I understand the main point of the article is that the ships were lifted due to vulcanic activity. Still, as this creates the image of graves being lifted:
„To be clear, these ships aren't victims of a battle; instead, the U.S. Navy intentionally scuttled them at the location in 1945 after taking the island in an attempt to create an artificial breakwater for a planned harbor. Several of them are reinforced concrete barges, ships built to support naval operations and not necessarily for any direct combat role.”
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
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.
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.
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.
It's amazing the level of defensive outrage this event generates 50 plus years on. If we can't have an open discussion about shady events in the past then maybe we need to investigate the current interests preventing that open discussion.
>It's amazing the level of defensive outrage this event generates 50 plus years on
That's the thing, though. About trying to make something of it now. Isn't it just anachronistic?
I have the impression that people obsess over it because they believe that all that keeps Israel going is US support and if they just get people to believe the "truth" about the USS liberty then magic will happen.
But the event was from back when the US wasn't a close ally. If it was intentional, how is it at all mysterious? What is there to say about it? They could've thought that US surveillance would give them away to those they were actually fighting.
Again, it seems anachronistic, taking something from before the relationship as if it was a betrayal, to try to break up the relationship. No amount of rhetoric can move it forward to today.
The implications seems to be that 'It was a long time ago, it didn't happen and if it did happen it doesn't matter'. An impressive amount of cognitive dissonance. It's not that people aren't trying to re contextualize the past all the time, the 1619 project for example. There is also much still kept secret 50 years on and it would be nice to learn more. Anyone who isn't pushing an agenda would agree with that. Personally I find it extremely distasteful that people here are still trying to bury this.
Since you deleted your other comment I'll reply to it here.
>I haven't been talking to you about it for 50 years. I haven't been talking to anyone about it even as often as every year. Despite that, you can't engage in any way other than considering me part of the conspiracy?
>I'm not an Israeli, and I'm willing to discuss the topic without debating whether Israel should in fact exist or what motivations someone might have for wishing it didn't.
>Furthermore, I am not especially hostile, as an American, to the idea of disengaging from the middle east and the particular relationship the US currently has with Israel.
>So I'm completely sincere and trying to be constructive when I give my personal view on tactics to disrupt it. I'd like to get behind the facade and understand what motivates people like you.
>It's important to not believe your own BS even if you are propagandizing. To be aware of the correct history, for your own sake.
Why do you assume I care about whether Israel exists or not? From my perspective it's a world away and has absolutely zero impact on my life. It's not my place or America's for that matter to get involved in intra semitic squabbles.
What I find insidious are those who would propagandize and coverup the incident within this country. Such activities are utterly poisonous to an open democratic society. Frankly unamerican.
As an addendum I think that if anyone deliberately attacks US military personnel then they deserve a proportional response. Who they are is irrelevant.
If it's Gaddafi bomb him. If it's Al Qaeda bomb them. If it's the Vietnamese bomb them If it's Israel bomb them.
>What I find insidious are those who would propagandize and coverup the incident within this country.
Demanding that the US bomb something at random because of the Liberty is obviously futile. Especially on HN, which does not control the US military.
If you want to blow up Israelis, and you are able to post coherently about it, you are smart enough to know that talking about the Liberty incident is not an effective way.
Also, "proportional response" is a red flag for me, for BS. It is mathematically impossible to deter anything with a proportional response, and therefore nobody has ever been serious when they suggest it as a standard.
Also also, if you can reply to a deleted comment, you can reply to the one that wasn't.
It seems like you won't break character. I am interested in your actual beliefs and am not drawing premature conclusions about them.
Still, the overarching goal of destroying the US's relationship with Israel is the only political motivation I can think of. I carefully refrained from condemning that or moralizing, in the interest of discussion.
>Also also, if you can reply to a deleted comment, you can reply to the one that wasn't.
If you would like to retract your previous statements, feel free.
>If you want to blow up Israelis
As I said in my previous comment I have no opinion of intra semitic squabbles. 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.
>Also, "proportional response" is a red flag for me
If you are suggesting a disproportionate response that would be fine by me. There are details for military planners not foreign policy advisers.
>It seems like you won't break character.
I think you are arguing in bad faith if you accuse me of being 'in character'.
>Still, the overarching goal of destroying the US's relationship with Israel is the only political motivation I can think of.
As an American my only consideration is that which is in the national interest. Ideologically I'm mostly a america first non interventionist. I am well aware there are many in this country that would lobby on behalf of foreign powers and I think they should register under FARA.
>I think you are arguing in bad faith if you accuse me of being 'in character'.
You can think that, but all I'm saying (sincerely) is that I do not have enough imagination to interpret what you write as being in "good faith".
That's not the same as coming to a conclusion, which I try never to do unless I actually have to take action. I just can't come up with a consistent contextual framework. Yet.
It would be interesting to me, if you said (which I believe you implied with the "intra-semitic" comment) you didn't care about the Palestinians, and in fact, you happened to have an Iranian perspective. I think somewhere I read that one possibility for where Jews came from originally could be the general vicinity of what is now Iran. Possibly meaning...not so semitic?
>You can think that, but all I'm saying (sincerely) is that I do not have enough imagination to interpret what you write as being in "good faith".
If you're going to accuse me of something then I would prefer you just came right out and said what it is that you're accusing me of. No beating around the (burning?) bush.
>you didn't care about the Palestinians
It's not that I don't care, merely that as an American I see no benefit to intervening. To me the conflict between the Arabs and Israelis is the same as the conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi. I see them as more alike than different. As I'm not a member of either group I don't fully understand these conflicts which is all the more reason to not intervene.
As far as I am aware the Iranians are an indo european population group but this is an academic exercise not a political one. I would recommend the lectures given at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago if you would like to learn more.
>As I'm not a member of either group I don't fully understand these conflicts
I can't say how many Israelis or American Jews think this way, but there is a logical/practical justification of Zionism that has nothing to do with religion or nebulous ethnic hatreds, which I think I've heard people claim (rightly or wrongly) didn't exist much before 1948 anyway.
The justification is, that anyone who has enough Jewish ancestry to have been targeted by the Nazis, can never be secure in any place other than Israel. That if Jews can exist at all, they must have at least as much right to exist there as anywhere else, and historically it's proven cannot defend as well anywhere else but a homeland they believe in.
I doubt this myself, that everyone who could've been exterminated in WWII is best off in Israel. But it seems like a western, developed country, type of rationalization that impedes how you frame things.
I'm not knowledgeable and haven't researched it, but my impression is at some point the definition of a Jew who has the right to return to Israel was changed to the Nazi definition of a Jew, on ethical grounds, and that would seem to imply a secular, utilitarian outlook not a religio/ethnic one that outsiders should be bewildered by.
I don't think this is too complicated, until the dispossessed are brought into it.
Again, I like the word "anachronistic". I have the impression that much like people project the US-Israel being allies too far back, they also project the Israel/Palestine conflict too far back.
People say that many conflicts in Africa are not ancient either, but constructed during colonialism.
While I'm sure your religious politics are fascinating they are completely irrelevant to US policy as it relates to the USS Liberty incident. The US has nothing to gain by involving ourselves in that quagmire.
As a politically exercise I am completely uninterested in such issues. US foreign policy should be blind to them.
If Jews want to advocate for the existence of Israel that is fine by me, but they must not do it under an American flag. It is not patriotic to support another country over ones one.
I am also disappointed that you do not share the presumption of good faith.
I think I clearly stated a non-religious rationale for Israel that I also said I am not convinced of.
How can I interpret the above phrase as if in good faith? Whose politics? What religion? I am not baptized, nor have I taken communion or had a bar mitzvah or anything else similar.
You sound like someone who doesn't understand American politics, and I was trying to help.
Treating this sort of comment as a threat is counterproductive. It's highly relevant to your stated goal of changing US policy to understand the biases and outlook of Americans.
Tactically, you must understand that everything is framed in terms of the right to exist, for a secular audience, not a religious or ethnic appeal. That applies to the Liberty, too.
I guess there's the pro-Israel Christian right, but you can't expect to find them on HN listening to you.
If you don't want to know the truth about your obstacles, you don't believe in your own goal.
I find it somewhat incredulous that anyone could argue that the existence of Israel doesn't involve religion. American politics or foreign policy?
I don't see the threat, do enlighten me.
>If you don't want to know the truth about your obstacles, you don't believe in your own goal.
I am aware of my limitations, I do not have dictatorial powers. What I have said here is merely what I see as the correct solution to US foreign policy. I have no grand designs nor plans to somehow convince the rest of the country of my correctness. I do not pretend to speak for anyone but myself.
I do believe however that one can have convictions absent direct implementable practicality.
>I find it somewhat incredulous that anyone could argue that the existence of Israel doesn't involve religion
That is not a claim I am making. Whether an affinity for Israel has religious roots depends on the person. There are a lot of secular Americans, and Israelis, who believe in a case for Israel that is not religious. So I assert.
I did not endorse the logic; I personally think that other groups survive without a country, like say the Kurds, and I am not sure it's necessary for Israel to exist, much less in its present state.
But to oppose Israel, I think understanding who you are trying to convince, of what, is vital.
I don't see how you can not understand it, since surely appealing to secular Americans is why you would be commenting on a place like HN?
>I don't see the threat, do enlighten me.
My comment was explaining a way non-religious people justify Israel. It appeared to me that you thought I was threatening you in some way, hence ignoring it and calling me religious.
I think it's a historical fact that non-religious factors, ie the Holocaust, were pivotal in making a case for Israel to both Jews and non-Jews, and secular non-Jewish American support for Israel today can't be discounted.
I inferred you agree with me based on your comment about the Hutu and the Tutsi. It implies to me your preferred audience is secular Americans without religious motivation, who don't sympathize with far off ethnic/religious conflicts.
I think this is the correct group of people to try to convince, tactically.
I don't believe top people in the military-industrial complex are highly religious. I may be completely off base, but reading the news about, for instance, Mark Milley, it confirmed my assumptions that they believe in a secular creed, understanding their enemies, and stuff like that. But also not isolationism.
As a point of clarification I was disappointed that you did not give me the presumption of good faith from the outset.
>But to oppose Israel
I neither support nor oppose Israel. It could be on the moon for all the difference it makes to me. It simply doesn't factor into my life or politics.
Most Americans couldn't point to Israel on a globe. I think this implies an implicit agreement with my non interventionism. Out of sight out of mind. Domestic politics matter infinitely more than the squabbling of foreigners.
I would posit that without lobbying practically no one in America would care about Israel either. This is why it needs to be disclosed.
I wouldn't say Israel started because of WW2. The zionist congress and the migration started in the 1800's IIRC. Wasn't the Israeli government a continuation of the zionist congress too? Like a government in exile.
>people in the military-industrial complex
Those in the military complex are just that, they could care less who the bombs fall on so long as they can sell them. You could even call this a blind pro interventionism.
If Milley never takes a dollar from the military industrial complex after retiring I will eat my hat.
By "oppose" I mean "think the US needs to bomb them or something to remain neutral due to an incident 50 years ago". I missed who you think the US is not being neutral towards, since you seemed to rule out the Palestinians.
>without lobbying practically no one in America would care about Israel either
That doesn't seem plausible to me. Maybe you link government aid to Israel to lobbying, but how does it help public opinion? When do people ever hear about "the Israel lobby" except as part of anti-Israel rhetoric?
>I wouldn't say Israel started because of WW2
I believe I once had a book that described immigration in the 30s to Palestine, and ensuing riots, because the immigrants were buying land and not recognizing tenants' right to continue living there. I take for granted nothing comes out of nowhere, but WW2 + the lead-up + the British Empire crumbling seems to have been what made it a reality. Millions of Jews had to be convinced there was no alternative, as well as others.
I thought we agreed that in principle the correct response to a deliberate attack would have been to bomb them in 1967? I don't understand why you keep intentionally misinterpreting this.
>who you think the US is not being neutral towards
I find the less you know about someone the easier it is to be neutral.
>the Palestinians
As I said before the Israeli/Palestinian intra semitic conflict is one America should stay a country mile away from.
>That doesn't seem plausible to me.
I've yet to hear of the Lesotho lobby and practically zero people in America care about Lesotho. How about Belarus or New Guinea? The link between lobbying and public opinion seems quite strong to me.
> anti-Israel rhetoric?
Please stop with the unfounded assumptions.
All I'm advocating for is for America to not get bogged down in foreign quagmires and for other countries to stop trying to drag us into their conflicts. It is beyond me how anyone can find this such a difficult concept. Mandatory disclosure of foreign interests would go a long way here.
If you are interested the Great War channel has a series that covers Mandatory Palestine. This is however entirely irrelevant to US foreign policy.
I always enjoy expounding upon my ideas in public discussion but when the conversation retreads over already trod points and the counterparty is disingenuous and intentionally mischaracterizes what I have plainly stated then I am forced to question whether their motive is discussion or to score cheap points in a discussion that no one will likely read.
>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.
>But if you respond to the one I deleted, you should respond to the one I didn't.
I had already written my reply and felt it more expedient.
>you wanted to bomb Israel, in the 21st century
Of course it is not possible to right all old wrongs. I think we can agree in principle that the correct move on the US's part would have been to bomb Israeli military targets in 1967 though.
I am far more concerned with the present. I think all lobbying on behalf of foreign powers should be subject to FARA, paid or unpaid, as long as there is a proven link to that foreign power. For example dual citizenship should automatically trigger FARA reporting. The American people deserve to know who is working on behalf of foreign powers and may have interests that do not align with their own.
>For example dual citizenship should automatically trigger FARA reporting.
I have read periodic stories in the news, sob stories about how hard it is to renounce US citizenship. Including via HN quite recently.
My impression is that because the US tends to regard giving up citizenship as tax evasion, means that dual citizenship is a lot more common than in many countries who may not even allow it.
So, practically speaking, I wonder if the change you want might arouse opposition among other people than the ones you want to target.
Group 1 being people who are dual citizens with other countries than Israel, and their allies.
Group 2 being any entity that doesn't want to incentivize people to give up US citizenship and stop paying taxes.
Tactically, you might portray dual citizenship as being an Israeli/Jewish thing, but strategically it seems important to be clear on whether it's true. I don't know.
You would not find many objectors to the cause of making bureaucracy more efficient.
My ideal model is something like what exists on twitter and youtube where there is a disclaimer if the account belongs to media funded by a foreign government. They are allowed but there is disclosure. For example if there is a dual citizen arguing in the US for policies that would impact the country of their other citizenship I would like that to be disclosed as well. If for example an Israeli/US citizen is arguing on a US website for policies that would be beneficial to Israel then I would like it to be disclosed to me that they may be speaking in their capacity as an Israeli citizen and not an American one so I can understand their position more fully. Just like ads are disclosed so should lobbying be.
Something like "As a citizen of X I may be arguing in that capacity".
It should also be noted that if you write a blog post exposing say a fraud in Nikola Motors you are obliged to disclose your short position.
>You would not find many objectors to the cause of making bureaucracy more efficient.
How do you define efficiency? If you expand the definition of a foreign agent under FARA dramatically, then wouldn't it probably mean expanding the bureaucracy a lot too?
But then, since most of them aren't agents of the foreign government, they would probably be much more likely to renounce citizenship.
Efficiency by some standards would be hindered by going to a lot of expense to decrease tax revenue.
Do you want people with dual US/Israeli citizenship to register under a revised FARA, or do you want them to choose between the two?
It's kind of like taxing cigarettes, do you want to reduce smoking, or fund things with the tax money?
Also, do you have any statistics on the proportions of dual citizens by country? As I said, it's a practical problem if you want to target Israel and the policy you want wouldn't in fact do so. But I don't know.
Ostensibly, I think for security clearances, they already take dual citizenship into account. So the conventional wisdom appears to be that is enough.
> 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.
It's strange and sad how, to me, at least, WW2 artifacts like these are moving from the category of items representing the time we live in to items representing the distant past, like wrecks of wooden frigates. ~80 years is a long time.
Lake Titicaca in Peru which is 12,500 feet above sea level and it sits in a sedimentary basin that was apparently below sea level at some time in the past since the lake is made up of diluted salt water.
„To be clear, these ships aren't victims of a battle; instead, the U.S. Navy intentionally scuttled them at the location in 1945 after taking the island in an attempt to create an artificial breakwater for a planned harbor. Several of them are reinforced concrete barges, ships built to support naval operations and not necessarily for any direct combat role.”
https://www.thedrive.com/news/42802/volcanic-activity-lifts-...