Falcon29
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2013
- Messages
- 31,647
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
Its like the people who see UFO's and say they can't say anything because they face 10 years in prison and/or a fine. I'd like to see the law on the books that deals with UFO fines/charges.
I'd like to be a juror in that case. Like he would be found guilty.
I was speaking of my link.
You claimed they only knew it was American after the attack. The article proves otherwise.
From your link:
This would indicate continued confusion. The US had trouble with its own communications--is it possible the Israelis did as well?
I will admit that I am troubled by all of the claims made in that Chicago Tribune article. If true, they are disturbing, and it would be good to know what the purpose of such an attack was. That said, the tapes are missing, and mysteriously, so are the transcripts. The interviewees in this article are trying to recall events that happened 40 years prior. I'm not saying they are lying, but between the NSA, the CIA, and diplomatic cables, why hasn't any hard evidence come to light? From your article:
My inclination in all of these kinds of cases is to give the benefit of the doubt--i.e. believe that it was a mistake. Friendly fire happens often enough that it's difficult to dismiss this claim out of hand, and most friendly fire incidents are of an army firing on its own soldiers. For Israel to fire mistakenly on an undeclared third party (especially after that third party refused to declare its ships ahead of time) in the middle of war is certainly believable.
Without hard proof, it's hard for me to change my position on this. Think of it as the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent." At the moment, I think Israel was "not guilty," but hardly innocent.
By the way, good find with the article.
I'm not sure what you're confused about. This is proof, and the original link was in Hebrew. Friendly fire amongst ground troops is a whole other case that doesn't come close to raiding a naval ship in a sustained attack.
I believe the American people find it suspicious that no tapes preceding or during the attack were released.
......
Perhaps the most persuasive suggestion that such transcripts existed comes from the Israelis themselves, in a pair of diplomatic cables sent by the Israeli ambassador in Washington, Avraham Harman, to Foreign Minister Abba Eban in Tel Aviv.
............
What don't you get about this? Or what's not 'hard evidence' about it?
.............
Being yourself pro-Israel or Jewish doesn't mean you have to take the escape route for this incident.
Last edited: