Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (19871)	7/25/2003 2:46:13 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

We're having an English problem again... 2) jamming US and International freq which confirms 2) as well I'm having difficulty understanding what "which confirms 2)" means. It's circular, 2) confirms 2) ???? I don't recall saying that international freq were jammed. no markings on jets confirms 2) no markings on jets confirms that Israel was jamming US and Int. freq ??? [I feel like there's another "2)" that I'm not aware of, or instead of "2)" you meant to put something else, but you did so on multiple occasions. I'm not guessing what you meant; you can correct or explain.] Since Israel is aware of 6th fleet Israel would jam freq Says that Israel expects the 6th fleet to jam frequencies???? Now common sense and Israelis are famous for common sense: I had no idea that the Israelis were famous for common sense. Good for them. Common sense would tell me that the Israelis would start jamming before the first shot. Not an option you considered. You're clearly not an Israeli. but then how did the message "Under attack by unidentified .... There's a couple of possibilities [I've never seen the specifics on this particular aspect]. I don't know how long the jamming occurred. Once the antennas were shot out, there wouldn't be a perceived need to continue jamming. Common sense would tell me that the Israelis would cease jamming as soon as they deemed it was no longer necessary. The jammer is an emitter and it's location along with the jamming of US frequencies would be evidence against them. The less evidence the better, is common sense. Alternate: The crew knew which frequencies were being jammed. Hard to guess why they would string an antenna to a transceiver that would be using jammed frequencies. [Unless you think that the crew has no common sense since they aren't Israelis.]. Being an intelligence collection ship they would also know which frequencies the 6th fleet would be monitoring. The fleet monitors more than just US frequencies. 2) ok, maybe Israelis wanted US to hear the message about unidentified aircraft... I wouldn't think so, but I can accomodate the theory. A member of the carrier asserts that there were standing orders that if a US vessel were attacked, the fleet would retaliate against Cairo. Aircraft were launched off the carrier to Cairo and were recalled. All the fleet knew at the time of the launch was that a US vessel was being attacked by unmarked aircraft. Since the aircraft were on a path to Cairo, there must have been an underlying assumption that it was related to the Arab side if not Egypt itself. Independent of the USS Liberty....the US and Israel were communicating, e.g., the US was sharing intelligence with Israel, etc....It is plausible that the US would have made Israel aware of the US standing order to retaliate against Cairo if a US vessel were attacked. If Israel in fact knew. That would be an additional inducement for Israel to attack a US vessel with unmarked aircraft. it seems that experts say that napalm would not destroy USS Liberty. So? It's not good for your health to be covered with napalm. It also discourages you from coming on deck to string any wires or use your 50 cal guns. [The Liberty wasn't heavily armed but it did have 50 cal guns as defensive weaponry.] Common sense would tell me that the Israelis would use a combined use of weaponry. how come Israel was torpedo boats were shooting at lifeboats of USS Liberty for about an hour instead of trying to sink it as "planned"? WHy are you using the word "instead"? They attacked both the lifeboats and the Liberty directly. They used torpedos on the Liberty and light gun fire on the lifeboats. Common sense would tell me that the act of sinking the ship would not kill all personnel. So you have to take out the lifeboats to make sure that those that survived the sinking wouldn't have lifeboats. 1) Navy concluded that markings on low flying aircraft are impossible to see Is that common sense? The crew says they made a conscious effort to identify the aircraft. Additional: A member of the crew went to testify at the Naval hearing. He sat outside the hearing room [as directed] and eventually was told that his testimony wasn't needed. Common sense would tell me that you would want testimony from a crew member. I can't think of a reason why any one would think that his testimony wasn't necessary. Some one may not have wanted it on the record, but I can't think of why it wouldn't be considered valuble testimony. jttmab

To: AK2004 who wrote (19871)	7/25/2003 3:05:48 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

I've got to ask this separately.... Do you think that dropping napalm on a vessel is some sort of humanitarian gesture? jttmab

To: AK2004 who wrote (19871)	7/25/2003 3:26:04 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

Here is today's example of how careful the Israelis are... By John Ward Anderson Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, July 25, 2003; Page A20 JERUSALEM, July 24 -- An Arab Israeli man was shot and killed at a checkpoint by Israeli border police today in the second deadly incident of its kind in 48 hours. The incident sparked a small-scale riot by angry residents, who claimed that police are too quick to shoot at men who look like Palestinians in circumstances that do not warrant deadly force. Nasser Mouhamad Abu Qiaan, 23, was shot and killed in his car at about 11 a.m. by a border police officer at the rural Shoket intersection in southern Israel. Qiaan lived in Houra, a Bedouin village just west of the junction. Four Palestinian men who apparently were passengers in the car did not have permission to be in Israel, police said. They refused to say tonight whether the men were injured or arrested, or whether any weapons or other illegal items were found in the car. The circumstances surrounding the shooting are under dispute, and the incident is being investigated by the Israeli Justice Ministry. Police said the incident occurred when a car being driven by Qiaan approached a temporary police checkpoint three miles from the southernmost border of the West Bank and refused to stop. "The car tried either to run over the police or to escape -- it is not clear yet," said Yossi Koppel, the head of the Israeli national police force's southern district. "And then came the shooting -- either it was intentional or not. We are checking it out." [Inserted note: I like the part where they aren't sure whether the shooting was intentional....Israeli common sense] Palestinian witnesses quoted by the Israeli media said that Qiaan's car was cut off and forced to stop by two unmarked police cars. Ghazi Abu Qiaan, a cousin of the dead man who claimed he witnessed the incident, was quoted as saying that seven or eight police officers surrounded the car but his cousin rolled up the windows and refused to get out. He said a police officer then smashed a window with the butt of his rifle and shot Qiaan. "We have collected eyewitness accounts from the event, and it is clear that the border policeman approached the vehicle, smashed the window and shot one bullet in the neck of the man," said Taleb Sana, a Bedouin attorney and member of Israel's parliament who went to the scene after the shooting. "No warning shots. Just one shot to kill.".... washingtonpost.com