Jump to content
The Education Forum

War?


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

North south ,north south,north south ...the song remains the same.......................

Lets call Gulf of Tonkin Incident what is is.....FALSE FLAG

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

For anyone still harboring doubts about the status of the Gulf of Tonkin incident as an example of a False Flag event, a report made public by the NSA clears it up. The existence of the report was revealed a couple of years ago, but the actual report has now been made public, and you can view it via the Federation of American Scientists blog, "Secrecy News". Just in time to coincide with the latest Strait of Hormuz incident, aimed at Iran. -rep.)

Report reveals Vietnam War hoaxes, faked attacks

AFP, Tue Jan 8, 9:45 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - North Vietnamese made hoax calls to get the US military to bomb its own units during the Vietnam War, according to declassified information that also confirmed US officials faked an incident to escalate the war....

...The author of the report "demonstrates that not only is it not true, as (then US) secretary of defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was 'unimpeachable,' but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that 'no attack happened that night,'" FAS said in a statement.

"What this study demonstrated is that the available intelligence shows that there was no attack. It's a dramatic reversal of the historical record," Aftergood said.

"There were previous indications of this but this is the first time we have seen the complete study," he said...

Continued...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/pl_afp/usvietnamintelligence512

Daniel Ellsberg was aware that the Tonkin incident was a lie very early on;

"The messages were vivid. Herrick must have been dictating them from the bridge in between giving orders, as his two ships swerved to avoid torpedoes picked up on the sonar of the Maddox and fired in the darkness at targets shown on the radar of the Turner Joy: "Torpedoes missed. Another fired at us. Four torpedoes in water. And five torpedoes in water.... Have ... successfully avoided at least six torpedoes."

Nine torpedoes had been fired at his ships, fourteen, twenty-six. More attacking boats had been hit; at least one sunk. This action wasn't ending after forty minutes or an hour. It was going on, ships dodging and firing in choppy seas, planes overhead firing rockets at locations given them by the Turner Joy's radar, for an incredible two hours before the stream of continuous combat updates finally ended. Then, suddenly, an hour later, full stop. A message arrived that took back not quite all of it, but enough to put everything earlier in question.

The courier came in with another single cable, running again, after an hour of relative quiet in which he had walked in intermittently at a normal pace with batches of cables from CINCPAC and the Seventh Fleet and analyses from the State Department and the CIA and other parts of the Pentagon. I was sitting at my desk - I remember the moment - trying to put this patchwork of information in some order for McNaughton on his return, when the courier handed me the following flash cable from Herrick: "Review of action makes many reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects on radar and overeager sonarmen may have accounted for many reports. No actual visual sightings by Maddox. Suggest complete evaluation before any further action taken."

It was a little after 2:00 P.M. The message had been sent at 1:27 P.M. Washington time. Half an hour later another message from Herrick, summarizing positive and negative evidence for an attack, concluded: "Entire action leaves many doubts except for apparent attempted ambush at beginning. Suggest thorough reconnaissance in daylight by aircraft." ...

...The president's announcement and McNamara's press conference late in the evening of August 4 informed the American public that the North Vietnamese, for the second time in two days, had attacked U.S. warships on "routine patrol in international waters"; that this was clearly a "deliberate" pattern of "naked aggression"; that the evidence for the second attack, like the first, was "unequivocal"; that the attack had been "unprovoked"; and that the United States, by responding in order to deter any repetition, intended no wider war.

By midnight on the fourth, or within a day or two, I knew that each one of these assurances was false."

- Daniel Ellsberg, Secrets, pp. 9-12

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BEFORE GULF OF TONKIN BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE Gulf of Tonkin

July,31 1964

LBJ's Operation Plan 34A, South Vietnamese commandos in unmarked speed boats raid two North Vietnamese military bases located on islands just off the coast. In the vicinity is the destroyer U.S.S. Maddox.

BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

please read below......before. BTW the draft of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was prepared 6 months BEFORE !!! Tonkin Incident (per PENTAGON PAPERS)

Read this:

http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/08972_text.htm

"Interestingly, a resolution stating, "Upon request of South Vietnam or the Laotian government to use all measures including the commitment of U.S. Armed Forces in their Defense"--the very resolution that became the Tonkin Gulf Resolution--had been prepared in May 1964, three months before the "unprovoked attacks" ever occurred. At the time, Johnson was running his presidential campaign on a peace ticket."

"Operation Plan 34A (or 34 Alpha)"

"But beginning in June 1962, with the loss of the vessel Nautelas II and four commandos, it evolved into hit-and-run attacks against North Vietnamese shore and island installations by South Vietnamese and foreign mercenary crews on high-speed patrol boats."

"By the end of 1963, a National Security Council Special Group, the staff of the special assistant for counterinsurgency and special activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the CIA were all apparently aware that the covert attacks were unproductive. According to former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, "It accomplished virtually nothing." But the operation was not discontinued. According to Tourison, by January 1964 McNamara had taken over the operation from the CIA, and it became known as 34 Alpha. Now in charge, the Pentagon assumed that the overwhelming majority of the airborne commando agents either had been killed or captured or were working for their captors, the Communist North Vietnamese."

"Although it appeared that the program had been compromised, new agent teams continued to be recruited, trained and inserted into North Vietnam."

"DeSoto patrols were U.S. naval intelligence collection operations using specially equipped vessels to gather electronic signals intelligence from shore-and island-based noncommunications emitters in North Vietnam. By August 2, 1964, the Communist Vietnamese had determined that the DeSoto vessels were offshore support for a 34-Alpha operation that had struck their installations at Hon Me and Hon Ngu some 48 hours earlier. In retaliation, the North Vietnamese then conducted an "unprovoked attack" on Maddox, which was approximately 30 miles off the coast of North Vietnam. During the battle that ensued, one North Vietnamese patrol boat was severely damaged by Maddox, and two others were attacked and chased off by U.S. air support from the carrier USS Ticonderoga.

On August 4, 1964, Maddox and USS C. Turner Joy reported a second attack, this one occurring within 17 hours of 34-Alpha raids on North Vietnamese facilities at Cap Vinh Son and Cua Ron..."

This second attack is the fictional one. This was in an environment of deliberate provocation and terrorist raids on N Vietnamese installations, supported by US navy ships.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

FAKE FAKE FAKE

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the "who started it" claims is that we simply cannot be sure. The DPRK is a totalitarian state run by a dictator, and whose propaganda is legendary.

On the other hand, the ROK could use those same facts to hide their own guilt. The DPRK puts out so much fantasy and disinformation, it would be near impossible to tell when they would be telling the truth.

That part can be disputed. It's not hard to figure out whether the chicken or the egg came first here. It's an illogical inferential jump.

John, I'm sorry but I don't understand.

Are you saying that the DPRK is not a totalitarian state? Apologies if I misunderstand you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see where may be the misunderstanding. It was me. I took ''The problem with the "who started it" claims is that we simply cannot be sure'' as being a follow on from my immediately previous post raising the issue of ''the very origin of the Korean war in the first place''.

The DPKR, and whatever nature it may have, came later.

edit format

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see where may be the misunderstanding. It was me. I took ''The problem with the "who started it" claims is that we simply cannot be sure'' as being a follow on from my immediately previous post raising the issue of ''the very origin of the Korean war in the first place''.

The DPKR, and whatever nature it may have, came later.

edit format

Now I'm confused, are you saying there is any doubt about the beginning of the Korean War? Though the North claimed they were retaliating for a supposed raid by the South (ala the "Gleiwitz incident") there is no dispute about who initiated the conflict. Even RIA-Novosti, Russia's official news service, reported in 2008 that:

Both governments wanted to unite Korea under their own control, and proclaimed as much in the constitutions adopted in 1948.

In 1949, both the Soviet Union and the United States withdrew their troops from Korean territory, but continued supplying their satellites with arms. Also in 1949, Kim Il-sung appealed to the Soviet Union for help in invading South Korea. Moscow turned down his requests because it had little confidence in the North Korean army and because it feared a conflict with the United States.

Nevertheless, North Korean troops started the conflict on June 25, 1950 by launching an offensive in the south. Some historians believe that the offensive was sanctioned by Moscow whereas others consider it solely Kim Il-sung's initiative. Either way, on June 28, 1950 the North Korean troops seized Seoul and established control over 90% of South Korean territory by the middle of August.

For the United States, North Korea's attack was a complete surprise. Several days earlier, Secretary of State Dean Acheson told Congress that a war was unlikely.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080725/114949648.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most official Chinese sources simply report that “The war began on 25 June 1950” or some variant, obviously if there was any legitimacy to the North’s claim they were attacked by the South Chinese sources would say that’s what happened. Given the South’s lack of military preparedness it makes no sense they would have started the war.

http://www.peopleforum.cn/viewthread.php?tid=24850&extra=page%3D1

http://www.china.org.cn/e-America/features/scholar.htm

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2010-07/28/content_11062106.htm

However the Global Times a publication of the Chinese Communist Party repeated the following from Wikipedia

“Although reunification negotiations continued in the months preceding the war, tension intensified. Cross-border skirmishes and raids at the 38th Parallel persisted. The situation escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950. It was the first significant armed conflict of the Cold War.”

http://world.globaltimes.cn/asia-pacific/2010-11/595958.html

Another party mouthpiece described the conflict as “ a civil war aimed at unifying the artificially divided Korean Peninsula.”

http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/commentary/2010-06/545265.html

Echoing that the North Koreans call it the "Fatherland Liberation War" http://www.google.com/search?q=%22korean+war+%22+site:.ru&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images#sclient=psy&num=10&hl=en&lr=&q=%22Fatherland+Liberation+War%22+&aq=f&aqi=g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=94fb864a6b447b62

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most official Chinese sources simply report that “The war began on 25 June 1950” or some variant, obviously if there was any legitimacy to the North’s claim they were attacked by the South Chinese sources would say that’s what happened. Given the South’s lack of military preparedness it makes no sense they would have started the war.

http://www.peopleforum.cn/viewthread.php?tid=24850&extra=page%3D1

http://www.china.org.cn/e-America/features/scholar.htm

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2010-07/28/content_11062106.htm

However the Global Times a publication of the Chinese Communist Party repeated the following from Wikipedia

“Although reunification negotiations continued in the months preceding the war, tension intensified. Cross-border skirmishes and raids at the 38th Parallel persisted. The situation escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950. It was the first significant armed conflict of the Cold War.”

http://world.globaltimes.cn/asia-pacific/2010-11/595958.html

Another party mouthpiece described the conflict as “ a civil war aimed at unifying the artificially divided Korean Peninsula.”

http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/commentary/2010-06/545265.html

Echoing that the North Koreans call it the "Fatherland Liberation War" http://www.google.com/search?q=%22korean+war+%22+site:.ru&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images#sclient=psy&num=10&hl=en&lr=&q=%22Fatherland+Liberation+War%22+&aq=f&aqi=g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=94fb864a6b447b62

********************************************

HEAD FOR THE HILLS LEN,time to stop posting Len

comic animation predicts

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread631618/pg1

of course (see full video),March 4th (before 911) "they are going to crash plane into world trade center" .....

http://www.truthed.com/videos/319_did_they_know_x_files_and_simpsons_predict_911.htm

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len, no, go back to the division after WWII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...