Jaw-dropping. That was Celia Farber’s word for Candace Owens’ interview with Phil Tourney about what happened with the USS Liberty. But a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
I'm not any kinda historian or expert... I'm an actress / jack of all trades / indie film'maker an' now a citizen journalist. What I put out is both from what I've read a LOT over many years (I do not always save 'er recall each source 'er citation as who knows what you'll need ta use years later) but I DO try ta share what I've read if I feel only one narrative is bein' put forth. John Loftus, a noted historian, is one that espoused some of the alt. takes on the event--always worth a read! As fer the ship bein' a spy ship--not only Tourney but EVERY known source on the matter has confirmed this fact so it's not up fer conjecture. It was (I hear) not just "any" spy ship but one with the top tech of the time, some computerized reconnaissance features, etc. Again, folks kin do their own research here an' see if there are convincin' testimonies from those who state the Liberty was not a "spy ship"--go fer it (really, sincerely)--
I've read from more 'n one source that the US was sharin' their info with Britain. Is it true? Well this entire thing is a cover up so we cannot "prove this"--it's an educated guess but the 5 eyes mutually were actin' WITH each other on such issues an' Britain had skin in this game. But let's say Britain was NOT privy to the US intelligence gathered--the US itself--without sharin' or alertin' ANYONE would have to likely "ACT" on what they alone gathered which included two (that I know--mebbe more?) bits of info that would've compromised Israel:
1. takin' out planes BEFORE they were used for attack (even though yes, they would have indeed been used for attack, Egypt already announced this)
2. Golan Hts.--territory that was indeed part of "Greater Israel"* but not part of the original 1948 borders...
So we don't need the UK to have Israel wanna protect their plans--an' again, JUST this year we had a CIA staff person reveal (an' nearly stymie) Israel's plans for the offensive re. Iran...
Again, I share what I read--folks kin insult me, dismiss it, all fine--but I do so hopin' some will say hey gorsh wait a minute... mebbe we ain't hearin' the full story... that's ALL I hope ta do (free service from a crackpot!)
Thank you for publishing the feedback you received, Elsa. I first learned about the USS Liberty story via the Jimmy Dore show last year and recall how emotional I felt afterwards. I wrote some notes but didn't publish them. Now I know why. I didn't have the full story. Cheers to Chief Crackpot and other commentators. I recently looked up Candace Owens' career history and she appears to be a skilled marketeer who enjoys playing political games. Agenda pushers are paid well, I hear.
I haven't watched her interview and don't know what she believes, but she tends to 'overact'. They should send Candace to old-school journalism school. I prefer Jimmy Dore's approach to contentious issues.
thanks muchly Elsa fer sharin' my thoughts (apologies fer the spellin' errors even in mah crackpot speak)... Did not mention--Israel was ALREADY winnin' the war even tho' attacked by 3 Arab nations--Syria, Egypt, Jordan . To take out a US ship "to gain sympathy" makes zero sense--doin' so would not git the US involved an' they were WINNING at that point--didn't need the US to help 'em out. BUT the US reportin' back ta Britain would've screwed 'em--also Golan Hts. -- there would'a been ZERO support by the US fer takin' the Golan Hts. b/c they took more territory to have as a bargainin' chip... that was not territory in the mandate but heck, when yer attacked you MOVE FORWARD an' grab so ye don't have ta give up even more... (so it goes in war an' Israel is HARDLY the only one usin' such tactics...)...
Again, Tourney is not wrong tellin' HIS story but nobuddy tells the crew much! My hubby met the mama of a dead Navy Seal sent out to "kill Bin Laden"--THAT was an OP an' set up--entire fam suspected it was a set up but he only believed his commanders, thought they'd be watchin' his back... it was to be his last mission (ya know they sacrificed--TOOK OUT all those Seals who witnessed the dummy scam operation), Poor guy, he had a third child on the way an' planned to buy a house fer his young fambly an' this would'a paid fer it... SO, US Command finds even TOP soldiers expendable -- even so when we are not at war... these fells on the USS SPY SHIP Liberty were...expendable from the git-go an' Israel had itself ta save (wuther folks disagree in that endeavor or not!)
anywhoo... hope my thoughts lend a bit more ta this story an' yer RIGHT--when a story is allowed ta multiply like YEAST ! (an' boy howdy has this grown), ye know it's not likely the truth!
Stephen Green and the Officer of the Deck explained what the USS Liberty was capable of doing to defend herself, and it wasn't much. He told me that they were waving flags like crazy while they were being fired upon. And eventually they fired back. They couldn't believe what was happening since they could tell that the planes were Israeli.
It makes sense in the way that a scorpion makes sense when it stings you. It's a scorpion. They Israelis murder journalists who try to cover Gaza. That makes sense in the same way.
I can't find the specific article, though I think it was in the Sheer Post. Pro-Gaza. Well, there are only two countries in the world that support Israeli genocide of Palestinians.
Some pure facts to add to this from author Stephen Green, whose book, "Taking Sides" was raked over by the CIA who could find nothing incorrect in the book: 1) The Israeli planes were sheep-dipped in this false flag op to look like planes from Egypt. 2) Johnson said, "I'd rather see that ship sunk than embarrass an ally." (The quote may not be perfect.) 3) The Israeli pilots shot up the lifeboats. (That's a war crime.) 4) One of the lifeboats was mounted in an Israeli museum to honor the brave gunners.
Those are facts. I have seen several lies spread by Israeli after the fact to justify what happened. The USA sharing info to the Brits to help Egypt is a whopper. And it is absurd. Johnson, McNamara and McCain bowed down to Israel until the truth was exposed, then Israel came up with lies to backpaddle. First they denied it was them, then they said it was a mistake (bought by the US media), then they came up with justifications after the sailors told the truth and the ship limped into port.
I interviewed the officer of the deck and he confirmed all this. And I also interviewed Stephen Green who confirmed it. He personally saw the lifeboat in the museum. (He was Jewish btw.) And the sailor who saved the ship was also Jewish btw.
Israel attacked the USS Liberty because it was collecting data. Israel knew that was a war crime. That's why they had to sheep-dip the planes and claim that Egypt did it. The NYTs and Johnson covered for them. Don't buy into the sugarcoating. And get the book by Stephen Green if you are really curious and want the truth.
1. Israel attacked the USS Liberty because it was collecting data - in other words, it was a spy ship. OK. So that had nothing to do with Israel-US collusion. A QUESTION: WHOM WAS THE LIBERTY COLLECTING DATA FOR? Was it to be used to harm Israel?
2. Israel knew that was a war crime. Are you saying that to attack a vessel that is collecting data on you is a war crime?
3. That's why they had to sheep-dip the planes and claim that Egypt did it. I believe you are saying they knew that to attack a vessel collecting data that could be used against you is a war crime. But isn't collecting the data an act of war?
fwiw.... don't know 'bout "sheep dip" but even Tourney said they could easily tell the planes were Israeli--so they thought "allies"--hence how could they be disguised if they had stars of david on them an' were easily ID'd as Israeli. David Rockler's testimony mentioned that he was the only (or one of the only?) joos on the ship an' some of the other shipmates had never met a joo an' had some interestin'..."notions." He mentioned some of the young sailors were drinkin' so their "response" was not exactly sharp either... He wuz there, not I--just readin' his testimony... he too felt the Liberty was spyin' on Israel at Israel's risk...
I also dunno if spyin' is always a "war crime" but Mata Hari got executed by the French gubbamint fer doin' it--an' the SPY not the spied-on was the guilty one...
"If they had stars of David on them" ??? Stephen Green in "Taking Sides" and in my interview with him said that the planes were "sheep-dipped" to look like Egyptian planes. Don't you think that the crew of the USS Liberty could see through that ruse? That's their job. They were an intelligence gathering ship. They knew an Israeli plane when they saw one. They didn't need a star of David to identify an Israeli plane. This was also confirmed by the Officer of the Deck whom I interviewed. If Israel and Johnson, Admiral McCain and McNamara didn't know that it was the willful murder of American seamen by sinking their ship, they would not have tried to cover it up.
“I recall seeing the Star of David on the side and was relieved that it was our friends, the Israelis. We even saw the pilot's face and waved to him. I don’t recall that he waved back.”
I have not read 'bout anyone "sheep dippin'" planes but NOWHERE did Tourney an' others I've read myself claim these planes were camouflaged or that the smarty pants sailors could figger out they were IDF plans an' some kinda "ruse" as ye call it...
I'm only sharin' stuff I've read, yer sharin' stuff you've read... folks gotta look inta all this more but to me a star of david on plane only means two things a) Israeli plane or b) an'nuther nations plane with Israeli markings there to deceive observers... ALL testimony I read indicates the former.
Moreoever, for the reconnaissance flight portion (over 2 hrs) the IDF planes were documented by Tourney to be flyin' "low and slow" (his words, not mine).
I wasn't there, just offerin' the testimony specific to Candace Owen's chosen subject...
I'll try to find my interviews on CD with the Officer of the Deck and with Stephen Green. And I'll get the book, which you can get too. He spent years researching the book when the surviving crew was alive. If Steve and the Officer of the Deck said that the plans were sheep-dipped, then they were. We moved recently and I haven't been able to find many things that I need.
I'm not just sharing what I read. These were live interviews on the radio.
do share! I'm all ears... Tourney & others said the markings were clear... possible there were also non-marked planes as well (pulled from combat?)--much we don't know but given our dang gubbamint "compartmentalizes" you only know what'cha know, see what'cha see... so two men workin' in the same bld. give radically diff. accoutin's of events
Good questions. 1) Israel was then, and still is an ally. 2) The ship was not there for the express purpose of collecting data about Israel. I would have to look that up in the book, which I no longer have, but the USS Liberty was ordered to be where it was, in international waters, to collect data in general, probably, (and I don't know this for sure) to help Israel in it's war efforts. They were not spying since all parties knew they were there and knew what they were doing. 3) Israel wasn't taking any chances in getting caught in it's war crimes, in the war against Egypt. They didn't want anyone to know what they were doing, and, as Stephen Green reported, they were committing war crimes, so, of course, they didn't want anyone to know. 4) Israel saw the chance to kill two birds with one stone: attack the ship and blame Egypt. If they had succeeded in sinking the ship, the mission would have been a success because the deed could have been covered up, and Egypt would have been blamed. But the ship made it to port, sinking, much to Johnson's treasonous disappointment. Then the denials and the changing of the lies began. Mounting the lifeboat in the museum was rich, I must say. I guess that barbarians are always proud of their barbarity. If I could find my radio interviews with the Officer of the Deck I could say things for certain. Ditto if Stephen Green were alive. But it's available in libraries or interlibrary loan. I did the interviews about 20 years ago I think, and these notes are proof that these horrific stories made a lasting impression.
If I am understanding right, this is not narrative #1 (Candace Owens and Phil Tourney): US and Israeli collusion in the attack on the USS Liberty.
This is also not narrative #3 (Daisy Moses Chief Crackpot): Israel attacking an American spy ship passing on information to be used against Israel. I don't know if she has any evidence of this.
In your recounting (narrative #3): everyone knew the USS Liberty was in international waters collecting data, but Israel did not want the war crimes (please specify) it was committing to be recorded, so it attacked the USS Liberty, planning on having the attack blamed on Egypt, but the ship did not sink.
My problem with narrative #3, in which the US is innocent of wrongdoing up to the attack, is that it does not, as far as I can tell, explain why McNamara and then the US president ordered airplanes to stop coming to the aid of the USS Liberty; nor does it explain why it took 17 hours for aid to arrive after the attack ended. Plus the men were forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement - which I suppose can be explained as the US covering for Israel, though it had done nothing wrong itself.
"scenario 3"--fwiw I'm not holdin' the US "innocent"--I think I stated that LBJ looks bad puttin' his own men at risk an' then coverin' up... I did not say Israel was committin' war crimes but they certainly were on the OFFENSIVE with the takin' out of the planes AND tho' the three Arab nations attackin' Israel DID put them on the defensive--the takin' of the Golan Hts. (which the US would not have allowed on their watch) was goin' beyond the 1948 boundaries. Neither is a war crime but neither would have been OK'd by the US--an' Israel was not beholden to the US in this war...not at all. NOW what I did say wuz that the sailors were not in the know--so the ship's crew ('cept the spies taken out) were indeed likely innocents... And even the spies may NOT have known for what purpose they were gatherin' communications... (wild card there)
The ship was sending out SOS right from the start, and that is why help was sent right away. So that news got to traitor Admiral McCain who forwarded it to traitor McNamara who told Johnson. That's how the planes were recalled. There was no plan as far as I know. It was just a reaction to saving Israel from the embarrassment of murdering American sailors, as you would expect from Johnson. And, by the way. I am not aware that the ship was actually gathering data about Israel. But Israel knew that it could.
Johnson wanted the ship at the bottom of the ocean once it was clear that Israel had attacked it. He even said so. That's why help was not sent. Johnson forbid it. (There was also a cockup on the messaging front, but I don't remember those details. And, supposedly, the Israelis did try to order the ship to sail away, but the message didn't get through.)
Yes, you are correct about the non-disclosure agreement. Necessary since they had survived. The ship made it back thanks to the Jewish sailor (engineer I think) who kept it afloat. The attackers left it for dead and sinking.
Narrative 3 is a pack of lies (among other attempts) to keep Israel from scorn. It worked for the most part, as absurd as it was. I read a few such stories over the years. All debunked by the direct truth from the crew.
No-one can explain what Israel was doing that warranted the sinking of the ship. That's the point. They were doing something very wrong or else why bother to attack the USS Liberty? It was an innocent bystander, but a potential witness. Stephen Green told me why Israel attacked it, but I don't remember any specific things, and he may not have known them.
I have not yet seen the Candace Owens piece, btw. I believe that reparations were finally paid, but I have no details. Get the book, "Taking Sides." It explains the ship's mission and the attack.
Here are some of the few things I know. Someone sent the USS Liberty to be where it was. 25 spies plus communication equipment were on board. I don't know the why for either of those things. One easy guess is that the vessel was sent to be where it was to gather info (and transmit it somewhere). The info exists on this. You write: Get the book, "Taking Sides." It explains THE SHIPS MISSION and the attack.
How do you define spies? Spies, to me, are those who infiltrate and who, through payoffs or intimidation or honey-traps . . . gather information and plant false information. On board the USS Liberty were officers who interpreted the information that EVEFRYONE KNEW was being gathered. It was a ship that was not disguised as some other kind of ship. No-one can argue the point about the definition of a spy. But one cannot argue the point that Israel attacked the ship of an ally and tried to sink it and kill the crew in the lifeboats with permission from Johnson, McNamara, and McCain. If that was okay, then why the coverups?
Here is a comment from a reader (sent to me, but I am posting it):
Hi Elsa!
I do not accept the view of your correspondent. The idea that the USA was sharing information with the British, so that they could tip off the Arabs, is speculation. What evidence exists for any of this? Britain was no ally of Egypt. The President of Egypt was Nasser, who had taken over the Suez Canal in 1956, which caused Britain to invade Egypt until we were told to stand down by the USA.
Moreover, why did Israel blow up the lifeboats of the wounded and dying American sailors? Ask this of your illiterate correspondent.
Finally, remember the motto of Mossad: "By Way of Deception".
The one flaw in the narrative is the fact that this was claimed to have been organised a year previously. Candace should have probed this point.
lol, the illiterate correspondent cites John Loftus an' the testimony of Attny. Rockler--Loftus's book is free on Archive.org. I have also read articles written by non-illiterate folks who seem to have more special expertise than Candace Owens on matters Middle East but ta each his own an' I what I'm sayin' too is there is no way it makes sense this would'a been planned a year in advance as Israel had NO IDEA that three Arab nations would attack them a year in advance AND again they were winnin' the war and didn't need to pull in the US at all... they just needed the US not to muck up what they were doin'...
No nation (name one) is too honorable to avoid spies, assassinations, dubious tactics, an' puttin' their own men at needless risk--BOTH in the name of defendin' itself "by any means necessary" AND in the name of conductin' a war of territorial acquisition. Both or either.
So...it comes down ta this--all nations gitta pass at playin' dirty except Israel--the UN is the same....lotta pots callin' the kettle black...not that it's spotless, it ain't but nobuddy (no nation) kin pass that test. (take it all with a grain of salt from this illiterate correspondent!)
Read Loftus fer references... Also on Celia's Stack I listed some other resources of a lotta folks far schmarter on the subject than I ;-) -- feel free ta repost 'em here...
There is always more to the official narrative, and bought operatives murking up the water are the proverbial ant hill enjoying a sugar feeding. Thanks for this side of the story, Elsa. I think there is much more to Mathilde Krim that would calibrate the spy stories.
I don't trust anything Candace Owens says or supports. My 6th sense went off on her early when she sudden came on the scene. Didn't know what the issue was, but stopped following her. Then she took her left turn (pun intended) and the truth came out.
I do too! Just sayin' he has LTD knowledge... Ya know the kids of mobsters will tell ya they have the BEST Fathers! Have encountered a few "directly..." (They are kept in the dark--so are the wives--an' most know not what their daddies do when they aren't home... it's kinda like that an' every nation is capable of actin' like a mob daddy)
JUST as ye said it Elsa... "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"... an' the crew fits that just as well as the "subscribers" do...
just a quik foller-up....
I'm not any kinda historian or expert... I'm an actress / jack of all trades / indie film'maker an' now a citizen journalist. What I put out is both from what I've read a LOT over many years (I do not always save 'er recall each source 'er citation as who knows what you'll need ta use years later) but I DO try ta share what I've read if I feel only one narrative is bein' put forth. John Loftus, a noted historian, is one that espoused some of the alt. takes on the event--always worth a read! As fer the ship bein' a spy ship--not only Tourney but EVERY known source on the matter has confirmed this fact so it's not up fer conjecture. It was (I hear) not just "any" spy ship but one with the top tech of the time, some computerized reconnaissance features, etc. Again, folks kin do their own research here an' see if there are convincin' testimonies from those who state the Liberty was not a "spy ship"--go fer it (really, sincerely)--
I've read from more 'n one source that the US was sharin' their info with Britain. Is it true? Well this entire thing is a cover up so we cannot "prove this"--it's an educated guess but the 5 eyes mutually were actin' WITH each other on such issues an' Britain had skin in this game. But let's say Britain was NOT privy to the US intelligence gathered--the US itself--without sharin' or alertin' ANYONE would have to likely "ACT" on what they alone gathered which included two (that I know--mebbe more?) bits of info that would've compromised Israel:
1. takin' out planes BEFORE they were used for attack (even though yes, they would have indeed been used for attack, Egypt already announced this)
2. Golan Hts.--territory that was indeed part of "Greater Israel"* but not part of the original 1948 borders...
So we don't need the UK to have Israel wanna protect their plans--an' again, JUST this year we had a CIA staff person reveal (an' nearly stymie) Israel's plans for the offensive re. Iran...
Again, I share what I read--folks kin insult me, dismiss it, all fine--but I do so hopin' some will say hey gorsh wait a minute... mebbe we ain't hearin' the full story... that's ALL I hope ta do (free service from a crackpot!)
Thank you for publishing the feedback you received, Elsa. I first learned about the USS Liberty story via the Jimmy Dore show last year and recall how emotional I felt afterwards. I wrote some notes but didn't publish them. Now I know why. I didn't have the full story. Cheers to Chief Crackpot and other commentators. I recently looked up Candace Owens' career history and she appears to be a skilled marketeer who enjoys playing political games. Agenda pushers are paid well, I hear.
Candace - does she believe she is right? I don't know. Anyway, fascinating material.
I haven't watched her interview and don't know what she believes, but she tends to 'overact'. They should send Candace to old-school journalism school. I prefer Jimmy Dore's approach to contentious issues.
thanks muchly Elsa fer sharin' my thoughts (apologies fer the spellin' errors even in mah crackpot speak)... Did not mention--Israel was ALREADY winnin' the war even tho' attacked by 3 Arab nations--Syria, Egypt, Jordan . To take out a US ship "to gain sympathy" makes zero sense--doin' so would not git the US involved an' they were WINNING at that point--didn't need the US to help 'em out. BUT the US reportin' back ta Britain would've screwed 'em--also Golan Hts. -- there would'a been ZERO support by the US fer takin' the Golan Hts. b/c they took more territory to have as a bargainin' chip... that was not territory in the mandate but heck, when yer attacked you MOVE FORWARD an' grab so ye don't have ta give up even more... (so it goes in war an' Israel is HARDLY the only one usin' such tactics...)...
Again, Tourney is not wrong tellin' HIS story but nobuddy tells the crew much! My hubby met the mama of a dead Navy Seal sent out to "kill Bin Laden"--THAT was an OP an' set up--entire fam suspected it was a set up but he only believed his commanders, thought they'd be watchin' his back... it was to be his last mission (ya know they sacrificed--TOOK OUT all those Seals who witnessed the dummy scam operation), Poor guy, he had a third child on the way an' planned to buy a house fer his young fambly an' this would'a paid fer it... SO, US Command finds even TOP soldiers expendable -- even so when we are not at war... these fells on the USS SPY SHIP Liberty were...expendable from the git-go an' Israel had itself ta save (wuther folks disagree in that endeavor or not!)
anywhoo... hope my thoughts lend a bit more ta this story an' yer RIGHT--when a story is allowed ta multiply like YEAST ! (an' boy howdy has this grown), ye know it's not likely the truth!
Excellent Daisy Moses Chief Crackpot
thx!!!!!
Stephen Green and the Officer of the Deck explained what the USS Liberty was capable of doing to defend herself, and it wasn't much. He told me that they were waving flags like crazy while they were being fired upon. And eventually they fired back. They couldn't believe what was happening since they could tell that the planes were Israeli.
No need for the Israeli gunners to be brave! Much more, I think of the men on the boat. Nothing made sense.
It makes sense in the way that a scorpion makes sense when it stings you. It's a scorpion. They Israelis murder journalists who try to cover Gaza. That makes sense in the same way.
There is so much pro-Gaza coverage of Gaza. Who are these murdered journalists?
I can't find the specific article, though I think it was in the Sheer Post. Pro-Gaza. Well, there are only two countries in the world that support Israeli genocide of Palestinians.
Some pure facts to add to this from author Stephen Green, whose book, "Taking Sides" was raked over by the CIA who could find nothing incorrect in the book: 1) The Israeli planes were sheep-dipped in this false flag op to look like planes from Egypt. 2) Johnson said, "I'd rather see that ship sunk than embarrass an ally." (The quote may not be perfect.) 3) The Israeli pilots shot up the lifeboats. (That's a war crime.) 4) One of the lifeboats was mounted in an Israeli museum to honor the brave gunners.
Those are facts. I have seen several lies spread by Israeli after the fact to justify what happened. The USA sharing info to the Brits to help Egypt is a whopper. And it is absurd. Johnson, McNamara and McCain bowed down to Israel until the truth was exposed, then Israel came up with lies to backpaddle. First they denied it was them, then they said it was a mistake (bought by the US media), then they came up with justifications after the sailors told the truth and the ship limped into port.
I interviewed the officer of the deck and he confirmed all this. And I also interviewed Stephen Green who confirmed it. He personally saw the lifeboat in the museum. (He was Jewish btw.) And the sailor who saved the ship was also Jewish btw.
Israel attacked the USS Liberty because it was collecting data. Israel knew that was a war crime. That's why they had to sheep-dip the planes and claim that Egypt did it. The NYTs and Johnson covered for them. Don't buy into the sugarcoating. And get the book by Stephen Green if you are really curious and want the truth.
I am coming back to the 4 facts:
1) The Israeli planes were sheep-dipped in this false flag op to look like planes from Egypt.
2) Johnson said, "I'd rather see that ship sunk than embarrass an ally." (The quote may not be perfect.)
3) The Israeli pilots shot up the lifeboats. (That's a war crime.)
4) One of the lifeboats was mounted in an Israeli museum to honor the brave gunners. Those are facts.
BRAVE GUNNERS!! NO ONE, AS FAR AS I KNOW, WAS SHOOTING BACK!! OR DID I MISS SOMETHING?
Please clarify:
1. Israel attacked the USS Liberty because it was collecting data - in other words, it was a spy ship. OK. So that had nothing to do with Israel-US collusion. A QUESTION: WHOM WAS THE LIBERTY COLLECTING DATA FOR? Was it to be used to harm Israel?
2. Israel knew that was a war crime. Are you saying that to attack a vessel that is collecting data on you is a war crime?
3. That's why they had to sheep-dip the planes and claim that Egypt did it. I believe you are saying they knew that to attack a vessel collecting data that could be used against you is a war crime. But isn't collecting the data an act of war?
fwiw.... don't know 'bout "sheep dip" but even Tourney said they could easily tell the planes were Israeli--so they thought "allies"--hence how could they be disguised if they had stars of david on them an' were easily ID'd as Israeli. David Rockler's testimony mentioned that he was the only (or one of the only?) joos on the ship an' some of the other shipmates had never met a joo an' had some interestin'..."notions." He mentioned some of the young sailors were drinkin' so their "response" was not exactly sharp either... He wuz there, not I--just readin' his testimony... he too felt the Liberty was spyin' on Israel at Israel's risk...
I also dunno if spyin' is always a "war crime" but Mata Hari got executed by the French gubbamint fer doin' it--an' the SPY not the spied-on was the guilty one...
"If they had stars of David on them" ??? Stephen Green in "Taking Sides" and in my interview with him said that the planes were "sheep-dipped" to look like Egyptian planes. Don't you think that the crew of the USS Liberty could see through that ruse? That's their job. They were an intelligence gathering ship. They knew an Israeli plane when they saw one. They didn't need a star of David to identify an Israeli plane. This was also confirmed by the Officer of the Deck whom I interviewed. If Israel and Johnson, Admiral McCain and McNamara didn't know that it was the willful murder of American seamen by sinking their ship, they would not have tried to cover it up.
Tourney's DIRECT testimony:
“I recall seeing the Star of David on the side and was relieved that it was our friends, the Israelis. We even saw the pilot's face and waved to him. I don’t recall that he waved back.”
I have not read 'bout anyone "sheep dippin'" planes but NOWHERE did Tourney an' others I've read myself claim these planes were camouflaged or that the smarty pants sailors could figger out they were IDF plans an' some kinda "ruse" as ye call it...
I'm only sharin' stuff I've read, yer sharin' stuff you've read... folks gotta look inta all this more but to me a star of david on plane only means two things a) Israeli plane or b) an'nuther nations plane with Israeli markings there to deceive observers... ALL testimony I read indicates the former.
Moreoever, for the reconnaissance flight portion (over 2 hrs) the IDF planes were documented by Tourney to be flyin' "low and slow" (his words, not mine).
I wasn't there, just offerin' the testimony specific to Candace Owen's chosen subject...
I'll try to find my interviews on CD with the Officer of the Deck and with Stephen Green. And I'll get the book, which you can get too. He spent years researching the book when the surviving crew was alive. If Steve and the Officer of the Deck said that the plans were sheep-dipped, then they were. We moved recently and I haven't been able to find many things that I need.
I'm not just sharing what I read. These were live interviews on the radio.
FOUND!! Read all about it today.
do share! I'm all ears... Tourney & others said the markings were clear... possible there were also non-marked planes as well (pulled from combat?)--much we don't know but given our dang gubbamint "compartmentalizes" you only know what'cha know, see what'cha see... so two men workin' in the same bld. give radically diff. accoutin's of events
Good questions. 1) Israel was then, and still is an ally. 2) The ship was not there for the express purpose of collecting data about Israel. I would have to look that up in the book, which I no longer have, but the USS Liberty was ordered to be where it was, in international waters, to collect data in general, probably, (and I don't know this for sure) to help Israel in it's war efforts. They were not spying since all parties knew they were there and knew what they were doing. 3) Israel wasn't taking any chances in getting caught in it's war crimes, in the war against Egypt. They didn't want anyone to know what they were doing, and, as Stephen Green reported, they were committing war crimes, so, of course, they didn't want anyone to know. 4) Israel saw the chance to kill two birds with one stone: attack the ship and blame Egypt. If they had succeeded in sinking the ship, the mission would have been a success because the deed could have been covered up, and Egypt would have been blamed. But the ship made it to port, sinking, much to Johnson's treasonous disappointment. Then the denials and the changing of the lies began. Mounting the lifeboat in the museum was rich, I must say. I guess that barbarians are always proud of their barbarity. If I could find my radio interviews with the Officer of the Deck I could say things for certain. Ditto if Stephen Green were alive. But it's available in libraries or interlibrary loan. I did the interviews about 20 years ago I think, and these notes are proof that these horrific stories made a lasting impression.
If I am understanding right, this is not narrative #1 (Candace Owens and Phil Tourney): US and Israeli collusion in the attack on the USS Liberty.
This is also not narrative #3 (Daisy Moses Chief Crackpot): Israel attacking an American spy ship passing on information to be used against Israel. I don't know if she has any evidence of this.
In your recounting (narrative #3): everyone knew the USS Liberty was in international waters collecting data, but Israel did not want the war crimes (please specify) it was committing to be recorded, so it attacked the USS Liberty, planning on having the attack blamed on Egypt, but the ship did not sink.
My problem with narrative #3, in which the US is innocent of wrongdoing up to the attack, is that it does not, as far as I can tell, explain why McNamara and then the US president ordered airplanes to stop coming to the aid of the USS Liberty; nor does it explain why it took 17 hours for aid to arrive after the attack ended. Plus the men were forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement - which I suppose can be explained as the US covering for Israel, though it had done nothing wrong itself.
"scenario 3"--fwiw I'm not holdin' the US "innocent"--I think I stated that LBJ looks bad puttin' his own men at risk an' then coverin' up... I did not say Israel was committin' war crimes but they certainly were on the OFFENSIVE with the takin' out of the planes AND tho' the three Arab nations attackin' Israel DID put them on the defensive--the takin' of the Golan Hts. (which the US would not have allowed on their watch) was goin' beyond the 1948 boundaries. Neither is a war crime but neither would have been OK'd by the US--an' Israel was not beholden to the US in this war...not at all. NOW what I did say wuz that the sailors were not in the know--so the ship's crew ('cept the spies taken out) were indeed likely innocents... And even the spies may NOT have known for what purpose they were gatherin' communications... (wild card there)
The ship was sending out SOS right from the start, and that is why help was sent right away. So that news got to traitor Admiral McCain who forwarded it to traitor McNamara who told Johnson. That's how the planes were recalled. There was no plan as far as I know. It was just a reaction to saving Israel from the embarrassment of murdering American sailors, as you would expect from Johnson. And, by the way. I am not aware that the ship was actually gathering data about Israel. But Israel knew that it could.
Johnson wanted the ship at the bottom of the ocean once it was clear that Israel had attacked it. He even said so. That's why help was not sent. Johnson forbid it. (There was also a cockup on the messaging front, but I don't remember those details. And, supposedly, the Israelis did try to order the ship to sail away, but the message didn't get through.)
Yes, you are correct about the non-disclosure agreement. Necessary since they had survived. The ship made it back thanks to the Jewish sailor (engineer I think) who kept it afloat. The attackers left it for dead and sinking.
Narrative 3 is a pack of lies (among other attempts) to keep Israel from scorn. It worked for the most part, as absurd as it was. I read a few such stories over the years. All debunked by the direct truth from the crew.
No-one can explain what Israel was doing that warranted the sinking of the ship. That's the point. They were doing something very wrong or else why bother to attack the USS Liberty? It was an innocent bystander, but a potential witness. Stephen Green told me why Israel attacked it, but I don't remember any specific things, and he may not have known them.
I have not yet seen the Candace Owens piece, btw. I believe that reparations were finally paid, but I have no details. Get the book, "Taking Sides." It explains the ship's mission and the attack.
Here are some of the few things I know. Someone sent the USS Liberty to be where it was. 25 spies plus communication equipment were on board. I don't know the why for either of those things. One easy guess is that the vessel was sent to be where it was to gather info (and transmit it somewhere). The info exists on this. You write: Get the book, "Taking Sides." It explains THE SHIPS MISSION and the attack.
How do you define spies? Spies, to me, are those who infiltrate and who, through payoffs or intimidation or honey-traps . . . gather information and plant false information. On board the USS Liberty were officers who interpreted the information that EVEFRYONE KNEW was being gathered. It was a ship that was not disguised as some other kind of ship. No-one can argue the point about the definition of a spy. But one cannot argue the point that Israel attacked the ship of an ally and tried to sink it and kill the crew in the lifeboats with permission from Johnson, McNamara, and McCain. If that was okay, then why the coverups?
Here is a comment from a reader (sent to me, but I am posting it):
Hi Elsa!
I do not accept the view of your correspondent. The idea that the USA was sharing information with the British, so that they could tip off the Arabs, is speculation. What evidence exists for any of this? Britain was no ally of Egypt. The President of Egypt was Nasser, who had taken over the Suez Canal in 1956, which caused Britain to invade Egypt until we were told to stand down by the USA.
Moreover, why did Israel blow up the lifeboats of the wounded and dying American sailors? Ask this of your illiterate correspondent.
Finally, remember the motto of Mossad: "By Way of Deception".
The one flaw in the narrative is the fact that this was claimed to have been organised a year previously. Candace should have probed this point.
lol, the illiterate correspondent cites John Loftus an' the testimony of Attny. Rockler--Loftus's book is free on Archive.org. I have also read articles written by non-illiterate folks who seem to have more special expertise than Candace Owens on matters Middle East but ta each his own an' I what I'm sayin' too is there is no way it makes sense this would'a been planned a year in advance as Israel had NO IDEA that three Arab nations would attack them a year in advance AND again they were winnin' the war and didn't need to pull in the US at all... they just needed the US not to muck up what they were doin'...
https://archive.org/details/secretwaragainst0000loft
No nation (name one) is too honorable to avoid spies, assassinations, dubious tactics, an' puttin' their own men at needless risk--BOTH in the name of defendin' itself "by any means necessary" AND in the name of conductin' a war of territorial acquisition. Both or either.
So...it comes down ta this--all nations gitta pass at playin' dirty except Israel--the UN is the same....lotta pots callin' the kettle black...not that it's spotless, it ain't but nobuddy (no nation) kin pass that test. (take it all with a grain of salt from this illiterate correspondent!)
Read Loftus fer references... Also on Celia's Stack I listed some other resources of a lotta folks far schmarter on the subject than I ;-) -- feel free ta repost 'em here...
There is always more to the official narrative, and bought operatives murking up the water are the proverbial ant hill enjoying a sugar feeding. Thanks for this side of the story, Elsa. I think there is much more to Mathilde Krim that would calibrate the spy stories.
I don't trust anything Candace Owens says or supports. My 6th sense went off on her early when she sudden came on the scene. Didn't know what the issue was, but stopped following her. Then she took her left turn (pun intended) and the truth came out.
I do trust what the person she interviewed says.
I do too! Just sayin' he has LTD knowledge... Ya know the kids of mobsters will tell ya they have the BEST Fathers! Have encountered a few "directly..." (They are kept in the dark--so are the wives--an' most know not what their daddies do when they aren't home... it's kinda like that an' every nation is capable of actin' like a mob daddy)
JUST as ye said it Elsa... "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"... an' the crew fits that just as well as the "subscribers" do...
Good one, Elsa! More information is always welcome. Thank you!