6 ms·
In Tulamben on the East coast of Bali you can find the opposite: the submerged wreck of a ship that's never been sunk: the USAT Liberty.
She's been torpedoed b
In Tulamben on the East coast of Bali you can find the opposite: the submerged wreck of a ship that's never been sunk: the USAT Liberty.
She's been torpedoed by a Japanese submarine during WWII but stayed afloat. As she was getting towed towards the nearest shipyard, she was taking on too much water and she's been beached to save her cargo and fittings as she was not deemed repairable.
21 years later, an eruption of Mount Agung produced tremors that made the ship slip off the beach, down to the ocean, where she lies now on a sand slope, turning the location into an amazing diving spot!
Nowadays, each time the volcano shakes the island a bit, the water around turns red for a couple days
Poseidon getting the help of Hephaestus to claim the oceans rightful bounty.
Until the Battle of the Coral Sea, from 4 to 8 May 1942, the Allies were hapless against the Japanese.
It was so bad that an Australian ship had to camouflage as vegetation and sneak away.
For a moment I thought you were talking about the USS Liberty and got confused. For those who don't know the USS Liberty was a deliberate attack on a US vessel by the Israelis in 1967 that killed 34 Marines and Sailors that would have been used as a false flag to goad America into war with Egypt. The resulting coverup by a POTUS who got his position after another POTUS was assassinated is one of the most egregious coverups in the last century.
The USAT Liberty was just a ww transport vessel.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
There's zero evidence that the Liberty was intended to be a false flag. Even most of the people who believe it was a deliberate attack (i.e. Israel knew it was an American ship) don't believe the false flag theory.
Not only is there a ton of inductive evidence, but its been said by survivors themselves. Of course the less "reaching" conclusion is it was to coverup activities they had spied on, but many things don't make sense with that proposal. We will probably never know for sure due to the degree of coverup. To be fair as the remaining survivors have gotten more traction they do usually avoid saying that directly, but they hint at it heavily.
It was deliberate, all the deductive evidence points to it, so I find the framing of "even those who believe it was deliberate" to be slightly misleading.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
> The resulting coverup by a POTUS who got his position after another POTUS was assassinated is one of the most egregious coverups in the last century.
Yeah... um... you sound like a conspiracy-theory nutcase when you write like this. How is Kennedy's assassination relevant here? What are you darkly hinting at, but not coming out and saying?
Writing like this is called "vagueposting", and it's really shoddy. Don't make us guess what your point is. Either make a clear claim, or don't bother.
> Not only is there a ton of inductive evidence,
I'm not sure what "inductive" means here. Does Israel have an extensive history of conducting false flag attacks by attacking US ships and then promptly admitting responsibility and apologizing for it?
> but its been said by survivors themselves.
Survivors who are obviously in no position to have any special information about Israel's motives, so irrelevant.
> It was deliberate, all the deductive evidence points to it, so I find the framing of "even those who believe it was deliberate" to be slightly misleading.
Not at all. Israel was at the time a young country with still relatively inexperienced armed forces, and had several notable friendly fire instances, including attacking a British ship during the Suez war. A deliberate attack is certainly plausible, but far from certain.
You want to talk about misleading? How about your incredibly misleading claim that the Liberty was "just a ww [sic] transport vessel." Yes, it was a transport 25 years earlier. It was not a transport at the time of the attack. Its past history as a transport is entirely irrelevant.
Israel has committed plenty of real crimes. By all means talk about them. You only hurt your credibility by pushing imaginary ones.
Overall I agree with you, but arminiusreturns was claiming that the USAT Liberty, the one at Bali, was a WWII transport, not the USS Liberty, the one Israel attacked.
Israel had already at that time even as a young nation esablished they were willing to use false flag operations, primarily in the Kind David hotel bombing and in the Lavon Affair.
These were intelligence agents spying on activities during a war between Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and they were told, no ordered, to keep their mouths shut about the incident. Their first hand knowledge cannot be so blithely and casually dismissed.
Regardless of your ad hominem attack on the survivors of the massacre, not only do the yet still classified and unreleased NSA tapes exist that will one day confirm, but more recently declassified Israeli cables that support the statement that Israel knew it was American and wanted to sink it on purpose:
"in a pair of diplomatic cables sent by the Israeli ambassador in Washington, Avraham Harman, to Foreign Minister Abba Eban in Tel Aviv.
Five days after the Liberty attack, Harman cabled Eban that a source the Israelis code-named "Hamlet" was reporting that the Americans had "clear proof that from a certain stage the pilot discovered the identity of the ship and continued the attack anyway."
Harman repeated the warning three days later, advising Eban, who is now dead, that the White House was "very angry," and that "the reason for this is that the Americans probably have findings showing that our pilots indeed knew that the ship was American."" [1]
Even beyond that, many people in a position to have first hand knowledge spoke to that effect, as can be seen in the rest of [1].
Furthermore, an even more covered up aspect of the story that lends credence to the "false flag" angle is this: according to the book Operation Cyanide: Why the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III [2], " at 8:45 a.m. EDT (2:45 p.m. off the coast of the Sinai Peninsula) on June 8, 1967 two A-4 bomber aircraft loaded with nuclear bombs were dispatched from the aircraft carrier USS America, bound for Cairo with orders to drop those bombs on that city."
As for your comment about UAT liberty transport vessel, the actual relevant tidbit to the original post, it was a different vessel altogether... which I didn't know, and hence me even bringing this topic up in the first place.
1. https://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html?coll=chi_news_nationworld_util&ctrack=2&cset=true https://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.h...
2. https://www.amazon.com/Operation-Cyanide-Bombing-Liberty-Nearly/dp/1904132197 https://www.amazon.com/Operation-Cyanide-Bombing-Liberty-Nea...
bonus two more very informational books on the topic:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B079WLV7HT https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B079WLV7HT
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07281WLWL https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07281WLWL
Summary of Events: http://www.gtr5.com/summary_of_events.htm http://www.gtr5.com/summary_of_events.htm
Al Jazeera documentary" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx72tAWVcoM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx72tAWVcoM
> primarily in the Kind David hotel bombing
Not a good look when your first example is completely nonsensical. Israel didn't exist as an entity at the time of the King David hotel bombing. It also was not a false flag operation. It was carried out by a Jewish group who immediately claimed responsibility for it and apologized for the deaths of the Jews who had been killed. The fact that the perpetrators dressed as non-jews to carry out the attack does not make it a false flag attack.
> Lavon Affair
That one was actually a false flag operation carried out by Israel, so at least you get 1 of 2.
> These were intelligence agents spying on activities during a war between Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and they were told, no ordered, to keep their mouths shut about the incident. Their first hand knowledge cannot be so blithely and casually dismissed.
Mostly they were sailors, and their first hand knowledge was getting shot at. That's it.
> Regardless of your ad hominem attack
Nothing I said can be construed as an ad hominem attack on the survivors.
> not only do the yet still classified and unreleased NSA tapes exist that will one day confirm, but more recently declassified Israeli cables that support the statement that Israel knew it was American and wanted to sink it on purpose:
Passing over the unsupported claims about what the NSA tapes may show, which you obviously don't actually know, none of this supports the false flag claim--only the deliberate attack claim.
> according to the book Operation Cyanide: Why the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III [2], " at 8:45 a.m. EDT (2:45 p.m. off the coast of the Sinai Peninsula) on June 8, 1967 two A-4 bomber aircraft loaded with nuclear bombs were dispatched from the aircraft carrier USS America, bound for Cairo with orders to drop those bombs on that city."
This also doesn't support the false flag claim, since it only speaks to the US reaction to the incident, not Israel's motive.
In summary, you have presented no evidence that supports the false flag claim.
> As for your comment about UAT liberty transport vessel, the actual relevant tidbit to the original post, it was a different vessel altogether... which I didn't know, and hence me even bringing this topic up in the first place.
Sorry, I misread that. That's on me.
>If you would like to retract your previous statements, feel free.
I am not retracting anything. But if you respond to the one I deleted, you should respond to the one I didn't.
>As I said in my previous comment I have no opinion of intra semitic squabbles.
It makes no difference to me. I understood you to be saying that the US military was who you wanted to bomb Israel, in the 21st century, in retaliation for the Liberty, and that is IMO not a feasible goal. By using the term "blow up" I meant to be inclusive of anything, whether or not considered conventional military action. The point is, it is believable to me to have the goal but not the hope of doing it that way. It's also logical that if you have a goal, you work with or promote people who have a similar goal, even if you don't share the underlying reasons.
>I'm merely suggesting the US should have a foreign policy that treats other countries equally and that it would be in the national interest to be seen as a fair arbiter in the world
There is no changing the past. If US foreign policy is to be
judged by the Liberty, then it is unchangeable definitionally. I don't see how you can want what you say you want, because it's logically impossible.
>If you are suggesting a disproportionate response that would be fine by me
I haven't suggested any particular response would be the right one, in any circumstance, whether we are talking about the Israeli response or an imaginary US one in modern times.
My point is that a proportional response to anything is never enough to deter, because it never can be applied 100% of the time. So people who advocate a proportional response to anything are not serious.
I'm not debating whether it is the right moral standard, people claim it is a lot.
I'm saying that it's impractical and nobody can expect it to become a rule. Proportional retaliation does not serve the purpose of retaliation. I believe this is a timeless principle. In a logical, not a moral sense.