conspiracy + conspiracy = truth

April 5, 2005 11:17 PM

I want to take issue with this post. The seemingly innocuous way greatgefilte couples the public acknowledgement of a conspiracy another, speculative one is a disingenuous way to lend credibility to a (what is in my opinion) a particularly slanderous myth. [more inside]
posted by ori to etiquette/policy at 11:17 PM (67 comments total)

I'm not opposed to a post that claims deliberate Israeli malice in the USS Liberty tragedy, but it is a contentious enough issue to merit some reference and discussion. As is, I think the thread attempts to implicate by equivocating the two, when I think they differ sharply in severity (the Lavon affair claimed no casualties).

greatgefilte, if you think the sinking of the USS Liberty was a calculated attack by Israel, say it outright and back it up with relevant articles, rather than make sly insinuations.
posted by ori at 11:18 PM on April 5, 2005

Guh. I didn't have the chance to see greatgefilte's earlier post (which preceded mine by one minute). Don't mean to fracture discussion.
posted by ori at 11:19 PM on April 5, 2005

I want to take issue with this MeTa post. It bears a striking resemblance to the one right before it.

btw - if you want to tackle the veracity of something, do it with links. If you want to do the Truth waltz: where the hell are your sources? Sly insinuations, indeed.
posted by scarabic at 11:21 PM on April 5, 2005

That's one hour and one minute. I like the way you compound one error of oversight with another.

(notice that I don't imply malice, I'm perfectly willing to let you off with laziness and lack of preparation).
posted by scarabic at 11:25 PM on April 5, 2005

I don't want to tackle the veracity of anything. I want to point out what reads to me as a cheap rhetorical ploy for credibility. If the USS Liberty affair was introduced in a responsible manner, I'd be glad to debate it. I think you've got some nerve to call me insinuating when I stay my opinion loud and clear and preface it as such (an opinion).
posted by ori at 11:27 PM on April 5, 2005

Yes, I do have some nerve, but that's beside the point. You don't get to just shout someone's post down because you think it implies something you don't like. If it's so controversial, then do your homework and make a case. MetaTalk is no place to express your unsupported opinion, prefaced or not. Try commenting in the post next time. What do you expect? That the admin will take action based on your opinion? Get real.

Notice that in the MeTa post you hastily overlooked Matt acknowledes that he's seen the post already and his suggestion is to add links and context if you're not happy with it. So stop arguing with me and start proving your point.
posted by scarabic at 11:34 PM on April 5, 2005

I like scarabic.
posted by Witty at 11:42 PM on April 5, 2005

Ah, I have just seen this discussion. I have been adding plenty of links and context to the FPP topic, taking issue with the same thing that ori did, except with backup.

I think I made a strong case there that this was a pretty stupid link, given that a dozen government studies showed that there was no conspiracy, yet the only link provided is to a conspiracy site. Sources are all in the FPP link, including transcripts from the NSA, transcripts from the Israelis, and lots more.
posted by blahblahblah at 12:43 AM on April 6, 2005

What's really typical of MeTa is that this thread will generate more comments than the previous thread, assuming neither gets locked/deleted.
posted by DaShiv at 12:44 AM on April 6, 2005

What's really typical of MeTa is that this thread will generate more comments than the previous thread, assuming neither gets locked/deleted.

Damn, does that mean I have to repost my links here? Too lazy tonight, but this post and these transcripts are worth examining, for those who are interested in the background rather than just the meta conversation.
posted by blahblahblah at 12:56 AM on April 6, 2005

What's really typical of MeTa is that this thread will generate more comments than the previous thread, assuming neither gets locked/deleted.

Yeah, turns out this is a forum for cock-fencing.
posted by ori at 1:08 AM on April 6, 2005

Yeah, turns out this is a forum for cock-fencing.

Shhh. You're ruining it for the rest of them.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:30 AM on April 6, 2005

ori, you're free to build a post about how the Liberty attack was an accident.

I know the Liberty, the Lavon, Pollard are very painful, even shameful issues for some, and rightly so. but still I don't see why these posts should be removed from MeFi
posted by matteo at 3:53 AM on April 6, 2005

When you disagree with the substance of a post, it's fine to disagree in the thread. That's part of discussion. It makes no sense whatsoever to bring this sort of thing to MeTa.
posted by anapestic at 3:57 AM on April 6, 2005

As is often the case, I'm impressed with the level of information and skepticism in the comments. It was a crappy post to a blog and an ax-grinder, but saved by the discussion. Metafilter to the rescue!
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:11 AM on April 6, 2005

Out of interest is there a similar case where another US ally shot up a US boat since WWII, regardless of whether it was intentional or not?
posted by sien at 6:25 AM on April 6, 2005

Out of interest is there a similar case where another US ally shot up a US boat since WWII, regardless of whether it was intentional or not?

Oh, yes.
posted by norm at 6:56 AM on April 6, 2005

Well, friendly fire in war zones is nothing new. This page had some astonishing stats: apparently 12% of World War II casualties, 18% of Korean casualties, and 39% of Vietnam casualties were caused by friendly fire. Yowza.
posted by blahblahblah at 7:27 AM on April 6, 2005

scarabic is a 700 year old troll that lives in the caves of Tora Bora. For those who think differently, I'd like to see some back-up links pronto.
posted by gwint at 8:20 AM on April 6, 2005

anapestic writes "It makes no sense whatsoever to bring this sort of thing to MeTa."

MetaMeta!!
posted by nkyad at 8:31 AM on April 6, 2005

Prety tepid zinger, gwint. And I wouldn't mess with scarabic if I were you. He melts his corpses with lye.
posted by squirrel at 9:17 AM on April 6, 2005

posted by Witty at 9:44 AM on April 6, 2005

matteo: "I know the Liberty, the Lavon, Pollard are very painful, even shameful issues for some, and rightly so. but still I don't see why these posts should be removed from MeFi..."

I know this is a small thing, and I mentioned it before somewhere else, but I want to say it again: saying "I dislike this" isn't the same thing as saying "please delete this" or "please ban the person who did this." Jumping to the conclusion that anyone "taking issue" with something on metafilter is asking for a deletion or a banning is a sure way to turn discussions into overblown fiascos. Of course, this might already be one, but we should keep this in mind in the future.
posted by koeselitz at 9:48 AM on April 6, 2005

Well, friendly fire in war zones is nothing new

"friendly" fire?
ah, finally, a telling slip.
you see, friendly fire happens between allies. the US wasn't fighting alongside Israel against the Arabs. in fact, people like LBJ, Clark Clifford, Dean Rusk didn't buy the Israeli version and they thought it could have been a.. yes, false flag operation, to blame the attack on the evil A-rabs and drag America into the conflict alongside Israel.
anyway:


"Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers.
-- Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, US Navy (retired), USS Liberty Survivor

"I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . 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 "
-- US Secretary of State Dean Rusk

"...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty."
-- CIA Director Richard Helms

"I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship."
-- NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby

"That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable"
-- Special Assistant to the President Clark Clifford, in his report to President Lyndon Johnson

"The highest officials of the [Johnson] administration, including the President, believed it 'inconceivable' that Israel's 'skilled' defense forces could have committed such a gross error."
-- Lyndon Johnson's biographer Robert Dallek in Flawed Giant, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 430-31)

"To suggest that they [the IDF] couldn't identify the ship is ... ridiculous. ... Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument."
-- Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in The Washington Post, June 15, 1991,


oh, and the Israelis shot at the life rafts, a war crime even if the ship was actually Egyptian
posted by matteo at 10:09 AM on April 6, 2005

"Friendly" fire. What a terrible terrible misnomer. Any missile or bullet or bomb that kills or maims you or your loved ones is not even remotely friendly. No matter who pulled the trigger / pushed the button.
posted by raedyn at 10:11 AM on April 6, 2005

"Friendly" fire. What a terrible terrible misnomer.

"Friendly" describes the source of the fire, not the nature of the fire itself. "Friendlies" are allies, your own, the good guys. They are both "friendly" (adj) and "friendlies" (n).

Friendly fire means "fire coming from friendlies," which I think makes more sense if you're accustomed to using "friendlies" to identify people.

"Who's over there? Are they friendlies?"

"Hold your fire! Those are friendlies!"

"Problem is we've got a lot of friendlies in between here and there."

"Just be sure you stay out of the friendly fire on your approach."

Friendly fire is still fire, and it's deadly, but chances are it's aimed away from you, laying down cover for you, aimed at the guys who want to kill you. Those are all pretty darn helpful, perhaps even "friendly" things fire can do for you.

Yes, when it kills your own, the phrase has unfortunate overtones that bring the horror, paradox, and futility of war into sharp relief (as has been noted a thousand times). So what's a better phrase?

"Allied fire?" But some would say: it isn't allied with you if it's tearing your guts out!

you see my point: it needs a name, but there's no good way to say it
posted by scarabic at 10:43 AM on April 6, 2005

Matteo, way to go over the top there. Howabout pointing out that all of your quotes come from a site that labels all opposing views as "Liberty Denialists and Self-Hating Americans" and whose argument has been found dubious many times.

Or that 10 US government studies showed that the Liberty attacks were an accident? (This is in addition to recent FOA releases, like the NSA intercepts)

Or that the Israeli air force pilot involved in the attack stated that it was an accident? Incidentally, he is one of the military officers who was dismissed from the IDF for refusing to fly missions against Palestinians, and has spoken out repeatedly against Israeli policy in other areas.

Or that the ship's captain said that the Israelis did not fire at life rafts?

Perhaps you might actually want to quote from something other than a conspiracy site on this. Also, I did not mean to imply that friendly fire was "friendly," only that, as scarbaric wrote, that it is the general term for accidental fire upon allies during wartime situations.
posted by blahblahblah at 11:42 AM on April 6, 2005

I understand where the term comes from. It wasn't a complaint towards anyone in particular, I just think it's a terribly unfortunate phrase.
posted by raedyn at 11:49 AM on April 6, 2005

a dozen government studies showed that there was no conspiracy

Stop it, you're killing me!

/off-colour pun intended
posted by dash_slot- at 12:22 PM on April 6, 2005

matteo helps prove what was wrong with the original post-- linking to a single conspiracy site is generally a bad idea if you want to argue against conventional wisdom. Or just a bad idea period.
posted by gwint at 12:25 PM on April 6, 2005

from a site that labels all opposing views

no, it's the official survivor's site. it's also stated in the Wikipedia link.

but yeah, the Israeli pilots said they didn't see the massive US insignia. and say the mistook it for an Egyptian ship 4 times smaller than the Liberty.
obviously, I'd say that too if I risked a trial for multiple murder in the first and war crimes.

I also appreciate that you don't deny that the US President, the Sec of State, the President's counsel, the CIA director and the Chief of Naval Operations thought it was a deliberate attack. but they were clearly less informed than you are.

and again, you also need to be more careful with "friendly fire". the US wasn't fighting alonside Israel.

lastly: there never was an actual congressional inquiry (like, say, the Pearl Harbor one).
that's what many of the survivors ask. silly them.
posted by matteo at 12:48 PM on April 6, 2005

linking to a single conspiracy site

again: it's the survivors' site.
posted by matteo at 12:49 PM on April 6, 2005

Associated Press, the famous conspiracy site, in 2002:

Members of the Liberty Veterans Association have
long complained none of the U.S. investigations
was ever convened to discover whether the attack
was deliberate. They note that even the initial
Navy Court of Inquiry took no testimony from the
crew about possible Israeli culpability, leaving
that issue to Congress and the State Department,
which ignored the question.

John Borne, in an academic study of the Liberty
incident, points out that this is the only
peacetime attack on a U.S. Navy vessel that did
not have a formal congressional investigation.

According to the Navy Times, a number of U.S.
naval officers are requesting a congressional
inquiry. Until this demand is met, and until all
secret U.S. government files are released, the
Liberty question will probably remain unanswered.

posted by matteo at 12:56 PM on April 6, 2005

blah3 - while the moderate among us aren't going to be completely swayed by an obviously biased independent website, neither are we going to be assuaged by accounts from the pilot involved. Why do you present the pilot's self-exoneration like some kind of evidential holy grail? What do you expect him to say? Government statements are good enough for you. Okay. We get that.
posted by scarabic at 1:38 PM on April 6, 2005

That the handling of the Liberty incident smells fishy doesn't mean there's a conspiracy. After all, it's just a coincidence.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:43 PM on April 6, 2005

Matteo, I think in your zeal to paint Israel with the evil brush, you aren't even reading your own sites, you think that the Liberty attacks were a " false flag operation, to blame the attack on the evil A-rabs and drag America into the conflict alongside Israel." Not a single one of the conspiracy theorists I found argues this. The author of the site you keep quoting believed that the Liberty attack happened because Israel wanted to hide its impending conquest of Syria's Golan Heights, an invasion Washington opposed. (Nevermind that intelligence released in 1997 by both sides indicates that both knew the Golan conquest had already happened by then.)

Scarabic, I wasn't trying to hold forth one piece of evidence as the holy grail, the pilot's testimony was accompanied by the Israeli transcripts of the radio chatter as well, which seemed plausible and convincing. But I would suggest that you take a look at this site, which includes the Navy Court of Inquiry investigation, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigation, and the CIA report, which concludes, signed by the intelligence director: "It remains our best judgment that the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was not made in malice toward the United States and was a mistake."

It also includes non-governmental reviews, like Cristol's work. (former Navy judge and historian) The point is not to argue that there is no chance that this was deliberate, since that would be impossible, but to demonstrate the the vast preponderence of evidence supports that it was an accident. Any more swayed now?
posted by blahblahblah at 1:58 PM on April 6, 2005

And if you have time to read only one article that directly addresses the arguments of matteo's favorite website in a coherent and engaging way, I would recomend Unfriendly Fire in the New Republic. Even matteo can approve of the name, no?
posted by blahblahblah at 2:08 PM on April 6, 2005

I don't think you guys understand. Over a dozen government studies have shown it was an accident. Over. A. dozen. These were studies, by the government, over a dozen of them.
posted by euphorb at 2:09 PM on April 6, 2005

I don't think you guys understand. Over a dozen government studies have shown it was an accident. Over. A. dozen. These were studies, by the government, over a dozen of them.

Are you talking about the 9/11 commission or the USS Liberty commission?
posted by AlexReynolds at 2:13 PM on April 6, 2005 [1 favorite]

Euphorb, yeah, I hate being the intense guy in these sorts of discussions. My FPPs are generally on wordplay and games. I just get annoyed at people who use conspiracy theories as a way of bolstering political viewpoints. Or haven't I made that obvious?
posted by blahblahblah at 2:16 PM on April 6, 2005

MetaTalk is a discussion area for topics specific to MetaFilter itself
posted by anapestic at 2:21 PM on April 6, 2005

your zeal to paint Israel with the evil brush

well, since I don't agree with you, just call me an anti-semite and let's get it over with, OK? it's a classic tool of the cornered Likudnik, have a ball.

also, you haven't answered -- is Associated Press a conspiracy site, too? because their story is very damaging to your (very strongly held, apparently) opinion about this slaughter*

*me, I don't know what really happened, nor I particularly care, frankly, being neither American nor Israeli -- it's just that the Israeli version is just not believable to me. but then, I'm not the one who has a dog in this fight
posted by matteo at 3:27 PM on April 6, 2005

oh, and also I've read quite carefully Oren's book on the war, and his exculpatory pages re the Liberty are definitely the weakest part of the otherwise excellent book
posted by matteo at 3:28 PM on April 6, 2005

conspiracy theories as a way of bolstering political viewpoints

and what's my "political" viewpoint, that murder is bad? that war crimes are bad? aren't these quite mainstream poisitions?
posted by matteo at 3:53 PM on April 6, 2005

well, since I don't agree with you, just call me an anti-semite and let's get it over with, OK? it's a classic tool of the cornered Likudnik, have a ball.

New versions of Godwins Law: 1) First person to call the other a neocon loses 2) First person to imply that they are being shut down by accusations of antisemitism loses, if that is not the case.

At no point did I imply you were anti-semitic -- I don't think you are, and I am a big fan of your FPPs besides. I do think you are reflexively anti-Israel*, but that doesn't make you anti-semitic. At the same time, I am far from a Likudnik, but you don't have to be right wing or support settlers to say that Israel wasn't involved in a conspiracy around the USS Liberty.

because their story is very damaging to your (very strongly held, apparently) opinion.... I don't know what happened nor do I care
Of course I am the only one who has any strong feelings on the matter, your posts were a lark, really. Besides, I never said that people do not believe there was a conspiracy, as the AP reports, just that the evidence strongly weighed against it. You never responded to the links and links of evidence presented that this matter had been studied to death, the fact that some people still doubt the truth, well, that doesn't seem like news.


* For example, the fact that you took a more extreme view than the sites you quoted, that the attack was a false-flag effort to draw the US into the war, a point both ridiculous (Israel contacted the US immediately after the incident) and not supported by any evidence. And yet you were silent on this.
posted by blahblahblah at 4:18 PM on April 6, 2005

2) First person to imply that they are being shut down by accusations of antisemitism loses, if that is not the case.

Just call him an antisemite and blow your wad, already. Equating criticism of Israel with hatred of Israel is old hat.
posted by AlexReynolds at 5:10 PM on April 6, 2005

Just call him an antisemite and blow your wad, already. Equating criticism of Israel with hatred of Israel is old hat.

I don't think he is anti-semitic. Why do I have to think he is anti-semitic to think that he is wrong in believing, in the face of facts, that Israel engaged in a massive conspiracy with the US government? And why can't he have an anti-Israel bias without being anti-semitic?

I think that this is the first time in MeFi history that someone is begging to be called an anti-semite to justify their own preconceived notions about how arguments should be carried out. I object to being typecast as a right-wing Israeli nut when I am left-wing and not Israeli (though certainly a nut). And I object to the fact that since I am arguing the consensus view on this topic, I am somehow being disingenous or pro-Likud to maintain that Israel is not at fault.

Insulting and stupid post, AlexReynolds.
posted by blahblahblah at 5:23 PM on April 6, 2005

well, since I don't agree with you, just call me an anti-semite and let's get it over with, OK? it's a classic tool of the cornered Likudnik, have a ball.

The irony in this statement could crush a whale. Now that he's unzipped and pulled out his favourite and only argumentative tactic, matteo is free to cowardly stifle further debate with insults and hollow rhetoric.

And look, he's got a new lapdog in the face of AlexReynolds. How unsurprising.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:21 PM on April 6, 2005

Oh noes! Krrrlson called me a lapdog!
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:42 PM on April 6, 2005

nkyad writes " MetaMeta!!" and thought it was a joke

anapestic writes "MetaTalk is a discussion area for topics specific to MetaFilter itself" and nobody listened

All the while, you gentlemen could be having this conversation in the right place for the benefit of the whole readership. Is it possible to open a Meta on a Meta without entering an infinite recursive loop?
posted by nkyad at 9:13 PM on April 6, 2005

MeFi
posted by MLIS at 9:35 PM on April 6, 2005

Euphorb, yeah, I hate being the intense guy in these sorts of discussions. My FPPs are generally on wordplay and games. I just get annoyed at people who use conspiracy theories as a way of bolstering political viewpoints. Or haven't I made that obvious?

Look, you've done a fine enough job of bringing more information to this conversation, and I don't need to be swayed any more, because I've never held an opinion one way or the other. I've been arguing with you mainly because you've had trouble understanding the difference between bringing more context to the conversation and serving up links to government studies and expecting the conversation to stop. We're talking about governments with vested interests in the story that gets told, and we're talking about covert programs they are not at liberty to recognize (sometimes for years and years, as was shown in this case). You're naive to quote their reports and consider the case closed (although you're certainly adding something valuable by quoting them). You simply need to insert some uncertainty into your thinking - you treat the powers involved with such naive trust that some of us are moved to think you must have your own agenda in where this conversation goes.

I think matteo is trolling you a little bit. At least I don't agree with him that you're behaving like a cornered Likudnik (and I know how they behave) but I believe euphorb totally nailed you, above.
posted by scarabic at 11:03 PM on April 6, 2005

All the while, you gentlemen could be having this conversation in the right place

Sorry about that. There are now 3 threads open, by my count. I think our fearless admin could help the situation by deleting 1 and maybe closing 1 other, but, failing that, which would you suggest that we humble plebes choose?
posted by scarabic at 11:08 PM on April 6, 2005

You simply need to insert some uncertainty into your thinking

That would work wonders for you too, scarabic.
posted by semmi at 11:48 PM on April 6, 2005

Oh noes! Krrrlson called me a lapdog!

AR, you have a thing or two to learn. Don't respond immediately to cheap shots. Preferably, don't respond to them at all. Be sure to comment again in the thread, but in response to *someone else.* There's no greater slight than to say "yeah, I noticed your junk hanging out and couldn't care less."
posted by scarabic at 12:03 AM on April 7, 2005

AR, you have a thing or two to learn.

I prefer to call it "inserting uncertainty".
posted by AlexReynolds at 2:03 AM on April 7, 2005

*inserts uncertainty, toggles; feels nothing special.*

or do I ??
posted by taz at 3:30 AM on April 7, 2005

*gloomily contemplates chances of success for quippy double-entendre here*

On preview: jinx, taz!
posted by squirrel at 3:39 AM on April 7, 2005

hah!
posted by taz at 3:42 AM on April 7, 2005

anapestic writes "MetaTalk is a discussion area for topics specific to MetaFilter itself" and nobody listened

Oh, I never expected anyone to listen; it was a hopeless cry of principle in the darkness of, well, I'm at a loss for the right noun here. And while I agree this particular argument is really out of place on MeTa, I think it's very optimistic to think that having it in the blue would be for everyone's "benefit." Still, I suppose that's where it belongs.

I don't really mind people going off topic and getting onto tangents of tangents of tangents in MeTa, but I do think that if you're going to do that, you should at least be entertaining, and this discussion has been especially dreary.
posted by anapestic at 5:34 AM on April 7, 2005

anapestic - nkyad wasn't the only one who heard your voice of reason. I took note of it as insightful. But of course the people who are so wrapped up in their self-important dreary (whatever you wanna call this back and forth) paid no heed. No particular surprise. Carry on, all. Just a pissing match. Nothing to see here.
posted by raedyn at 7:25 AM on April 7, 2005

it was a hopeless cry of principle in the darkness of, well, I'm at a loss for the right noun here...

Uh, dreariness?
posted by squirrel at 8:35 AM on April 7, 2005

Uh, dreariness?

Works for me.
posted by anapestic at 10:13 AM on April 7, 2005

How about desperation?
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:19 PM on April 7, 2005

I would prefer despair to desperation. Oversuffixizationalismicity has gotten way out of hand, both here and in the language generally.
posted by anapestic at 3:28 PM on April 7, 2005

scarabic: AR, you have a thing or two to learn. Don't respond immediately to cheap shots.

AlexReynolds, earlier: Just call him an antisemite and blow your wad, already.

I hope reality never intrudes into the peaceful hallucination of your life.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:59 PM on April 7, 2005

Clever line, K. Who is it pointed at?
posted by squirrel at 6:40 PM on April 14, 2005