Saturday, September 29, 2012

Stephen Sizer: is this behaviour befitting the leader of an evangelical church?



Who is Stephen Sizer and what exactly has he done?

Rev. Dr Stephen Sizer is the vicar of Christ Church Virginia Water, a Church of England church in the Diocese of Guildford. Since July 2011 he's posted links on his blog or Facebook page to four openly anti-Semitic websites: the Palestine TelegraphThe Ugly TruthVeterans Today, and Window into Palestine. In November he received a warning from his bishop, Christopher Hill, about his link to The Ugly Truth, but he didn't remove it until 4th January 2012, after being put under pressure by the Jewish Chronicle.

That looks bad. What's his side of the story?

When the Council of Christians and Jews released a statement condemning Dr Sizer, both for posting a link to The Ugly Truth, and then for the delay in removing it, the Diocese of Guildford issued the following rebuttal: 'The allegation, as the Bishop understands it, is that Mr Sizer did not withdraw his reference swiftly enough once the nature of the website had been pointed out to him. The Bishop was informed by Mr Sizer that he had taken earlier steps to withdraw the reference, but that these had not effectively removed it, until January of this year.'

Sounds a bit unlikely - it's not hard to remove a link. But I suppose it could be true couldn't it?

Well, people must have told Dr Sizer they thought it was unlikely, because he decided to change his story completely. He put this statement on his blog: 'On 4 October 2011, I posted a link to a ... website which I now know contained scurrilous and offensive material. I was made aware of this on 3 January 2012 as a result of an enquiry by the Jewish Chronicle. I could not find the link and assumed, wrongly, that I had removed it. I found it on 4 January 2012 and removed it immediately ... I have explained here how and when the link came to my attention. It did not come to my attention before then.'

So which of those stories is true, the first one where he tries and fails to remove the link after the November warning from his bishop, or the second one where he only hears he's linked to a racist site on 3rd January, the day before he removes the link?

Well we know for certain that the second story isn't true because Rev. Mark Heather from the Diocese of Guildford has confirmed that in November 2011 (i.e. six weeks before the link was removed) Dr Sizer sent an email acknowledging receipt of Bp Christopher Hill's warning about his link to The Ugly Truth.

OK, so he's publicised four different racist websites, failed to remove one of those links for six weeks after being warned about it by his bishop, and then told at least one outright lie to try to get out of trouble - why is he still a Church of England vicar?

Good question. Ask the Committee of the South East Gospel Partnership: Rev. William Taylor of St Helen’s Bishopsgate, Rev. Trevor Archer of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, Rev. Iain Broomfield of Christ Church Bromley, Rev. Richard Coekin of the Co-Mission network of churches, Rev. Charles Dobbie of Holy Trinity Lyonsdown, Nick McQuaker of Christ Church Haywards Heath, Brian O’Donoghue of St Helen’s Bishopsgate, Rev John Ross of Farnham Baptist Church, and Rev. Simon Smallwood of St George’s Dagenham. If they excluded Dr Sizer's church from their organisation it's hard to imagine the congregation of Christ Church Virginia Water continuing to stand by their man. But according to the SEGP Committee, there are 'no justifiable grounds for breaking gospel partnership with Stephen.'

Shame on them. They wouldn't have defended him if he'd linked to Ku Klux Klan or BNP websites. Anti-Semitism must be less important to them. How about the Church of England itself - has it issued a statement? 

One of the people best placed to do that is Rev. Dr Toby Howarth, the Archbishop of Canterbury's 'Secretary for Inter-Religious Relations'. So far he's said nothing about Dr Sizer, despite the story being covered by the Jewish ChronicleStandpoint, the Church of England Newspaper, and the Church Times. His email address (freely available online) is toby.howarth@lambethpalace.org.uk. Why not drop him a line today? You could point out that headlines in the Jewish Chronicle such as 'Anglican Vicar Links to Hate Website' hardly strengthen inter-religious relations. And you could ask him whether he thinks anti-Semitic websites stir up hatred towards Jewish people, and if so, what he plans to do about a vicar who repeatedly publicises them. 

203 Comments:

Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Evangelisers and penticostalists cannot get along, let alone a faith which considers itself a superior race

From a hat full of skulls I shall drink my fill as Christ did at Golgotha

29 September 2012 at 01:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

But according to the SEGP Committee, there are 'no justifiable grounds for breaking gospel partnership with Stephen.'

Sizer is a puzzle to me. Four observations:

1. I spent some time on his church's website, and frankly it appeared very sound to me. If the SEPG won't break fellowship with him, I suspect this is why. Plus, he probably comes across as more nuanced to those who know him. It's hard to rebuke a friend - even when he needs it.

2. He is very exercised about something he calls "Christian Zionism" which might be described as "seeing some eschatological purpose in the establishment of the physical state of Israel." But I'm not sure that is a complete definition because he includes a group he calls "pragmatists." I'm not sure if he would consider me a 'Christian Zionist' or not. I deny any spiritual paternity between the modern state of Israel and the nation that was destroyed by Romans in the first century. And yet I support the state of Israel. (For a conservative Christian, he seems quite willing to cite liberal 'mainstream' denominations as supporters of his cause. It makes me wonder.)

3. He really Really REALLY dislikes the modern state of Israel. He said the state of Israel was founded by terrorism and ethnic cleansing. I suspect he considers its founding to be illegitimate, and tolerable today only because it is irreversible absent massive bloodshed. I believe he considers the Israelis to be the source of all oppression and conflict in Palestine. He therefore places on the Israelis the responsibility to assume risk (and absorb punishment!) for the sake of peace. He is willfully blind to Arab attitudes and would probably blame the Israelis for them anyways.

4. He seems very willing to lie down with disreputable persons - being quite unconcerned with any disease he might catch in the process. I don't know if he is a holocaust-denier. He just has no compunction about sharing a bed with holocaust deniers. And I wasn't impressed with the "Palestinian holocaust" analogy either. In the first place, it is insulting to the memory of those who died in Hitler's camps. In the second place, the Palestinians were far better off under the Israelis than under the gangster mafia that was the Palestinian Authority.

As I said, he is a puzzle. He obviously has a huge political ax to grind against the state of Israel. It makes him unbalanced. Some might go on to give that lack of balance a specific name. I am not sure that they are wrong. Until he can specifically and publicly exonerate himself - not just in words but in deeds - from that name, the SEPG should put him on a shelf.

carl

29 September 2012 at 03:45  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

"The Bigots are the true believers"

Yup - and here's an example.
Persecute all the competing religions (& sects) - tick that box too!

Typical religious behaviour I'm afraid!

29 September 2012 at 09:43  
Blogger David Anderson said...

I'm not an Anglican; I'm a Baptist. But the Anglican church has its own disciplinary councils and procedures. I think it's unbecoming for Cranmer to pursue this as a public political campaign. You may win the battle and lose the war. If you're fighting for Christian behaviour, then use Christian tools. Publish it to the world after the internal processes have come to their bitter end and failed, not as a normal part of the process. Before that point, consider Christian charity and that love covers a multitude of sins.

29 September 2012 at 09:50  
Blogger Trevor Griffiths said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 September 2012 at 10:12  
Blogger Trevor Griffiths said...

David, I think Cranmer's point is that the lack of action from the Anglican church is a good enough reason to raise this issue in a more public forum. I'm not quite sure what 'Christian tools' you would regard as appropriate, but Christ Himself was not afraid to engage in public debate and confrontation. There may be room for discussion about when this type of approach is right, but we have already waited a long time for the Anglican church to get its act together on Sizer.

29 September 2012 at 10:15  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

It is not acceptable behaviour by the standards of most human beings - whether it is acceptable by the apparently lower standards of evangelicals I will leave to them.

29 September 2012 at 10:16  
Blogger len said...

I think that Christian tolerance towards evil is a mark of a 'Luke warm Church'that quite frankly is out of touch with the Will and the Purposes of God.The Word of God tells us to resist evil not to tolerate it.
If the 'church'cannot stand for Godly principles and resist evil then it will be cast aside as worthless and trampled under foot.
Jesus loved his enemies but he did not condone their actions by remaining silent.
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to say nothing and their silence will be taken as agreement.
There is a history of anti- semitism within the 'Church'(organised religion) and 'the Church' need to disassociate itself from any connection with anti- semitism otherwise it will come under God`s Judgement.







29 September 2012 at 10:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Cartoon reminds one of Trotsky...

29 September 2012 at 10:44  
Blogger Damian said...

I see the witch hunt continues, you won't be happy until you have his head on a platter. As in the PC world as in the church, have a different opinion and you must be castigated.

Do the freedoms of speech,expression and thought no longer count in the church?

29 September 2012 at 11:34  
Blogger Minnie said...

Sizer has form longer than my arm when it comes to such matters. There ARE limits to tolerance (the intolerable shouldn't be tolerated), and Sizer overstepped 'em a while back.
Thank you for the contact details, Your Grace; have emailed Dr Howarth.

29 September 2012 at 12:43  
Blogger Damian said...

Minnie states

Sizer has form longer than my arm when it comes to such matters. There ARE limits to tolerance (the intolerable shouldn't be tolerated), and Sizer overstepped 'em a while back.
Thank you for the contact details, Your Grace; have emailed Dr Howarth.

No, you are so terribly wrong, if you have limitations on freedom of speech you do not have freedom of speech there is no in between.

Voltaire said;

I might disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

29 September 2012 at 13:17  
Blogger Telfs said...

This feels rather like a witch hunt. Your Grace, I think it's time to leave this one out of the public arena. Have you privately expressed your concerns to the Churchwardens and PCC of Christ Church Virginia Water? Being an eminent Anglican dignitary surely His Grace is aware that they are Mr. Sizer's employers.

29 September 2012 at 13:48  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Most seem to prefer to label what Sizer does is evil, rather than ask if what he exposes is evil

Since Adam ate from the tree of knowledge, we have had these conflicting ideas in our fallen mindsets

It would seem we have forgetten the Way Christ taught is central and we need balanced debate

29 September 2012 at 13:49  
Blogger John Magee said...

This story isn't shocking. I wonder how many pious priests and bishops in the C of E gave their vocal support, still do, and personal sympathy in 2008 to the present President of the USA? Obama and his wife sat in the pews of a church in Chicago, USA for almost 20 years listening to the hate filled vicious anti-Semitic rants of Obama's religious mentor the The Rev. Wright. This man, the Rev Wright, makes the Rev Sizer seem like a boyscout by comparison. To see an hear this "chaplain" for the Obama's and his hatred of Jews, whites, and his own country type his name in your search box or better yet look him up on Youtube. One of his "famous" sermons on Youtube shows Wright screaming in his church, "God D*mn America". The next time President Obama visits the UK, hopefully as a private citizen, I bet he would love to meet the Rev Sizer who's beliefs are mirrored by his own "pastor" back home.

I don't get the KKK analogy. The Rev Sizer sounds just like any other left wing Palestinian/Muslim sympathizer in the established Church or major liberal Protestant denominations who call for sanctions against Israel, even going so far as to support Hamas, while never being critical of the terrorism caused by Islamic Jihad.

29 September 2012 at 14:35  
Blogger John Magee said...

Tory boys

That was a rotten swipe at Evangelicals. What exactly are their "lower standards"? They are constantly mocked by the left and even secular Jews because of their extreme support for the modern State of Israel and its right to exist.

As a Roman Catholic I can say I admire Evangelicals who have low divorce rates, love Jesus Christ, are hard working folks seldom on welfare, many are well educated and in the professions, do enormous charity work, and are patriotic to their country and if they are in the UK loyal to the Queen.

I would like to compare to average Evangelical and the good works they do to help people who are suffering and need help to the charity work the average student at great Univerties like Oxford and Cambridge and others, who constantly yap about the injustices in society, do in their spare time.

29 September 2012 at 14:47  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Ask who in the bible enraged Christ enough to make him resort to violence

The answer will not be muslims

29 September 2012 at 15:15  
Blogger John Henson said...

Bred in the bone said...
Ask who in the bible enraged Christ enough to make him resort to violence

The answer will not be muslims


Hardly surprising, seeing that Christ pre-dates Islam by some 600+ years.

29 September 2012 at 16:40  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Are you sure the bible teaches Christ has only been around for such a short time John

29 September 2012 at 17:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Let the man say what he must. Let no man be afraid to speak what his heart tells him.

There is an old English custom which over the decades has all but disappeared from the scene. The ability to move ones head slightly backward and look down ones nose at someone with contempt aplenty and a snort of defiance thrown in for good measure. Leaves the fellow in absolutely no doubt whatsoever what you think of him.

29 September 2012 at 17:53  
Blogger Nick H. said...

Thank you, Your Grace, for keeping this in the public eye. I see that the comments supporting Stephen Sizer complain about the process (eg 'witch-hunt') or argue for free speech. None of them address the substance of your article or seek to defend Sizer. That says to me that what he has done is inexcusable.

I will email Toby Howarth.

29 September 2012 at 18:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One is reminiscent of the time Mrs Thatcher decreed that the voice of Gerry Adams was not to be heard on the TV or Radio. To get round the ban, his words were spoken by actors. As a result, he must have been the most listened to man in the kingdom for the duration as people craned to hear those words, and indeed, were hanging on every one of them.

heh heh !


29 September 2012 at 18:07  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

The problem is that Sizer's critics have no credibility: any criticism of Israel for any reason under any circumstances is always vicious anti-Semitism, the perpetrator is worse than Hitler. Such ridiculous - and, indeed, cynical - abuse of language means that the greatest friend the actual anti-Semites have are the Zionists, including the Christian Zionists like Cranmer. Way to go, Cranny. Keep providing that cover - you're doing a hell of a job.

29 September 2012 at 18:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Corrigan. We have to be fair to the Archbishop. It’s his entitlement to make his feelings known. But our man is also asking whether Sizer is bringing his employer into disrepute. A sacking crime. You must admit the strategy has a certain cunning...


29 September 2012 at 18:30  
Blogger conchovor said...

I think it is more important to monitor Sizer and keep a record of all his 'slips'. It's the pattern that is most telling, not this particular instance. He's committed more egregious offences, such as paleo-antisemitism in insinuating Obama delayed to intervene in Syria because of Gadafi's alleged Jewish 'blood', or his lauding Helen Thomas as a 'gutsy broad'. Sizer makes his bed with paleo-antisemites, and constitutes in his words a form of neo-antisemitism, whose chief offence comprises the absence of doing proper justice to the Jews concerned, and by omitting to mention or address the equivalent crimes, sins or misdemeanours of the Jews concerned working injustice against those same Jews.


His Christianity has tribalist and nationalist aspects, whereby he clearly forgives his fellow Palestinian Christians and, by nationalist adoption, Muslims for more than he does the Jews concerned. A tribalism about which he is largely in denial, and probably which he disguises even from himself. Far more important to keep an eye on him. Unfortunately I think the Anglican Christian tendency may be to follow such a tribalist-nationalist path, recapitulating ancient Christian anti-Judaism, anti-Zionism and antisemitism (in antiquity scarcely distinguishable) as modern anti-Zionism. In which case, from a Jewish point of view, it may be more sensible to monitor our enemies, judging when they become a serious enough enemy to address directly, or, simply, flee. For Jews the choice is fight or flight, and historically, alas, the latter is the more likely, when outside the land of Israel.

29 September 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger conchovor said...

Correction

and by omitting to mention or address the equivalent crimes, sins or misdemeanours of the Palestinian and other Arab Christians and Muslims concerned working injustice against those same Jews.

29 September 2012 at 18:42  
Blogger conchovor said...

[The problem is that Sizer's critics have no credibility: any criticism of Israel for any reason under any circumstances is always vicious anti-Semitism.]

That's absolute rubbish, and, in general, it's only antisemites who claim that those concerned about antisemitism in the pro-Palestinian movement claim 'all criticism of Israel is antisemitic'. Only antisemites would so misrepresent an entire class of people, for their own sick purposes.

29 September 2012 at 18:45  
Blogger conchovor said...

Unfortunately the tolerance for antisemitism in the Anglican pro-Palestinian movement has become so high that only an egregiously antisemitic offence or pattern of offences will trip a switch. The more you try to get Sizer for comparatively little things (albeit part of a larger pattern), the less likely you will be able to make others take notice. Best be patient: 'Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord of Hosts'.

29 September 2012 at 18:49  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

The cracks are appearing daily in the edifice of our own puppet governments

When the facade crumbles, we are all going to have to deal with the face behind the present structure

29 September 2012 at 18:49  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Corrigan wrote:

any criticism of Israel for any reason under any circumstances is always vicious anti-Semitism

So then ... when I say (as I have many times) that the Israelis deliberately and knowingly attacked the USS Liberty with the intent of killing everyone on board, I accuse myself of 'vicious anti-Semitism?' I shall have to ponder that conundrum for a while.

carl

29 September 2012 at 19:04  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I think he's silly if he's getting himself involved with any side of the Israeli Palestine hate conflict.
He should resign if he's going to get embroiled in any of that.

Listening and watching his sermons on the Church website, especially Jesus is the Jewish Messiah John 1:35 to 51 he clearly is a gentle evangelist, a Jesus loving man who's probably been or is being swayed by unscrupulous people. He needs help first to get to the bottom of why he felt he had to link to those websites and to find out where he is coming from.

But it is sad that you can't say a word in criticism against the Jews as you're immediately written off as an antisemite and you don't dare criticise Muhammad because you'll get yourself killed.
These Middle Eastern hotheads need to go and cool off. So if I were Stephen Sizer I'd stick to Evangelising.

29 September 2012 at 20:26  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Carl, I know you've said many times that the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty; you've said it to me, for God's sake. What I don't get is that you're fine with this. It's like, "well, I guess they had their reasons" (shrugs and raises palms skyward). You wouldn't bend over and spread your cheeks like that for any other country on the planet, but you do for these clowns. What's the deal?

29 September 2012 at 22:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Corrigan

I am not OK with it. It was a deliberate attack. The "fog of war" excuse simply cannot be reconciled with the testimony of the survivors. But it was 45 years ago. What exactly could or should be done about it now? What then? Should we have went to war in 1967 over it? The US Sec'y of Defense persionally ordered the recall of US fighters sent to provide cover for that ship to prevent a possible fight with Israeli planes. A war was not going to happen with Israel.

If I had been President at the time, I would have publicly accepted the Israeli explanation. There was no national interest in embarrassing the Israeli gov't or threatening our relationship with Israel. There were bigger interests at stake. But privately I would have demanded a report from the Israelis within 30 days explaining who ordered the attack and why. And I would have expected the guilty party's testicles to be stapled to that report as bona fides regarding his fate. I don't honestly know that such an action wasn't taken.

Do I believe the Israeli gov't at the highest level ordered that attack? I don't know but I doubt it. I suspect someone in the Israeli MoD or IDF thought for reasons unknown that it would be a good idea. He thought he could bury it in the fog of war. And he would have, too. All he had to do was kill everyone on board and destroy the ship before the Americans found out. "Fait accompli. So sorry. We thought it was Egyptian." But the ship refused to die.

All things considered, I would have preferred an open honest accounting. A congressional investigation. Vindication for the dead and wounded. But I don't know the cost that would have been imposed on the national interest of such a policy. In any case, I am not going to throw the Israelis to the wolves over it, and certainly not now 45 years after the fact. And if the American gov't didn't demand a private accounting, then I would be far more annoyed with the American gov't than the Israeli gov't. What the Israelis did, they did during a time of war when their national existence was in question. The American gov't would have done it deliberately.

carl

29 September 2012 at 22:58  
Blogger John Magee said...

No person, ethnic group, or nation is above criticism. To call people who bring up evidence of wrong doing no matter who did it "haters" is morally wrong and a lie.

All nations look after their survival and self interests.

I remember the attack on the USS Liberty in June 1967 well as I had finished the USA Naval Schools of Photography in Pensacola, FL and was waiting for for my fist assigmnet in the Navy to join a fighter/photo squadron which was aboard the USSR Shangri-la, CVA-38, returing to Mayport Naval Base near Jacksonville, FL from a ten month deployment in the Mediterranean Sea. When I joined the squadron after our jets left the ship and flew to Cecil Field Naval Air Station in July I remember the fury our pilots vented against Israel for using jets WE GAVE THEM to attack a USA Navy ship over and over even after the injured and uninjured crew put a hudge American flag on the deck. I remember a few pilots saying they would have attacked the bases in Israel where those jets came from if they had the chance.

The Israeli Air Force in order to try and involve the USA in a war with Egypt killed 34 American sailors and injured 144.

Here is what the the USA Secretary of State Dean Rusk wrote in his memoirs about this vicious attack:

"I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous".

29 September 2012 at 23:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

John Magee

In 1967, the Israeli Air Force was equipped almost exclusively with fighters and fighter-bombers of French make. I believe the aircraft that was photographed tracking the USS Liberty was a DC-3.

carl

29 September 2012 at 23:35  
Blogger conchovor said...

I'd just like to observe that US personnel killed hundreds of allied personnel in 1991. Nobody calls 'friendly fire' a conspiracy. Screw ups happen in war, even between allies, especially distant ones with insufficient liaison and inter-service communication.

Trigger happy US personnel have killed civilians, dozens or hundreds, in pretty much every conflict since WWII. I remember an F-15 driver shooting up a civilian train in Grdelica in 1999. He wasn't the first, and he sure wasn't the last.

The Israelis were jumpy and trigger happy.

29 September 2012 at 23:53  
Blogger conchovor said...

[ I suspect someone in the Israeli MoD or IDF thought for reasons unknown that it would be a good idea. He thought he could bury it in the fog of war. And he would have, too. All he had to do was kill everyone on board and destroy the ship before the Americans found out. "Fait accompli. So sorry. We thought it was Egyptian." But the ship refused to die.]

I think that is a paranoid, conspiracizing baloney. You might as well say US 'friendly fire' was authorized at the highest level for some nefarious purpose.

It's just easier for you to believe the tragedy had some higher meaning than a homicidal screw up.

30 September 2012 at 00:00  
Blogger conchovor said...

The US has killed far more in friendly fire and collateral damage than has Israel over the years.

30 September 2012 at 00:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 September 2012 at 00:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

conchovor

Actually, my father came with in a few inches of being killed by friendly fire when an American 105mm artillery shell detonated in tree above him rather than among the Germans tanks 100 yards distant. I am familiar with the concept. If you think the USS Liberty was the victim of such a tragedy, then you only prove you don't have a clue about what actually happened.

Like, for example, the Israelis jamming American communication frequencies instead of Egyptian communication frequencies. Like for example the initial attacks being made against the ship's communications antennas. Like that big f**king American flag that too a man the crew said was prominently displayed in the wind during the attack. Like the bigger f**king American flag the crew displayed during the attack. Like the life rafts that were deliberately shot up by Israeli patrol boats. Like the fact that the USS Liberty had fully five times the displacement of the ship the Israels claimed the were attacking. Like the fact that the ships identification markings were clearly visible. Like the fact that the Liberty's crew reported constant overflight of Israeli planes every hour before the attack.

You think I am paranoid? Tell it to the crew. I choose to believe them

carl

30 September 2012 at 00:29  
Blogger John Magee said...

carl jacobs

Since 1948 the USA has given Israel billions of $$$ in cash and military aid each year so I think it's safe to say our billions in cash given to Israel each most likely bought those French jets back in 1967. It doesn't matter if the jets that attacked the USS Liberty were French or USA make. That does not change the events and why it happened and the viciousness of the Israeli's coming back several times and straffing the ship when their pilots clearly saw our sailors, ignored their radio messages begging them to and the saw USA flag spread on the deck after the first attack.

@ conchovor

In every modern war as many as 10% of all casualities are from friendly fire. I am certain this has always been the case in past wars. One of the worst examples of this is loss of troops by friendly fire is "Exercise Tiger" on April 28, 1944 when confusion in communications between the Royal Navy ships off the SE coast of England didn't detect German E - boats crossing the Channel during a test landing by American troops on beaches there. The German E-boats torpedoed American LST boats full of troops practicing landings for D Day. 946 American troops drowned because of that miscalculation called and was the tr5agedy wascalled "friendly fire". When you consider that 2,500 Americans died on D Day this loss of 946 because of a mistake is enormous. During this "friendly fire" incident in April 1944 off the coast of England 946 Americans drowned. That is 1/3 the number of Americans who died on D Day on the on Omaha and Utah beachs.

No one can be blamed as it was an accident of war. The blame goes on Hitler for starting that terribel war and all the misery and deaths it caused.

In 1984 an American tank was recoved from the water where the disaster took place and it is going to be part of a memorial at Slapton Sands, Devon to these 946 Americans who died in this terrible accident of war. This memorial is being built thanks to the kindness of concerned British military and civilians.

May I say thank you Britain for this act of decency and goodness.

30 September 2012 at 01:40  
Blogger John Magee said...

I apologize for my typos in the above nmesage.

30 September 2012 at 01:41  
Blogger John Magee said...

ops...message

30 September 2012 at 01:42  
Blogger conchovor said...

The flag issue is easily with: you say it was so obvious it +must+ have been straight off from a Mirage at Mach 1. But of course that is obviously not necessarily the case. It was seen, eventually, which is why the attack was called off.

In most friendly fire instances, the national signature of the victim would have been clear in normal instances. But it didn't protect them nonetheless.

As for the jamming, it allegedly preceded each attack by at least 30 seconds. Normally this takes place during the attack, as for instance in Vietnam, when jamming was used continually during an Iron Hand or Wild Weasel attack.

This suggests the Israelis were using rotating or multi frequency jamming, to wit the fact that operators were having difficulty finding an open frequency.

The jammers were just good at their job. They could have been using barrage jamming, which is scarcely surprising given the size of the operation than being executed. Israeli jammers could have been prepared to counter the enemy using all manner of frequencies. That's what good jammers do.

Assuming that Ennes' testimony is true

'While we were trying to send our message for help there was some sort of obvious jamming, there was a buzz saw sound that blocked all of the frequencies. The jamming seemed to cover everything at all times unless [sic] the very few seconds that missiles were in the air, and then it stopped, and during those times they got out our message'

this strongly suggests barrage jamming on multiple or rotating frequencies.

Israel made such widespread use of jamming in 1967, that the Egyptians routinely blamed it on the Americans.

30 September 2012 at 08:42  
Blogger conchovor said...

sorry, I think it was established they were Super Mysteres, not Mirages, which are also supersonic. Liberty survivors have sometimes asserted they were A4s, which is impossible, which suggests how unreliable testimony can be under stress.

30 September 2012 at 08:47  
Blogger IanCad said...

John Magee@ 01:40:

"May I say thank you Britain for this act of decency and goodness."

Believe me John there is a far larger debt owed to you Americans than most people over here are prepared to admit.
Two world wars, one cold war and an example (until recently) of a shining star of liberality and respectability.

I drove by Slapton Sands less than a month ago.
There is a tasteful memorial and a proud Sherman tank is on display.

Thanks for bailing us out.

30 September 2012 at 12:52  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

John and Carl, Wikipedia actually has a fairly even and thorough coverage of the USS Liberty controversy. Note the number of Israeli and US inquiries, opinions by military people and historians on both sides and compensation paid out by both governments. I don't believe that there has been a coverup. I also believe that both the Liberty survivors and the Israeli airmen and their respective commands have been truthful and honourable; both described the situation as they perceived it, which is to say as reliably as the "fog of war" and limiys of personal observations permit.

I don't believe Israel had a secret strategic plan or a political motive to attack and sink a US ship of war, nor that the survivors and their families are trying to draw additional compensation, or that they have been co-opted or corrupted by isolationist or anti-Israeli political actors in the US government or military.

The thrust of the accusation against Israel is that Israel (pilots, the unit, airforce, central command or government) knew that the ship was a US vessel and that it intentionally attacked it. This accusation exploits the honest opinion of the ship's survivors who concluded that they had done all they can to identify their ship and to whom the attack appeared intentional. I;m sure that they did all they could, but either these were insufficient under the circumstances, or the Israeli command, its pilots and naval units failed to properly identify a target, understandably or through gross negligence. The bottom line is that the attack on Liberty by Israeli air and naval units was an attack on a "cloaked" US intelligence ship in a hot war zone in the in the midst of a complex, confusing multi-front war. As others in conflict situations, Israel has committed a number of friendly fire errors against its own personnel. Many such incidents happen in all conflicts, even in this day and age with far more superior communication and identification methods and technologies. The aerial attack by US aircraft on a Canadian land force in Afghanistan is an example that even with a unified allied command structure, such things do and will occur. The survivors are not permitted to speculate publicly, but I'm sure that to them it appeared as intentional and vicious. Fortunately, the attempt by some to spin that incident into a conspiracy died down quickly, largely due to efforts by our militaries to ensure that the survivors gave their evidence and opinions only at proper inquiries and not to the media and political interests.

My opinion hinges on the facts revealed by the inquiries and common sense; that to date there isn't a single explanation for an Israeli motive behind attacking a friendly and very powerful nation. At least not one that sounds remotely reasonable, and one that is not convoluted, emotional, conspiratorial, policised or outright retarded.

30 September 2012 at 15:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

conchovor

Assuming that Ennes' testimony is true

I know why the Israelis would lie about this. Why would the survivors lie?

The flag issue is easily with: you say it was so obvious it +must+ have been straight off from a Mirage at Mach 1.

So you are saying the pilots didn't take the time to identify the ship? Or that they were flying so fast that they couldn't possibly identify the ship and simply attacked it anyways? Or are you saying that they could identify specific targets (like .50 cal machine gun mounts) on the ship, but not that huge flag - with the sun behind them.

If the Israeli pilots simply mistook the identity of the ship, why then did one of the attacking pilots radio just prior to the attack that he had identified the ship as American - a conversation confirmed by the US Ambassador to Lebanon? Why did an Israeli pilot say to an American Congressman that he identified the ship as American and refused to attack it?

Why, pray tell, did the Israelis send two helicopters full of commandos to attack that ship? If the objective was to sink the ship, the aircraft and MTBs should have been more than sufficient. Why were the helicopters dispatched? Perhaps for the same reason the three surviving life boats were deliberately shot up - to make sure there were no survivors. They had no purpose being on sight except to kill men. They had no other possible targets.

The crew testified that it takes time to locate the proper frequencies to jam. You can't do it in the few minutes prior to the attack. How did the Israeli pilots know which part of the frequency spectrum to jam? Why did they jam at all given they had air supremacy and the Egyptians had no ability to render aid?

Liberty survivors have sometimes asserted they were A4s, which is impossible, which suggests how unreliable testimony can be under stress.

That's right, because an untrained observer misidentifying a type of aircraft is exactly the same as that untrained observer describing what that aircraft did.

My supposition is that the Israelis didn't want the US preemptively pressuring the Israelis to end the war before Israel had seized the Golan Heights. I don't know that, but it is the most consistent explanation for the attack.

carl

30 September 2012 at 15:06  
Blogger conchovor said...

[So you are saying the pilots didn't take the time to identify the ship?]

They did eventually. Just not initially. A screw up.

[Why, pray tell, did the Israelis send two helicopters full of commandos to attack that ship?]

They offered assistance, which was declined.

[The crew testified that it takes time to locate the proper frequencies to jam.]

Not with barrage jamming. A broad spectrum is jammed at the same time.

The F-105G Thunderchief carried a barrage jamming pod for Wild Weasel attacks in Vietnam (you are familiar with that war and US techniques within it, I take it?). It takes a lot of energy, so only can be used in short bursts i.e. precisely in an attack on a SAM radar installation.

[ Why did they jam at all given they had air supremacy and the Egyptians had no ability to render aid?]

To kill communications and SAM radar guidance i.e. perfectly normal, rational reasons?

[That's right, because an untrained observer misidentifying a type of aircraft is exactly the same as that untrained observer describing what that aircraft did.]

No. Just an example of an inaccuracy. And some were adamant they were A4s, which is where the whole indignation at Israeli use of alleged US aircraft derives from i.e. is based on an error, albeit one some crewman thought 100% true.

[ Perhaps for the same reason the three surviving life boats were deliberately shot up - to make sure there were no survivors.]

Perhaps they thought the Egyptians could provide intel that would jeopardize Israeli operations.

[You can't do it in the few minutes prior to the attack. How did the Israeli pilots know which part of the frequency spectrum to jam?]

Barrage jamming, broad spectrum jamming, like you used in Vietnam.

Meet the Hughes ALQ-87, carried by RF-4Cs and F-105Gs

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pgAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=alq+87+barrage+jamming&source=bl&ots=h11oLEGkr_&sig=4d58zksBM45WpfIiKtSeQyDga4M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MVhoUMzWCunM0AW75oCQDg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=alq%2087%20barrage%20jamming&f=false

http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120821020527AA28svI

Why were the Israelis cagey about whether they used jamming or not? Perhaps because they wanted to keep the extent of their accomplishment secret?


[If the Israeli pilots simply mistook the identity of the ship, why then did one of the attacking pilots radio just prior to the attack that he had identified the ship as American]

Because his report wasn't taken seriously, or it didn't arrive upstairs in time to have the attack aborted? Because the incompetent in charge assumed it was an Egyptian ruse?

[Or are you saying that they could identify specific targets (like .50 cal machine gun mounts) on the ship, but not that huge flag - with the sun behind them.]

You say 'huge'. But if you are chiefly concerned about AA threats, and possible SAMS, you want to take those out first, and ask questions later.

[Why did an Israeli pilot say to an American Congressman that he identified the ship as American and refused to attack it?]

Because he was smarter or quicker on the uptake than the others, and trusted his own eyes more?

30 September 2012 at 15:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 September 2012 at 16:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

There is more to this than simply a "big, bad anti-semetic" at work and I tend to agree with much of what Carl Jacobs said earlier.

Here's a link to a review of one of Stephen Sizer's books which suggest he has a point to make but is making it in an unbalanced and biased manner:

www.calvinlsmith.com/2009/09/review-of-christian-zionism-road-map-to.html

I found it informative too about the different ways one can look upon Israel's recent and past history too.

(Please, nobody tell me this is an antisemitic site!)

30 September 2012 at 16:45  
Blogger John Magee said...

AVI

Once again here is what the USA Secretary of State under LBJ at the time of the USS Liberty incident in 1967 said in his memoirs about the attack:

Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State 1967:

"I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous".

Israel, like every other nation, looks out for its own interests and the survival of its people and way of life. That is the duty of Israeli leaders and the leaders of other nations too. The USS Liberty incident happened 46 years ago and is history. It happened just as USA Secretary of State Rusk said in the quote above.

Let's all of us put the incident on the shelf with the rest of the history books and move on.

Your profile says you are a Zionist. I presume that means your first loyality is to Israel and the survival of the Jewish people. That is fine, noble, and understandable considering what happened during the Holocaust from 1939 -1945. My duty, like everyone here, is to the country and culture each of us live in. I am loyal to the country that gave my ancestors a home and freedom when life was intolerable for them, for whatever reasons in the past, in Europe.

I admire and respect many other nations. A few, Britain is at the top of my list, get an A+ for their decency and for their contributions making the world a better place to live in. Other than my own country I have a deep loyality to Western Christian Civilization and all it has accomplished, its values, and continued survival as an major influence in Europe and the European diaspora all over the world . Had WCC never existed we would all live in completely different world than we do today.

The concept of a pagan or Islamic Europe is something I can't imagine and definately am glad never happened... yet.

I understand your reasons for being a Zionist. Please understand I can disagree with certain minor or even major aspects concerning Israel ( Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and the extremism of Ultra Orthodox Jews are minor ones) just as you probably have disagreements with me about some policies my country has and our history as well as my loyality to a concept called Western Christian Civilization. Disagreement or being critical doesn't make a person a hater.

Keep in mind that the lunatics have been rioting over the past few weeks all over the Islamic world burning the USA and Israel's flags while screaming their usual rant "death to America" over this lie that a stupid Youtube video mocking Mohammed insulted the whole Islamic world.

They are and SAY they are at war with Israel and all of Western Christian Civilization with a particular loathing of the USA and Israel.

30 September 2012 at 18:06  
Blogger John Magee said...

Ian Cad

We did what we had to during WW II and during the Cold War because it was the right thing to do at the time. Your survival was also our survival.

NATO and many other countries such as Australia, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Poland, Hungary helping the USA after 911 by fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, and removing Saddam Hussein in Iraq and rounding up Jihadists in other places was also the right thing to do.

Our survival means your survival in this dangerous world.

Thank you.

30 September 2012 at 18:19  
Blogger John Magee said...

Last post of the day.

Will someone please inform me what the following means:

Comment deleted

This comment has been removed by the author.

Does it mean HG can remove messages or can we remove our own after they have been posted?

If HG can remove them I am surprised by his tolerance of things I have said here...

TY

30 September 2012 at 18:29  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

conchovor

They did eventually. Just not initially. A screw up.

You said they couldn't see the flag because they were flying at high speed. And yet they could easily identify their targets on the ship despite their speed. They also would have had to see that huge GTR-5 painted on the bow and stern of the ship. They approached the ship from the bow at low angles. The entire ship was displayed to the pilot when he made his attack run. It is simply not a credible story to say every pilot missed these things for 20 minutes.

They offered assistance, which was declined.

Which doesn't explain why the helicopters were there in the first place. Are you suggesting they just happened to be flying by? Those helicopters were well en route at 1515 while the MTBs were still firing at the ship.

Not with barrage jamming. A broad spectrum is jammed at the same time.

Yes, but you still need to know which frequency ranges to attack. You don't have the power to just jam the whole spectrum. The aircraft had to know the broad frequency ranges in the spectrum to jam before they made the attack. This indicates premeditation.

To kill communications and SAM radar guidance i.e. perfectly normal, rational reasons?

Communications and radar occupy different frequency bands on the spectrum. There were only three planes so they had limited ability to jam. So why would they be devoting so much power to attacking Comm if they were so worried about SAMs? And what SAMs would they have been concerned about anyways? The Israelis weren't allegedly attacking a modern destroyer. They said they were attacking a 40 year-old horse transport. And how is it that they managed to jam the International Maritime Distress frequency as well?

[Perhaps for the same reason the three surviving life boats were deliberately shot up - to make sure there were no survivors.]

Perhaps they thought the Egyptians could provide intel that would jeopardize Israeli operations.


The crew was abandoning ship. If the mission was to sink the ship, the life boats in the water should indicate 'mission complete.' The Israelis should have started rescuing survivors. Instead they shot the life boats and collected them. Why would they take the life rafts they just disabled except to cover their tracks? The MTBs closed to 100 ft before they shot up those boats. Do you think from 100 ft they couldn't see the markings on the side of the ship? Do you think they couldn't identify the nationality of the men on the ship as other than Egyptian? Do you think maybe trained sailors from a distance of 100 ft could have noticed their target was five times bigger than the ship they were supposed to attacking?

Oh, and btw. The only reason to shoot the life boats would be to make sure the men died. Because once they were off that ship alive, they should have become Israeli prisoners. A seaman in the water is no longer a combatant.

...continued

30 September 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

[If the Israeli pilots simply mistook the identity of the ship, why then did one of the attacking pilots radio just prior to the attack that he had identified the ship as American]

Because his report wasn't taken seriously, or it didn't arrive upstairs in time to have the attack aborted? Because the incompetent in charge assumed it was an Egyptian ruse?


Right. An Israeli pilot prior to the attack specifically identifies the ship as American and the other pilots don't notice. No one says 'OMG' and decides to check for obvious markings and flags. No one does anything to prevent the IAF from attacking a ship of Israel's most important ally. That's laughable. An identification of that ship as American would have brought everything to a halt unless the attack was deliberate. btw, why did the planes that attacked the ship not possess national markings?

You say 'huge'. But if you are chiefly concerned about AA threats, and possible SAMS, you want to take those out first, and ask questions later.

Their first chief concern was to properly identify the target they were attacking. It wasn't just hard not to see that flag. It was impossible not to see that flag. And the markings. And the satellite communications dish. And all those antennas. And the size of the ship. If you are going to try to defend this action, at least come up with a credible story.

carl

30 September 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Some concentrate on the Liberty but the sinking of the SS Patria was no accident either

30 September 2012 at 19:22  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

*General Rabin [IDF Chief of Staff in 1967: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into the Sinai, on May 14, would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it"

*General Peled: "The thesis that claimed genocide was suspended above our heads in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its very existence was only a bluff"

*****

Israel had carried out a massive sneak attack, destroying 300 Egyptian airplanes (while they were still on the ground) in the first three hours, then, after the Arabs agreed to a US/UN/Russian-sponsored ceasfire, Israel kept gobbling up territory.


Arabs and Israel for Beginners, by Ron David at page 127 (Bolds mine)



The key to understanding why Israel attacked the ship is that the Liberty was a communications vessel. A spy-ship, if you will. As we all know, Israel just sits around minding its own beeswax, but unfortunately, every few years those mad Arabs who live next door revert to their animal state and get ready to attack the human beings who live in Israel. To forestall this, the Israelis - with heavy hearts and utmost regret - are forced to perpetrate "preemptive strikes" upon the "aggressor" states, as in 1956 and 1957.

That, at least, is the white noise which nobody ever questions. However, if we start from the assumption that maybe the Arabs are themselves human beings, it kind of puts a new spin on the whole thing, a bit like those trick drawings which are alternatively a young girl or an old hag, depending on how you look at them. If Israelis are actually not any further up the evolutionary ladder than the Arabs (and we have no scientific evidence that they are), then it becomes permissible to question the motivation behind the "preemptive" strikes. If it wasn't self-defence, if Israelis are as capable of doing wrong as the lesser species living in the next country, then might their motivation in 1967 have been more mercenary than they are prepared to admit? Accordingly, I refer the reader to the quoted sentence above which I have emboldened.

It was a land-grab, pure and simple, and the Liberty had to be sunk because her logs would have shown that the Egyptian military radio traffic in June 1967 was not at all indicating an Arab strike on Israel. The fact that she was a vessel belonging to Israel's staunchest ally was neither here nor there; she was in the way, she had to go down.

30 September 2012 at 19:23  
Blogger len said...

John Magee

Posters can delete their own comments by clicking on the dustbin

30 September 2012 at 19:36  
Blogger len said...

John Magee. HG can remove comments (although he is amazingly tolerant in most cases)

Ps 'the dustbin' is bottom right on the comments section)

30 September 2012 at 19:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. You ought to use that dustbin more often you know...

30 September 2012 at 19:45  
Blogger len said...

I have a place reserved in my bin for all your Catholic theologies inspector.

30 September 2012 at 19:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Now now,Len. You know how much the Archbishop reviles bigotry...

You can use the bin now, my man..


30 September 2012 at 19:57  
Blogger len said...

Aren`t you up a bit late Inspector?.

Nurse will be looking for you with your medication.

30 September 2012 at 20:04  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Some folk would be glad of what you throw in the bin

http://www.sott.net/article/251772-Inhuman-Spanish-authorities-are-locking-up-trash-cans-to-prevent-people-from-foraging-for-food

30 September 2012 at 20:16  
Blogger len said...

Bred in the bone

This is a real tragedy when people have to resort to finding food in trash cans
The financial crisis in Europe was brought about mainly by financiers(whether intentional or not is debatable?)but those who caused the crash seem to be totally insulated from the desperate plight many are now in.
There is rioting in some Countries as those least able to bear financial meltdown are in desperate straits.

Unless Governments deal with this financial crisis fairly there will be serious ongoing civil disorder.

30 September 2012 at 21:03  
Blogger non mouse said...

Mind you, BiTB@20:16 ... the first time I ever saw people taking food from trash cans was in New York. That would be mid-20th century, no later!

However, those authorities weren't locking the stuff up. I guess it took the euSSR to impose "elf 'n safety" on those who are already starving to death.

30 September 2012 at 21:05  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Then lets deabate len, Monarchs have been overthrown by Republicans

Today we have England, which is still a Constitutional Monarchy, yet the Party which originally supported Tradition and Monarchy now supports Republicans

Who overthrew the French Monarchs the Russian Monarchy and Chinas Emporer and that ideology is still at work today

Now if the Tories support the guy who sits in the empty seat of the Scottish Rite, then let them admit, they are either Republicans os supporters of a One World Monarch

30 September 2012 at 21:15  
Blogger Sam said...

Stephen Sizer is precisely what a true Christian leader should be, the one who believes that the truth will set mankind and humanity free; i.e. not the misguided servants of the Pharisees.

30 September 2012 at 21:17  
Blogger len said...

Please enlighten us Sam how Stephen Sizer as a' true Christian leader'is helping his Church by posting links to anti semitic websites?.


30 September 2012 at 21:41  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Behave len, Sam did not mention anti semetism he mentioned the Pharisees

He has already named the parasitic influence and I am sure Sizar would expect a Christian to have a mind of his own

30 September 2012 at 21:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Len. We all know are a devotee of anti Catholic websites. A chap doesn’t like to repeat himself, but though he has called you a shameless hypocrite in the past, it’s time for another outing. YOU ARE A SHAMELESS HYPOCRITE !

30 September 2012 at 21:57  
Blogger len said...

BitB, Sam Called Stephen Sizer (who posts links to anti semitic webs) a true Christian.How can he be?.

30 September 2012 at 21:58  
Blogger len said...

Inspector you still up?.

And wipe those flecks of foam off your mouth.(not a good look)

30 September 2012 at 21:59  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Len (in your words) I am sure Sam can be accused of a great deal

In Sams words, he supports the truth which sets mankind free

If the links he gives support debate, why do you shy away?

30 September 2012 at 22:16  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

John Magee,

I see that conchovor has been doing a superb job in arguing the friendly fire hypothesis.

So quickly, as I have to go soon:

Once again here is what the USA Secretary of State under LBJ at the time ... Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State 1967. That's all very interesting, but next to worthless what a Foggy Pottom politico thinks. A succession of US governments has made a number of inquiries and the conclusion have been the same: It was an unfortunate friendly fire incident.

Israel, like every other nation, looks out for its own interests and the survival of its people and way of life. That is the duty of Israeli leaders and the leaders of other nations too. Precisely my point. Any Israeli leader who would give orders to attack a warship of a friendly nation would be an utter retard. Any American government covering up such an alleged event would be equally retarded. Besides, one cannot keep such elaborate conspiracy involving two government covered up fo9r longer than a fortnight.

Let's all of us put the incident on the shelf with the rest of the history books and move on. Right. With what conclusions? Yours? The incident has been put on the shelf by the US and Israeli governments; only a small circle keeps up bringing it up. Inquiries have been concluded, apologies made, restitution paid. It is only a small circle of interests that keeps on bringing it up.

Your profile says you are a Zionist. I presume that means your first loyality is to Israel and the survival of the Jewish people. That is fine, noble, and understandable considering what happened during the Holocaust from 1939 -1945. Please. That's the sweetest "Israel firster" talk I've heard so far. However, truth and facts trump all. If I suspected that Israel was guilty, I would try to understand, justify or even excuse perhaps, but not to lie.

Please understand I can disagree with certain minor or even major aspects concerning Israel ( Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and the extremism of Ultra Orthodox Jews are minor ones) just as you probably have disagreements with me about some policies my country has and our history as well as my loyality to a concept called Western Christian Civilization. Disagreement or being critical doesn't make a person a hater. Note, John, that I'm not accusing you of anything. I take your word. Carl, whose support of Israel is well-known has no reason to come up with unfair allegations. However others, on the left and the right do. I just happen to think that the two of you are wrong and that you are moved by the trust and respect you have honourable fellow servicemen. However, no one, least of all I, is claiming that these survivors have ulterior motives; I, like many, believe that they were wrong in their conclusions and perceptions, namely that this was an intentional attack. I happen to believe that facts and logic do not support that. I also believe that the survivors need to be treated with respect and have slammed those who spin suggestions or theories about their intentions. I'm also in favour of a monument in Israel to their memory, because they too were victims of the war for the survival of Israel.

30 September 2012 at 22:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

My opinion hinges on the facts revealed by the inquiries and common sense; that to date there isn't a single explanation for an Israeli motive behind attacking a friendly and very powerful nation.

Motive is not per se an element of the crime. The evidence of deliberate intent behind the attack is so overwhelming, the presence of motive must be assumed.

carl

30 September 2012 at 22:59  
Blogger conchovor said...

By your logic, Carl, friendly fire could never happen, because pilots could never miss national insignia, or their communications could never not get to the right person up the change of command. Pearl Harbour could never have happened. It must have been a giant U.S. false flag operation.

Ok, it's less likely they feared shipboard SAMs, so they were jamming radar or communications over a broad range of the spectrum. They got lucky. So what? How do you supposed the Soviets jammed broadcasts into the USSR?

And we don't know for certain there was jamming, or whether the Mirages or Mysteres were carrying ECM pods. All we know is that the crew had problems communicating by radio.

So the pilots of jets and MTBs suspected something funny, that it was a US ship early on, but the message wasn't believed up the chain of command or acted upon until too late. The MTBs only opened fire when fired upon first.

Most of the pilots were concerned the ship was Israeli, not American, for lack of return fire. It was Kislev who thought it might be U.S. and ordered his to stand down.

The helicopters were dispatched, so far as I understand, to offer assistance, once it became clear there had been a screw up. But, perhaps Israel had intended to pick up Egyptian crew for intel all along, and so was prepared for air sea rescue.

As for shooting boats, it seems to me those were caught up when the MTBs were strafing the ship.

I'm sorry, Carl, you're ridiculous. You'd think that servicemen never missed national insignia, that flags were never obscured by smoke, that Blue on Blue never happens.

Your huge stars and stripes was not flying to begin with. The ship had only Latin markings, and Egyptian ships were known to use Latin markings.

Any other state or country, you'd chalk it up to clusterf---.

30 September 2012 at 23:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len said...

"BitB, Sam Called Stephen Sizer (who posts links to anti semitic webs) a true Christian.How can he be?"

Ah, but what position ought a true Christian to take in respect of Israel? And who says your views are correct? The Bible? The Holy Spirit?

Have a read of this review by an evangelical Christian of one of Stephen Sizer's books which suggests he has a valid point to make but is making it in an unbalanced and biased manner:

www.calvinlsmith.com/2009/09/review-of-christian-zionism-road-map-to.html

It's all to do with theology and how this influences one's politics. And, of course, protestant evangelists have numerous 'theories' about God's plan for Israel and the world and how best to promte this or even try to force His Hand in the Middle East - as if!

It is informative about the different ways one can look upon Israel's recent and past history.

Let's face it, you're views are confused about Israel and the Mosaic Convenant, prefering to hide behind a perverse misrepresentation of 'Succession Theology'.

Are you a true Christian even though you post links to anti-catholic sites in an effort to get your point across? Some of it is hate filled, irrational, inaccurate and bigoted.

30 September 2012 at 23:12  
Blogger conchovor said...

'You said they couldn't see the flag because they were flying at high speed'

Actually, they couldn't have seen it initially, because it wasn't then flying. It was only raised after the attack had begun.

And just because you can see your flag does not automatically mean others have seen it. It's a false syllogism.

30 September 2012 at 23:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

conchovor

Any other state or country, you'd chalk it up to clusterf---.

In fact, I am far more likely to give Israel the benefit of the doubt. Did not Avi Barzel just write of me:

"Carl, whose support of Israel is well-known has no reason to come up with unfair allegations."

Why then do you accuse me in this way?

You are my witness, Avi Barzel. Do I speak the truth?

carl

30 September 2012 at 23:31  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

The Dodo is dead, long live the Dodo and thanks for a balanced point of view

We are throwing all our eggs into the folk memory of one race as I see it by supporting Judaism

We are confusing Christianity which can be a message for mankind, with Judaism which is a folk belief

Folkish Faith is healthy for all folk, let us forge alternative opinions, outside of Judaic or Islamic controlled paramiters

30 September 2012 at 23:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

conchovor

Actually, they couldn't have seen it initially, because it wasn't then flying.

That is flat-out false. The ship was flying a five-by-eight foot flag in the wind. It was clearly visible. This is the universal testimony of the crew. Five crewmembers swore under oath at the Naval Inquiry that they saw the flag displayed prior to the attack. They said the flag was shot down during the attack, and a bigger flag (7' x 13') was raised five minutes before the MTB attack. The ship was making five knots in a headwind of five knots. The relative wind of 10 knots was sufficient to unfurl the flag. In addition, an Israeli reconnaissance plane was overheard by the crew reporting that it saw the flag on the ship earlier in the morning. The flag was there when the first plane attacked.

carl

30 September 2012 at 23:51  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Folkish Faith?

Does that involve morris dancing?

30 September 2012 at 23:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

conchovar

The helicopters were dispatched, so far as I understand, to offer assistance, once it became clear there had been a screw up.

The crew said the Helicopters arrived at around the same time the MTBs ceased attacking (1515 hours local) and moved off. They said there was no offer of assistance until 1630 when the MTBs returned. If the helicopters were dispatched because 'someone screwed up' then why did the MTBs keep on attacking when the helos were en route? If the Israelis could tell the helos to take off, why didn't they tell the MTBs to stop? And why didn't the helos offer assistance when they arrived?

What actually happened is this. At 1505, the Americans broadcast a message in the clear that fighters had been launched to provide cover. At 1515 the Israelis broke off the attack. You make the appropriate correlation.

carl

1 October 2012 at 00:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

conchovor

As for shooting boats, it seems to me those were caught up when the MTBs were strafing the ship.

They were shot in the water from a distance of 100 feet. That's a depressed shot. You would have to aim down to hit them. How do you do that when you are "strafing the ship?" But again, why are they still shooting when crewmembers are putting lift rafts in the water? They didn't just shoot one life raft. They shot up two and cut a third loose with gunfire. That's not an accident. That's deliberate.

And don't tell me about "safety of the boat." They were 100 ft away. How much danger could they feel to stand off one hundred feet from their target?

carl

1 October 2012 at 00:08  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Folkish Faith may involve the belief that Talmudic Judaism supports the Communistic Political ideolgy which allowed the social services and police to ignore the abuse of white working class girls in Rochdale

If Morris Dancers want to make a song and dance about it they are welcome

1 October 2012 at 00:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

conchovor

So the pilots of jets and MTBs suspected something funny, that it was a US ship early on, but the message wasn't believed up the chain of command or acted upon until too late.

It is the responsibility of the pilot to properly identify the target before he attacks. If he thinks he is attacking the wrong target, he stops. He doesn't keep on attacking until he gets orders from above. An Israeli pilot was heard on the radio before the attack by the American Embassy in Lebanon identifying the ship as American and being ordered to attack it anyways. How did that pilot know the ship was American? What did he see that the other pilots couldn't see? And why was he ordered to attack anyways?

The MTBs only opened fire when fired upon first.

'Fired upon first.' This would be funny if it wasn't so asinine. What do you think the Israeli planes were doing for 25 minutes? Touch and gos?

carl

1 October 2012 at 00:26  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

It warmed by Scottish heart to see those English boys stand under the Twelve Star flag with tears in their eyes as Ode to Joy belted out, and Europe came from behind to whack those Yankee Doodle Dandies.

You see, when we stand together as Europe and you lot put aside petty minded Little Englandism we can win together.

England could never have done this on its own, we all know that. But you can be proudly English and proudly European today, and always.

Ps. and didn't that German boy do brilliantly to hold his nerve on the final putt.Ya Beauttie as we say in Scotland. Vive l'Europe, vive l'Ancienne Alliance



1 October 2012 at 08:40  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

You quote a site www.calvinlsmith.com/2009/09/review-of-christian-zionism-road-map-to.html

I found it informative too about the different ways one can look upon Israel's recent and past history too. ~(I found it vague and unlearned!)

(Please, nobody tell me this is an antisemitic site!) This is a typical esite by a group of not particulary distinguished people I have never heard of (only visiting speaker Revd Jacob Prasch (Moriel) is known to me)

see below..
"A case in point is his interpretation of the abomination of desolation, referred to by Jesus in Matthew 24. Clearly, Jesus was alluding to the fall of Jerusalem to Titus in AD 70."

1. Matthew says nothing about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
2. It was Luke that gives this from Christ's discourse.
3. Matthew's was to a select few of the disciples at Mount of Olives. (Mark 13:3, with gives Peter's account of the event specified)
4. Luke's was to the disciples after coming out of the Temple and NOT on the mount of olives.

Matthew 24:

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 THEN SHALL they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
THE TRIBULATION/JACOB'S SORROWS

Luke 21:5-13

5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.
12 BUT BEFORE ALL THESE, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.
13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.
THE FALL

Blofeld

1 October 2012 at 09:29  
Blogger Naomi King said...

The Chancellor of Salisbury Cathedral, Canon Edward Probert is promoting a conference with Rev Stephen Sizer as the key note speaker, here in Salisbury on Saturday 17th November. In the light of what is reported here maybe Canon Probert with the help of the Bishop of Salisbury, ought to reconsider. It would not be good for Salisbury Cathedral and it's diocese to be seen peddling antis emetic/antiIsraeli hate would it ?

1 October 2012 at 12:17  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Miss/Mrs/Ms Naomi King,

There is no apparent mention of it on the Cathedral website. Could you direct His Grace to a source of information, please?

1 October 2012 at 12:29  
Blogger non mouse said...

There is no way that I can support traitors who fight with our age-old enemy to defeat our allies. I am utterly ashamed to see Britons weeping under the filthy rag of the euSSR.

Talk about the end justifying the means ... it is the lowest this country has ever fallen; it's worse even than kow-towing to the Romans.

1 October 2012 at 13:21  
Blogger John Magee said...

AVI


The attack on the USS Liberty by Israeli fighter jets occured on June 8, 1967. Egypt had attacked Israel three day earlier on June 5th. Coincidence?

Motive? Israel might have wanted to have sunk the Liberty to drag the USA into a war with Egypt. The only "problem" was they ship didn't sink immediately.

It was not a honorable event but it was a one time occurrence and probably inspired by the passion of the attack by Egypt and was a very bad idea.

Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 when the USA faked the attack on the USS Maddox and blamed it on North Viet Nam in order to escalate the Viet Nam War? That insane act was ordered by LBJ was against the wishes of the USA military who wanted the USA out of that war by 1965 when they realized early on it was a no win proposition.

Incidently, let's not forget the Viet Nam War was officially started when President John F, Kennedy sent the first combat troops there in March 1961. When he died on November 22, 1963 the USA and its SEATO Allies Australia, the Phillipines, South Korea, etc there were over 17,000 troops in South Viet Nam.

Any heads of state, the USA included, are capable of ordering unsavory acts to preserve their self interests and what they believe is their national survival and will use any excuse to get their nation involved in a war for those reasons.

The best (or worst) example from my point of view I can think of is President Wilson running on a "peace platform" in 1916 to get elected President because he knew the vast majority of Americans wanted no part of WW I which was absolutely none of our business or our concern who won that war. He then did an about face and acting on his true feelings used a dubious telegram (The Zimmerman Telegram) sent by the Germans to the Mexican Government proposing an alliance beween German and Mexico to attack the USA, which Mexico rejected, to persuade the USA Congress to declare War on Germany and the Axis Nations in April 1917. The sinking of the Lusitania 2 years earlier in 1915 was also a belated excuse to delare war on the Axis.

There was an enormous anti war movement after 1914 in the USA uniting people as diverse as Protestant farmers and ranch owners in the west, Irish Catholics, the Protestant South, German Christians, German and Austro-Hungarian Jews, the Protestant middle class, labor unions, and factory owners to NOT get the USA involved in WW I. Andrew Carnegie (from Pittsburgh) the great Scottish- American steel baron and Henry Ford helped finance this peace movement before Wilson got us into WW I in 1917.

Wilson got his revenge fast and had leaders of the peace movement arrested and thrown into jail, sometimes for years, closing newspapers and magazine who opposed his war, police harassment of individuals, and vicious attacks by the police on anti war demontrators and rallies. He ruined tens of thousands of peoples lives.

Twenty six years later in another war FDR got his revenge on the the American First Movement and other anti war groups prior to the Japanese attack on the USA at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. He used his wartime powers to have an American version of Soviet "show trials" (without mass murders) and created the "Great Sedition Trial (s) of 1944". Anti war leaders including Communists fascists, labor union leaders, left wing and right wing fanatics, all the way to the leaders of the Nazi German American Bund were put on trial, found guilty of treason and thrown in jail. It was 1944 and patriotic emotions ran high and FDR took advantage of this to get revenge.

Agree with them or not those people had a Constitutional right to protest getting involved in WW II before 1941.

Had I been alive during those times I would have been absolutley against the USA getting involved in WW I and absolutely for our early involvement in WW II.

Germany in WW I was not Nazi Germany during WW II led by a mad man Hitler.

1 October 2012 at 15:54  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace

The event is being held (unless it gets stopped) at the Salisbury Methodist Church on the 17th November from 10am to 16.30. The opening speaker is "The reverend Canon Edward Probert Canon Chancellor of Salisbury Cathedral" followed by and I quote again "The Rev Stephen Sizer, Vicar of Christ Church, Virginia Water. He has a number of external roles and is known internationally as an author and speaker specialising in topics relating to Israel/Palastine."

I have just written to the Bishop of Salisbury and copied in toby.howarth@lambethpalace.org.uk as you suggested as follows:-


"As far as Canon Probert, the Methodist Church and and Rev Sizer is concerned I am somewhat surprised you have not taken the time to at least do some basic investigation on Stephen Sizer. Salisbury Cathedral can no longer live in ignorance of the man or his motives if it ever was. His anti semitic/antiIsrael hate credentials are well know as evidenced by wikipedia, the Jewish Chronicle, the Church Times and now Archbishop Cranmer's blog. Even his own bishop is dissatisfied with him. There is no Biblical explanation for his words and his behaviour. Whether or not he has stepped beyond the Lord's willingness to offer him an opportunity to repent and turn back…that is in the Lord's merciful and gracious hands – which is just as well. But there is a day coming when he, like the rest of us, will have to give an account of what he has said and done, and the many he has led astray into error. On the basis of the Lord Jesus' words to His disciples in Matthew 25:31-46, I would not want to be in his shoes.

On the wider issue of antisemitism and anti-Israelism

1 You are correct in your comment that much of what Campolo and Sizer say is based both their interpretation of Scripture…and also their observations of N. American evangelical support for Israel. However with the latter subject, this is where some of the problems arise – because evangelical support of Israel does not always fit neatly in the Dispensational theological stereotypes that both Campolo and Sizer like to quote as nauseum. So the basis of their arguments are not reliable when it comes to the Christian scene in the UK – but this is rarely pointed out, nor are they challenged on these sweeping generalisations.

2 'Social Justice' has become the latest fad in UK Christian circles (not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that mind you), but when it comes to the situation in the Middle East today, it is for the most part very one-sided. Where is the justice for the population of Israel who live in daily fear of rocket/mortar attacks? Where is the justice for the Christian communities in the Gaza Strip and the so called disputed areas of Judea and Samaria, who suffer daily persecution at the hands of Hamas (in Gaza) and various factions of the PLO in the so-called 'West Bank'? Where is the justice for the ancient Christian communities who are being persecuted and murdered in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and Syria? Hardly ever a mention…apart from the information circulated by ministries like The Barnabas Fund and others.

3 You make a comment that the West's missionary credibility is undermined by its (so-called) lack of concern for the Palestinians muslims ? Billions of pounds and dollars of aid go into the this arab muslim area every year and it is largely spent on guns and armaments. I would challenge you to go do some open outreach in any of the areas mentioned the point above (Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Syria and the so called occupied territories) and see how long you last without getting your head chopped off…literally !

I would refer you also to St Paul's longing for his brothers after the flesh to come to know their Messiah, and the Old Testament prophets and their call for Israel to repent and turn to their God which they are doing in greater and greater numbers."

1 October 2012 at 17:19  
Blogger Naomi King said...


As far as I know the conference has not yet been posted on the Methodist Church website but the event is being marketed by Sarum Concern for Israel/Palestine and is I think on their website. There is a similar event being held in the Methodist Church in Southampton. I have a flyer here in my hand for the Salisbury event which is entitled "Israel/Palestine The Bible: is it a help or a hindrance in finding a solution".

For a churchman to suggest the Holy Bible is a hindrance in finding a solution to anything is, to me, heretical. What do you think ?

1 October 2012 at 17:19  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 October 2012 at 18:35  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

John Magee

Egypt had attacked Israel three day earlier on June 5th. Coincidence?

The Israelis actually attacked the Egyptians on 5 June 1967. It was a preemptive war intended to avert an Arab attack on Israel. At the time of the attack on the Liberty, the war against Egypt was essentially over. There would be no need to bring in the US against the Egyptians.

There are some who might dispute the fact that Israel was fighting a preemptive war. They might assert a "land grab." To which the only reasonable answer is "Yeah, well, so what? That's what a prudent gov't would do when surrounded by hostile powers looking to destroy the nation it leads." The 1967 borders of Israel are strategically untenable. The Arabs gave the Israelis cause in 1967, but this war had to happen eventually. The strategic stability that Israel has achieved over the last 45 years was only possible because of the territorial gains made in the Six-Day War.

The Arabs btw find the use of the phrase 'Six-Day War' quite insulting. For obvious reasons.

carl

1 October 2012 at 18:36  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, (30 September 2012 23:12.)

I think you have applied Political Correctness to your religion as a defence mechanism to avoid criticism I presume?.
This IMO is the last defence because you know within yourself that there are many facets of Catholicism which are directly opposed to the Word of God.
You accuse me of' Hate speech'.Well here is some more.Do you love what the Lord loves? Then you must hate what the Lord hates. Jesus hated what had happened to His Father's house, and He formed a whip to drive the merchants out of the Temple ( John 2:13-17)

Revelation;
"[To Pergamos:] You have among you those who hold to the teachings of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate" (Revelation 2:15).

"[To Ephesus:] In your favour, you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate" (Revelation 2:6).
"The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogance, and the evil way, and perverse speech, do I hate" (Proverbs 8:13).

Dodo I have stated that there is much in Catholicism which God calls 'an abomination'.

To repeat: in your life you will always love something and hate something else. No one can serve two masters. The question is whether or not you will love what God loves and hate what God hates, or whether you will love what God hates and hate what God loves.






1 October 2012 at 19:43  
Blogger conchovor said...

I'm sorry, Carl, I think there are far simpler and likelier explanations for all that. Lunz, for instance, took the Liberty off the board at navy CCC in the morning, which surely was a mistake, as the IDF history report acknowledges.

MTBs shadowed the ship, following reports of shelling of Sinai. They all misidentified her, they seem to have got her speed wrong. I don't see why Mirages flying high and fast would have automatically seen her flag, nor even low, when they came in, if the ship was slow and the sea calm.

I was referring to the 'huge' flag you mentioned, which was only raised later.

There are conflicting accounts of when the choppers arrived, but they seem to have been dispatched for assistance. The MTBs did only fire when fired upon. The Liberty seems to have misidentified their attackers initially too.

I see no evidence the MTBs deliberately fired on survivors, let alone to 'finish them off'. It seems most likely the rafts were hit in the general strafing, when preparing to leave. The fact the MTBs were close is irrelevant, since the whole engagement was at close quarters.

The MTBs in fact approached initially with great caution, as they were very uncertain about what the Liberty was.

Likewise the Mirage and Mystere pilots were struck by the lack of defensive and responding fire, which is not the reaction of men bent on some nefarious conspiracy to wipe out the crew of a friendly nation.

I suggest you update the wikipedia account, Carl, since it provides what seems to me a perfectly reasonable account of a clusterf---, without the need to resort to conspiracy theorizing.

1 October 2012 at 23:04  
Blogger Dan said...

No need for any more witch hunting. Sizer is a respectable leader who happens to represent part of the anglican church which doesn't support the state of Israel; but that doesn't mean he is antisemitic as you misrepresent. He is Reformed in his view of Jews (I recommend Steve Motyer's article "Israel in God's Plan" for the theology). The link was obviously an error and he removed it (that's the only error he has made which could be construed as antisemitic). Any reference to Israel as a state can easily be confused with Israel as an ethnic/religious group and there was no intention of being antijewish.

1 October 2012 at 23:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

You've been surfing those websites again. Why not just read your bible peacefully and stop these irrational and ill-informed attacks on Catholicism.

I mean, do you think anyone really pays you any attention?

2 October 2012 at 00:34  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2 October 2012 at 03:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

conchovor

I suggest you update the wikipedia account, Carl, since it provides what seems to me a perfectly reasonable account of a clusterf---, without the need to resort to conspiracy theorizing.

Sure. It's quite a reasonable account - if only you exclude the testimony of the men who survived the attack. All you have to do is assume that every disagreement with the Israelis is a factual error or perception problem on the part of the crew. Was there a flag displayed at the beginning of the attack? Well, no, the crew must be mistaken. Did the Israelis circle the ship several times trying to identify it? Well, yes, the crew must be mistaken. Did the Israelis jam specific American communication channels? We won't say, but even if they did, the crew is wrong to say this suggests premeditation. Did the Israelis shoot life boats in the water from 100 ft away? Well, no, the crew must be mistaken. And that's the problem. It is a patronizing contemptuous account that blames the victims for their own deaths. Your "reasonable account" is nothing but a blanket acceptance of the Israeli explanation. But that account offers no rational explanation for the crew's observations.

I know why the Israelis would lie. They were covering their collective asses. I know why the US Gov't would lie. It was best expressed by President Johnson when he ordered the second flight of Phantoms recalled. He said he didn't care if the ship sunk, and every man on the ship drowned. He wasn't going to embarrass an ally. The crew however has no reason to lie. They provide the best evidence. And it was precisely their evidence that has been deliberately excluded in the quest to bury this incident under any convenient rock.

The Israelis couldn't even find it within themselves to prosecute anyone for the attack. "Sorry, you know, but we acted reasonably. It was really your fault for being there. But, here, let us give you some money to make it better." You can't turn lies into truth with money.

carl

2 October 2012 at 03:24  
Blogger John Magee said...

carl jacobs

Once again. Let's look at what the USA Secretary of State under President Johnson at the time of the Liberty attack on June 8, 1967 wrote in his memoirs:

"I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous"

The attack on the USS Liberty took 75 minutes. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7, 1941 took 110 minutes. The Japanese launched 361 planes from aircraft carriers of the NW coasts of the Hawaiin Islands and attacked the USA Pacific Fleet anchored at PH where dozens of ships, including battle ships, were anchored sinking many and killing over 2,500 sailors, Marines, and civilians in the city of Honolulu.

Keep in mind that Israeli torpedo boats also attacked the USS Liberty after the jets left during this 75 minute attack on a lone ship at sea. One torpedo killed 25 sailors.

2 October 2012 at 04:19  
Blogger John Magee said...

correction: Hawaiian Islands

2 October 2012 at 04:20  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Rev Sizer and the Sarum Concern for Israel/Palestine Conference in Salisbury 17th November from 10am - with Canon Edward Probert, Chancellor of Salisbury Cathedral.

Your Grace

Here is what I copied to Tony Howarth and the Zionist Federation

"Fantastic letter. I would hope he will take up your invitation to meet the arabs at the Christian Friends of Israel Crawley conference. These arabs from Bethlehem can tell him in their own words the truth of the muslim hatred of the jews and Israel in the so called occupied territories and the evil consequences of this hatred for their own people. I must encourage the Church of England to remove Rev Stephen Sizer, a self declared jew and Israel hater, from their payroll. The fact that Rev Sizer is still being supported and given respectability by the Church of England is a disgrace.

Both St Paul and the old testament prophets were concerned for Israel (the Promised Land) and the Jews (the Chosen People) and not anti-them! We warn and persuade a friend, just like a father would his child. This is anguish, as you say, but not rejection. You cannot interpret warnings or criticism as being 'anti' anything other than sin.

Please be careful that the Church of England is not slipping into apostasy, the Church is rife with false doctrine right now because of 'tickling of the ears' has become quite common in her teachings.

For any believer to be anti-semetic boggles the mind. Jesus was a Jew, we are grafted into Judaism; we the gentiles have not replaced them. They are God's chosen people and they have gathered again in Israel just as God promised. A miracle! And the Holy Bible prophesies that the jews WILL possess the land from the Nile to the Euphrates (Gen 15:18) so we better get used to them expanding their land mass and not giving it away.

As I have said may I again invite you to come to the Christian Friends of Israel Crawley Conference with me and listen first-hand to an ex Hamas terrorist and an ex Palestinian woman from Bethlehem give their testimony on how the Palestinian muslims operate and how corrupt they are. That billions sent into the so called occupied territories in aid have not built one single school or hospital in the west bank!"

2 October 2012 at 06:41  
Blogger len said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2 October 2012 at 07:47  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,( 2 October 2012 00:34)

You for one are certainly paying attention!


Thanks.

2 October 2012 at 07:49  
Blogger len said...

I think Heaven will be very difficult for anti- Semites(if they make it there at all) because they will be met by the Jewish Yeshua and the Patriarchs.Jesus is to be known forever as the' Lion of Judah'(Revelation 5:5)

The entire history of the Bible is Jewish...... the gentile 'Church is' grafted in'and can just as
easily be removed.

2 October 2012 at 08:00  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Amen ~ Len

2 October 2012 at 09:22  
Blogger Naomi King said...

And this is what I said to the Archbishop of Canterbury :-

Dear Archbishop

The Chancellor of Salisbury Cathedral, Canon Edward Probert is promoting a conference with Rev Stephen Sizer as the key note speaker, here in Salisbury on Saturday 17th November. In the light of what is reported here on the Archbishop Cranmer blog it maybe Canon Probert (with the help of the Bishop of Salisbury) ought to reconsider. It would not be good for Salisbury Cathedral and it's diocese to be seen actively peddling antisemetic/antiIsraeli hate would it ?

Warmest regards in Christ and in His service

2 October 2012 at 10:46  
Blogger John Magee said...

len

Are you in favor of a ban on any and all criticism of Israel here on earth?

Can Israel do no wrong and those who dare critize Israel in the slightest way for anything it's people say or do are these honest critics instant anti-Semites? Are they condemned to hell for ever and ever?

Just wondering.

I'm not sure I want to go to this Old Testanment controlled "heaven" which hates freedom of speech here on earth you discribed above.

Please supply more details so I can do my best to avoid such a place.

This concept sounds dangerously similar to what Islamic nations are proposing now at the UN by demanding global laws for the censorship of all "blasphemy" or mocking all "prophets".

I forgot to thank you earlier for helping me with the meaning of "comment deleted by the author".

2 October 2012 at 14:48  
Blogger conchovor said...

'No need for any more witch hunting.'

Remarking or criticizing someone's anti-Judaism or antisemitism is not 'witchhunting'.

'Sizer is a respectable leader'

He is so, Dan, because, unfortunately, within a certain sector of the Anglican church there is a high tolerance for his brand of anti-Judaism, paleo- and neo-antisemitism. They are prepared to forgive much.

'who happens to represent part of the anglican church which doesn't support the state of Israel'


Not just 'doesn't support' but is radically against the whole process whereby any kind of Israel could have come into existence in the first place. Anti-Zionist to the extent that he seems to identify Zionism with anti-Christianity or the work of the devil.

'but that doesn't mean he is antisemitic as you misrepresent.'

You mean antisemitic as you or someone else might represent?

'He is Reformed in his view of Jews (I recommend Steve Motyer's article "Israel in God's Plan" for the theology).'

He has said that ancient Israel was exiled for sin and modern Israel will likely be exiled for sin. Oddly he says nothing about

a) the significance of God's apparently allowing Jews to return or

b) God' apparently allowing Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians to be exiled. The reason being

c) he is a hypocrite with distinctly double standard when it comes to judging the Jews concerned over and against the Christians and Muslims concerned. The former he is prepared to forgive little, the latter much. Therein lies his antisemitism: injustice perpetrated against the Jews concerned in his own rather narrow, tribal Christian nationalism.

'The link was obviously an error and he removed it (that's the only error he has made which could be construed as antisemitic).'

But it is only one in a series of 'slips' he has a tendency to make. It is part of pattern.

'Any reference to Israel as a state can easily be confused with Israel as an ethnic/religious group and there was no intention of being antijewish.'

Actually he himself has confused the two, so he has only himself to blame for that.

2 October 2012 at 15:10  
Blogger conchovor said...

Carl, actually the wiki account includes such eye testimony, but it also includes that of the Israelis.

As to the flag, just because the men sometimes saw it flying, doesn't mean the Israelis did. I doubt the crew would maintain that it was flying clear +all the time+. And, in any case, the Israelis could still have missed it, as it appears they did. People are fallible.

' Did the Israelis shoot life boats in the water from 100 ft away? Well, no, the crew must be mistaken. And that's the problem.'

You clearly didn't read what I wrote, Carl, which suggests responding to you is a waste of time. I said the closeness of the MTBs is kind of irrelevant, since the whole engagement was at close quarters. In fact it makes accidentally hitting rafts the crew were prepping for launch while the MTBs were strafing the ship even more likely.

As for the MTB attack happening later, I am not sure of the relevance of that. The MTBs only fired when fired upon first (McGonagle acknowledges that, though the second first may have been ammunition exploding in fire). That doesn't mean the MTBs didn't err, even culpably. But it doesn't mean they were out to 'wipe out' the crew of a spy ship, either.

Much has been made of the use of napalm. But that was only because the only Mysteres Kislev or Lunz (not sure which) felt able to divert from the Sinai happened to be carrying that, an anti-personnel weapon for use on land, not a very appropriate anti-shipping weapon.

You seem, Carl, to regard the testimony of the crew as 100% infallible (or at least your interpretation of their testimony), and that of the Israelis 100% deception. I suggest that is not a balanced view.

The whole point about Pearl I was trying to make, was that there was warning about an impending Japanese attack, but it was lost up the chain of command before anything could be done about it.

There is no need to speculate about some higher American conspiracy with the Japanese. It was a screw up.

2 October 2012 at 15:31  
Blogger conchovor said...


'The link was obviously an error and he removed it (that's the only error he has made which could be construed as antisemitic).'

Oh dear, Dan. You really haven't been keeping up to date, have you. Asides other stuff, there was a charming little piece on his blog which insinuated that Obama delayed to intervene in Libya because of Gadafi's alleged Jewish blood. He's 'updated' it now. He didn't acknowledge why, of course, which might be excusable in anyone but a clergyman, who is supposed to acknowledge his sins or faults against others, not brush them under the carpet. But there is still a record of it here:

It should come as no surprise that “Saif al-Islam, son of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi” made a surprise visit to Israel last week to buy more weapons for his dad.

He goes to Israel regularly because, according to a senior Middle East Ecclesiastical source, both his mother and aunt are Jewish and live in Israel.

Blood is indeed thicker than water. Perhaps this is why the US is reluctant to impose a ‘no-fly’ zone over Libya.

http://hurryupharry.org/2011/03/09/church-of-england-vicars-theory-about-mass-murder-jewish-blood//2011/03/saif-gadhafi-visits-israel-and-asks-for.html

This is, I think, straightforward old school antisemitism. And it is, as I said, part of an unpleasant pattern.

2 October 2012 at 15:42  
Blogger Sam said...

As a descendant of those who turned to Christ at the First Pentecost, I am deeply saddened to see that those who criticised or continue to criticise Rev Sizer have not only overlooked Matthew 7:3 but are also unwittingly siding with the oppressor and not the oppressed in the Holy Land. However, more importantly, how blind to the truth can any true Christian be to confuse a geographical entity created by usurpation of land from rightful owners through naked aggression and continued illegal occupation, with the Kingdom of God because of similarity of a name??? Is the faith of Christians so shallow these days?
What is even more disturbing is the attempt to silence truth tellers by very loose use of libellous accusation of anti-Semitism whenever anyone utters the truth about wrongs, wrongdoing and wrongdoers. Are Jews known as "Jews Not Zionists" anti-Semitic too?
A wake-up call to all true Christians is long overdue.

2 October 2012 at 16:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Big problem Sam.

Unless you are the type of man who can stand idly by as muslim Palestinians massacre Israeli Jews, you’d best keep out of it.

Haven’t you learnt by now you give a muslim nothing. Nothing at all...





2 October 2012 at 17:01  
Blogger conchovor said...

Carl,

I was just reading p. 234-235 of the 1967 Naval Court of Enquiry, p. 130-131 of the ship's log, and it says exactly what I said: the Liberty's guns seem to have gone off, perhaps accidentally, whereupon the MTBs launched torpedoes and strafing.

Absolutely appalling, hell on earth for the dead and wounded. But there is no record of allegedly strafing survivors in the water, nor of any other attacks after the last torpedo hit at 14.36.

+Less than 30 minutes later', the same MTBs signal 'Do you want help?'

I'm sorry, the assertion that these were part of a conspiracy to exterminate the Liberty is really a stretch.

2 October 2012 at 17:47  
Blogger conchovor said...

Sam, you seem have confused being descended from the apostles with being one.

And it's interesting you imply Palestinian Christians and Muslims were 'the rightful owners'.

The reason why they were the majority in the land and Jews a tiny minority, is because 2000 years of imperial Christian and Islamic apartheid kept things that way. Which is how the earliest and most subsequent Palestinian Christian and Muslim nationalists wanted things kept.

About which fact Sizer too is in denial, as he overlooks the sins in his fellow Palestinian Christians he gleefully seeks out in the Jews concerned, in true bigot's fashion.

2 October 2012 at 18:00  
Blogger conchovor said...

Carl and John, while I disagree with you both, you both seem honorable and sincere in your convictions. I apologize for any rudeness on my part. I think if I were a crewman on the Liberty, I think I'd have a hard time accepting my comrades were killed by accident too.

2 October 2012 at 18:01  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Perhaps Sizer should spend a year's sabbatical with Rev Canon White, to see how the Muslim world treats his fellow Christians in Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east?

2 October 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger Sam said...

I am appalled by the ignorance of some who don't know history of the Holy Land and have the audacity to lecture an indigenous Palestinian. For the record, it was the Romans who expelled the Hebrews and it was the Muslims who allowed them back - indisputable fact. As for the killing, only true ignoramuses can believe that Muslims have done more killing than the Israelis. Check your facts before uttering Zionist propaganda.

2 October 2012 at 18:44  
Blogger John Magee said...

conchover

No offense taken. I totally respect your intelligent posts and point of view. We had a civilized exchange of opinions with carl with no name calling or the usual accusations of "hate" here by a few insecure people who can't understand that to disagree with their point of view on topics they hold sacred doesn't make you some sort of hater.

Facts and information are my interests as well as reading other peoples opinions or point of view and giving mine. I am not a chit chat artist or small talk expert.

Best regards.

2 October 2012 at 18:55  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Sam

Yeah, too bad the Arabs didn't win any of those wars. Then we would have lots of dead Jews on our hands. Those sneaky treacherous Jews - refusing to let themselves be slaughtered. Why, some UN bureaucrat was deprived of making a heartfelt eulogy in their memory.

carl

2 October 2012 at 18:56  
Blogger John Magee said...

conchover

Did you read the statement by USA Secretary of State Dean Rusk at the time of the Liberty incident from his memoirs ? He condemned it absolutely as a deliberate attack by Israel. Surely the most important advisor to the President of the USA would know this. Correct?

Why did Israeli jets reconnoiter the Liberty during the morning hours before the afternoon attack at almost sea level and close enough for the crew to see the pilots? Surely the Israeli pilots were trained to read the hull numbers on the bow of USA Navy ships and the military vessels of other nations and of course they had to have seen the USA flag on the stern or from the radio tower.

The Liberty was almost totally unarmed and in no way posed a threat to Isralei jets.

The attack took 75 minutes and Israeli torpedo boats were involved. One launched a torpedo that killed 25 sailors.

It should have taken no more than a few minutes for the Israeli's to have realized they had made a mistake. Not 75 minutes of bombing, strafing, dropping napalm and a torpedo attack.

2 October 2012 at 19:09  
Blogger conchovor said...

'I am appalled by the ignorance of some who don't know history of the Holy Land and have the audacity to lecture an indigenous Palestinian.'

A descendant of the apostles, no less.

'For the record, it was the Romans who expelled the Hebrews'


Including Roman Christians who continued the policy of alienating Jews from the land (and why can't you say 'Jews' instead of 'Hebrews'?), this time as a punishment for rejecting Jesus and the prophets.

'and it was the Muslims who allowed them back - indisputable fact.'

Allowed +some+ Jews back. Originally Umar wanted to allow 200 Jewish families to settle in Jerusalem, but, because the Christians objected, only allowed 70.

But both Muslims and Christians held the Jews to have been dispossessed
by God and his servants as a punishment for rejecting Jesus and the prophets and that was in large part how they were supposed to remain.

The Muslim rulers and inhabitants of Palestine practised a form of discrimination or apartheid against Jews, as did, in some part, the Christians. Both held themselves the true inheritors of the land, the Jews dispossessed and disinherited, as a visible, imperial fact.

Even the Ottomans confiscated the great Hurva synagogue in the 15th century, while local Palestinian Arab Muslims expelled the Ashkenazim who tried to rebuild it from Jerusalem in the 18th century.

Karl Marx famously wrote how Palestinian Arab Muslims routinely abused and mistreated the Jews of Jerusalem, even in the late 19th century.

When Jews began to slip in through the cracks of the crumbling Ottoman Islamic empire in the late 19th century, to dwell in above the tiny numbers decreed, the nascent Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian nationalist movement went from seeking to ban all Jewish immigration into Palestine in 1882, to banning all land sales in 1892. Thence the movement went on to seek to expel or eliminate most Palestinian Jews from at least the late 1920s, and probably earlier. That was the shape of things in 1947, and 1968, even, when the PLO charter only allowed Jews resident in Palestine before 1917 or even 1882 to become Palestinian citizens. The charter was in effect until at least 1988. Hamas' expulsionist or eliminationist charter is still in effect.

That's a long time, most of the last 100 years, or more.

Early Palestinian Arab Christian and Muslim nationalists were quite open about Jews being historically and currently dispossessed for their sins and conversely they i.e. Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims possessed of the land for their superior virtues. Palestinian Christians have learnt to moderate the more traditional Palestinian Christian views of Jews, especially to the western media, while Palestinian Arab Muslim and Islamist nationalists are often much less restrained when speaking in Arabic for domestic audiences.

'As for the killing, only true ignoramuses can believe that Muslims have done more killing than the Israelis.'

a) if Palestinian and Israeli Jews killed more Palestinian and other Arab Muslims and Christians than vice versa, the difference is between the Walrus and Carpenter: the Carpenter ate more oysters than the Walrus, but the Walrus ate as many as he could get. He is not more virtuous for having eaten fewer.

b) I think of the Muslims killed in toto since 1945 you will find over 90% were killed by other Muslims. Israelis count for a fraction, and it was not as if Palestinian then Israeli Jews were not threatened by Palestinian or other Arab Muslim and Christian or Islamist nationalist expulsionism or eliminationism for most of the last 100 years or so.

Surely a true Christian, Sam, would admit the sins of his fellows, past and present, and extract the plank from his own eye before ordering his enemies the mote from theirs?

Matthew 7.3 cuts both ways, Sam.

'Check your facts before uttering Zionist propaganda.'

I think you need to take your own advice about nationalist propaganda, Sam.

2 October 2012 at 19:30  
Blogger len said...

Israel especially Jerusalem is being used by God to draw all his enemies into one place.This is apparent to anyone with the slightest knowledge of Scripture.The prophecy of Zechariah Chapter 12 was written approximately 2500 years ago predicting a future day when the world's focus would be on Jerusalem:

"Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem."

"And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it'.
Israel belongs to God .He calls it My Land.And presumably He can give it to whoever He wants to!.
Anti Semitism is a spiritual matter and this small strip of Land Israel is becoming one of the most contested strips of Land on the Planet for a spiritual reason.

God`s end time agenda is focused on Israel and Satan[ the adversary]also has an end time plan for Israel.

So what it come down to' bottom line' as they say is which side are you on in this spiritual battle?

2 October 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger Marie1797 said...



This is a video of an interview with Miko Peled the Generals Son and author of a book of the same name, He's a Jewish peace activist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCKDarNdGw&feature=BFa&list=FL1rUW_tZpcPnIr_HsRPwu2g


I would like to hear what Rev Sizer has to say, I don't think he should be wheeled off just yet. People should stop treating all Jews with kid gloves out of guilt of what happened to a lot of them during WW2. Yes it was horrific but they weren't the only one's in history to have experienced terrible things.

If you watch the video, Peled explains Jews have done some pretty awful things themselves in 1948 to the people of Palestine when they threw them out of their homes and their country. I'm not siding with muslims all of a sudden but, you've got to look at both sides of the story and ask yourself who profits from war in that area and are the Israeli Zionist Jews now being used by the Yanks to push Ahmadinejad over the edge into a war like they did with Sadam into Kuwait and others who haven't played their particular ball game.

I have to ask myself the real reason Israel was created in 1948 something no doubt to do with money and Middle Eastern resources.

As for Rev Sizer he is passionate about Jesus the Jewish Messiah and the Jews cast him out, I guess he's looking for answers and the truth too?










2 October 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger John Magee said...

Marie

You posted one of the most interesting theories I have yet to read here:

"who profits from war in that area and are the Israeli Zionist Jews now being used by the Yanks to push Ahmadinejad over the edge into a war like they did with Sadam"

So it's those Yankee Doodle Dandies "forcing" Iran to make nukes which Iran promises to wipe Israel off the map with and those same Yankees also pulling the strings to manipulate Zionists?

Marie. You can't blame all the world's problems on President Bush anymore. Obama is in the White House today and he has been amazingly condscending in his policies and attitude(in fact there hasn't been a USA President with his attitude toward Israel) and clearly he is sympathetic to the Islamic world. After all he IS a Muslim.

You are right to look at both sides of a story or an issue but in the case of Iran their "other side of the story" lost all credibility over 30 years ago when the Ayatolloah Khomeini and his thug Mullahs took over Iran with their goal of Jihad and financing Islamic terrorism.

What's the other side of the story for al Qued? They have none. They are Jihadist monsters who deserve to be killed.

2 October 2012 at 22:55  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

lens ludicrous visions of a heaven with no anti semitism allowed are the rantings of a disturbed mind

A mind that would incarcerate free thinkers in gulags, in order to enforce a heaven on Earth

Like Bush said, you are either with me or the terrorists, except with len you are either with his ludicrous rantings, or you are satanic

We know Bush turned all Americans into suspected terrorists, len would turn us all into suspected satanists

Anything to make scripture come true, how dangerous thou art len

2 October 2012 at 23:14  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCKWDarNdGw&feature=channel&list=UL
(sorry 1st link non functional)

John Magee

“So it's those Yankee Doodle Dandies "forcing" Iran to make nukes which Iran promises to wipe Israel off the map with and those same Yankees also pulling the strings to manipulate Zionists? “

No not forcing Iran to make nukes they are doing it themselves. This was started under Khomeini.
It's invariably about oil, gas, access for pipes, water, and now Iran is a nuclear threat so Ahmadinejad has to be toppled and someone with a more western friendly outlook installed.

“Marie. You can't blame all the world's problems on President Bush anymore. Obama is in the White House today and he has been amazingly condscending in his policies and attitude(in fact there hasn't been a USA President with his attitude toward Israel) and clearly he is sympathetic to the Islamic world. After all he IS a Muslim. “

No of course not and yes Barrack Hussein Obama has muslim blood in him,

“You are right to look at both sides of a story or an issue but in the case of Iran their "other side of the story" lost all credibility over 30 years ago when the Ayatolloah Khomeini and his thug Mullahs took over Iran with their goal of Jihad and financing Islamic terrorism.”

Well if we, the Yanks and the west hadn't got rid of the Shah?? We supported and encouraged this change to the Islamic state of Iran with Khomeini and the mad Mullahs! It was even a recommendation of British Islamic expert Bernhard Lewis who was living in USA on assignment at Princeton Uni at the time. He endorsed the radical muslim brotherhood outfit behind Khomeini.

“What's the other side of the story for al Qued? They have none. They are Jihadist monsters who deserve to be killed.”
That might well be so but things are rarely as they seem.
The west trained and armed the Muhadjadene fighters at the time who in turn became the evil Taliban. Where ever you look at things closer there is stirring by the yanks and us and innocent people on both sides die and suffer. I don't see why they have to. But then again war is business.

3 October 2012 at 00:23  
Blogger John Magee said...

Marie

You are correct. President Jimmy Carter betrayed the last Shah of Iran. That was a disgrace and I am ashamed for what Carter did to a man (and the people of Iran) who loved his people and was loyal friend to the USA and the West. It was Carter's wretched betrayal and not the policy of former Presidents that forced the Shah to abandon the Peacock Throne. You have to understand that Carter was a slithering gutless worm just like the one in the White House today. My blood pressure goes sky high when I see that idiotic smile of Carter when I happen to see his mug on TV today. He goes on living, seemingly forever, like a vampire.

The Shah tried to bring Iran into the 20th century and did all he could to give women equal rights. Yes, he used a brutal secret police to try and stop the Mullahs and their allies the Communists from taking over Iran. This finally happened in 1979 and we have all been living with the consequences ever since.

By the way. The mullahs killed all their former communist allies in Iran not long after the Ayatollah Khomeini returned in 1979. That's a warning to all of todays leftist's who think an alliance with radical Islam will bring down Western Civilization.

3 October 2012 at 01:05  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl and conchovor, pardon my late reappearance; I was observing the first two days of Succoth (Feast of Booths) and was offline.

In your magnificently researched arguments you wrote regarding Carl (30 September 2012 23:31), "Any other state or country, you'd chalk it up to clusterf---.

Carl then replied: "In fact, I am far more likely to give Israel the benefit of the doubt. Did not Avi Barzel just write of me: "Carl, whose support of Israel is well-known has no reason to come up with unfair allegations." ... Why then do you accuse me in this way? You are my witness, Avi Barzel. Do I speak the truth?"

Conchovor, on a number of occasions Carl has insulted me deeply and perhaps with gross bias when he mocked shmaltz herring, the finest food on this physical plane of ours. He also appears indifferent to the supremacy of single malt. To roughly quote the Bard, "that is a grievous fault and grievously he shall answer it."

With regards to Israel, though, he is as he says, more likely to be biased in favour of it. He speaks the truth. In this incident he sides with those survivors who believe their vessel was attacked by Israel intentionally. So does John Magee. I think their arguments are very, very weak on facts and logic. But I'm certain that their position is based on their belief in the honesty and honour of fellow servicemen and their fear that if the survivors' claims and conclusion are shown to be wrong in some way, they will be deemed to be lying either because they hate Israel and Jews or because they want additional compensation. And all of this is further complicated by the fact the Liberty incident has been rich fuel for antisemites of the left and right.

I have no doubts about the honesty of the surviving servicemen, but I don't believe their observations or conclusions were accurate and correct. I believe that the horror of the situation and after-the-fact interference during de-briefings led the survivors to grossly misinterpret specifics of the event and to assume or project intent. That, like friendly fire, is common enough.

3 October 2012 at 06:46  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Marie

"It's invariably about oil, gas, access for pipes, water"

Strangely Israel has over the past couple of years discovered copious amounts of gas in the med sea and as for water has the largest distallation plants on the globe. All potential benefits of Israeli technological progress for the Arabs- cheaper gas and water- which will lower the cost of foods, should they agree to make peace.

If you mean the western desire for oil, then this is true. Although it seems America will obtain these resources elsewhere if needs be, so it is the timid Europeans who have the most to gain from the access to cheaper oil resources.

Then you say :

"Iran is a nuclear threat so Ahmadinejad has to be toppled and someone with a more western friendly outlook installed."

Got it in one Marie, why should the great powers tolerate whirling dervishes having access to atomic weapons? Ahmadinnerjacket has said he desires to wipe Israel off the earth- and thus finish what Hitler did. Aside from the fact the leaders of that state wish to commit genocide, the selfish reason to go in, is that it could be use next, the nuclear weapons might not get to America, but given the Russian and Chinese relationship, it wouldn't be long before Iran could launch them on a European city. And I would not want to see a Mushroom cloud over a European city such as Lyon or Manchester.

3 October 2012 at 09:52  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace

Here is the reply I have received from the Bishop of Salisbury, the Rt Revd Nicholas Holtam, Professor Mary Grey and Dr. Mark Owen are new to the billing, not been on the advertising materials. This may be a response to publicity having been given to this event.

Dear Mrs King

Thank you for copying me in on your email to the Archbishop of Canterbury which is incorrectly headed, “Anti Semitic and Anti Israel meeting being held at Salisbury Churches in October and November”.

For your information, a group who are known as Sarum Concern for Israel/Palestine have organised a meeting on Saturday 17 November at Salisbury Methodist Church. Their theme is to consider whether the Bible is a help or a hindrance in our thinking about Israel and Palestine. They have a range of Speakers and plenty of time for group discussion.

In matters concerning Israel and Palestine it is impossible to have every point of view represented. Nevertheless this is a serious group seeking to see the matter from a variety of standpoints. The guest speakers are Rabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbok and the Rev. Stephen Sizer with Professor Mary Grey acting as responder to Dan and Dr. Mark Owen to Stephen.

As you know Ed Probert very kindly agreed to chair the day.

Yours sincerely


The Rt Revd Nicholas Holtam
The Bishop of Salisbury

3 October 2012 at 12:42  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

“Strangely Israel has over the past couple of years discovered copious amounts of gas in the med sea and as for water has the largest distallation plants on the globe. All potential benefits of Israeli technological progress for the Arabs- cheaper gas and water- which will lower the cost of foods, should they agree to make peace. “

Then why don't the Arabs want to achieve some sort of peace? Are they blind to the benefits to them? Maybe a way forward would be for Israel to stop supplying them with gas and water, This would make them sit up and start to appreciate what they might be taking for granted. I rather think after listening to Miko Peled they had a certain level of civilisation in Palestine in 1948 when the Zionist Jews took over anyway and maybe they didn't want Israel and the Yanks to exploit their resources and any possible ones in the first place?

Yes Israel have developed much better since, but all Palestinians want is their country back. And the hate has been fanned and fuelled over decades and generations. It saddens me to see young Palestinian women screaming their hatred of Jews. This is not achieving anything.

“If you mean the western desire for oil, then this is true. Although it seems America will obtain these resources elsewhere if needs be, so it is the timid Europeans who have the most to gain from the access to cheaper oil resources. “

I guess that is why we are so supportive of Israel then! But it shouldn't be blind support without criticism. The Zionist Jews and Israelis in part are becoming too arrogant, bombastic, overbearing.

“Then you say : "Iran is a nuclear threat so Ahmadinejad has to be toppled and someone with a more western friendly outlook installed."”

I meant Iran with Ahmadinejad is seen as a Nuclear threat by the west so they think he should be toppled. It might well be the case, but isn't that hothead Netanyahu just as bad in wanting to go in now causing a third world war which is not the answer. Neither is pushing Ahmadinejad to invade or do something to justify them going in the answer either, and it will be seen as phoney through the eyes of an increasingly informed world.
China and Russia are dependent on Iranian oil and there is unrest brewing in the south china sea.
Surely there are other less obvious but not so profitable ways to solve the problems in Iran that after all we helped create.

3 October 2012 at 17:41  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

That was to Lord Lavendon

3 October 2012 at 17:42  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Naomi King:

Best thing to do now is go along, listen to what they have to say, and if possible provide accurate quotes. Usually organisers make transcripts or recordings available - so it doesn't hurt to ask beforehand if they'll be available.

I'd not recommend secretly recording a meeting, as it would provide an easy reason to eject you (meetings are usually within their rights not to be recorded without permission). But there's never anything stopping you from taking a notepad and pen.

3 October 2012 at 17:58  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Miss Marie, just some opinions from an unreformed Zionist, but Miko Peled is an extremist leftist who is beloved by the Muslims. I'm surprised that you are critical of Brits who are ready to surrender your nation to the European Union, that you have quite a few...uh...critical things to say about the number of Muslims in the UK, but when it comes to Israel, in the mattle of an Islamist rattle snake nest, you're taking the words of a leftist extremist who is hero to the Arabs. And, his "history" ramble is off-the wall, defeatist fringe crap. Every democracy has its ernest suicidal types, and Israel more than most, it would seem.

When you say that "Palestinians want their country back," you should know that there were never any "Palestinians" until the KGB and PLO concocted such after 1967, that PLO leaders have openly preoclaimed that this new "nationality" is a political ruse and that they never had a country, nor did most of them live in what is now Israel before Jews returned and created jobs and opportunities. Which is one of the reasons Israel needs a securuty fence: Tens of thousands have crept in and settled in Israel's North for a better life and a little peace. The Israeli gov't is flooded with residency applications by Muslim Arabs from the "West Bank."

You say The Zionist Jews and Israelis in part are becoming too arrogant, bombastic, overbearing. How? With what? Look at me, a picture of modesty and shyness.

3 October 2012 at 18:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

You are arguing as if every man on the Liberty died and Israel has complete control of the narrative. The story you would have me believe is exactly the same story that would have been told if there had been no survivors. Consider just one aspect: the flag.

Five survivors testified under oath at the Naval Inquiry that the flag was properly displayed prior to the attack. Do I have any reason to disbelieve them? They were in a war zone and had every incentive to do everything possible to make themselves visible as a non-combatant. The Liberty was underway at 5 knots in a 5 knot headwind. That puts 10 knots relative wind across the flag. For a flag of that size (5'x 8') and weight, a 10-knot wind is sufficient to show the flag in the wind. It will not stand straight out but it will be unfurled. So we know two things. If the flag was displayed on the mast, it would have been visible on the mast. The crew testified the flag was displayed on the mast. Why should I disbelieve this testimony? I find no reason not to consider it trustworth and credible.

The Israeli pilots approached the ship and said they specifically looked for identifcation markings. They said there was no flag. So here we have a contradiction, and it is not a contradiction that can be explained by stress or misperception. The pilots said they were looking for a flag. They knew right where to look. The flag would have been visible in the wind. It would have provided the only color contrast to the grey ship and the blue ocean. Plus it would have been moving, so it would have attracted the eye. So for me to believe the Israeli story, I have to accept that two Israeli pilots deliberately looked at the exact spot where the flag was displayed, and yet somehow didn't see it. That is simply not a credible claim. If I believe the crew when they say the flag was displayed, then I cannot believe the pilots when they say the flag was not there. If they had looked for it, they would have seen it. So here is what we have excluded:

A. The pilots looked for the flag but couldn't see it through no fault of their own.

B. The pilots looked for the flag but didn't see it because it wasn't there.

So this leaves a few possibilities:

1. They saw the flag but didn't believe it.

2. They saw the flag as confirmation of the target.

3. They never looked, and simply bounced the ship without properly identifying it.

All three possibilites imply that the pilots deliberately lied. In the absense of any other information, I would tend to believe the third option. But there are other pieces of evidence that must be weighed as well.

This is what I mean when I say you must account for the crew's testimony. If the crew had all died, the Israeli pilots would have said "There was no flag" and no one would have been available to contradict them. But they have been contradicted. And you must explain the contradiction.

carl

3 October 2012 at 18:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say, that bone. You are to be commended for your thoughtful insight into Len’s Lunacy. The fellow is quite clearly absent when it comes to the failings of mankind, and would indeed herd us all into a pen given the chance.

Strangely enough, he enjoys warm support from much of the protesting lot on this site. Come to think of it, some of that crowds arguments are worth squeak either.

Funny old world, what !

3 October 2012 at 19:04  
Blogger len said...

As long as the Inspector and Dodo are not in agreement with me I know I am on the right track. :)

3 October 2012 at 19:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The snake himself – there’s a thing !

3 October 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl, I'm not going to play Sherlock with you, but you're still steaming under a fallacy: That if one side tells the truth then the other side must be lying. But life's not like that. In cases like this both sides could be totally truthful and yet have had different perceptions. Anyway, conchovor knows the inquiry details far better than I and unless you've worn him out, he'll tackle this one.

If you've ever been up on a Cessna, puttering at 3000 feet, on a clear day with minimal haze and tried to see and properly define landmarks or a regional airport airstrip, you'll get a better appreciation of visual verification from the air. With the a grey vessel steaming at that speed, without much a fantail visible among the waves, the pilots were lucky to be able to keep eyes locked on the ship, much less a flag. Yes, a big flag for one's living room, but an undefined scrap through atmospheric haze in the middle of a shimmering sea.

Check out too the long list of friendly fire incidents on Wiki, including a similar naval one, in 1974, where the Turkish airforce sank one of its destroyers. Ironically, Israel's first ever general, Mickey Marcus, was killed in a friendly fire incident by one of his sentries.

In any event, I'm still waiting for anyone to come up with a realistic scenario which would have Israeli pilots or Israel's high command decide to sink a ship of a friendly nation. Make that the only friendly nation with means, and the most powerful one in the world.

3 October 2012 at 19:54  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Dear AnonymousinBelfast

Thanks for your comments about the Sarum Concern for Israel/Palestine Meeting. Of course the whole thing is heresy, to suggest that the Holy Bible is a hinderance has to be heresy. And now it is a cover up as well pretending that they intended to be even handed in the first place which of course they did not. However our swift action has contained the devil from recruiting further in Salisbury, we now need to mightily pray into the situation.

God bless

3 October 2012 at 20:10  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Marie,

The President of Iran is deeply unpopular in his own country, as we can see by today's protests against 30 plus years of living under an Islamic government. If you want to avoid war, I would suggest that this wretched government needs to go and power be given back to the people of Iran.

Iran does not require nuclear power, given her vast oil reserves. If she were prepared to cast aside this fundamentalist Islamic regime AND STOP the nuclear building programme, then Persia could once again join the community of nations and enjoy the full benefits of that relationship.

3 October 2012 at 21:55  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

For me supporting Israel is an emotional and well as Realpolitik view.

However, allow me to address one recent practical geo-political concern, regarding future energy supply :

There are billions of cubic feet of natural gas and a potential of millions of barrels of oil in the East Med sea.

The states involved are Greece, Turkey, Cyprus and Israel. There is of course, a strategic need to support our Greek Orthodox and our Jewish friends and energy resources are vital for the survival of the British state and if we cannot purchase the gas and oil, or bit for any contracts, we can at least make sure these petro -dollars or a great many of them flow in the direction of the London Markets.

And also let us note that not even the Germans can move in, thanks to their appalling bullying of Greece during the recent financial crisis- typical of the Krauts really, no long term strategic sense.

Whilst the resources are there, other predator states (Turk or Bear) will doubtless want to move in and both Britain (via our bases in Gibraltar and Cyprus) and America (Via the 6th Fleet) must cover these nations backs.

The alternative is that either the Ottomans or the Russians get a foothold. And I doubt that either event is an appealing outcome.

Now we can say that the Arab states have billions of oil. Here is not the place to discuss 'peak oil', but the fact is that Saudi Arabia and other gulf states are using more and more of their oil for their own internal consumption of energy (in part for their water distallation efforts).

So with North Sea Oil and gas running out and with our foolish government refusing to invest in nuclear, instead using the red herring of wind turbines, there is a growing and vital need to secure energy resources from abroad and preferably from friendly and liberal democratic states.

3 October 2012 at 22:36  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Avi

That's because the Israeli Jewish Zionist militia threw the existing Arab population out of their homes in 1948 war in an ethnic cleansing exercise coz the Jews wanted to come back. They tried to say that it was a country without a people.

I shall read his book, I tend to give credence to what he says in the vid. because his father was in the Israeli militia and served in the 1948 and 1967 wars, his mother was born in Jerusalem in 1926 and said they were offered one of the better muslim Arab houses after its occupants had been driven out. She refused it. His family lived and experienced the formative period of Israel.
His family have also experienced violence from Palestinian terrorist suicide bombing too.

What is wrong with wanting Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace as equals in their shared homeland?

Earnest suicidal type? is that what you call anyone who attempts to be a peace activist in the area? I had held you in high esteem Avi. :-0

3 October 2012 at 22:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi said ...

"I'm still waiting for anyone to come up with a realistic scenario which would have Israeli pilots or Israel's high command decide to sink a ship of a friendly nation."

I thought Corrigan gave one:

*General Rabin [IDF Chief of Staff in 1967: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into the Sinai, on May 14, would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it"

*General Peled: "The thesis that claimed genocide was suspended above our heads in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its very existence was only a bluff"

Israel had carried out a massive sneak attack, destroying 300 Egyptian airplanes (while they were still on the ground) in the first three hours, then, after the Arabs agreed to a US/UN/Russian-sponsored ceasfire, Israel kept gobbling up territory.

Arabs and Israel for Beginners, by Ron David at page 127 (Bolds mine)

The key to understanding why Israel attacked the ship is that the Liberty was a communications vessel. A spy-ship, if you will."

3 October 2012 at 23:02  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo, I don't have time to source-analyse and verify the un-material and context Corrigan dredges up from the sewers of the 'net, so I assume that such quotes, if they are in fact quates, are worthless. You do realize that if he's been quoting from actual books all this time, Corrigan has the greatest Judaica library and the most obscure tomes of the Talmud on your side of the lake?

This gem, I presume is yours: "The key to understanding why Israel attacked the ship is that the Liberty was a communications vessel. A spy-ship, if you will." Uh, the USS Liberty wasn't wearing a trench-coat, was it? Because if it wasn't, there was no way for Israel to know whose the ship was, and what it's function was and being so close to El Arish, it made sense for them to assume it was either Egyptian or Soviet. Israel did ask the US to clear its operational area of any shipping and the US did not inform it of Liberty's nature or presence. So, the "key to understanding" the event is as an eff-up by both sides, which is why all Israeli and US inquiries rightly concluded that the attack was accidental.

4 October 2012 at 03:14  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Miss Marie, all I can say is that you have reduced your sources on the events which led to Israel's creation to revisionist, "post-Zionist" pseudo-history. From the 70's on Israel, like the US and Europe produced a slew of such characters, all atrocious scholars, but good marketers and even better fairy-tale spinners, who make a tidy living off liberal publishers and universities.

But that's understandable; historiography is a tricky discipline, even for those who've spent years studying history, all the more because it is easy to skew data towards one's bias. Everyone does it, but some are more credible.

What I don't understand is the disconnect between your decidedly right-wing approach to Muslims in your home turf, versus the left-wing fluffery when it comes to the historically hostile and violent Muslim population in Israel and neighbouring territories and countries. The majority of Muslims in the UK and North America are, actually, hard working people who seek a better life and integration despite folks with attitudes such as you have expressed here.

You ask, What is wrong with wanting Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace as equals in their shared homeland? Nothing. Israeli and Arab Jews live in peace in Israel.

You say, "Earnest suicidal type? is that what you call anyone who attempts to be a peace activist in the area?" Pardon my incredulity...you, a conservative type, to say the least, are swooning over a "peace activist"? Again, please note the lack of consistency in your philosophy. People who make up history and assist those hostile to their people and country for famer and fortune are either fools or cads.

"I had held you in high esteem Avi. :-0" No you didn't. You were aware of my religion and political positions since the day I came onto this site and criticised Jews and Israel, among many others, in mildly to fairly offensive ways. That indicates contempt, not esteem.

4 October 2012 at 03:47  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ah, Lord Lavendon, you're letting the cat out of the bag; I've small investments in Israel's energy sector and the fewer buyers out there, the better for my modest portfolio. Still, it will be at least a decade before the world catches on, since Israel is in no rush to begin extraction at this stage, but awaits a more secure environment and better technologies.

4 October 2012 at 03:53  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Compassion the child sponsorship organisation are using Tony Canpolo on a national tour of Churches in the UK at the present time which they are marketing heavily. Here are details of Rev Stephen Sizer and Tony Campolo speaking at an anti Israel in Bethlehem two months ago. I have written to Compassion for an explanation, which I have copied to Toby Howarth at Lambeth Palace as you have suggested your Grace, because of his interest in Rev Stephen Sizer.

Dear Compassion

Can you please explain to me why you are using an anti-Israeli and anti-jewish speaker to promote your organisation and what is his agenda in relation to your organisation ?

You might be interested in this report of a recent conference in Bethlehem where the speakers included Stephen Sizer (pages 14-16) and Tony Campolo (page 28)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/106346532/Contending-Earnestly-for-the-Faith-August-2012

Warmest regards in Christ
Naomi King



4 October 2012 at 05:42  
Blogger Naomi King said...

And here are two interesting links about Rev Stephen Sizer. That the Chancellor of Salisbury Cathedral, Canon Edward Probert, endorsed by the Bishop of Salisbury Rt Rev Nicholas Holtam, are actively giving a platform to this dangerous man says much regrettably about the state of the spiritual health of Dean and Chapter and diocese of Salisbury.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og6ovScMt9k&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=-_90qflt9Ss&feature=endscreen

4 October 2012 at 05:52  
Blogger John Magee said...

Lord Lavendon

I live amidst and above the greatest natural gas fracking geographic area in North America and the greens are doing their best to stop it. The drilling for oil here from shale provides jobs for anyone who wants to work hard and long hours and be rewarded by a handsome salary.

Losers here and other belly achers whine about the hard work and long hours and drug testing for safety reasons the drilling companies require for safety reasons.

Hard working boys from the South and Texas and the South West are here to do the hard work the lazy useless locals won't do.

4 October 2012 at 07:20  
Blogger conchovor said...

Hi Carl,

briefly, it seems to me that much of what you say might be true in theory. In theory a flag of a certain size with a ship sailing at x knots in a wind of y knots should be visible. But, as many a general knows, facts on the ground have a habit of screwing things up.

The Liberty had been bombed, rocketed and napalmed. She was on fire, there was smoke. The first flag had fallen with is mast in the initial Mirage attack. A substitute had been put up before the Mysteres struck but, then, the Mysteres struck.

The MTBs checked her profile in their books. They didn't think she was a warship, but a supply ship. And the El Quseir did resemble her profile, if not her size. But the MTBs weren't good at numbers that day, getting the Liberty's speed also wrong.

Her Latin markings in and of themselves did not disprove she was Egyptian. She didn't signal a proper identity when the MTBs asked (as had an Egyptian vessel shortly before), then fire came from her direction, none of which helped.

Yes, in theory, pilots of planes and boats should have had top notch identification training, they should have rigorously poured through profiles until 100%.

But even the Liberty got things wrong. It misidentifed a Nord Atlas as a C-119, and Skyhawks among the Israeli aircraft, neither of which type Israel then flew. Consequently the Liberty did not know for sure who buzzed or attacked her.

The Nord Atlas apparently flew right alongside, so close the deck shook, but the crew missed the Israeli markings as well as type.

And this was a spyship, whose crew, as you might say, one would have thought were +specifically+ trained for this kind of identification.

So theory says.

But...

Personally I think the one most responsible was Lunz, for taking the Liberty off the CCC navy board, two hours after no further positional information. Apparently this was standard procedure. The IDF history (p. 8) identifies this as the crucial error in the day's events.

4 October 2012 at 10:41  
Blogger conchovor said...

Additional point, apparently Ensign Lucas reported that it was impossible to read the MTBs' signals, for the smoke from fires. This is precisely my point about a two-way obscurity.

And the Israelis assumed precisely what you assume about the Liberty: that they were clearly visible.

Further, Carl, apparently the MTBs approached no closer than 2000 yards. Could you necessarily see a 13 foot flag from a mile away through smoke through binoculars ? You might, but, surely, it's not a conspiracy if you couldn't?

Macgonagle says 2000 yards

http://www.ussliberty.org/torpedo.htm

BTW, the reason this is relevant to Sizer, is that he has been peddling this stuff himself, with a link to James Ennes (though the link is now dead), calling the matter a 'cover up', which term implies conspiracy:

http://stephensizer.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/uss-liberty-survivor-seized-on-gaza-aid.html

4 October 2012 at 11:08  
Blogger conchovor said...

Dear Marie,

I don't doubt Nasser didn't want war there and then. That is why he and his allies shouldn't have been threatening war to extinguish the Zionist entity for over a decade, nor should he have closed the straits of Tiran, Israel's only access to the Pacific via the Red Sea Canal.

When your enemies threaten you with ultimate extinction, refuse to recognize you ever, under any circumstances, you are not obliged to wait for them to pick and choose their opportunity.

The fact is, were it not for the 67 conquests, none of Israel's enemies, including the Palestinians, would negotiate at all, never mind recognize her.

As to your references to acts of Zionist Jewish ethnic cleansing in 1948-49. Surely true. But Palestinian and Arab Muslims and Christians threatened and periodically executed ethnic cleansing against Palestinian then Israeli Jews. They drove the Jews from Hebron in 1929, for instance. Their leader said that most Palestinian Jews would be expelled under Arab rule to the Peel Commission in 1937. That was the tenor of Palestinian Arab nationalism in 1947 and beyond.

Why don't you mention that, Marie? Why is it Christian of you not to? Why is it Christian to only pick up the Jews concerned for things to which you turn a blind eye to in the Christians and Muslims concerned?

4 October 2012 at 11:19  
Blogger conchovor said...

[What is wrong with wanting Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace as equals in their shared homeland?]

But is that what you want? What Sizer wants is an Israel that abolishes a right of return for Jews, and only implements it for Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians. At least that is what the PSC he supports wants i.e. an Israel that wouldn't exist for very long before it became a Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian majority state, and then part of a bigger Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian majority state.

4 October 2012 at 11:46  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

conchovor

it seems to me that much of what you say might be true in theory.

It's not a matter of theory. It's a matter of physics.

But, as many a general knows, facts on the ground have a habit of screwing things up.

I was referring to the visibility of the flag before the attack. So the following is non-responsive.

The Liberty had been bombed, rocketed and napalmed. She was on fire, there was smoke. The first flag had fallen with is mast in the initial Mirage attack. A substitute had been put up before the Mysteres struck but, then, the Mysteres struck

Why did the first pilot claim there was no flag when the flag was displayed and visible in the wind?

The MTBs checked her profile in their books. They didn't think she was a warship, but a supply ship. And the El Quseir did resemble her profile, if not her size. But the MTBs weren't good at numbers that day, getting the Liberty's speed also wrong.

I haven't addressed the ship's identification at all. I was focusing very clearly on the issue of the flag. The pilots claimed there was no flag. The crew says the flag was present. Physics tells us the lag would be visible from an aircraft. Why did the pilots lie about the presence of the flag? Because they did lie. There is no other credible explanation for their story.

Macgonagle says 2000 yards

For the torpedo attack. Ennis said the MTBs closed to with 50 ft to fire. Is he lying? Did the stress of the situation cause him to misperceive the distance of the Israeli MTB from this ship? How do you explain this testimony?

carl

4 October 2012 at 14:36  
Blogger conchovor said...

'It's not a matter of theory. It's a matter of physics.'

Highly theoretical physics. Just because the sequence works out in someone's head does not mean it did or would in real life.


'For the torpedo attack. Ennis said the MTBs closed to with 50 ft to fire.'

OK, I admit I was a little confused about the timeline. But so was the Court of Enquiry: it is not at all clear what happened when. Whether the torpedo attack came first or the strafing:


[Q. Do you recall that the patrol boats strafed the ship after the torpedo attack, and if so, how many times? [Ensign Lucas:] Sir, I cannot honestly answer that. Q. Let me put the question a little bit differently - earlier in your statement you observed that the patrol boats were attempting to communicate with flashing light?]


[[Ensign Scott] Then [i.e. after the torpedo attack] we were strafed at about the same time. I couldn't say whether it was before or after by the patrol boats.]

[[Chief Thompson] 20. Motor Torpedo Boat attack on LIBERTY. Twenty minutes following air attack, MTB's closed ship to a position 2000 yards on starboard quarter and signaled ship by flashing light. At this time ship had been making turns for FLANK speed for 9 minutes (Estimated SOA 15-17 knots). Holiday ensign was flying from the starboard yardarm for at least five minutes before torpedo attack was launched. LIBERTY 50 cal. guns opened fire while the MTS was signaling. The torpedo attack was launched shortly after the MTBs were fired upon, and MTB's strafed the ship with machine gun fire as, at least, one MTB passed down the starboard side.]

I admit that, if the strafing occurred after, it is understandable that Liberty's crew fired their machine guns first.

But, again, you assume the flag was clearly visible, and that other matters were not distracting the MTB crews, such as being fired upon.

Also it seems to me the rafts had been staffed before putting to sea:

[[LTJG Painter:] At this time, the DC central passed the word to prepare to abandon ship. We then filed out to our life rafts which were no longer with us because they had been strafed and most of them were burned, so we knocked most of them over the side.]

Turning this into strafing boats or survivors in the sea is just silly.

'Why did the first pilot claim there was no flag when the flag was displayed and visible in the wind?'

This is tiring, Carl. The pilot says he didn't see a flag. That could happen. You clearly are very angry about this, fine. But I am tired rehashing the same thing.

The marking GTTR-5 (?) was identified as the Liberty in the morning, at Navy CCC, when the Nord Atlas observer was debriefed. But the pilots or MTBs didn't recognize it later. This could happen. I don't see why it is so extraordinary that it couldn't happen. And Egyptian boats also bored Latin Markings.

4 October 2012 at 16:10  
Blogger conchovor said...

'Physics tells us the lag would be visible from an aircraft.'

No it doesn't. Only if a certain set of circumstances are fulfilled. But real life is more complicated than that.

4 October 2012 at 16:21  
Blogger conchovor said...

I want to quote from this set of findings appended to the testimonies of the Court of Inquiry:

[ 20. Motor Torpedo Boat attack on LIBERTY. Twenty minutes following air attack, MTB's closed ship to a position 2000 yards on starboard quarter and signaled ship by flashing light. At this time ship had been making turns for FLANK speed for 9 minutes (Estimated SOA 15-17 knots). Holiday ensign was flying from the starboard yardarm for at least five minutes before torpedo attack was launched. LIBERTY 50 cal. guns opened fire while the MTS was signaling. The torpedo attack was launched shortly after the MTBs were fired upon, and MTB's strafed the ship with machine gun fire as, at least, one MTB passed down the starboard side. 25. PT attack first developed from starboard side and was identified as a high speed run in. Center and lead PT began flashing signal light and very shortly thereafter the Commanding Officer identified the Star of David flag on this lead boat. LIBERTY's signal light had been shot away requiring dependence upon an Aldis lamp to try and penetrate the smoke on the bearing of the PTs. 26. The Commanding Officer had passed word to stand by for torpedo attack and the forward starboard 50 cal. fired a very short burst in the direction of the boats on the gunner's own initiative. Having seen Israeli flag on the PT, the Commanding Officer waved to the forward gunner to cease firing. The after starboard gun, opened up at this point, with apparently no one pulling the trigger. The bridge could not see this gun for smoke and flame on the starboard side, so the Commanding Officer sent a runner to tell him cease fire. Before this runner could reach the after starboard gun, effective high volume fire from this gun was peppering the water around the middle PT. It appears as though 50 Cal. ammunition was cooking off from intense fire. The gun was seen to be firing with no one manning it.

5. The immediate confusion milling around astern followed by peaceful overtures by the attacking surface forces after launching only two torpedoes of the six presumed available (two on each PT boat), indicate these craft may well have identified the colors for the first time when they got in close enough to see clearly through the smoke and flames billowing, at times above the mast head.]


I can only stress that last paragraph:

"The immediate confusion etc indicate these craft may well have identified the colors for the first time when they got in close enough to see clearly through the smoke and flames billowing, at times above the mast head."

http://www.ussliberty.org/torpedo.htm

'colors' meaning 'Stars and Stripes'.

4 October 2012 at 16:31  
Blogger conchovor said...

The IDF history (p. 17) says the MTBs began their attack with machine gun fire, then at 14.43 T206 fired torpedoes at 1000 and 550 years respectively, T203 two at 2000 yards, then T204 only one, I think all from the starboard quarter, two torpedoes hitting.

It was when the boats moved portside, they discerned 'GTTR-5'. Stand down was 14.47.

Nor does the IDF report say 'there was no flag'. It says that earlier 'no flag was discernible'.

Only later, at closer range, could the division commander discern a flag. Which accords well with the USN court inquiry.

It doesn't sound like an attempt to wipe out anything to me.



4 October 2012 at 17:19  
Blogger Sam said...

Here is something to ponder:
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/10/03/why-i-dislike-israel/

Why I Dislike Israel
by Philip Giraldi

Even those pundits who seem to want to distance U.S. foreign policy from Tel Aviv’s demands and begin treating Israel like any other country sometimes feel compelled to make excuses and apologies before getting down to the nitty-gritty. The self-lacerating prologues generally describe how much the writer really has a lot of Jewish friends and how he or she thinks Israelis are great people and that Israel is a wonderful country before launching into what is usually a fairly mild critique.
Well, I don’t feel that way. I don’t like Israel very much. Whether or not I have Jewish friends does not define how I see Israel and is irrelevant to the argument. And as for the Israelis, when I was a CIA officer overseas, I certainly encountered many of them. Some were fine people and some were not so fine, just like the general run of people everywhere else in the world. But even the existence of good upstanding Israelis doesn’t alter the fact that the governments that they have elected are essentially part of a long-running criminal enterprise judging by the serial convictions of former presidents and prime ministers. Most recently, former President Moshe Katsav was convicted of rape, while almost every recent head of government, including the current one, has been investigated for corruption. Further, the Israeli government is a rogue regime by most international standards, engaging as it does in torture, arbitrary imprisonment, and continued occupation of territories seized by its military. Worse still, it has successfully manipulated my country, the United States, and has done terrible damage both to our political system and to the American people, a crime that I just cannot forgive, condone, or explain away.

Read more at the above link...

4 October 2012 at 21:43  
Blogger conchovor said...

So, Sam, you can quote the views of an Israel-hater (presumably like, you mean, Stephen Sizer). Can you argue any yourself?

4 October 2012 at 23:37  
Blogger Ivan said...

1967 was only eleven years after the Suez debacle when President Eisenhower forced the Israelis and the British to stand down; there would have been many Israelis who wanted to poke Uncle Sam's eyes in revenge.

The trouble for the proponents of its-all-a-mistake crowd is that leading American civil servants and soldiers, men of probity and vast experience, who had access to the records disbelieved the Israeli account of the attack on the Liberty. These included Clark Clifford, the legendary supporter of Israel who had tears in eyes as President Truman signed on the documents recognising the State of Israel. As he wrote:

"I do not know to this day at what level the attack on the Liberty was authorized and I think it is unlikely that the full truth will ever come out. Having been for so long a staunch supporter of Israel, I was particularly troubled by this incident; I could not bring myself to believe that such an action could have been authorized by Levi Eshkol. Yet somewhere inside the Israeli government, somewhere along the chain of command, something had gone terribly wrong--and then had been covered up. I never felt the Israelis made adequate restitution or explanation for their actions....

The Israelis had form in attacking neutrals, there was no adequate explanation for an earlier attack on the Indian UN contingent on the Suez buffer either.

Ivan

5 October 2012 at 01:17  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Sam

Re: "Further, the Israeli government is a rogue regime by most international standards, engaging as it does in torture, arbitrary imprisonment, and continued occupation of territories seized by its military."

Hrmmmm. Let's see now. If you had to live in the Middle East, but could pick any country in the Middle East, which country would you pick? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Syria? Jordan? Iraq? Yemen? Or would you pick the only civilized state in the region?

Yeah, I thought so. Says it all.

carl

5 October 2012 at 01:18  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Avi you can't compare the situation of the muslims here in the UK with those in Palestine and Israel.

So you don't like me criticising Jews and Israel. Well Avi that's free speech. It's my forming concluding opinion that it's about time peace should be achieved in Israel for the mutual benefit of both parties. Children are growing up in a tense culture of hate, where houses are built and then torn down, more underground tunnels than decent roads and unhealthy situations what sort of adults will they become?

Concovor
There are some humble Orthodox Jews that believe all Jews should leave Israel, I'm not sure that will happen but yes I think it would be best all round if an harmonious living arrangement of equals could be achieved in my lifetime.
As for Rev Sizer, let's hear what he has to say, I'm sure he will be challegned on his reasons for supporting the PSC if he does at all?

5 October 2012 at 01:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 October 2012 at 01:51  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

conchovor

You do realize that I am reaching a conclusion that I do not want to reach. But I am simply letting the evidence drive the conclusion. Apologists for Israel in this matter begin with the conclusion ("Israel didn't deliberately attack the ship") and organize the evidence accordingly. It is a statement against interest for me to make the arguments I have made.

No it doesn't. Only if a certain set of circumstances are fulfilled. But real life is more complicated than that.

You have to elucidate those complications. You can't just retreat into a 'Twilight Zone' explanation of different sights and sounds. You have to explain how the pilot was unable to see something that was right in front of his eyes. Remember we are examining the actions of the first pilots prior to the first attack.

1. Was the pilot too far away? No. He said there was no flag. To make this claim he had to be close enough to see a flag.

2. Was the flag displayed from the ship? Yes. We know this from the unimpeached testimony of the crew.

3. Was the flag in an unusual location on the ship? No, the flag was right where it was supposed to be - on the mast. That's the first place the pilot would have looked.

4. Was the flag motionless? No, it was unfurled in the wind. We know this from the unimpeached testimony of the crew and the physical interaction of the flag as dictated by relative wind, and size/weight of the flag.

5. Was the view of the flag obstructed? No. There was no smoke or fire because the attack had not yet started. There was no fog. There was no rain. It was early afternoon on a clear day. There was no ship structure between the aircraft and the flag. The ship's flags is intended to be seen after all.

6. Was the view of the flag obstructed by a combination of light and aspect angle. No, the Israeli pilots viewed the ship from various angles because the passed the ship to attack it. (In fact, they claimed to have circled the ship looking for markings - another lie.)

So how did the pilot not see the flag? He was close enough to see it. Nothing obstructed his view. He knew right where to look. The flag was visible to the eye. You cannot at this point simply say "I don't know, but he must not have seen it." To do so is to leave the realm of evidence. It is to read the evidence according to the prior conclusion.

carl

5 October 2012 at 01:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

conchovar

Also it seems to me the rafts had been straffed before putting to sea

Statement of Survivor Glenn Oliphant:

After some time, I heard no more
explosions so I went back onto the main deck and proceeded aft to look at an antenna mount. I discovered that a shell had hit the mount. I then remember looking behind the ship and seeing three liferafts floating in the water, I would say about 150 yards behind the ship. Then I saw spurts of water around the rafts I heard machine gun fire and then I saw the rafts deflating. A torpedo boat came into view and stopped and picked up one of the liferafts.


http://ussliberty.org/report/exhibit%252011.pdf

Too much of your argument is general in nature and cannot deal with specific claims like this. It's easy to say "The crew's testimony is unreliable because of stress and confusion." But what do you do with a claim this specific? Did this man imagine this event? Did he confuse it with something else?

And again:

It was when the boats moved portside, they discerned 'GTTR-5'. Stand down was 14.47.

Statement by Survivor Lloyd Painter

http://ussliberty.org/report/exhibit%252010.pdf

1500 Hours: IDF MTBs continue to fire armor piercing projectiles through the skin of the ship in the hopes of killing as many sailors as they could and maybe even hitting our boilers.

1510 Hours: The Captain orders "Prepare to Abandon Ship". I had dozens of wounded sailors in the Mess Deck Area and it was my responsibility to get them all up the ladder
and out the hatch to main deck, where we would board our life rafts.


Why does this man assert that the MTBs were firing 23 minutes after your alleged stand down? Did he imagine the cannon shells? Note that Glenn Oliphant's statement refers to events that occurred after the order to abandon ship.

These are the inconsistencies you don't address. They just stack up one upon another. How many do I have to point out before the credibility of the Israeli account is shot to hell?

carl

5 October 2012 at 02:18  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Miss Marie,

You said, "Avi you can't compare the situation of the muslims here in the UK with those in Palestine and Israel." I wasn't comparing situations, Marie, but your attitude to the two. Extreme hostility to Muslims in your country and a maudlin plea for a "harmonious relationship of equals" with regards to Israel. An odd disconnect.

"So you don't like me criticising Jews and Israel. Well Avi that's free speech." Well, Marie, I know assumptions about intolerance to criticism and persecution of free speech are comforting and lend one a heroic kind of a cloak, but no, if you re-read our exchange, you will see that I didn't say that, and that your free speech is not being challenged. You had said that you previously held me in high esteem, and I expressed my doubt, given that I'm a Jew and a Zionist and you frequently take potshots at both.

"Children are growing up in a tense culture of hate, where houses are built and then torn down, more underground tunnels than decent roads and unhealthy situations what sort of adults will they become?" True. The Palestine Authority and Hamas are teaching their children to hate through their textbooks, in mosques and the media. The shocking and gory hatred is well documented. Training toddlers and young children to want to strap bombs to their bodies is hardly "healthy"...not what your average school nurse would recommend. At the same time, if an Israeli said the kind of things even you say about Islam in public, he'd do serious time in jail. A while ago a Jewish woman was sentenced to several months by an Israeli court for publishing a crude little sketch of Mohammed as a pig. The Palestinian Muslim leaders squirrel away millions in Swiss accounts, rob and oppress their own people, ignore the infrastructure for which Western countries, includig Israel, have donated billions over the decades, and build tunnels to try and smuggle weapons to kill Jews. I can't find the posts where you bemoan this terrible and easily fixable state of affairs.

"There are some humble Orthodox Jews that believe all Jews should leave Israel..." The Naturei Karta are a small "ultra-Orthodox" faction of a handful of families on the lunatic fringe of Judaism who get a lot of attention from Israel haters of all walks of life, including Ahmenedijad and the usual assortment of extreme rightist, leftist and just about anyone who wants to see Israel destroyed. If you looked closer at them and took in their views about non-Jews and women, I doubt you'd call them "humble." Just curious, if Jews actually decided to leave Israel, presumably to allow the Arabs to build yet another Jew-free Islamic paradise, becuse twenty-odd magnificently governed and peaceful countries aren't enough for them, would you welcome them into the UK? One presumes they'll need to go somewhere.

You see what I'm puzzled about, don't you, Marie? The grand mystery of why some people who are so indifferent to the welfare of Muslims in their own countries and everywhere else in the world, heck, who are outright hateful towards them, all of a sudden turn into flower children and begin blubbering about equality, freedom and brotherhood of mankind and all that when discussing Muslims in relation to their conflict with Jews and Israel. Or why the hallowed "criticism" of Israel spills over to Jews in no time and soon enough to Judaism as well, or vice versa. Corrigan can't explain that one, so perhaps you can.

5 October 2012 at 03:27  
Blogger Naomi King said...

My letter to the Bishop of Salisbury yesterday

Dear Bishop

Thank you for your letter.

I would have thought considering the Holy Bible a hinderance is the spirit of heresy.

Oh what a history is the history of the Jew! He has antiquity stamped upon his forehead. His is a lineage more noble than that of any knight or even king of this island, for he can trace his pedigree back to the very loins of Abraham! And through him to that Patriarch who entered into the ark and from there to Adam, himself. Our history is hidden in gloom and darkness—but theirs, with certainty, may be read from the first moment even down till now. And what a checkered history has been the history of the Jewish nation! Nebuchadnezzar seemed to have swept them all away with the huge broom of destruction. The tenth left was again given over to the slaughter and one would have thought we would have heard no more of Israel. But in a little time they rose, phoenix-like, from their ashes! A second Temple was built and the

nation became strong, once more, though often swept with desolations. In the meantime it did abide—the scepter did not depart from Judah nor a lawgiver from between his feet—until Shiloh came! And, since then, how huge have been the waves that have rushed over the Jewish race! The Roman emperor razed the city to the ground and left not a vestige standing. Another emperor changed the name of Jerusalem into that of Elijah and forbade a Jew to go within some miles of it, so that he might not even look upon his beloved city! It was plowed and left desolate. But is the Jew conquered? Is he a subjugated man? Is his country seized? No, he is still one of earth’s nobles—distressed, insulted, spit upon—still it is written, “To the Jew first and afterwards to the Gentile.” He claims a high dignity above us and he has a history to come which will be greater and more splendid than the history of any nation that has yet existed! If we read the Scriptures aright, the Jews have a great deal to do with this world’s history! They shall be gathered in. Messiah shall come, the Messiah they are looking for—the same Messiah who came once, shall come again—shall come as they expected Him to come the first time. They then thought He would come a prince to reign over them and so He will when He comes again. He will come to be King of the Jews and to reign over His people most gloriously. For when He comes, Jew and Gentile shall have equal privileges, though there shall yet be some distinction afforded to that royal family from whose loins Jesus came, for He shall sit upon the Throne of His father, David, and unto Him shall be gathered all nations—

You may, indeed—

“You chosen seed of Israel’s race, A remnant weak and small”

“Hail Him who saves you by His Grace,

And crown Him Lord of All.”

Your church shall never die and your race shall never become extinct! The Lord has said it. “The race of Abraham shall endure forever and his seed as many generations.”

Cont ...

5 October 2012 at 07:56  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Letter to the Bishop of Salisbury part II

But why is it that the Jewish race is preserved? We have our answer in the text—“The holy seed is the substance thereof.” There is something mysterious within a tree—hidden and unknown which preserves life in it when everything outward tends to kill it. So in the Jewish race there is a secret element which keeps it alive. We know what it is. It is the “remnant according to the election of Grace.” In the worst of ages there has never been a day so black but there was a Hebrew found to hold the lamp of God! There has always been found a Jew who loved Jesus! And though the race now despises the great Redeemer, yet there are not a few of the Hebrew race who still love Jesus, the Savior of the uncircumcised, and bow before Him. It is these few, this holy seed, that are the substance of the nation and for their sake, through their prayers, because of God’s love to them, He still says of Israel to all nations, “Touch not these My anointed, do My Prophets no harm. These are the descendants of Abraham, My friend. I have sworn and will not repent. I will show kindness unto them for their father’s sake and for the sake of the remnant I have chosen.”

Let us think a little more of the Jews than we have been lately. Let us pray more often for them. “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, they shall prosper that love her.” As truly as any great thing is done in this world for Christ’s Kingdom, the Jews will have more to do with it than any of us have dreamed! The Jewish nation is like “a teil tree and as an oak whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves; so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof.”

God said to Abraham in Genesis 15:18 that Israel would cover a land mass from the Nile to the river Euphrates. This is the Word of God. As the Holy Bible is the Word of God then it will happen. It's only a question of when. In which case so called 'palestinian muslim arabs' will either have to accept Israeli governance and sovereignty or depart to Jordan or elsewhere.

Yours sincerely

Naomi King

5 October 2012 at 07:57  
Blogger conchovor said...

'These are the inconsistencies you don't address. They just stack up one upon another. How many do I have to point out before the credibility of the Israeli account is shot to hell?'

Briefly, Carl, because I am in a lot of pain due to a hernia, I would say you have that problem in the U.S. accounts, too. The court of enquiry couldn't establish a precise chronology either.

Oliphant's account has no time to it. Section 26 of the USNCoE states 'Before this runner could reach the after starboard gun, effective high volume fire from this gun was peppering the water around the middle PT'.

I suggest at least the possibility of a Liberty gun going off by accident as is known to have happened and, it seems, those rafts were unmanned, floating free. The PT then picks up the boat, and comes alongside.

Now exhibit 10, Painter's testimony, is not in the USNCoE. His 15.00 'the MTBs fire through the hull to kill as many as they could' is odd. He's below decks. He doesn't witness. It's not even clear any were wounded or killed by such alleged fire, and it's full of insinuation as to intention, which would be discounted in a court of law, I think.

At 15.15 he says he witnesses an MTB machine gunned. Oliphant says he saw an empty raft hit and an MTB come into view. Not that he saw the MTB do it directly. But he doesn't do what Painter does, which is to see all the damaged and loose rafts and boats, that single machine gunning incident, and leap to the conclusion the Israelis wanted to kill all survivors.

A single raft. Why shoot it?

Perhaps to clear an obstacle to coming alongside? Even if it is because a gunner was a little trigger happy, or jumpy, it doesn't bespeak necessarily (by far) an intention to massacre.


Painter was below decks at 15.00, and apparently heard machine gun fire, as to whose intention to massacre he leaps. Understandable, given all they had been through, but not necessarily true, at all.


Which is perhaps why the USNCoE excluded it.


But, suppose the MTB did deflate other rafts as it came alongside (and did anyone else witness them/it do this systematically to more than one), might not there be other explanations e.g. to clear obstacles, as it comes alongside?

Even if the gunner was not strictly correct in a fear these might get fouled beneath the boat (I don't know), or perhaps even worse (because inflated boats might be easier to push aside than rubber floating on the surface, and less likely to get entangled in the propeller), all that would mean is that gunner was trying to clear floating obstacles, albeit misguidedly.

But from your examples, only one raft is seen deflated by gun fire.

Even the USNCoE writes, immediately following the 'peppering [of] the water around the middle PT...as though 50 Cal. ammunition was cooking off from intense fire...seen to be firing with no one manning it', in the starboard quarter, of 'the immediate confusion milling around astern followed by peaceful overtures'.

The MTB drew alongside. No firing, massacring. No +witnessed+ act to wound or kill since indeed about 14.47, it seems to me.

As to the other stuff, I will get back to you, as, obviously, I have other priorities.

5 October 2012 at 11:43  
Blogger conchovor said...

Correction

At 15.15 he [Painter] says he witnesses an MTB machine gun A RAFT.

5 October 2012 at 11:44  
Blogger conchovor said...

I suggest the reason why Painter's testimony was discounted was because he speaks of IDF machine gun fire at 15.00, when others witnessed the Liberty's gun going off by accident at about the same time. They saw it, he didn't.

5 October 2012 at 11:48  
Blogger conchovor said...

[Concovor, There are some humble Orthodox Jews that believe all Jews should leave Israel]

And why would you raise that, if it weren't for the fact that you might share such a view?

[I'm not sure that will happen but yes]

But, yes, you'd like it to, ideally?

[I think it would be best all round if an harmonious living arrangement of equals could be achieved in my lifetime.]

And why seemingly equate 'living harmoniously as equals' with 'all or any Jews living Israel', except that, deep down, at some level, you thing 'but yes I think it would be best'?

Dear, sweet, Marie, if you mean a single state, with two rights of return for Jews as well as Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians, I agree.

The trouble is

a) a Jewish right to live in above the tiny numbers imperial Christian and Islamic apartheid decreed is precisely what Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian nationalists resisted (to use the current buzzword) and

b)that is not what either PSC, Sizer or perhaps even you want, or is it?

Do you think equality means Jews having a right of return as well as Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians?

Do you even allow that the Jews who became Israeli had some kind of right of return, to begin with, even if you want to cancel a Jewish right of return, now?

[As for Rev Sizer, let's hear what he has to say,]

Who's stopping you? All Cranmer is trying to do is make sure the less savoury aspects of Sizer's words and actions are known, given his authorities seem somewhat laissez faire about them. As do you, if you don't mind my observing.

[I'm sure he will be challegned on his reasons for supporting the PSC if he does at all?]

He speaks for them regularly, as you would know, had you known anything about them or him.

5 October 2012 at 12:03  
Blogger conchovor said...

Further, Dear, sweet Marie, why harp on Palestinian or Israeli Jewish expulsionism, when you are completely oblivious, it seems to the same thing emanating, past and present, from your fellow Palestinian Christians as well as Muslims?

How do you square that with a notion of justice, Christian or universal?

5 October 2012 at 12:09  
Blogger conchovor said...

Correction,

Marie,

And why seemingly equate 'living harmoniously as equals' with 'all [or any] Jews leave Israel', except that, deep down, at some level, you think 'but yes I think it would be best'?

5 October 2012 at 12:25  
Blogger conchovor said...

[So you don't like me criticising Jews and Israel. Well Avi that's free speech.]

Avi didn't say that, which begs the question, why would you misrepresent him as though he did?

5 October 2012 at 12:29  
Blogger conchovor said...

[4. Was the flag motionless? No, it was unfurled in the wind. We know this from the unimpeached testimony of the crew and the physical interaction of the flag as dictated by relative wind, and size/weight of the flag.]

No, Carl, you don't. Not that it was unfurled +all the time+. And the pilot may have looked in the wrong place, or passed by too quickly. Most likely he didn't see it because he wasn't expecting it. He'd been told to expect an Egyptian ship, and that's what he saw.

The Liberty crew missed the Israeli markings on just about all aircraft and vessels that day. I suspect the Nord Atlas Magen David was about the same size as the initial, smaller U.S. ensign on the Liberty. But the ship's spotters +completely+ missed it, even as it zoomed by about deck level.

The first time the Liberty crew saw any Israeli markings that entire day was at 14.50, on an MTB at extremely close range.


Why excoriate the Israelis for a sin the Yanks also committed?

5 October 2012 at 12:36  
Blogger conchovor said...

[1. Was the pilot too far away? No. He said there was no flag.]

I thought he said he didn't see a flag, not that there wasn't one. The IDF history says 'no flag was discernible'.

[To make this claim he had to be close enough to see a flag.]

Or insufficiently close or not in the right position or looking from the right angle to see it.

You're falling foul of a literalist fallacy. If a pilot says 'there was no flag' (and it is not clear he did use those precise words), all he need necessarily mean is that he +couldn't see+ a U.S. ensign.

5 October 2012 at 12:43  
Blogger conchovor said...

Carl,

the wiki account seems to take in Painter's hearing machine gun fire at 15.00 i.e. after the torpedo attack. But even if that is correct, was anyone wounded or killed by MTB gunfire at this time?

The only testimonies it gives are Ex. 10 and 11 which you just gave me.

5 October 2012 at 13:04  
Blogger John Magee said...

conchovor

No nation, religion, or group of people are too sacred, special, or perfect to be above fair and honest critism.

I love my own country and religous faith. When necessary I have and I will continue to criticize both.

It's too bad some people here are so thin skined and insecure they can't stand honest criticism of anything connected with their cause or group. All they can do in reply is toss out insults and name calling.

To be afraid of telling the truth in a civil manner as a person choses based on the evidence they understand is PCness at it's worst.

5 October 2012 at 20:17  
Blogger len said...

Anti Semitism is not a fair and unbiased view of the Jewish people!.

Anti- Semitism is an unbalanced unreasonable hatred of all things Jewish.

To attempt to' dress up' Anti Semitism as some sort of critique of the Jewish people is PC` ness at its very best(or worst whatever your viewpoint)

Jesus was hated without a cause, the Jewish people have been made 'scapegoats'also throughout history.

6 October 2012 at 19:13  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Conchovor
I found this documentary very interesting and informative. The Zionist Story from the first forming of Zionism in Basil Switzerland in 1897 by Theodore Herzl and others to the present day. It's over an hour long but do watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufLAitMq3zI&feature=plcp
No wonder the Palestinians hate the Jews!

I would split the land equally three ways. For Palestinians, Jews and the third bit for Christians to ensure the peace is kept and that human rights are upheld. You've got to make an effort . I think once the barriers of guilt have been torn down and one is able to see things as they are and criticise, there can be progress toward a better life for all.

7 October 2012 at 01:25  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Conchovor, you're debating one of the most analytical minds on this blog. A former Strategic Air Command officer, no less. Watching the two of you is like watching two lawyers taking apart evidence and its best to stay out of their way. If this is how sharp your brain is while suffering from suffering from hernia, I want to be around when you feel better. Feel better and get well soon, refuah shlema.

I did a quick scan of the posts,John, who is insecure and thin-skinned to what honest criticism and by whom? Perhaps you posted on the wrong thread?

7 October 2012 at 01:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

conchovor

Hope you are feeling better. I hope the respite was of some use to you.

You're falling foul of a literalist fallacy.

In fact, I am applying the 'reasonable man' test. Would a reasonable man have seen the flag under the conditions presented? Yes, he would. Therefore the claim of the Israeli pilot that he saw no flag is unreasonable and must be rejected.

Not that it was unfurled +all the time.

It would have been unfurled with sufficient probability for the pilot to have seen it. If we credit the pilot's testimony, then you must admit that he searched for the flag over a long period of time. The flag was in motion in contrast to the stationary image of the ship. The flag presented color contrast.

And the pilot may have looked in the wrong place, or passed by too quickly.

The flag however was visible and in the correct place. It is not credible to suggest the pilot would not look at the mast in the center of the ship in his visual search for the flag. He may have thought to look several places, but he would begin with the most obvious. Once he looked at that location, he would have seen the flag. To suggest he passed by to quickly is to deny the veracity of the pilot's own testimony. To suggest the flag somehow occupied a random position that made it continuously invisible to both pilots during their extended search is not statistically credible.

Most likely he didn't see it because he wasn't expecting it. He'd been told to expect an Egyptian ship, and that's what he saw.

Which again denies the veracity of the pilot's testimony. This is an admission that the pilots didn't verify the target but attacked it on sight. Even so, the pilots would have had a clear view of the flag at the top of the mast as they made their attack run. They attacked from at a low angle from bow to stern with the sun behind them. That would place the American flag right in the middle of the pilot's canopy as the approached the ship to fire. Not to mention the GTR-5 marking that allegedly tipped the Israelis that something might be amiss.

It is simply not credible to suggest the pilots didn't see the flag. The only way they would not have seen the flag is if it wasn't there. And that is why the pilots claimed it wasn't there. But it was.

carl

7 October 2012 at 05:15  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

conchovor

Painter was below decks at 15.00, and apparently heard machine gun fire, as to whose intention to massacre he leaps. Understandable, given all they had been through, but not necessarily true, at all.

The Liberty's hull presented no protection from 20mm cannon shells or high-caliber machine gun bullets. It was an unarmored ship. This means that one did not be on deck to know the ship was being fired up. The cannon shells ripping through the ship would have been sufficient evidence. The Liberty exhibited literally hundreds of holes from the strafing of the MTBs. It is not simply a matter of hearing gunfire. It is a matter of seeing and hearing the impact of rounds as they penetrate the hull of the ship, and tear apart metal and flesh in the process.

You can legitimately contest the specificity of the times but you cannot contest two very important facts:

1. The sheer number of rounds that were put into the Liberty's hull. That takes time.

2. The fact that the crew testifies to hostile fire being directed at the ship close up to the point the MTBs departed. The order to abandon ship was countermanded because it was too dangerous for the crew due to fire received from the MTBs. Crew testimony places that order after 1500. That's well after the 'stand down' order. How accurate is the time? I don't know. But I know this. The crew isn't going to mistake 30 minutes of elapsed time between the last Israeli shot and the departure of the Israeli MTBs.

carl

7 October 2012 at 05:31  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl,

I've been mostly following the discussion between you and conchovor, with a brief read at Wiki on this topic. I must say, though your flag argument is the most irrational position I've ever reas from you. A US intelligence vessel with the sole mission to observe, staffed by a number of expert personnel presumably briefed and trained to at least identify all belligerents in the conflict, their bridge and observation posts loaded with sophisticated optics and prepared charts, still misidentified Israeli aircraft and were unable to see their markings. At the same time you insist that whilst in flight the Israeli pilots had to see a flag on a moving vessel from above? Why? Because Navy witnesses opined that the IDF must have seen it? And on the strength of that, the IDF pilots had to be lying....and so, to back up this weak argument, you reject the conclusions of several US and Israeli inquiries and you come up with convoluted crank conspiracies as a motive?

Sorry, not in the usual tradition of your advanced analytical thinking in this case.

7 October 2012 at 12:08  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

The Liberty was a SIGINT ship. Its mission was to stand off and collect electronic emissions. (That btw is why it was so close to the conflict. It needed Line of Sight to the transmitter for many of its collection operations.) Everyone on the ship supported that mission. Not everyone directly participated in that mission. A crew on a Naval vessel consists of many specialties. Some are engineers who run the engines. Some are cooks. Some are security personnel. Some are machinists. On the Liberty, some happened to be SIGINT specialists. To suggest that all of them would be experts in Aircraft identification is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the ships mission and the composition of the ship's crew.

The Pilot of attacking Aircraft according to his own testimony was deliberately looking for a flag. Israeli surveillance aircraft had seen the flag and reported it earlier in the day. He was looking for an Egyptian flag. Perhaps he couldn't have identified every flag in the world, but he could have parsed out "Egyptian or not Egyptian." He may not have recognized the flag of (say) Portugal, but he certainly would have recognized the flag of the US or the Soviet Union.

So how did he miss the flag? I have not heard one reasonable scenario that explains how a pilot (two actually) misses a flag that is clearly displayed in his line of sight when he is looking right at it, and desperately wants to see it. I have up to know only heard suggestions that contradict the pilot's own testimony.

carl

7 October 2012 at 14:17  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Just so we are all clear ...

This is the flag the Israeli pilots claimed they couldn't see.

After the attack

Before the attack


carl

7 October 2012 at 16:23  
Blogger Naomi King said...

You Grace

Here is the response from Toby Howarth thus far although the link to the correspondence doesn't work. Maybe it is time for a formal complaint to be lodged against Mr Sizer under the Church of England’s Clergy Discipline Measure by someone who knows better than I how that procedure works.


Dear Rev Howarth

Thank you for your reply. The link to the correspondence you allude to does not appear to function. Could you please resend.

Warmest regards in Christ
Naomi King

On 10 Oct 2012, at 10:50, Toby Howarth wrote:

Dear Ms King,

Thank you for your emails to me concerning the Revd Stephen Sizer. Having seen at least some of the material that you mention, I can understand your concern and I am grateful to you for raising the matter with me, as it does indeed have implications for inter religious relations. You may be aware that Mr Sizer’s actions were referred to the police by the Council for Christians and Jews, and that having made an investigation they decided to take no further action. The correspondence can be seen here: I have checked and can also confirm that no formal complaint has been lodged against Mr Sizer under the Church of England’s Clergy Discipline Measure.

I am making further enquiries, and will let you know when there is more to report.

Yours sincerely,

Toby Howarth
____________________

The Revd Dr Toby Howarth
Secretary for Inter Religious Affairs to the Archbishop of Canterbury and
National Inter Religious Affairs Adviser for the Church of England
Lambeth Palace, London SE1 7JU
Email: toby.howarth@lambethpalace.org.uk

11 October 2012 at 08:08  
Blogger Naomi King said...

You might be interested in this report of a recent conference in Bethlehem this August where the speakers included Stephen Sizer (pages 14-16)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/106346532/Contending-Earnestly-for-the-Faith-August-2012

Jacob Prasch is probably the most knowledgeable Christian alive. A Jewish convert here is what he says on Rev Sizer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og6ovScMt9k&feature=related

Stephen Sizer talking in New Zealand!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=-_90qflt9Ss&feature=endscreen

11 October 2012 at 08:27  
Blogger Sam said...

As A Christian Palestinian, I can refute the utter verbal garbage spewed by Jacob Prasch about Israel according Christians special rights. Does she consider these special rights include spitting at Christian clergy? Read this report:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/9555017/Vatican-representative-condemns-attacks-on-Christian-holy-places-in-Israel.html

11 October 2012 at 15:05  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Here is the link to the police investigation into Rev Stephen Sizer. He was referred to the police by the Council for Christians and Jews.

http://www.ccj.org.uk/Articles/311102/Council_of_Christians/News/Sizer_Surrey_Police.aspx

11 October 2012 at 19:58  
Blogger Naomi King said...


By chance I meet Michael King, Rural Church and Community Co-ordinator, The Methodist Church in Britain at the Conservative Conference last week. Here is our exchange of letters about Rev Sizer's event coming up in Salisbury on 17th November (unless someone pulls it).

Michael King
Rural Church and Community Co-ordinator
Methodist Church in Britain

Dear Naomi

Thank you for all the email correspondence that greeted me on my return from Tel Aviv.
The position of Vice-President of the Methodist Church is one of authority, not power. Therefore, I have forwarded your concerns to the specialists who are able to advise the Church on matters such as these. I have been assured that they know of the Revd Sizer. I am given to understand that the meeting is not sponsored by the local Methodist Church in Salisbury, but a hired venue for the event.

My own view, and I stress this is a personal one, is that Jesus would be on the side of the oppressed; the gospels make that very clear. What is much less clear is precisely who are the oppressed in the Middle East, and that was borne out by conversations I had at the Tantur Ecumenical Institute, Jerusalem two days ago. The importance of dialogue and deeper understanding is absolutely crucial. Different views need to be listened to, even if I don't agree with them, and as long as there is no incitement to hatred. The Church has a unique role in its message of love and reconciliation, and I believe we can all play our part in this; but this is much more difficult than 'taking sides' - as Jesus found out.

I have done all I can to make this specific meeting known to the inter-faith team in the Methodist Church. I am grateful to you for bringing this matter to my attention, but I will now have to leave it the 'experts' to take things further.

Yours sincerely

Michael King


Dear Michael

Thank you so much for having passed on my concerns after our meeting at the Conservative Party Conference. It is helpful to know that this is not a Methodist sponsored event in Salisbury but a hiring by Canon Edward Probert and his so called Concern for Israel/Palestine organisation.

As a result of these concerns, expressed by both me and other Believers here in Salisbury, about the Methodist Church being used as a platform for Rev Sizer to proclaim his credo of hatred, the Bishop of Salisbury has prevailed upon Canon Probert to provide a more "balanced" line up of speakers for the event than was initially intended and also Lambeth Palace is monitoring the event.


Sizer seems to be using Methodist Churches regularly as the vehicle of preaching his message. You might like to pass on this account of his outing at the Rivercourt Methodist Church in Hammersmith. You will note there were police there to prevent public disorder. Please pass this account of
Sizer, the Rivercourt Methodist Church and Holocaust denial on to those in authority in the Methodist Church in your capacity, as you describe it, of "authority but not of power".

I repeat is the Methodist Church really keen to be allied with this man Stephen Sizer ?

14 October 2012 at 08:54  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older