Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Thank you! However, ten inquiries of which not one found the event to be other than an accident, plus absolutely no reason for the Israelis to do such a stupid thing deliberately, are enough for me. Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lawrence de Bivort Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 7:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda? Asked and answered, Harry. Go do your homework. The urls you will need have already been posted. Read my recent postings. _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 3:44 PM To: 'Christoph Reuss'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs al-Qaeda? Below in red. ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Christoph Reuss > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 2:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who > needs al-Qaeda? > > Harry Pollard wrote: > > The entire US fleet was withdrawn 100 miles away from the > > fighting. Except the Liberty. That hung around on the edge > > of a ferocious war. > > The ship was in international waters and Israel had no > right to attack a peaceful ship there. Period. The Hood was sunk in international waters by the Germans. The Graf Spee was severely damaged in international waters by the British. All American ships were withdrawn, so the warship 14 miles off the coast must have been Arab - though the Israelis became terrified at one point that it might have been Russian. > > It's something you don't get into the middle of if you have > > any sense. And common-sense prevailed. If a flight of US > > planes came tearing in out of the west, there could have > > been dogfights and more deaths. > > Now you're saying that US forces should not come to the rescue > of an attacked US ship, in order to avoid "more deaths". You > re-define basic military rules in a pretty absurd way. -- It was a political decision by those not wanting to extend the war. The incident was over quickly and the Israelis were called off when the mistake was realized. The planes from the fleet could do nothing except cause further trouble. I'm glad someone higher up had some common sense. - > > But, why was the Liberty attacked by Israel? What a silly > > thing to do a ship belonging to Israel's principal ally. > > Well, something must be found to answer this obvious > > question. > > > > And you found it, Chris. You said: > > > > "This intelligence-gathering ship witnessed war crimes on > > the land (IDF executing Arabs POWs). The IDF tried to > > eliminate the witnesses." > > > > This advanced electronics intelligence ship was busy > > viewing an atrocity looking from sea level to an incident > > happening 12 to 14 miles away - as supposedly witnessed by > > one person, as far as I know. > > > > These Americans are magicians. > > You're right -- it's not necessary that the ship witnessed anything. > The main motive for the IDF attack with unmarked planes was to > make > it look like Egypt attacked and sunk the USS Liberty, in order to > draw the US into the war. --- I understand all Israeli planes were unmarked. --- > In the meantime, they have become much more sophisticated. > 9/11 was > a mastermind operation that drew the US into several wars. > Although > the demolition fraud is just as obvious for anyone with eyes. -- The 9/11 conspiracy theory is pretty dumb and not worth talking about, except for conspiracy buffs. -- > > That's what the 10 official US inquiries found and I tend > > to believe them over assertions from those with a > > political axe to grind. > Why would the USS Liberty personnel have any "political > axe to grind"? > They just
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
The plane was non-existent except for the people living nearby who saw it fly past. ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Christoph Reuss > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 2:36 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who > needs al-Qaeda? > > > The 9/11 conspiracy theory is pretty dumb and not worth > > talking about, except for conspiracy buffs. > > Yep, the 9/11 conspiracy theory about the cave-man in > Afghanistan > ordering some Florida flight-school drop-outs to steer a non- > existing > Boeing into the Pentagon... > > Chris > > > http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_james_fe_070620_new > _study_from_pilot.htm > > New Study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 Hit the > Pentagon > >by James Fetzer June 21, 2007 at 06:12:39 > > A study of the black box data provided by the government to > Pilots > for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for > 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. "We > have had > four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building," said > James > Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "This new study by > Pilots > drives another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people > by > The 9/11 Commission". > > The new society, an international organization of pilots and > aviation > professionals, petitioned the National Transportation Safety > Board > (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained its > 2002 > report on American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that, > according > to the official account, hit the ground floor of the Pentagon after > it skimmed over the lawn at 500 mph plus, taking out a series of > lamp > posts in the process. The pilots not only obtained the flight data > but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told > them. > > According to the report issued by Pilots for 9/11 Truth > (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/), there are major differences between > the official account and the flight data: > > a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude > does not > support official events. > > b. All altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to > have struck the light poles. > > c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft > being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept > of > Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel > with > the Pentagon lawn. > > d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official > impact time. > > e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have > been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon. > > As Robert Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, observes, > "The information in the NSTB documents does not support, and > in some > instances factually contradicts, the official government position > that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the > morning > of September 11, 2001." The study was signed by fifteen > professional > pilots with extensive military and commercial carrier experience. > They have made their animation, "Pandora's Box: Chapter 2," > available > to the public at > http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Pandora's+Black+Box% > 3A+Chapter+2 . > > According to James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth > (http://911scholars.org), this result fits into the broader picture > of what happened at the Pentagon that day. "We have developed > four > lines of argument that prove--conclusively, in my judgment--that > no > Boeing 757 hit the building. The most important evidence to the > contrary has been the numerous eyewitness reports of a large > commercial carrier coming toward the building. If the NTSB data > is > correct, then the Pilot's study shows that a large aircraft headed > toward the building but did not impact with it. It swerved off and > flew above the Pentagon." > > Fetzer, who retired last June after 35 years of teaching courses in > logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, expressed > pleasure over the Pilot's results, which, he said, has neatly > resolved the most pressing issue that remained about the > Pentagon. He > added, "We have previously developed several lines of argument, > each > of which proves that no Boeing 75
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
> The 9/11 conspiracy theory is pretty dumb and not worth > talking about, except for conspiracy buffs. Yep, the 9/11 conspiracy theory about the cave-man in Afghanistan ordering some Florida flight-school drop-outs to steer a non-existing Boeing into the Pentagon... Chris http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_james_fe_070620_new_study_from_pilot.htm New Study from Pilots for 9/11 Truth: No Boeing 757 Hit the Pentagon by James Fetzer June 21, 2007 at 06:12:39 A study of the black box data provided by the government to Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. "We have had four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building," said James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "This new study by Pilots drives another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission". The new society, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained its 2002 report on American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that, according to the official account, hit the ground floor of the Pentagon after it skimmed over the lawn at 500 mph plus, taking out a series of lamp posts in the process. The pilots not only obtained the flight data but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told them. According to the report issued by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/), there are major differences between the official account and the flight data: a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events. b. All altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles. c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn. d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time. e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon. As Robert Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, observes, "The information in the NSTB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001." The study was signed by fifteen professional pilots with extensive military and commercial carrier experience. They have made their animation, "Pandora's Box: Chapter 2," available to the public at http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Pandora's+Black+Box%3A+Chapter+2 . According to James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org), this result fits into the broader picture of what happened at the Pentagon that day. "We have developed four lines of argument that prove--conclusively, in my judgment--that no Boeing 757 hit the building. The most important evidence to the contrary has been the numerous eyewitness reports of a large commercial carrier coming toward the building. If the NTSB data is correct, then the Pilot's study shows that a large aircraft headed toward the building but did not impact with it. It swerved off and flew above the Pentagon." Fetzer, who retired last June after 35 years of teaching courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, expressed pleasure over the Pilot's results, which, he said, has neatly resolved the most pressing issue that remained about the Pentagon. He added, "We have previously developed several lines of argument, each of which proves that no Boeing 757 hit the building," including these four: (1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible. (2) Of an estimate 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when one was shown on "The Factor". At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been visible. There are indications of a much smaller plane, but not a Boeing 757. (3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level--physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is i
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Asked and answered, Harry. Go do your homework. The urls you will need have already been posted. Read my recent postings. _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 3:44 PM To: 'Christoph Reuss'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs al-Qaeda? Below in red. ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Christoph Reuss > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 2:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who > needs al-Qaeda? > > Harry Pollard wrote: > > The entire US fleet was withdrawn 100 miles away from the > > fighting. Except the Liberty. That hung around on the edge > > of a ferocious war. > > The ship was in international waters and Israel had no > right to attack a peaceful ship there. Period. The Hood was sunk in international waters by the Germans. The Graf Spee was severely damaged in international waters by the British. All American ships were withdrawn, so the warship 14 miles off the coast must have been Arab - though the Israelis became terrified at one point that it might have been Russian. > > It's something you don't get into the middle of if you have > > any sense. And common-sense prevailed. If a flight of US > > planes came tearing in out of the west, there could have > > been dogfights and more deaths. > > Now you're saying that US forces should not come to the rescue > of an attacked US ship, in order to avoid "more deaths". You > re-define basic military rules in a pretty absurd way. -- It was a political decision by those not wanting to extend the war. The incident was over quickly and the Israelis were called off when the mistake was realized. The planes from the fleet could do nothing except cause further trouble. I'm glad someone higher up had some common sense. - > > But, why was the Liberty attacked by Israel? What a silly > > thing to do a ship belonging to Israel's principal ally. > > Well, something must be found to answer this obvious > > question. > > > > And you found it, Chris. You said: > > > > "This intelligence-gathering ship witnessed war crimes on > > the land (IDF executing Arabs POWs). The IDF tried to > > eliminate the witnesses." > > > > This advanced electronics intelligence ship was busy > > viewing an atrocity looking from sea level to an incident > > happening 12 to 14 miles away - as supposedly witnessed by > > one person, as far as I know. > > > > These Americans are magicians. > > You're right -- it's not necessary that the ship witnessed anything. > The main motive for the IDF attack with unmarked planes was to > make > it look like Egypt attacked and sunk the USS Liberty, in order to > draw the US into the war. --- I understand all Israeli planes were unmarked. --- > In the meantime, they have become much more sophisticated. > 9/11 was > a mastermind operation that drew the US into several wars. > Although > the demolition fraud is just as obvious for anyone with eyes. -- The 9/11 conspiracy theory is pretty dumb and not worth talking about, except for conspiracy buffs. -- > > That's what the 10 official US inquiries found and I tend > > to believe them over assertions from those with a > > political axe to grind. > Why would the USS Liberty personnel have any "political > axe to grind"? > They just experienced Israel's actions and drew their > conclusions from that. > Like the Palestinians... --- The crew knew nothing of the circumstances - just that they had been ferociously attacked. Their reactions are understandable. If I had seen my friends killed, I would hate to think of it as a mistake. But, they happen in wartime. Sorry about that. --- > Chris > > > > ~~ > ~~ > > SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains > the keyword > "igve". ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Below in red. ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Christoph Reuss > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 2:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who > needs al-Qaeda? > > Harry Pollard wrote: > > The entire US fleet was withdrawn 100 miles away from the > > fighting. Except the Liberty. That hung around on the edge > > of a ferocious war. > > The ship was in international waters and Israel had no > right to attack a peaceful ship there. Period. The Hood was sunk in international waters by the Germans. The Graf Spee was severely damaged in international waters by the British. All American ships were withdrawn, so the warship 14 miles off the coast must have been Arab - though the Israelis became terrified at one point that it might have been Russian. > > It's something you don't get into the middle of if you have > > any sense. And common-sense prevailed. If a flight of US > > planes came tearing in out of the west, there could have > > been dogfights and more deaths. > > Now you're saying that US forces should not come to the rescue > of an attacked US ship, in order to avoid "more deaths". You > re-define basic military rules in a pretty absurd way. -- It was a political decision by those not wanting to extend the war. The incident was over quickly and the Israelis were called off when the mistake was realized. The planes from the fleet could do nothing except cause further trouble. I'm glad someone higher up had some common sense. - > > But, why was the Liberty attacked by Israel? What a silly > > thing to do a ship belonging to Israel's principal ally. > > Well, something must be found to answer this obvious > > question. > > > > And you found it, Chris. You said: > > > > "This intelligence-gathering ship witnessed war crimes on > > the land (IDF executing Arabs POWs). The IDF tried to > > eliminate the witnesses." > > > > This advanced electronics intelligence ship was busy > > viewing an atrocity looking from sea level to an incident > > happening 12 to 14 miles away - as supposedly witnessed by > > one person, as far as I know. > > > > These Americans are magicians. > > You're right -- it's not necessary that the ship witnessed anything. > The main motive for the IDF attack with unmarked planes was to > make > it look like Egypt attacked and sunk the USS Liberty, in order to > draw the US into the war. --- I understand all Israeli planes were unmarked. --- > In the meantime, they have become much more sophisticated. > 9/11 was > a mastermind operation that drew the US into several wars. > Although > the demolition fraud is just as obvious for anyone with eyes. -- The 9/11 conspiracy theory is pretty dumb and not worth talking about, except for conspiracy buffs. -- > > That's what the 10 official US inquiries found and I tend > > to believe them over assertions from those with a > > political axe to grind. > Why would the USS Liberty personnel have any "political > axe to grind"? > They just experienced Israel's actions and drew their > conclusions from that. > Like the Palestinians... --- The crew knew nothing of the circumstances - just that they had been ferociously attacked. Their reactions are understandable. If I had seen my friends killed, I would hate to think of it as a mistake. But, they happen in wartime. Sorry about that. --- > Chris > > > > ~~ > ~~ > > SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains > the keyword > "igve". ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Harry Pollard wrote: > The entire US fleet was withdrawn 100 miles away from the > fighting. Except the Liberty. That hung around on the edge > of a ferocious war. The ship was in international waters and Israel had no right to attack a peaceful ship there. Period. > It's something you don't get into the middle of if you have > any sense. And common-sense prevailed. If a flight of US > planes came tearing in out of the west, there could have > been dogfights and more deaths. Now you're saying that US forces should not come to the rescue of an attacked US ship, in order to avoid "more deaths". You re-define basic military rules in a pretty absurd way. > But, why was the Liberty attacked by Israel? What a silly > thing to do a ship belonging to Israel's principal ally. > Well, something must be found to answer this obvious > question. > > And you found it, Chris. You said: > > "This intelligence-gathering ship witnessed war crimes on > the land (IDF executing Arabs POWs). The IDF tried to > eliminate the witnesses." > > This advanced electronics intelligence ship was busy > viewing an atrocity looking from sea level to an incident > happening 12 to 14 miles away - as supposedly witnessed by > one person, as far as I know. > > These Americans are magicians. You're right -- it's not necessary that the ship witnessed anything. The main motive for the IDF attack with unmarked planes was to make it look like Egypt attacked and sunk the USS Liberty, in order to draw the US into the war. In the meantime, they have become much more sophisticated. 9/11 was a mastermind operation that drew the US into several wars. Although the demolition fraud is just as obvious for anyone with eyes. > That's what the 10 official US inquiries found and I tend > to believe them over assertions from those with a political > axe to grind. Why would the USS Liberty personnel have any "political axe to grind"? They just experienced Israel's actions and drew their conclusions from that. Like the Palestinians... Chris SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
> Chris says that the combination "Israeli USS Liberty" does > not bring up the Jewish Virtual Library. No, I used "Israel USS Liberty", which puts www.ussliberty.org at #1. If you use "Israeli .." then the JVL actually comes as #1. Clever... Chris SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
"
A sad error typical of what happens in wartime. The pilot
knew there were no American ships in the area, knew that it
wasn't an Israeli ship, knew it was a warship - so he
attacked.
And once an attack begins, it is hard to call it off.
That's what the 10 official US inquiries found and I tend
to believe them over assertions from those with a political
axe to grind.
Harry
**
Henry George School of Social Science
of Los Angeles.
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
818 352-4141
**********
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
> Christoph Reuss
> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 3:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like
these, who
> needs al-Qaeda?
>
> Harry Pollard wrote:
> > You must excuse me. I must have missed your answers.
>
> On 12-Jun, 19:22 +0200, I wrote:
>
> >> > The reports of the survivors offer little help as
they
> >> > didn't know anything about why the attack was made.
> >>
> >> But they know that the US President ordered US forces
to
> turn around.
> >> That says it all.
> >>
> >>
> >> > I can see no advantage to the Israelis in
deliberately
> >> > attacking an American ship.
> >>
> >> This intelligence-gathering ship witnessed war crimes
on the
> land
> >> (IDF executing Arabs POWs). The IDF tried to
eliminate the
> witnesses.
> >> http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0596/9605028.htm
>
> ("...US forces to turn around" refers to those who
started coming to
> the
> rescue of the USS Liberty during the attack.)
>
>
> As for your other question:
>
> > If Johnson had ordered all American warships to take
> > station 100 miles away from the conflict, I wonder what
the
> > Liberty was doing there. Why didn't she leave with all
the
> > others?
>
> Your source answers this:
>
> "United States communication failures, whereby messages
> directing the ship
> not to approach within 100 miles were not received by
the
> Liberty."
>
> (
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty
.html
> 2nd para)
>
> HTH,
> Chris
>
>
>
> ~~
> ~~
>
> SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it
contains
> the keyword
> "igve".
>
>
> ___
> Futurework mailing list
> Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
> http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
___
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Lawry, I "admitted"? I told you where I went to find initial information - the first cite on the Google list that came up with my request "Israeli USS Liberty". Up came the 'Jewish Virtual Library' which I hardly noticed as I immediately began reading the article. It seemed pretty reasonable to me. The 10 US inquiries into the incident -none of which found that Israel had deliberately attacked a US ship also seemed pretty good evidence. So, I sent a post - "Check this" - giving the Url. Had it been the Arab Virtual Library I would have behaved in similar fashion. Then, I forgot about it. Until you wrote back - not about the incident - but about me, providing the usual ad hominems, questioning my integrity "my agenda". Ho-ho! You went on: "It was just bad luck that he didn't notice that it was a pro-Israel site." Luck had nothing to do with it. I didn't care. I was looking for the combination "Israel USS Liberty" which I thought would take me somewhere concerning the attack. It did. I read the article, thought it reasonable, and forgot it. Chris says that the combination "Israeli USS Liberty" does not bring up the Jewish Virtual Library. I really must bookmark the site. I've now called it as much as a dozen times. It always comes up first. Dr. Marvin Nowicki was a Hebrew linquist in a US spy plane flying some 15,000 ft above the attack. This is what he says: "In this correspondence, I am concentrating on a single event that involved the USS Liberty in June 1967. As you know, Jim Ennes and members of the Liberty crew are on record stating the ship was deliberately attacked by the Israelis. I think otherwise. I have first hand information, which I am sharing with you. I was present on that day, along with members of an aircrew in a COMFAIRAIRRECONRON TWO (VQ-2) EC-121M aircraft flying some 15,000 feet above the incident. As I recall, we recorded most, if not all, of the attack. Further, our intercepts, never before made public, showed the attack to be an accident on the part of the Israelis." This was in an E-Mail sent to a fellow named Bamford who claimed that Nowicki's letter said the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship. Read again what Nowicki said and tell me how this anti-Israeli conspiracy theorist came to that conclusion. You can find all this if you want to look but I doubt you will because you have completely surrounded the truth and need nothing more to buttress your certainty. That's enough for the moment of this exchange where I provide whatever information I can and you make remarks about me. Though this is usual among conspiracy theorists. Let's get to things more important. Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Lawrence de Bivort > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 12:51 PM > To: 'Christoph Reuss'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who > needs al-Qaeda? > > Harry has already admitted that his idea of learning about the USS > Liberty > attack objectively via Google was to start his search with "Israel" > and > that it was just bad luck that he didn't notice that it was a pro-Israel > site, and that he is too busy a fellow to check more than one > source. > > Oh well! > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Christoph > Reuss > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 3:42 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who > needs > al-Qaeda? > > Good point, Lawry. Indeed, for any combinations of the obvious > keywords, google lists Wikipedia and www.ussliberty.org BEFORE > www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org. > > Btw, another piece of evidence that only the ship personnel could > know: > > "Israel attacked the USS Liberty using UNMARKED AIRCRAFT. > This is the > single fact which proves Israel knew exactly who they were > attacking. > Israel's story is that they thought USS Liberty was an Egyptian ship > and > therefore a legitimate target of war. Were that true, there would be > no > reason to attack a supposedly Egyptian ship with unmarked > aircraft. The > only possible reason to use unmarked aircraft to attack the ship is > that > Israel knew it was an American ship and intended to sink it, then > to blame > the attack on Egypt. > > Moorer, who as top legal council to the official investigation is in a > position to know, agrees that Israel
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
What a wonderful argument! Devastating in its logic, exceptional in its appeal to reason. I must laminate it for my wallet! ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** From: Lawrence de Bivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 11:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda? Harry, your ignorance on this is only exceeded by your arrogance. You don't like the tempest? Then stop provoking it. _ From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 1:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda? Lawry, I suppose we have to continue this 'tempest in a teapot'. I didn't realize there were so many official sites discussing the incident. Or, that there were even more conspiracy theory sites. So, I probably put 'Israeli USS Liberty' in the Google search to link the two. But, I don't really know. The Virtual Library site was on top. I don't think I've ever seen or accessed the site before. I pulled it up and read with interest. I particularly noted the ten official US inquiries made with little evidence that it was anything but an accident. These incidents happen in wartime, particularly as Israel was defending herself against the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria whose intention was to drive the Israelis into the sea. Not exactly a time of calm and controlled thinking. Israeli planes at the time bombed one of their own armored column - these things happen. (One recalls that in Normandy, American planes bombed American troops - then came back and bombed them again.) Of course conspiracy theorists are not interested in truth. Nor are those whose 15 minutes of fame are congealed in a book - or nowadays, a blog. The best argument that it was an accident is that Israel had nothing to gain from the attack on its closest ally. There is a claim (which ranges between silly and laughable) that the Liberty was examining Israeli troops murdering civilians (from 12.5 miles away at sea level) and that Israel sank her to stop this crime being publicized. Haven't seen any other theories but I'm sure there are other equally incredible assertions. They tend to sprout up around such incidents. The 9/11 incident is a good example and I've seen people practically froth at the mouth if one denies the US blew up the towers, or asserts that it wasn't a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon. And so on. Again, I would remind you that after reading the long piece from Chris, I checked it on Google, brought up the first site I found (Ahah! Pollard deliberately chose a hard-core Israeli site!) The only thing that stayed with me was a listing of the 10 official US inquiries (we'll forget the 3 Israeli ones as they were probably hard-core). None of them found the Israelis guilty of knowingly attacking an American ship. Yet, Chris wrote: "9. That due to continuing pressure by the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, this attack remains the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress;" Except for: - The Clifford Report - 1967 - to LBJ. Not to Congress but to the White House. Conclusion: "f. The unprovoked attack on the Liberty constitutes a flagrant act of gross negligence for which the Israeli Government should be held completely responsible, and the Israeli military personnel involved should be punished." Senate Foreign Relations - 1967: Macnamara - "the attack was not intentional". Senate Armed Services - 1967: No conclusion. House Appropriations - 1968: Navy communications foulup - no conclusions. House Armed Services - 1971: Critical of Navy communications - no conclusion. - Senate - Intelligence - 1979: Found no merit in Liberty crewman claim that attack was intentional. - House Armed Services - 1991: Probe launched but came up with no evidence to support allegations by Liberty Veterans Association. - Then there was the CIA Report "a mistake", the NSA report "miscalculations and egregious errors", and of course the 725 page complete record of the US Navy Court of Inquiry that concluded "case of mistake
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Harry has already admitted that his idea of learning about the USS Liberty attack objectively via Google was to start his search with "Israel" and that it was just bad luck that he didn't notice that it was a pro-Israel site, and that he is too busy a fellow to check more than one source. Oh well! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 3:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs al-Qaeda? Good point, Lawry. Indeed, for any combinations of the obvious keywords, google lists Wikipedia and www.ussliberty.org BEFORE www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org. Btw, another piece of evidence that only the ship personnel could know: "Israel attacked the USS Liberty using UNMARKED AIRCRAFT. This is the single fact which proves Israel knew exactly who they were attacking. Israel's story is that they thought USS Liberty was an Egyptian ship and therefore a legitimate target of war. Were that true, there would be no reason to attack a supposedly Egyptian ship with unmarked aircraft. The only possible reason to use unmarked aircraft to attack the ship is that Israel knew it was an American ship and intended to sink it, then to blame the attack on Egypt. Moorer, who as top legal council to the official investigation is in a position to know, agrees that Israel intended to sink the USS Liberty and blame Egypt for it, thus dragging the United States into a war on Israel's behalf. This seems to be a common trick of Israel. Starting with the Lavon affair, through the USS Liberty, to the fake radio transmitter that tricked Reagan into attacking Libya, to potentially 9-11 itself, Israel's game is to frame Arabs and set them up as targets for the United States." ( quoted from http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ussliberty.html ) Chris Lawry wrote: > 1. You assert repeatedly that you merely grabbed material on the Liberty > from the 'first site' of the list that Google generated for you. You assert > that you did not deliberately choose a propaganda source hoping to mislead > us. > > 2. OK, there is a simple test of your veracity: > > Tell us the words you entered into Google that led Google to generate > 'jewish virtual library' as the first choice. > > Seeing as you were querying the USS Liberty incident, I imagine you started > off with "USS Liberty" What words did you next enter? SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Good point, Lawry. Indeed, for any combinations of the obvious keywords, google lists Wikipedia and www.ussliberty.org BEFORE www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org. Btw, another piece of evidence that only the ship personnel could know: "Israel attacked the USS Liberty using UNMARKED AIRCRAFT. This is the single fact which proves Israel knew exactly who they were attacking. Israel's story is that they thought USS Liberty was an Egyptian ship and therefore a legitimate target of war. Were that true, there would be no reason to attack a supposedly Egyptian ship with unmarked aircraft. The only possible reason to use unmarked aircraft to attack the ship is that Israel knew it was an American ship and intended to sink it, then to blame the attack on Egypt. Moorer, who as top legal council to the official investigation is in a position to know, agrees that Israel intended to sink the USS Liberty and blame Egypt for it, thus dragging the United States into a war on Israel's behalf. This seems to be a common trick of Israel. Starting with the Lavon affair, through the USS Liberty, to the fake radio transmitter that tricked Reagan into attacking Libya, to potentially 9-11 itself, Israel's game is to frame Arabs and set them up as targets for the United States." ( quoted from http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ussliberty.html ) Chris Lawry wrote: > 1. You assert repeatedly that you merely grabbed material on the Liberty > from the 'first site' of the list that Google generated for you. You assert > that you did not deliberately choose a propaganda source hoping to mislead > us. > > 2. OK, there is a simple test of your veracity: > > Tell us the words you entered into Google that led Google to generate > 'jewish virtual library' as the first choice. > > Seeing as you were querying the USS Liberty incident, I imagine you started > off with "USS Liberty" What words did you next enter? SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Harry, your ignorance on this is only exceeded by your arrogance. You don't like the tempest? Then stop provoking it. _ From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 1:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda? Lawry, I suppose we have to continue this 'tempest in a teapot'. I didn't realize there were so many official sites discussing the incident. Or, that there were even more conspiracy theory sites. So, I probably put 'Israeli USS Liberty' in the Google search to link the two. But, I don't really know. The Virtual Library site was on top. I don't think I've ever seen or accessed the site before. I pulled it up and read with interest. I particularly noted the ten official US inquiries made with little evidence that it was anything but an accident. These incidents happen in wartime, particularly as Israel was defending herself against the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria whose intention was to drive the Israelis into the sea. Not exactly a time of calm and controlled thinking. Israeli planes at the time bombed one of their own armored column - these things happen. (One recalls that in Normandy, American planes bombed American troops - then came back and bombed them again.) Of course conspiracy theorists are not interested in truth. Nor are those whose 15 minutes of fame are congealed in a book - or nowadays, a blog. The best argument that it was an accident is that Israel had nothing to gain from the attack on its closest ally. There is a claim (which ranges between silly and laughable) that the Liberty was examining Israeli troops murdering civilians (from 12.5 miles away at sea level) and that Israel sank her to stop this crime being publicized. Haven't seen any other theories but I'm sure there are other equally incredible assertions. They tend to sprout up around such incidents. The 9/11 incident is a good example and I've seen people practically froth at the mouth if one denies the US blew up the towers, or asserts that it wasn't a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon. And so on. Again, I would remind you that after reading the long piece from Chris, I checked it on Google, brought up the first site I found (Ahah! Pollard deliberately chose a hard-core Israeli site!) The only thing that stayed with me was a listing of the 10 official US inquiries (we'll forget the 3 Israeli ones as they were probably hard-core). None of them found the Israelis guilty of knowingly attacking an American ship. Yet, Chris wrote: "9. That due to continuing pressure by the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, this attack remains the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress;" Except for: - The Clifford Report - 1967 - to LBJ. Not to Congress but to the White House. Conclusion: "f. The unprovoked attack on the Liberty constitutes a flagrant act of gross negligence for which the Israeli Government should be held completely responsible, and the Israeli military personnel involved should be punished." Senate Foreign Relations - 1967: Macnamara - "the attack was not intentional". Senate Armed Services - 1967: No conclusion. House Appropriations - 1968: Navy communications foulup - no conclusions. House Armed Services - 1971: Critical of Navy communications - no conclusion. - Senate - Intelligence - 1979: Found no merit in Liberty crewman claim that attack was intentional. - House Armed Services - 1991: Probe launched but came up with no evidence to support allegations by Liberty Veterans Association. - Then there was the CIA Report "a mistake", the NSA report "miscalculations and egregious errors", and of course the 725 page complete record of the US Navy Court of Inquiry that concluded "case of mistaken identity". The above listing from A.J.Cristol's PhD dissertation - U. of Miami 1997 - pp 86-113. --- Cristol is probably a member of Mossad, or at least in the pay of the Israelis, but what can one do - the Jews are everywhere. Heck, there's a noise under my desk. It might be Sammy the dog, but also might be Israeli Intelligence inserting more false information onto my hard disk. All I did was to check the Liberty story at the first URL - I noted the US inves
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Oh, oh. More to worry about http://willthomas.net/Chemtrails/Articles/Chemtrails_Confirmed_2007_Edit ion.htm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 1:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs al-Qaeda? > The 9/11 incident is a good example > and I've seen people practically froth at the mouth if one > denies the US blew up the towers Yes, 9/11 is a good example indeed, of how blatant a cover-up can get away, although it's obvious that the official version is impossible. For example, have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fH7c8H6SNw at 06:13 minutes: there you see the fire flash of the demolition explosions on a whole floor of the WTC, where the controlled demolition began. (The explosion flashes of the other floors are not visible, because they're covered by the dust that's whirled around.) Also check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFuUGEZ39g8 at 0:23 where Rummy spills the beans, saying that flight 93 was shot down, although the official version was that is was NOT shot down... Chris SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
> The 9/11 incident is a good example > and I've seen people practically froth at the mouth if one > denies the US blew up the towers Yes, 9/11 is a good example indeed, of how blatant a cover-up can get away, although it's obvious that the official version is impossible. For example, have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fH7c8H6SNw at 06:13 minutes: there you see the fire flash of the demolition explosions on a whole floor of the WTC, where the controlled demolition began. (The explosion flashes of the other floors are not visible, because they're covered by the dust that's whirled around.) Also check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFuUGEZ39g8 at 0:23 where Rummy spills the beans, saying that flight 93 was shot down, although the official version was that is was NOT shot down... Chris SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
bout my "research" (That's a laugh!) You suggested that other things I write might be suspect and three times alluded to some secret agenda I might have. Is this an intelligent reaction? The Israelis had nothing to gain and everything to lose by deliberately attacking an American ship. If they did, that wasn't very intelligent either. Lawry, it was an accident occasioned by both Israeli and American incompetence. Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ************** From: Lawrence de Bivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 3:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda? Not haughtiness, Harry. Boredom. Do you really want to insist? Really? OK. 1. You assert repeatedly that you merely grabbed material on the Liberty from the 'first site' of the list that Google generated for you. You assert that you did not deliberately choose a propaganda source hoping to mislead us. 2. OK, there is a simple test of your veracity: Tell us the words you entered into Google that led Google to generate 'jewish virtual library' as the first choice. Seeing as you were querying the USS Liberty incident, I imagine you started off with "USS Liberty" What words did you next enter? 3. And then we'll talk about the likelihood of your 'accidentally' failing to notice that you were copying from a pro-Israeli site. _ From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 2:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda? Really Lawry, I mildly mentioned I had googled a site (that I had never seen before but was the first to come up in google) simply to remind me of the incident and you made a Federal case out of it. Because you wouldn't let it go and made allusions about me personally (for which you should apologize) I continued it a little further. Three questions occurred to me which I felt sure you could answer to my satisfaction, but you won't answer them. Maybe you can't answer these simple questions. Anyway, you have now become haughty and refuse to continue. Hooray! You should have decided that earlier before your silly remarks about "my agenda". Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Chris,
The USS Liberty was off the coast of Sinai/Gaza when the war broke out. The
rest of the US fleet was far to the west. The US made the decision to keep
its ships 100 miles away from the coast, and the USS Liberty was ordered to
move West. There was no failure of communications. Before it could carry out
that order, it was attacked by Israeli fighter aircraft and torpedo ships.
The "jewish virtual library" would undoubtedly like to blow the whole thing
off as a mistake, of course, but no one who has studied the event will
accept that argument.
Whether or not the Liberty was moving West and regardless of its position,
the Israelis had no right to attack, and their attack should have been
viewed as a casus belli.
Cheers,
Lawry
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph
Reuss
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 6:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs
al-Qaeda?
Harry Pollard wrote:
> You must excuse me. I must have missed your answers.
On 12-Jun, 19:22 +0200, I wrote:
>> > The reports of the survivors offer little help as they
>> > didn't know anything about why the attack was made.
>>
>> But they know that the US President ordered US forces to turn around.
>> That says it all.
>>
>>
>> > I can see no advantage to the Israelis in deliberately
>> > attacking an American ship.
>>
>> This intelligence-gathering ship witnessed war crimes on the land
>> (IDF executing Arabs POWs). The IDF tried to eliminate the witnesses.
>> http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0596/9605028.htm
("...US forces to turn around" refers to those who started coming to the
rescue of the USS Liberty during the attack.)
As for your other question:
> If Johnson had ordered all American warships to take
> station 100 miles away from the conflict, I wonder what the
> Liberty was doing there. Why didn't she leave with all the
> others?
Your source answers this:
"United States communication failures, whereby messages directing the ship
not to approach within 100 miles were not received by the Liberty."
( http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty.html 2nd
para)
HTH,
Chris
SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword
"igve".
___
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
___
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Harry Pollard wrote:
> You must excuse me. I must have missed your answers.
On 12-Jun, 19:22 +0200, I wrote:
>> > The reports of the survivors offer little help as they
>> > didn't know anything about why the attack was made.
>>
>> But they know that the US President ordered US forces to turn around.
>> That says it all.
>>
>>
>> > I can see no advantage to the Israelis in deliberately
>> > attacking an American ship.
>>
>> This intelligence-gathering ship witnessed war crimes on the land
>> (IDF executing Arabs POWs). The IDF tried to eliminate the witnesses.
>> http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0596/9605028.htm
("...US forces to turn around" refers to those who started coming to the
rescue of the USS Liberty during the attack.)
As for your other question:
> If Johnson had ordered all American warships to take
> station 100 miles away from the conflict, I wonder what the
> Liberty was doing there. Why didn't she leave with all the
> others?
Your source answers this:
"United States communication failures, whereby messages directing the ship
not to approach within 100 miles were not received by the Liberty."
( http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty.html 2nd para)
HTH,
Chris
SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword
"igve".
___
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
You must excuse me. I must have missed your answers. The first refers to the crewmen apparently able to give evidence about Israeli intentions. The questions were: Unless the surviving crewmembers are psychic, I do not expect them to have known the intentions of the Israelis other than that they were trying to sink their ship. They can certainly claim that was the objective, because it was. But, otherwise, all they know was they were thoroughly shot up. If Johnson had ordered all American warships to take station 100 miles away from the conflict, I wonder what the Liberty was doing there. Why didn't she leave with all the others? What possible advantage could Israel get from the attack? It achieved nothing, and could only cause trouble with her only ally. Thanks! Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Christoph Reuss > Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 12:18 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who > needs al-Qaeda? > > Harry Pollard said to Lawry de Bivort: > > Three questions occurred to me which I felt sure you could > > answer to my satisfaction, but you won't answer them. > > > > Maybe you can't answer these simple questions. > > I already answered them, if that's good enough. > > HTH, > Chris > > > > ___ > Futurework mailing list > Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Harry Pollard said to Lawry de Bivort: > Three questions occurred to me which I felt sure you could > answer to my satisfaction, but you won't answer them. > > Maybe you can't answer these simple questions. I already answered them, if that's good enough. HTH, Chris ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Don't push your luck. You have declared that you have no interest in the matter because it is 40 years old. And you think I will now spend time on it with you? -Original Message- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda? Lawry, I don't post propaganda. In fact I probably post more evidence and factual stuff than anyone on the list - often taking great care and much time to deal with actual propaganda, or one line certainties. When I googled and found a site I scanned what was there and it seemed to me that the attack was a genuine error. You haven't answered the three questions that occurred to me after your letter accused me (practically) of being an Israeli propagandist. "What is your agenda?" You said. Ahah! You've found me out. Yet, you are still at it with this latest post. I went back to that site - the "hard-core Israeli" propaganda site. You pushed me a bit too hard. Here's something. " The tragic Israeli attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, has provoked a great deal of controversy and longstanding anger among surviving members of the crew. Though residual anger and suspicions remain, the incident was the subject of ten U.S. investigations and three more by Israel. In the American case, the full weight of the U.S. government was behind the investigations, which had access to all the relevant information. Though some accusations have been made suggesting the reports sought to hide facts or protect Israel, no credible evidence for these charges has been produced. Moreover, if the investigatory bodies had a bias, it was far more likely to be against Israel. Here is a summary of the investigations and their conclusions:" Then follows a listing with conclusions of the thirteen investigations. None of them involves the Israelis in more than an incompetency. Anyone can see this at the "hard-core Israeli" site: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty .html It's by Dr. Mitchell Bard - obviously by his job a "hard-core" Israeli. Perhaps his listing of investigations is fake, or his results list is dodgy. If I were not relatively disinterested I might investigate further, but I won't. Perhaps, now, you will answer the three questions I posed. These are simply questions that occurred to me. I'm sure you have answers to them. They are not exactly difficult. I'lll repeat them for the third time. Unless the surviving crewmembers are psychic, I do not expect them to have known the intentions of the Israelis other than that they were trying to sink their ship. They can certainly claim that was the objective, because it was. But, otherwise, all they know was they were thoroughly shot up. If Johnson had ordered all American warships to take station 100 miles away from the conflict, I wonder what the Liberty was doing there. Why didn't she leave with all the others? What possible advantage could Israel get from the attack? It achieved nothing, and could only cause trouble with her only ally. Maybe the Israelis were as incompetent - or as stupid - as the Captain of the Liberty seemed to be as he wandered around a war zone while the entire fleet was 100 miles away. (Though, I wouldn't be surprised if he was obeying silly orders.) He was a brave man (and was decorated) but he shouldn't have been there - it seems to me. Anyway, stop pushing at something I'm not particularly interested in, or I'll find the Arabs actually made the attack with Israeli marked planes. Ok! I'm kidding Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Lawrence de Bivort > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 2:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who > needs al-Qaeda? > > Harry, I would ask that next time you don't care about > something that you > refrain from posting propaganda. It gives us the impression > that you do > care, and we assume that therefore you brought some thought > to your posting. > > > Instead, it just makes us waste our time in responding to you. > > It also makes me wonder whether some of your other postings > are similar in > intent and substance. > > I am speaking sharply with you because I think that all this was > below you. > I value your postings and would like to see them continue at a > high level. > > Lawry > > > > -Original Message- > From: Harry Pollard [
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Lawry, I don't post propaganda. In fact I probably post more evidence and factual stuff than anyone on the list - often taking great care and much time to deal with actual propaganda, or one line certainties. When I googled and found a site I scanned what was there and it seemed to me that the attack was a genuine error. You haven't answered the three questions that occurred to me after your letter accused me (practically) of being an Israeli propagandist. "What is your agenda?" You said. Ahah! You've found me out. Yet, you are still at it with this latest post. I went back to that site - the "hard-core Israeli" propaganda site. You pushed me a bit too hard. Here's something. " The tragic Israeli attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, has provoked a great deal of controversy and longstanding anger among surviving members of the crew. Though residual anger and suspicions remain, the incident was the subject of ten U.S. investigations and three more by Israel. In the American case, the full weight of the U.S. government was behind the investigations, which had access to all the relevant information. Though some accusations have been made suggesting the reports sought to hide facts or protect Israel, no credible evidence for these charges has been produced. Moreover, if the investigatory bodies had a bias, it was far more likely to be against Israel. Here is a summary of the investigations and their conclusions:" Then follows a listing with conclusions of the thirteen investigations. None of them involves the Israelis in more than an incompetency. Anyone can see this at the "hard-core Israeli" site: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty .html It's by Dr. Mitchell Bard - obviously by his job a "hard-core" Israeli. Perhaps his listing of investigations is fake, or his results list is dodgy. If I were not relatively disinterested I might investigate further, but I won't. Perhaps, now, you will answer the three questions I posed. These are simply questions that occurred to me. I'm sure you have answers to them. They are not exactly difficult. I'lll repeat them for the third time. Unless the surviving crewmembers are psychic, I do not expect them to have known the intentions of the Israelis other than that they were trying to sink their ship. They can certainly claim that was the objective, because it was. But, otherwise, all they know was they were thoroughly shot up. If Johnson had ordered all American warships to take station 100 miles away from the conflict, I wonder what the Liberty was doing there. Why didn't she leave with all the others? What possible advantage could Israel get from the attack? It achieved nothing, and could only cause trouble with her only ally. Maybe the Israelis were as incompetent - or as stupid - as the Captain of the Liberty seemed to be as he wandered around a war zone while the entire fleet was 100 miles away. (Though, I wouldn't be surprised if he was obeying silly orders.) He was a brave man (and was decorated) but he shouldn't have been there - it seems to me. Anyway, stop pushing at something I'm not particularly interested in, or I'll find the Arabs actually made the attack with Israeli marked planes. Ok! I'm kidding Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Lawrence de Bivort > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 2:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who > needs al-Qaeda? > > Harry, I would ask that next time you don't care about > something that you > refrain from posting propaganda. It gives us the impression > that you do > care, and we assume that therefore you brought some thought > to your posting. > > > Instead, it just makes us waste our time in responding to you. > > It also makes me wonder whether some of your other postings > are similar in > intent and substance. > > I am speaking sharply with you because I think that all this was > below you. > I value your postings and would like to see them continue at a > high level. > > Lawry > > > > -----Original Message- > From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who > needs > al-Qaeda? > > Lawry, > > I didn't " post any old bit of nonsense"? > > I just don't care about it. > > Chris brought up the subject. I googled and got the U
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Harry, Apology accepted. Thank you. Lawry -Original Message- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 1:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs al-Qaeda? Lawry, Absolutely! Without equivocation. I have enormous respect for you as I indicated. I was thinking of Chris who never misses an opportunity to attack Israel. I shouldn't have used the plural anti-Israelites. However, you treat this incident much more seriously than do I. When Chris brought the matter up, I vaguely remembered something and checked google to assuage my curiosity. I clicked the first item, looked at it, copied the URL, sent it in a post, then forgot it. I was simply disinterested. Then you criticized my "research" and hinted darkly I had some kind of hidden agenda. The whole thing is ridiculous.You must not assume that an incident important to you is equally important to others. I know to you and Chris 40 year old incidents may be important. In this case, they aren't to me, though my curiosity was aroused and I asked you a couple of questions. You didn't answer them, so here is another. What advantage could the Israelis gain by sinking an American ship compared to the enormous PR disaster that was likely to result? The other two were - if Johnson had ordered the entire US navy to move 100 miles from the fighting why did the Liberty not move with them? And, while the surviving seaman could give evidence about the attack, how could they know what the Israeli point of view was? Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** -Original Message- > From: Lawrence de Bivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 4:1 +7 ++PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs > al-Qaeda? > > Well, Harry, you stirred me up. So are you characterizing me as an > anti-Israelite? > > If so, you are despicable. I have spent decades studying the Middle > East, > and am recognized as a subject matter expert on it. I have clients on > both > sides of the conflict between Israelis and the Palestinians, and have the > respect of both. > > You owe me an unequivocal apology. But will you have the honor to > proffer > it? > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Harry Pollard > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs > al-Qaeda? > > Mike, > > I didn't do "research". As the subject came up, I checked > it out on google to remind myself of it.. > > A matter of simple curiosity, whereupon I put the URL in a > post and forgot about it. > > However, I stirred up the anti-Israelites, particularly > when I said I had no interest in the 40 year old event. > > However, the first up on google was apparently a "hard > rock" pro-Israel site. > > I did note that that the article brought in some other > references, but I didn't follow them. > > Hardly research. > > As you say, one has to be careful when one looks at > internet information. It comes at you from every direction > and care must be taken before "absolute truth" is accepted. > > Harry > > ** > Henry George School of Social Science > of Los Angeles. > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > 818 352-4141 > ** > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:futurework- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer > > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:00 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Futurework] Re: with friends & gov't like > these, who needs > > al-Qaeda? > > > > > > > > > "just reading the first one that came up" is a terrible > way to do > > > research, Harry. > > > > Indeed. OTOH, the net is loaded with contradictory > assertions, claims > > and observations, largely indistinguisable from > fabrications and > > deliberate disinformation. It's unlikely that we or > anyone other than > > the original players will ever know the truth. This is > generally the > > case with any event in which powerful entities -- > governments, > > corporations, cliques or individuals -- have sufficient > motivation for > > obf
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Lawry, Absolutely! Without equivocation. I have enormous respect for you as I indicated. I was thinking of Chris who never misses an opportunity to attack Israel. I shouldn't have used the plural anti-Israelites. However, you treat this incident much more seriously than do I. When Chris brought the matter up, I vaguely remembered something and checked google to assuage my curiosity. I clicked the first item, looked at it, copied the URL, sent it in a post, then forgot it. I was simply disinterested. Then you criticized my "research" and hinted darkly I had some kind of hidden agenda. The whole thing is ridiculous.You must not assume that an incident important to you is equally important to others. I know to you and Chris 40 year old incidents may be important. In this case, they aren't to me, though my curiosity was aroused and I asked you a couple of questions. You didn't answer them, so here is another. What advantage could the Israelis gain by sinking an American ship compared to the enormous PR disaster that was likely to result? The other two were - if Johnson had ordered the entire US navy to move 100 miles from the fighting why did the Liberty not move with them? And, while the surviving seaman could give evidence about the attack, how could they know what the Israeli point of view was? Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** -Original Message- > From: Lawrence de Bivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 4:1 +7 ++PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs > al-Qaeda? > > Well, Harry, you stirred me up. So are you characterizing me as an > anti-Israelite? > > If so, you are despicable. I have spent decades studying the Middle > East, > and am recognized as a subject matter expert on it. I have clients on > both > sides of the conflict between Israelis and the Palestinians, and have the > respect of both. > > You owe me an unequivocal apology. But will you have the honor to > proffer > it? > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Harry Pollard > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs > al-Qaeda? > > Mike, > > I didn't do "research". As the subject came up, I checked > it out on google to remind myself of it.. > > A matter of simple curiosity, whereupon I put the URL in a > post and forgot about it. > > However, I stirred up the anti-Israelites, particularly > when I said I had no interest in the 40 year old event. > > However, the first up on google was apparently a "hard > rock" pro-Israel site. > > I did note that that the article brought in some other > references, but I didn't follow them. > > Hardly research. > > As you say, one has to be careful when one looks at > internet information. It comes at you from every direction > and care must be taken before "absolute truth" is accepted. > > Harry > > ** > Henry George School of Social Science > of Los Angeles. > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > 818 352-4141 > ** > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:futurework- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer > > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:00 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Futurework] Re: with friends & gov't like > these, who needs > > al-Qaeda? > > > > > > > > > "just reading the first one that came up" is a terrible > way to do > > > research, Harry. > > > > Indeed. OTOH, the net is loaded with contradictory > assertions, claims > > and observations, largely indistinguisable from > fabrications and > > deliberate disinformation. It's unlikely that we or > anyone other than > > the original players will ever know the truth. This is > generally the > > case with any event in which powerful entities -- > governments, > > corporations, cliques or individuals -- have sufficient > motivation for > > obfuscation that they go to great lengths and expense to > muddy the > > waters. > > > > But should you have the time and inclination, this: > > > > http://cryptome.org/nsa-liberty.htm > > http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/ > > > > > > is perhaps your best source for further reading. > > > > > > - Mike > > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007 6:39 AM ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Well, Harry, you stirred me up. So are you characterizing me as an anti-Israelite? If so, you are despicable. I have spent decades studying the Middle East, and am recognized as a subject matter expert on it. I have clients on both sides of the conflict between Israelis and the Palestinians, and have the respect of both. You owe me an unequivocal apology. But will you have the honor to proffer it? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs al-Qaeda? Mike, I didn't do "research". As the subject came up, I checked it out on google to remind myself of it.. A matter of simple curiosity, whereupon I put the URL in a post and forgot about it. However, I stirred up the anti-Israelites, particularly when I said I had no interest in the 40 year old event. However, the first up on google was apparently a "hard rock" pro-Israel site. I did note that that the article brought in some other references, but I didn't follow them. Hardly research. As you say, one has to be careful when one looks at internet information. It comes at you from every direction and care must be taken before "absolute truth" is accepted. Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:futurework- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:00 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Futurework] Re: with friends & gov't like these, who needs > al-Qaeda? > > > > > "just reading the first one that came up" is a terrible way to do > > research, Harry. > > Indeed. OTOH, the net is loaded with contradictory assertions, claims > and observations, largely indistinguisable from fabrications and > deliberate disinformation. It's unlikely that we or anyone other than > the original players will ever know the truth. This is generally the > case with any event in which powerful entities -- governments, > corporations, cliques or individuals -- have sufficient motivation for > obfuscation that they go to great lengths and expense to muddy the > waters. > > But should you have the time and inclination, this: > > http://cryptome.org/nsa-liberty.htm > http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/ > > > is perhaps your best source for further reading. > > > - Mike > > -- > Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~. > /V\ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] /( )\ > http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^ > ___ > Futurework mailing list > Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: > 6/12/2007 6:39 AM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007 6:39 AM ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Mike, I didn't do "research". As the subject came up, I checked it out on google to remind myself of it.. A matter of simple curiosity, whereupon I put the URL in a post and forgot about it. However, I stirred up the anti-Israelites, particularly when I said I had no interest in the 40 year old event. However, the first up on google was apparently a "hard rock" pro-Israel site. I did note that that the article brought in some other references, but I didn't follow them. Hardly research. As you say, one has to be careful when one looks at internet information. It comes at you from every direction and care must be taken before "absolute truth" is accepted. Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:futurework- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:00 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Futurework] Re: with friends & gov't like these, who needs > al-Qaeda? > > > > > "just reading the first one that came up" is a terrible way to do > > research, Harry. > > Indeed. OTOH, the net is loaded with contradictory assertions, claims > and observations, largely indistinguisable from fabrications and > deliberate disinformation. It's unlikely that we or anyone other than > the original players will ever know the truth. This is generally the > case with any event in which powerful entities -- governments, > corporations, cliques or individuals -- have sufficient motivation for > obfuscation that they go to great lengths and expense to muddy the > waters. > > But should you have the time and inclination, this: > > http://cryptome.org/nsa-liberty.htm > http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/ > > > is perhaps your best source for further reading. > > > - Mike > > -- > Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~. > /V\ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] /( )\ > http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^ > ___ > Futurework mailing list > Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: > 6/12/2007 6:39 AM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007 6:39 AM ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Harry, I would ask that next time you don't care about something that you refrain from posting propaganda. It gives us the impression that you do care, and we assume that therefore you brought some thought to your posting. Instead, it just makes us waste our time in responding to you. It also makes me wonder whether some of your other postings are similar in intent and substance. I am speaking sharply with you because I think that all this was below you. I value your postings and would like to see them continue at a high level. Lawry -Original Message- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda? Lawry, I didn't " post any old bit of nonsense"? I just don't care about it. Chris brought up the subject. I googled and got the URL which I posted and then forgot about it. This is what I sent. --- -- > > Check out: > http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty --- -- This is what stimulated your post telling me all the things I should into - the books and transcript, and documentary collections. But I am not particularly interested in this 40 year old event, but if I were I would not listen only to the pro-Arab input - which I suppose is anti-Israeli by implication. Your remarks come straight out of your pro-Arab stance - which is all right. I look to your contributions to get the Arab point of view and am grateful for them. You told me that the URL was "hard-core pro-Israeli". So, Chris is hard core anti-Israeli. You are more sensibly anti-Israeli. However, I don't expect anything from you both that is critical of the Arabs. I do expect that you will jump on anything bad the Israelis do whether confirmed or speculative. Unless the surviving crewmembers are psychic, I do not expect them to have known the intentions of the Israelis other than that they were trying to sink their ship. They can certainly claim that was the objective, because it was. If Johnson had ordered all American warships to take station 100 miles away from the conflict, I wonder what the Liberty was doing there. Why didn't she leave with all the others? You can answer those two points if you like. I'm sure you can. You ask (with a conspiratorial implication) "What is you agenda, Harry?" My agenda is not to bother with this thing any more. I am simply disinterested. Tell me about those two points - I'm sure you have buckets of stuff about them to deal with my mild curiosity.. Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:futurework- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lawrence de Bivort > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:14 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs > al-Qaeda? > > "just reading the first one that came up" is a terrible way to do research, > Harry. Surely you know this. And then not noticing the nature of the > site > and assessing the likelihood that it is objective is...not research at all, > but something else. Frankly, I cannot belief that you were simply > remiss in > doing so. > > The account of the crew is vital as by describing accurately the form of > the > attack (timelines, condition of the boat, communications, identification > signs, attack sequences, etc) you can tell al lot about the actions of the > attackers, and thus about their goals, and thus their motives. But you > must > know this Harry. What is your real agenda here? > > Then you follow up with two odd challenges, which seem simply to > mimic the > disinformation contained on the website you initially cut-and-pasted > from. > There was no shelling of Israeli units going on from the sea. There was > no > reason for the USS Liberty to not be doing precisely what she was > doing. She > was in international waters and had full right to be there. > > And then to assert that you don't care because it was forty years old > does > not ring true, either. If you are disinterested, by bother to make the > posting you did? > > Do you think that we are so ignorant of history that you can post any > old > bit of nonsense and not get called on it? > > What is your agenda, Harry? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Harry Pollard > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:51 PM >
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Harry Pollard wrote: > But I am not particularly interested in this 40 year old > event, but if I were I would not listen only to the > pro-Arab input - which I suppose is anti-Israeli by > implication. > > Your remarks come straight out of your pro-Arab stance - > which is all right. I look to your contributions to get the > Arab point of view and am grateful for them. > > You told me that the URL was "hard-core pro-Israeli". So, > Chris is hard core anti-Israeli. Here you are basically suggesting that the USS Liberty veterans (whose demands I posted) are "pro-Arab" and "hard core anti-Israeli". Why is that? Isn't it more likely that they BECAME "anti-Israeli" after experiencing Israeli actions first-hand? Like Palestinians... If being anti-Apartheid and anti-genocide means being "anti-Israeli", is that the fault of the antis or of Israel? And what would you say when Germany would stop payments to Israel saying that Germans are "not particularly interested in this 60 year old event" ? Chris SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Lawry, I didn't " post any old bit of nonsense"? I just don't care about it. Chris brought up the subject. I googled and got the URL which I posted and then forgot about it. This is what I sent. --- -- > > Check out: > http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty --- -- This is what stimulated your post telling me all the things I should into - the books and transcript, and documentary collections. But I am not particularly interested in this 40 year old event, but if I were I would not listen only to the pro-Arab input - which I suppose is anti-Israeli by implication. Your remarks come straight out of your pro-Arab stance - which is all right. I look to your contributions to get the Arab point of view and am grateful for them. You told me that the URL was "hard-core pro-Israeli". So, Chris is hard core anti-Israeli. You are more sensibly anti-Israeli. However, I don't expect anything from you both that is critical of the Arabs. I do expect that you will jump on anything bad the Israelis do whether confirmed or speculative. Unless the surviving crewmembers are psychic, I do not expect them to have known the intentions of the Israelis other than that they were trying to sink their ship. They can certainly claim that was the objective, because it was. If Johnson had ordered all American warships to take station 100 miles away from the conflict, I wonder what the Liberty was doing there. Why didn't she leave with all the others? You can answer those two points if you like. I'm sure you can. You ask (with a conspiratorial implication) "What is you agenda, Harry?" My agenda is not to bother with this thing any more. I am simply disinterested. Tell me about those two points - I'm sure you have buckets of stuff about them to deal with my mild curiosity.. Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:futurework- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lawrence de Bivort > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:14 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs > al-Qaeda? > > "just reading the first one that came up" is a terrible way to do research, > Harry. Surely you know this. And then not noticing the nature of the > site > and assessing the likelihood that it is objective is...not research at all, > but something else. Frankly, I cannot belief that you were simply > remiss in > doing so. > > The account of the crew is vital as by describing accurately the form of > the > attack (timelines, condition of the boat, communications, identification > signs, attack sequences, etc) you can tell al lot about the actions of the > attackers, and thus about their goals, and thus their motives. But you > must > know this Harry. What is your real agenda here? > > Then you follow up with two odd challenges, which seem simply to > mimic the > disinformation contained on the website you initially cut-and-pasted > from. > There was no shelling of Israeli units going on from the sea. There was > no > reason for the USS Liberty to not be doing precisely what she was > doing. She > was in international waters and had full right to be there. > > And then to assert that you don't care because it was forty years old > does > not ring true, either. If you are disinterested, by bother to make the > posting you did? > > Do you think that we are so ignorant of history that you can post any > old > bit of nonsense and not get called on it? > > What is your agenda, Harry? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Harry Pollard > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:51 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Christoph Reuss' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs > al-Qaeda? > > I just googled and read the first one that came up. > > The piece brought in a number of outside contributions > which I haven't checked, but have simply accepted. > > The reports of the survivors offer little help as they > didn't know anything about why the attack was made. > > Overall, I would say the attack was indeed an accident > brought on in the heat of war. > > I can see no advantage to the Israelis in deliberately > attacking an American ship. In fact, it could only mean > trouble for them. The Liberty apparently didn't get the > messag
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Spoken like a good conspiracy theorist! What is my position on SUVs? ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:futurework- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:22 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs > al-Qaeda? > > Harry Pollard wrote: > > I just googled and read the first one that came up. > > > > The piece brought in a number of outside contributions > > which I haven't checked, but hqve simply accepted. > > This sums up your position on SUVs, CO2, DDT, Iraqi death toll etc. > pretty well. > > > > The reports of the survivors offer little help as they > > didn't know anything about why the attack was made. > > But they know that the US President ordered US forces to turn around. > That says it all. > > > > I can see no advantage to the Israelis in deliberately > > attacking an American ship. > > This intelligence-gathering ship witnessed war crimes on the land > (IDF executing Arabs POWs). The IDF tried to eliminate the > witnesses. > http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0596/9605028.htm > > > > However, I'm not particularly interested. It happened 40 > > years ago and has disappeared into the mist of time. > > War crimes don't become time-barred. Anyway, if this event > sheds light on the background of 9/11, it was "worth it"... > > Chris > > > > > ~ > ~~~ > SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the > keyword > "igve". > > > ___ > Futurework mailing list > Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: > 6/12/2007 6:39 AM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007 6:39 AM ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Thanks, Mike. I'll check out the sources. Too often, people allow themselves to come to conclusions and express opinions on complicated or secretive events without genuine study. I think with old-fashioned research we can often discern what has happened, or at least enough of what has happened that we can make educated guesses about the rest. The Net, unfortunately, seems to have created a situation in which people have forgotten how to do real study. I just saw you are in Nova Scotia. I was just there for an interesting three weeks, mostly in Cape Breton island. Wish I'd know -- it would have been fun to meet for coffee. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 2:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Futurework] Re: with friends & gov't like these,who needs al-Qaeda? > "just reading the first one that came up" is a terrible way to do > research, Harry. Indeed. OTOH, the net is loaded with contradictory assertions, claims and observations, largely indistinguisable from fabrications and deliberate disinformation. It's unlikely that we or anyone other than the original players will ever know the truth. This is generally the case with any event in which powerful entities -- governments, corporations, cliques or individuals -- have sufficient motivation for obfuscation that they go to great lengths and expense to muddy the waters. But should you have the time and inclination, this: http://cryptome.org/nsa-liberty.htm http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/ is perhaps your best source for further reading. - Mike -- Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~. /V\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] /( )\ http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/^^-^^ ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Lawry de Bivort wrote to Harry: > Do you think that we are so ignorant of history that you can post any old > bit of nonsense and not get called on it? Isn't this what the Holocaust Industry is about? Anyone who doubts anything is an antisemite -- no questions asked. Now Dershowitz even managed that Finkelstein loses tenure, although supported by students and colleagues. Chris SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Harry Pollard wrote: > I just googled and read the first one that came up. > > The piece brought in a number of outside contributions > which I haven't checked, but hqve simply accepted. This sums up your position on SUVs, CO2, DDT, Iraqi death toll etc. pretty well. > The reports of the survivors offer little help as they > didn't know anything about why the attack was made. But they know that the US President ordered US forces to turn around. That says it all. > I can see no advantage to the Israelis in deliberately > attacking an American ship. This intelligence-gathering ship witnessed war crimes on the land (IDF executing Arabs POWs). The IDF tried to eliminate the witnesses. http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0596/9605028.htm > However, I'm not particularly interested. It happened 40 > years ago and has disappeared into the mist of time. War crimes don't become time-barred. Anyway, if this event sheds light on the background of 9/11, it was "worth it"... Chris SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
"just reading the first one that came up" is a terrible way to do research, Harry. Surely you know this. And then not noticing the nature of the site and assessing the likelihood that it is objective is...not research at all, but something else. Frankly, I cannot belief that you were simply remiss in doing so. The account of the crew is vital as by describing accurately the form of the attack (timelines, condition of the boat, communications, identification signs, attack sequences, etc) you can tell al lot about the actions of the attackers, and thus about their goals, and thus their motives. But you must know this Harry. What is your real agenda here? Then you follow up with two odd challenges, which seem simply to mimic the disinformation contained on the website you initially cut-and-pasted from. There was no shelling of Israeli units going on from the sea. There was no reason for the USS Liberty to not be doing precisely what she was doing. She was in international waters and had full right to be there. And then to assert that you don't care because it was forty years old does not ring true, either. If you are disinterested, by bother to make the posting you did? Do you think that we are so ignorant of history that you can post any old bit of nonsense and not get called on it? What is your agenda, Harry? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 12:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Christoph Reuss' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs al-Qaeda? I just googled and read the first one that came up. The piece brought in a number of outside contributions which I haven't checked, but hqve simply accepted. The reports of the survivors offer little help as they didn't know anything about why the attack was made. Overall, I would say the attack was indeed an accident brought on in the heat of war. I can see no advantage to the Israelis in deliberately attacking an American ship. In fact, it could only mean trouble for them. The Liberty apparently didn't get the messages to get out of there, which is peculiar. Apparently all American ships were kept 100 miles from the conflict. Have no idea why this ship was left in harms way or was there in the first place. I seem to remember that Egypt ran a blockade and perhaps the Israelis assumed this was part of that tactic. However, I'm not particularly interested. It happened 40 years ago and has disappeared into the mist of time. Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: Lawrence de Bivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:56 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Christoph Reuss' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs > al-Qaeda? > > Harry, this is a hard-core pro-Israeli web site. I read their materials and > it ignores all evidence -- and there is a mountain of it -- that the attack > was deliberate. It gives the standard Israeli story and offers no new > information or line of analysis, and it is based largely on secondary > sources. The site is worthless as a source of information about what > happened, though it does a good job of summarizing the Israeli > arguments. > > Surely in your research you did more than check out just this site? > There > are several books and transcripts of hearings and documentary > collections > that you may want to look into, and a good place to start is with the > written accounts of what took place by the men who were on the USS > Liberty. > > Cheers, > Lawry > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Harry Pollard > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 8:26 PM > To: 'Christoph Reuss' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs > al-Qaeda? > > Check out: > > http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty > .html > > Harry > > ** > Henry George School of Social Science > of Los Angeles. > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > 818 352-4141 > ** > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:futurework- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph > Reuss > > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 3:34 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, > who needs al- > > Qaeda? > > > > &
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
I just googled and read the first one that came up. The piece brought in a number of outside contributions which I haven't checked, but hqve simply accepted. The reports of the survivors offer little help as they didn't know anything about why the attack was made. Overall, I would say the attack was indeed an accident brought on in the heat of war. I can see no advantage to the Israelis in deliberately attacking an American ship. In fact, it could only mean trouble for them. The Liberty apparently didn't get the messages to get out of there, which is peculiar. Apparently all American ships were kept 100 miles from the conflict. Have no idea why this ship was left in harms way or was there in the first place. I seem to remember that Egypt ran a blockade and perhaps the Israelis assumed this was part of that tactic. However, I'm not particularly interested. It happened 40 years ago and has disappeared into the mist of time. Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: Lawrence de Bivort [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:56 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Christoph Reuss' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs > al-Qaeda? > > Harry, this is a hard-core pro-Israeli web site. I read their materials and > it ignores all evidence -- and there is a mountain of it -- that the attack > was deliberate. It gives the standard Israeli story and offers no new > information or line of analysis, and it is based largely on secondary > sources. The site is worthless as a source of information about what > happened, though it does a good job of summarizing the Israeli > arguments. > > Surely in your research you did more than check out just this site? > There > are several books and transcripts of hearings and documentary > collections > that you may want to look into, and a good place to start is with the > written accounts of what took place by the men who were on the USS > Liberty. > > Cheers, > Lawry > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Harry Pollard > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 8:26 PM > To: 'Christoph Reuss' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs > al-Qaeda? > > Check out: > > http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty > .html > > Harry > > ** > Henry George School of Social Science > of Los Angeles. > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 > 818 352-4141 > ** > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:futurework- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph > Reuss > > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 3:34 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, > who needs al- > > Qaeda? > > > > > > < from coming > > to the > > defense of USS Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet > military rescue > > support > > while the ship was under attack ... never before in > American naval > > history > > has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American > ship was > > under attack>> > > > > > > > http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/article > s/0603liber > > ty0603 > > .html > > > > > > 'USS Liberty' veterans demand investigation > > > >Jun. 3, 2007 12:00 AM > > > > Conclusions submitted in October 2003 to the Office of > the U.S. > > Secretary > > of Defense by the USS Liberty Veterans Association, Inc., > in > > demanding a > > congressional investigation into the aborted rescue > during the attack of > > the USS Liberty and subsequent alleged cover-up. > > > > The group also calls for a new Naval Court of Inquiry and > that June 8 > > be > > officially recognized as USS Liberty Remembrance Day. > > > > 1. That on June 8, 1967, after eight hours of aerial > surveillance, Israel > > launched a two-hour air and naval attack against USS > Liberty, the > > world's > > most sophisticated intelligence ship, inflicting 34 dead > and 173 > > wounded > > American servicemen (a casualty rate of 70 percent, in a > crew of 294); > > > > 2. That the Israeli air attack lasted approximately 25 > minutes, during > > which time unmarked Israeli
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Harry Pollard wrote: > Check out: > http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty.html The Israeli pretext that "the attack was a tragic mistake" is a LIE: Why then did the US President order American forces --twice-- to STOP coming to the rescue of the USS Liberty during the IDF attack? This means that the US President was under Israeli orders and the attack was deliberate -- to eliminate the witnesses of an IDF war crime. The first thing the IDF did was to destroy the USS Liberty's communications facilities and to jam all 5 emergency channels. Unfortunately for the IDF, the USS Liberty managed to send SOS nonetheless, so the story was out and the attack had to be stopped to call it an accident. What do we learn from this? The US government is willing to have US citizens killed when it serves zionist interests. Any resemblance to 9/11 and Iraq is entirely coincidental... Whether the teists are just paid fools or agents provocateurs then becomes an unimportant detail. What matters is the profiteers and the motives of the bosses. As the saying goes, "You can fool some people for some time, but not all people for all time." Chris SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Harry, this is a hard-core pro-Israeli web site. I read their materials and it ignores all evidence -- and there is a mountain of it -- that the attack was deliberate. It gives the standard Israeli story and offers no new information or line of analysis, and it is based largely on secondary sources. The site is worthless as a source of information about what happened, though it does a good job of summarizing the Israeli arguments. Surely in your research you did more than check out just this site? There are several books and transcripts of hearings and documentary collections that you may want to look into, and a good place to start is with the written accounts of what took place by the men who were on the USS Liberty. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 8:26 PM To: 'Christoph Reuss' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these,who needs al-Qaeda? Check out: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty .html Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:futurework- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 3:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al- > Qaeda? > > > < to the > defense of USS Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue > support > while the ship was under attack ... never before in American naval > history > has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American ship was > under attack>> > > > http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/article s/0603liber > ty0603 > .html > > > 'USS Liberty' veterans demand investigation > >Jun. 3, 2007 12:00 AM > > Conclusions submitted in October 2003 to the Office of the U.S. > Secretary > of Defense by the USS Liberty Veterans Association, Inc., in > demanding a > congressional investigation into the aborted rescue during the attack of > the USS Liberty and subsequent alleged cover-up. > > The group also calls for a new Naval Court of Inquiry and that June 8 > be > officially recognized as USS Liberty Remembrance Day. > > 1. That on June 8, 1967, after eight hours of aerial surveillance, Israel > launched a two-hour air and naval attack against USS Liberty, the > world's > most sophisticated intelligence ship, inflicting 34 dead and 173 > wounded > American servicemen (a casualty rate of 70 percent, in a crew of 294); > > 2. That the Israeli air attack lasted approximately 25 minutes, during > which time unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on USS > Liberty's bridge and fired 30mm cannons and rockets into our ship, > causing > 821 holes, more than 100 of which were rocket-size; survivors estimate > 30 > or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking > Israeli planes which were jamming all five American emergency radio > channels; > > 3. That the torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of > torpedoes, > but the machine-gunning of Liberty's firefighters and stretcher-bearers > as > they struggled to save their ship and crew; the Israeli torpedo boats > later > returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts > that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most > seriously wounded; > > 4. That there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate > attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence > of > such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean > Rusk, > Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA Director Richard > Helms, > former NSA Directors Lt. Gen. William Odom, USA (Ret.), Adm. > Bobby Ray > Inman, USN (Ret.), and Marshal Carter; former NSA deputy directors > Oliver > Kirby and Maj. Gen. John Morrison, USAF (Ret.); and former > Ambassador > Dwight Porter, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon in 1967; > > 5. That in attacking USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder > against > American servicemen and an act of war against the United States; > > 6. That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately > prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of USS Liberty > by > recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under > attack; evidence of the recall of rescue aircraft is supported by > statements of Capt. Joe Tully, Commanding Officer of the aircraft > ca
Re: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al-Qaeda?
Check out: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty .html Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:futurework- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 3:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Futurework] with friends & gov't like these, who needs al- > Qaeda? > > > < to the > defense of USS Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue > support > while the ship was under attack ... never before in American naval > history > has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American ship was > under attack>> > > > http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/article s/0603liber > ty0603 > .html > > > 'USS Liberty' veterans demand investigation > >Jun. 3, 2007 12:00 AM > > Conclusions submitted in October 2003 to the Office of the U.S. > Secretary > of Defense by the USS Liberty Veterans Association, Inc., in > demanding a > congressional investigation into the aborted rescue during the attack of > the USS Liberty and subsequent alleged cover-up. > > The group also calls for a new Naval Court of Inquiry and that June 8 > be > officially recognized as USS Liberty Remembrance Day. > > 1. That on June 8, 1967, after eight hours of aerial surveillance, Israel > launched a two-hour air and naval attack against USS Liberty, the > world's > most sophisticated intelligence ship, inflicting 34 dead and 173 > wounded > American servicemen (a casualty rate of 70 percent, in a crew of 294); > > 2. That the Israeli air attack lasted approximately 25 minutes, during > which time unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on USS > Liberty's bridge and fired 30mm cannons and rockets into our ship, > causing > 821 holes, more than 100 of which were rocket-size; survivors estimate > 30 > or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking > Israeli planes which were jamming all five American emergency radio > channels; > > 3. That the torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of > torpedoes, > but the machine-gunning of Liberty's firefighters and stretcher-bearers > as > they struggled to save their ship and crew; the Israeli torpedo boats > later > returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts > that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most > seriously wounded; > > 4. That there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate > attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence > of > such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean > Rusk, > Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA Director Richard > Helms, > former NSA Directors Lt. Gen. William Odom, USA (Ret.), Adm. > Bobby Ray > Inman, USN (Ret.), and Marshal Carter; former NSA deputy directors > Oliver > Kirby and Maj. Gen. John Morrison, USAF (Ret.); and former > Ambassador > Dwight Porter, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon in 1967; > > 5. That in attacking USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder > against > American servicemen and an act of war against the United States; > > 6. That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately > prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of USS Liberty > by > recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under > attack; evidence of the recall of rescue aircraft is supported by > statements of Capt. Joe Tully, Commanding Officer of the aircraft > carrier > USS Saratoga, and Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis, the Sixth Fleet > carrier > division commander, at the time of the attack; never before in > American > naval history has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American > ship was > under attack; > > 7. That although Liberty was saved from almost certain destruction > through > the heroic efforts of the ship's captain, William L. McGonagle (MOH), > and > his brave crew, surviving crewmembers were later threatened with > "court-martial, imprisonment or worse" if they exposed the truth; and > were > abandoned by their own government; > > 8. That due to the influence of Israel's powerful supporters in the > United > States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack > from the American people; > > 9. That due to continuing pressure by the pro-Israel lobby in the United > States, this attack remains the only serious naval incident that has never > been thoroughly investigated by Congress; to this day, no surviving > crewmember has been permitted to officially and publicly testify about > the > attack; > > 10. That there has been an official cover-up without precedent in > American > naval history; the existence of such a cover-up is now supported by > statements of Rear Adm. Merlin Staring, USN (Ret.), former Judge > Advocate > General of the Navy; and Capt. Ward Boston
