that Israel shouldn't recieve aid, they have posted that in different threads, right?

Alright, anmar.... my turn.

oh goody, are you going to give us another post explaining that its ok for foreign coutnries to spy on us?

Everybody spies on everybody, thats just the way it is.  I don't necessarly blame them for doing it.  In a way it actually helps us to pinpoint weak spots in our security.  If we are to cut ties with Isreal for spying, then Britian should cut ties with us.  If we are to hold accountable those Isrealis responsible for the attack on the USS Liberty then our personnel should be held accountable for the attacks on our allies.  Unless of course, we, like the rest of the world, are to assume an Anti-Isreali stance.  And that is unacceptable.

Quote from: Varmit on December 09, 2009, 08:12:47 PM
Everybody spies on everybody, thats just the way it is.  I don't necessarly blame them for doing it.  In a way it actually helps us to pinpoint weak spots in our security.  If we are to cut ties with Isreal for spying, then Britian should cut ties with us.  If we are to hold accountable those Isrealis responsible for the attack on the USS Liberty then our personnel should be held accountable for the attacks on our allies.  Unless of course, we, like the rest of the world, are to assume an Anti-Isreali stance.  And that is unacceptable.

lol

lol? Thats it?  Why is it that you haven't answered any questions pertaining to the attacks on american allies by americans?  You rant and rave about Isreal spying and the attack on the Liberty (one incident) yet you let the numerous attacks on our allies by us go unquestioned? 

Your inability to differentiate between an accident and an intentional attack shows me that you are incapable of understanding any argument that i might make.  Also, you're blind love for Israel and willingness to sacrifice American lives, values, and money for Israel shows me that you are misguided, that you don't believe in the views of the founders, and you are not worth my time.

I have previously stated that the attack on the Liberty was probably delibrate, and I can understand Isreal doing it given teh situation they were in.  The fact that you don't address the points that I have made shows you really don't care about the Liberty so long as it gives you footing for an anti-Isreali position.  As for accidents vs. attacks, how many accidents have to happen before somone is held accountable?  As far as the views of our Founders, and my willingness to sacrifice American lives...well, I'll let my record speak for itself.  So, do what you do best when called on a position, run and hide.

run and hide because you can't read?  I answered your question on the last page dimwit.

And yes, Israeli spying costs american lives.  CIA agents captured, tortured, and murdered because Israeli spies gave up their identities to the soviets.  Those responsible are still living in Israel under the protection of their government.  Did you look up the operation I mentioned earlier?  The israeli plot to blow up American and British servicemen in egypt?  I didnt think so, sellout.

Quote from: Anmar on December 18, 2009, 12:23:42 AM
run and hide because you can't read?  I answered your question on the last page dimwit.

No, dimwit, you didn't.

Anmar,
Just last week you were calling "foul" because of name calling and how you wanted sympathy from the forum members. Then you turn around and call Billy a "dimwit" . I guess if you can call people names then it would only be fair for Varmit to call you a" limp wristed Muslim "------not that I think you are---just that it would be fair to call you that.

I didn't ask for sympathy from anyone.  And if someone can't read a post and understand what is clearly written, then i'd say its fair to say that person is a little bit behind in terms of thinking ability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugesi_gaqLU

Anmar,
Did you post that as a joke ? i can't beleive I wasted 7 minutes watching such propaganda but I thought I might get a "shiver up my leg" watching Chris Matthews but it never happened. Next time give us a heads up that BS like that comes from MSNBC so I don't waste my time.

Jarhead, I, being the army man, is much smarter than you.  I only wasted about thirty seconds. 

Larryj

Pat Buchanan......

a conservative....

Quote from: larryJ on December 18, 2009, 09:34:56 PM
Jarhead, I, being the army man, is much smarter than you.  I only wasted about thirty seconds. 
Larryj

Sorry larry.... when I saw that ugly puss of Matthews and the msnbc logo, I was off in 3 seconds.  Jarhead, didn't your D.I. teach you better than that?  Get down and give us 20!

Documentary made by the survivors of the USS liberty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsHJZ0gvFEs

I did watch this one about the Liberty.  I wondered why I didn't remember this.  I was certainly old enough to know what was going on.  In fact, I was in the service in 1967.  I just don't recall this incident.  Perhaps, maybe, because I was in Korea.  But, it is terrible that Johnson and McNamara treated this incident the way they did.  McNamara screwed up royally in Vietnam, so I guess it isn't surprising about any coverups. 

Larryj

Larry, Good point, but you don't need to rub it in.

Anmar, Pat a conservative ???I guess anyone can be labeled no matter if it fits them or not. Hell, just call me a stud if that's the way it is.

WARPH, I was tired and caught me in a moment of weakness-----and on the "20"---you want them whipped out one handed or two ?? Yea, right !!! :)