Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!brahms!weemba
From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: USS Liberty - part II (long)
Message-ID: <12554@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sat, 22-Mar-86 05:51:39 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12554
Posted: Sat Mar 22 05:51:39 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 23:06:41 EST
References: <12345@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <98@cad.UUCP> <3364@sun.uucp> <3381@sun.uucp>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 51

I'd like to thank Sam for posting his long summary of the article
on the Liberty.  He did not, however, tell us where the article got
its sources from, so I am somewhat dubious.  In particular, a lot
of detailed information comes from somewhere.  Is it from reality
or an official cover up?  I am not throwing strange paranoia claims
out.  It is certainly in Israel's best interests to maintain the
accident story.  Why, it would not surprise me to learn that the
ammo dump explosion was deliberate and not one more coincidence.

I am struck by the large number of little coincidences all adding
up.  Is there no independent way of verifying them?  One or two I'll
believe, but after a while I wonder.  The business of the flag bothers
me a lot.  Why would the Americans take it down in the first place?
That makes no sense.  It is certainly NOT a moot point in trying to
find out whether the attack was deliberate or accidental.  If it
really was flying, then your sources are lying on that one point,
and are oh so conveniently uncheckable on all the remaining points.

In my article I cited the major source of Bamford in his book.  He
also cited a late 1967 CIA document, which I repeat here:
>  [The sources] commented on the sinking [sic] of the US Communications
>  ship *Liberty*.  They said that Dayan personally ordered the attack
>  on the ship and that one of his generals adamantly opposed the action
>  and said, "This is pure murder."  One of the admirals who was present
>  also disapproved the action, and it was he who ordered it stopped and
>  not Dayan.

Thus you not only have to accept all the unverifiable coincidences, but
explain how the CIA came up with this false analysis.  The CIA certainly
is not noted for being anti-Israel.

And then you have to overlook the immense convenience the attack did have
for the Israeli war effort, whether intended or not.  The superpower spy
ship, whoops, sorry about that.

From Sam Cramer's article:
>"The pilot reported back, 'I see no flag or other signs of
>identification.' (The question of whether or not the Liberty was
>flying a flag remains a major point of contention.  The point,
>however, is moot: the pilot's report left those assessing the target's
>status with the impression that no flag was being flown - a key
>factor in their decision that the ship was hostile.)"

>The fact that there was no return fire from the target puzzled the
>lead pilot.  He swooped in twice, and reported seeing markings on
>the hull, saying "The ship's identification is Charlie-Tango-Romeo-5. 
>I see no flag."

It had been blown off in the first wave.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720