Skip to main content

Can Israel now be sued for its "terrorist" attack on the USS Liberty?


The following is a comment posted to the article

House Unanimously Passes Saudi 9/11 Lawsuit Bill

I was responding to another comment cascade which went:

Ricardo Cabeza: USS Liberty survivors and families can finally sue Israel! 

to which masmanz replied: 

masmanz: They were attacked by Israeli military not by terrorists. It is terrorism only if done by non-state actors. This bill will not allow harmed Iraqis to sue the US government.

 Whereupon I commented:

I doubt this "technicality" will matter. What will matter is whether or not Americans were killed. That will be enough for the legal process to be initiated. After that the usual political "thumb on the scales" will doubtless be applied. What favors the case against Israel for the USS Liberty attack is the "special status" -- the "patriotism amplification factor" if you will -- afforded murdered American military personnel. Also, with the internet providing access to the nasty truth about Israeli behavior past and present, shredding the Zionist-controlled MSM pro-Zionist narrative, the perception of Israeli behavior has become substantially more negative, which is to say more consistent with the truth.

Working against the case of course -- and it's a "yuuuuge" negative -- is the pervasive Zionist influence -- dare I say "control" -- in both the DoJ and the judiciary. Jewish judges, Jewish prosecuters, Jewish Congresspeople, Jewish campaign contributors, etc have pervasive influence in any Israel-related matter.
Taking into account these various factors -- including the Lavon affair, the dancing Israelis of 911, the pre-911 Israeli "art student" espionage -- a terrorism case against Israel for the USS Liberty attack could be a very spicy affair.
************************************************

 I'm posting this here to preserve this comment from "moderation" ie censorship/deletion, because all too frequently those of my comments which are critical of Israel are disposed of -- inappropriately in my view -- by Antiwar.com moderator Thomas Knapp.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

re censorship at antiwar.com

Really, Thomas? Who is the drama queen here? You're embarrassing yourself with this name calling. My comment disappeared. What am I to think, you're on a coffee break? So I posted the link to my backup, my all-but-invisible, low-traffic,... make that no-traffic,... blog. The "rules" you cite give the Jews a free pass on their complicity in the Zionist project. It's ok to criticize Zionism or Israel, but not the Jews that make their crimes possible. That appears to be the rule, and it amounts to Antiwar.com caving to Jewish/Zionist intimidation. It may be discretion -- as in "discretion is the better part of valor" -- but absent the lethality of bullets-and-bombs-combat, it's cowardly. It was cowardly then, as it is cowardly now. That said, it ***IS*** Justin's website and he gets to decide on when "discretion" -- strategic restraint -- is called for. I've had this issue since before you were moderator. Someone Jewis...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right to exist, right to self-defense.....not!

The following is a post I made to The Algemeiner, an online Jewish publication, in response to "Golda Meir was no J-Streeter", http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/09/08/golda-meir-was-no-j-streeter/#comment-4474211. Like many Jewish publications The Algemeiner has a limited tolerance for the truth when the truth is critical of Israel and its supporters, and so, not surprisingly, the comment was deleted by "moderation". I reprint it here for your consideration. ************************** Make no mistake, I’m an American and a Jew. For those of you thoroughly infected with the Judiasm-destroying poison of Zionism, here is the antidote to your Kool-aid dreams. Drink deeply and wake up to reality. We often hear the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” and along with it, “Israel’s right to self-defense.” Hear them endlessly, by propagandists who repeat them endlessly. But endless repetition does not make a thing true. The phantom “legiti...
Post a Comment
Read more

Political Self-Immolation

"What is relevant is Donald Jr's INTENT. In his email response (I am paraphrasing, but you can verify) he says, if the offer of dirt on Hillary is true, I love it! The intent behind this statement is loud and clear." I agree with you that this is the heart of the matter, and like you I am surprised that the so few of the anti-Trump people have zeroed in on this crucial element. Good on you for bringing it front and center. Let's take a look. Trump jr gets an email that says, "We've got dirt on HRC from the Russian govt, and we want to share it with you as part of Russia/Putin's effort to help Trump win the presidency." (This may not be absolutely the precise wording, but this will be the most aggressive/damning "parsing".) Then Trump jr says, "I love it, bring it on." This will be spun as Trump jr declaring his willingness and his INTENT (your caps) to collude, and as the very first substantive act in the process of collusi...
Post a Comment
Read more