9/11 Background: The Gulf of Tonkin "Incident"

[stickdog]

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/index.htm

What will historians "finally discover" about 9/11 40 years from now?

Will it follow the pattern of the

1) Gulf War (tacit US approval of Hussein's invasion of Kuwait)

2) the Vietnam War (Gulf of Tonkin "attacks")

3) US intervention in Latin America and Pacific Islands

4) WWII (goading the Japanese into attacking a basically unprotected Pearl Harbor)

5) WWI (goading the Germans into sinking the Lusitania)

6) the Spanish-American War (fake "attack" on the Maine)

???


SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!!

[ladjf]

1. If the truth about how 9-11 happened and who was actually

was involved in the perpetrating the crashes could ever be conclusively revealed to the world, it would be the most spectacular global therapeutic event in history. But, the acts of 9-11, terrible as they were, pale in comparison with the subsequent exploitive initiatives of the Bush administration. We are suffering from a manufactured mental illness called "the fear of terrorism syndrome".
The actual risk of any one individual in America dying from a terrorist act is close to nil. Compare that risk to the risks of dieing in a accident, smoking related diseases and a host of other natural threats to life and you can see the psychotic fear of terrorism is out of touch with the realities.

[RH]

2. Wars are a mess

a hideous comedy of error and absurdity. Always were and always will be.

Those who think it possible to predetermine everything down to last detail have yet to attempt the same for themselves. The same patterns persist because the human being is persistently fallible.

[geek tragedy]

3. Most of these absurd theories are nothing more than attempts to place the

blame on the United States instead of on the true villains. (Though the Gulf of Tonkin was a pile of horseshit).

Nobody forced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Nobody forced Saddam to invade Kuwait.

The Lusitania reference is just plain silly--the US didn't enter the war until 2 years later.

[stickdog]

4. Who is BLAMING the United States?

I'm merely illustrating an obvious and undeniable recurring PATTERN of the bullshit "justifications" that permeate recent US (and in the case of WWI, British) history when it comes to marshaling public support for often dubious and always deadly military interventionism.

Yes, Hussein stupidly fell into the trap. ("It is a trap and Iraq fell in it." -- Jordan Foreign Minister)

Yes, Japan was successfully provoked into attacking the US implemented its 8 point plan. ( http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/McCollum -- from page four of the eight point plan: "If by these means Japan could be lead to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.")

But this post isn't about blame and it isn't even about whether any of these wars were necessary or justified. It's simply about the completely full of shit propaganda that invariably used to rally popular support for our deadliest national pastime.

[geek tragedy]

5. There was no "trap" for Saddam.

And what exactly is your point about Japan? That poor innocent Japan would have been harmless but for the schemes of the evil US government?

[k-robjoe]

8. This is

very misunderstood.

( And very poor logic...) Japan was by no means harmless.

I don´t know how the situation was for Rosevelt, if some kind of Pearl Harbour was the only way he could get the Americans to declare war on Nazi Germany.

I imagine this was so, and so the first Pearl Harbour was an entirely different matter than the second in my view.

[stickdog]

9. Are you having a little trouble with reading comprehension?

To reiterate my point:

I'm merely illustrating an obvious and undeniable recurring PATTERN of the bullshit "justifications" that permeate recent US (and in the case of WWI, British) history when it comes to marshaling public support for often dubious and always deadly military interventionism.

But this post isn't about blame and it isn't even about whether any of these wars were necessary or justified. It's simply about the completely full of shit propaganda that's invariably used to rally popular support for our deadliest national pastime.

[Roachman]

10. Stickdog, I hope you realize you got your answer...

In 40 years, whatever facts/documents/proof may come out, the people of the United States will say, "those people were evil and deserved our wrath, I don't care what the facts were."

I think you should be happy, Stickdog, that you didn't have to wait 40 years to find that out.

[LARED]

12. If I understand you correctly

you believe the US government created the 9/11 attacks as a way to "rally popular support" for war?


Yes, no, something else?

[stickdog]

15. What I'm saying is what I'm saying.

If you are having trouble understanding what I wrote, you might try reading the words slowly or perhaps even aloud.

[LARED]

21. Ok. I'll try reading very s-l-o-w-l-y

Ok I tried it real slow and out loud. Didn't help much.

You started off by saying

What will historians "finally discover" about 9/11 40 years from now?

Will it follow the pattern of the

1) Gulf War (tacit US approval of Hussein's invasion of Kuwait)

2) the Vietnam War (Gulf of Tonkin "attacks")

3) US intervention in Latin America and Pacific Islands

4) WWII (goading the Japanese into attacking a basically unprotected Pearl Harbor)

5) WWI (goading the Germans into sinking the Lusitania)

6) the Spanish-American War (fake "attack" on the Maine)

(Putting aside you rather revisionist take on history for the moment.

you then stated this means;

But this post isn't about blame, and it isn't even about whether any of these wars were necessary or justified. It's simply about the completely full of shit propaganda that's invariably used to rally popular support for our deadliest national pastime.


You seem to have changed horse midstream. The opening statement implies that these wars were started with the help of propaganda or covert actions. It was correctly pointed out the by saying that you are in some way blaming the US. You deny this in your second statement. In that statement you imply the propaganda is used to "rally popular support", ie using propaganda to maintain a populous that supports a war effort.

I can't seem to reconcile your opening statement and you subsequent clarification. Perhaps you can.

I would suggest you type slowly.

[stickdog]

22. My original post illustrates that there is a clear pattern of

deception and bullshit propaganda used to rally popular support for foreign military inventionism.

The stories heard at the time were:

1) Those murderous Spics cold bloodedly and mercilessly attacked the Maine. Their incomprehensible viciousness took us totally by surprise. Now, even though war's the last thing we want, we have no choice but to respond with force. Remember the Maine!

2) Those murderous Krauts cold bloodedly and mercilessly attacked the Lusitania. Their incomprehensible viciousness took us totally by surprise. Now, even though war's the last thing we want, we have no choice but to respond with force. Remember the Lusitania!

3) Those murderous Japs cold bloodedly and mercilessly attacked Pearl Harbor. Their incomprehensible viciousness took us totally by surprise. Now, even though war's the last thing we want, we have no choice but to respond with force. Remember Pearl Harbor!

4) Those murderous commie Gooks cold bloodedly and mercilessly attacked us in the Gulf of Tonkin. Twice. Their incomprehensible viciousness took us totally by surprise. Now, even though war's the last thing we want, we have no choice but to respond with force. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin!

5) That murderous Hussein cold bloodedly and mercilessly attacked poor defenseless Kuwait without any provocation and depite our clear and unambiguous opposition to this kind of unconscionable military aggression. His incomprehensible viciousness took us totally by surprise. Now, even though war's the last thing we want, we have no choice but to respond with force. Remember the Incubators!

6) A murderous band of Bin Laden worshipping terra'ists cold bloodedly and mercilessly attacked 3000 defenseless American civilians. Their incomprehensible viciousness took us totally by surprise. Now, even though war's the last thing we want, we have no choice but to respond with force. Remember 9/11!

Many years later, when historians are finally allowed to view some of the previously classified historical documents and once private correspondence, dispassionately analyze the full body of evidence in a less jingoistic atmosphere, and publish their findings without threatening their academic careers and/or reputations -- we invariably "discover" that we were (once again) basically sold the same line of shit.

Of course, I could easily add US interventionism in more than a dozen Latin American countries and a decent handful of islands to this list. But hopefully, if you read this slowly and carefully enough, that won't be necessary.

[geek tragedy]

13. Pearl Harbor didn't justify entering WWII?

Okay then . . .

[stickdog]

16. I'm sorry about your reading comprehension difficulties.

Try reading the words slowly or perhaps even aloud. That can help. I've tried to help you by bolding some words you may have missed the first two times.

Reiterating once more:

I'm merely illustrating an obvious and undeniable recurring PATTERN of the bullshit "justifications" that permeate recent US (and in the case of WWI, British) history when it comes to marshaling public support for often dubious and always deadly military interventionism.

But this post isn't about blame, and it isn't even about whether any of these wars were necessary or justified. It's simply about the completely full of shit propaganda that's invariably used to rally popular support for our deadliest national pastime.

[geek tragedy]

17. Was Pearl Harbor a "bullshit justification?"

If it was, you ought to defend the premise that it wasn't a legitimate justification for declaring war on Japan.

If it wasn't, it has no business being on your list.

[stickdog]

18. Can you read or not?

I'm merely illustrating an obvious and undeniable recurring PATTERN of the bullshit "justifications" that permeate recent US (and in the case of WWI, British) history when it comes to marshaling public support for often dubious and always deadly military interventionism.

But this post isn't about blame, and it isn't even about whether any of these wars were necessary or justified. It's simply about the completely full of shit propaganda that's invariably used to rally popular support for our deadliest national pastime.

Does any of this stuff ring a bell?

Pre-Pearl Harbor:

http://www.asianesque.com/alterasian/internment/page1.html





During WWII:

http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/propaganda/top.html







Here's a fun little movie you might enjoy:

http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=prelinger&collectionid=19585

A direct link to a Real Player version: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/VideoTest/challenge.ram

[geek tragedy]

19. You've utterly failed to defend the proposition that Pearl Harbor

was part of any kind of bullshit propaganda campaign.

The Empire of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. It was an act of war. The US had full justification to declare war upon Japan because of Pearl Harbor.

Case closed.

[stickdog]

20. Why should I defend a proposition I clearly never stated?

Have fun arguing with your strawman. May the best scarecrow win.

[demodewd]

14. re: Saddam

There was a subtle trap for Saddam. When Saddam suggested to April Glaspie that he had the intention of invading Kuwait she basically answered by saying it wasn't our concern. Saddam felt justified in invading Kuwait for two reasons. 1. Kuwait was a partitioned part of Persia and formerly a part of that country along with Iraq. 2. The Kuwaitis were slant drilling into Iraqi territory.

If we were so bent on stopping Saddam prior to the Kuwati invasion we should have threatened him at that time with a military response if he did so. We could have reinforced the Kuwaiti border. We did nothing.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DulceDecorum]

7. US -- good

Everyone else minus one -- BAD
Kill them all.

[pberq]

11. Exactly

For the population at large, it's all about simple balck-and-white logic.

Gore Vidal wrote in a recent book that the planners in the late forties who set up the national security state - CIA, etc., figured average attention span on foriegn policy to about 10 minutes a day.

So if you can just make a few simple statements along the lines of us vs. them, you can do anything you want in terms of invading other coutries, etc.

[vincent_vega_lives]

25. "US -- Evil"

Just as stupid.

[k-robjoe]

23. Pearl Harbor

"A previously unsubstantiated report that President Franklin D. Roosevelt requested the national office of the American Red Cross to send medical supplies secretly to Pearl Harbor in advance of the 7 December 1941 Japanese attack is beginning to look much more feasible.

Don C. Smith, who directed the War Service for the Red Cross before World War II and was deputy administrator of services to the armed forces from 1942 to 1946, when he became administrator, apparently knew about the timing of the Pearl Harbor attack in advance. Unfortunately, Smith died in 1990 at age 98. But when his daughter, Helen E. Hamman, saw news coverage of efforts by the families of Husband Kimmel and Walter Short to restore the two Pearl Harbor commanders posthumously to what the families contend to be their deserved ranks, she wrote a letter to President Bill Clinton on 5 September 1995. Recalling a conversation with her father, Hamman wrote:

. . . Shortly before the attack in 1941 President Roosevelt called him to the White House for a meeting concerning a Top Secret matter. At this meeting the President advised my father that his intelligence staff had informed him of a pending attack on Pearl Harbor, by the Japanese. He anticipated many casualties and much loss, he instructed my father to send workers and supplies to a holding area at a P.O.E. on the West Coast where they would await further orders to ship out, no destination was to be revealed. He left no doubt in my father's mind that none of the Naval and Military officials in Hawaii were to be informed and he was not to advise the Red Cross officers who were already stationed in the area. When he protested to the President, President Roosevelt told him that the American people would never agree to enter the war in Europe unless they were attack within their own borders.

. . . He was privy to Top Secret operations and worked directly with all of our outstanding leaders. He followed the orders of his President and spent many later years contemplating this action which he considered ethically and morally wrong.

I do not know the Kimmel family, therefore would gain nothing by fabricating this situation, however, I do feel the time has come for this conspiracy to be exposed and Admiral Kimmel be vindicated of all charges. In this manner perhaps both he and my father may rest in peace.*1

Smith first told his story to his daughter and granddaughter in the 1970s, Hamman said, and it bothered him a great deal. Hamman had herself served in the Red Cross on the West Coast during World War II and never had heard anything about this before. She was surprised by the story, but she knew, she said, that "Papa would not lie." (...)
Because Hamman had nothing but her recollections to corroborate the story, without further evidence it was still only a story.(...)
Ultimately, however, a copy of the Hawaii Chapter's Annual Report for the fiscal year ending 30 June 1942 confirmed the secret receipt of medical supplies by the Red Cross at Pearl Harbor immediately before attack."

http://rense.com/general60/moreevidenceFDRknew.htm

[Slit Skirt]

24. let us not forget the Northwoods Document

and the PNAC document...all evidence of covert planning