More Propaganda

[MMMMMM]

Well it's news to me but I had never read much of anything about this particular issue. Anyway what's one attack by a friendly compared to the many attacks on us by Arab states and/or their state-sponsored terrorist goons.

[B-Man]

There are many versions of what happened that day, Cyrus. Personally, the version you posted doesn't make sense to me for a very important reason--why would the U.S. assist in the coverup? The (very short) version of events I posted makes more sense if you believe (as you must) the U.S. was complicit in the coverup. Below is a more detailed article. I think the most-detailed version can be found in, "The Secret War Against the Jews," which has an entire chapter devoted to the incident. I have this book at home and would re-read that chapter tonite... but the Patriots play the Giants tonite, so my re-read will have to wait until the weekend.

Here is the article:

=======
Have the United States and Britain Willfully Betrayed Israel?

November 27 , 1998 - D. Maimon

A remarkable book published a few years ago by a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney has been attracting growing attention in some circles. Author John Loftus uses thousands of previously top secret documents and interviews with hundreds of current and former spies, to argue that many Western countries, particularly the United States and Great Britain have willfully spied on Israel over many decades in order to promote favorable relations with the oil-rich Arabs.

Loftus contends that while on the surface the United States and Britain profess to be allies of Israel, they have used their intelligence services to betray Israel's secrets to the Arabs since the earliest years of Israel's statehood.

Western espionage has waged what is tantamount to a secret war against the Jews and Israel, says the Irish-American attorney author.

According to Loftus, "State Department disease"greed and self-interest have since the beginning of Mideast conflict between Jews and Arabs, infected powerful bureaucrats, perverting their sense of right and wrong. The ever present temptation to enrich oneself and one's family through Arab oil-related favors and industry, has turned the political sympathies of countless officials in the state department and CIA away from Israel.

Although the official policy of the U.S; government has always been pro-Israel, senior chiefs of these departments have long promoted a very different policy that has led to covert acts of treachery and betrayal of Israel.

One of the most disturbing examples in Loftus's litany of U.S. betrayals in an incident that took place during the 1967 war, involving an American vessel known as the L15S Liberty.

THE U.S.S. LIBERTY SCANDAL

According to Loftus, in 1967 before hostilities began, Israel notified America of its war plans. The Americans in turn tried to warn Egypt and Syria. As the battles progressed the Americans did everything possible to spy on Israel and provide that information to Israel's enemies. The USS Liberty, a sophisticated CIA surveillance ship, was operating near Egypt when she was suddenly removed from Navy control, placed under the direct control of the NSA (National Security Agency), and told to "ignore all orders from the Joint Chiefs of Staff in order to support the Arab war effort against Israel.

The ship sailed close the southern Israeli shore and close to northern Sinai, and began monitoring the transmissions of Israeli tanks and small infantry units in the desert. Those transmissions were then relayed by satellite to British intelligence teams in Cyprus who, using sophisticated voice print matching equipment, could identify and locate every Israeli unit in the war. British intelligence then relayed this vital information to the Egyptian government. (emphasis added)

When the Israelis learned of this treachery, Loftus recounts, they asked the United stares to explain the presence of an American vessel in the area. But the Americans lied, denying that the ship was American.

To save itself, Israel felt it had no choice but to eliminate the ship. They conducted a pinpoint attack by torpedo on the precise compartment housing the intelligence team. An hour later the whole thing was over. Thirty four American soldiers lay dead, with 171 wounded.

Loftus's account is at serious odds with the Israeli version which claims that Israeli intelligence failed to properly identify the ship, mistaking it for an Egyptian vessel, which of course it attacked. Profuse apologies were offered by the Israeli government as well as $13 million in damages to the Liberty's survivors. The American government immediately accepted these terms and despite a furious outcry from the survivors who unanimously insisted the attack was deliberate, the case was officially closed.

Loftus sees in the obvious haste on the American side to close the file on the Liberty, this despite calls for an investigation from dozens of senators and congressmen covert admission that the ship was indeed carrying out operations destructive to Israel, a fact which was to be kept secret at all costs.

(Loftus's contentions are disputed by survivors of the Israeli attack, notably James Ennes, an officer on the USS Liberty. Ennes wrote a book "Attack on the Liberty", where he maintains that the reason the Liberty was stationed so close to Israel's shores in 1967 was for the purpose of monitoring suspicious aircraft sent by the Soviets to Egypt. The planes were supposed to be flown by Arab pilots but the U.S. suspected that these were actually Soviet bombers under Soviet control using Soviet pilots. According to Ennes, the USS Liberty's job had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict but was solely to determine who controlled those aircraft.)

[brad]

well im glad to see b-man admitting hes anti american. whats the difference between his statement and a islamist saying they will attack american troops because america is anti islamist (like in yemen or something?)

but 3 points.

a) ship under direct command of JCS

b) fighters from nearby carrier(s) launched, but ordered to stand down by JCS

c) and then the coverup

from what ive heard, if the ship had been sunk with no survivors ( > 95% certainty except for heroic medal of honor winnings of captain and crew), massive backlack *against arabs*. (who wouldve been blamed). so yes its not 100% but the evidence is there.

[B-Man]

well im glad to see b-man admitting hes anti american. whats the difference between his statement and a islamist saying they will attack american troops because america is anti islamist (like in yemen or something?)

Brad, you must be from a different planet. Where did you come up with me admitting that I am anti-American? I am about as pro-U.S. as one can be. I merely said that if we were spying on Israel (especially considering that it was during a time of war) and giving the information we gained to its enemies, that an attack on the spy ship was probably justified. I wish it never happened (this is probably how I would feel if Pedro and Nomar got into a fistfight in the dugout!), but what was Israel supposed to do, sit there and do nothing? Oh wait, I forgot, that is what the pro-terrorist crowd always wants, Israel to sit there and take it without any response...

[brad]

whatever. you should teach a postgrad class on rhetoric.

[MMMMMM]

brad, it's NOT RHETORIC, there are HUGE DIFFERENCES between PESTICIDES and HERBICIDES.

When I looked up "Roundup" on Google as per your suggestion, I saw that it was an HERBICIDE--it is sprayed on crops to kill the weeds around them. The GM Soy discussed was resistant to this: in other words, engineered so they could spray more Roundup around it to kill the weeds nearby. Fine. I wasn't arguing that point, and it was in fact news to me. Thanks for the heads-up.

Another thing however is GM crops which are designed to be insect-resistant. They are designed specifically to need less pesticides sprayed on them: they aren't as vulnerable to being eaten by insects in the first place. Whether they spray Roundup on them too is another question to which I don't know the answer.

But PESTICIDES vs. HERBICIDEs isn't RHETORIC: if you think they are why don't you try killing insects with Miracle-Gro or making your garden grow with pesticides...it just doesn't work that way;-)

I'm just trying to help clarify. The Google article talked about Roundup being an herbicide, and that doesn't in any way controvert my statement that some GM crops are designed to be insect-resistant. And the less vulnerable certain crops are to insects, the less need there is to spray them with pesticides. That's why they are designing iinsect-resistant crops: more of the crop will survive the depredations of insects, with less cost of pesticides along the way, resulting in a higher final yield at harvest time at a lower total cost. Killing weeds in the crop fields and dealing with insect attacks on the crops are two entirely different subjects.

[brad]

'Another thing however is GM crops which are designed to be insect-resistant. '

u realize these crops produce pesticdes themselves (gm'd to do so).

[MMMMMM]

Yes. Even in nature, chemical defenses are not all that uncommon. It sounds, at least at first reading, like it is probably a lot safer than eating straight commercial insecticides.