Support 911Blogger


Gulf of Tonkin confirmed as 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

A bit misleading....

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....
---

Doesn't the war have to be in progress in order to be escalated? In the AFP article the reader is lead to believe that the war was already underway, which it was not.

This Yahoo! News story is a little more accurate: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/pl_afp/usvietnamintelligence512
"That was a reported North Vietnamese attack on American destroyers that helped lead to president Lyndon Johnson's sharp escalation of American forces in Vietnam."

False flag then....false flag now...the more things change the more they stay the same.

I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-Saturday, February 27, 1993-John Skilling, Head Structural Engineer WTC

Not 'officially underway'...

though the criminals were conducting a covert war before the false flag that helped make it 'official'.

Now, how about a blog on the U.S.S Liberty False Flag? Though, that might upset the Simon "Anything for a buck" Weasel center...

The same thing...

... might easily happen to 9-11. They will just casually release the information in 30 years that yes, 9-11 was an inside job, the handywork of that corrupt government back then. But things are different now... Nodoby would care in 30 years... People would go back to sleep, believing whatever official story about the latest false-flag op is going to be...

Recent Iranian Speedboat Video Looks Suspicious

Why was there no sound from the high powered engines of the small boats, captured during the transmission of the threats?

Could very small high speed surface craft have enough range to reach the U.S. vessels?

Does every minor U.S. vessel have a camera crew recording activity on the bridge? Otherwise, what a coincidence the event was recorded.

The voice in the threats didn't even sound persian.

Additional

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. It finally occurred to Washington that they could leverage this type of incident into a full scale war (whether the incident was real or not).

This has shades of Rumsfeld's P2OG.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

This is

indeed a very important story. Since I haven't had time to read up on this at all, does anyone know if this can be excused by government apologists of "those Vietnamese tricked us into thinking they'd sunk a boat" or "oops - no one's perfect"

?

Re: Strait of Hormuz

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hooman-majd/its-a-fake_b_80682.html

"It's a Fake"

The Pentagon's version of the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday morning, involving U.S. Navy warships and Iranian Revolutionary Guard patrol boats is, at the very least highly suspicious. On Tuesday, the Navy released video footage and an audiotape to back its claims that the Iranian boats acted in a threatening and provocative manner, but neither the video nor the audio are particularly convincing as proof that Iran had hostile intentions. The video, which shows what is claimed are Iranian boats speeding around U.S. ships, doesn't show any of the boats hurtling directly towards any of the navy ships, nor does it show what the Pentagon claimed the Iranians then did, namely dropped "white boxes" in the water. (I would have opened fire at those, wouldn't you?) The audio tape is even less convincing, mainly because the person speaking doesn't have an Iranian accent and moreover, sounds more like Boris Karloff in a horror movie than a sailor in the elite branch of Iran's military. (The tape is also separate from any video.) Any Iranian can immediately identify Persian-accented English, particularly if the speaker has had little contact with the West, as is the case with Revolutionary Guardsmen and sailors. Iranians, you see, have difficulty with two consonants such as "p" and "l" next to each other; even Iranians who have lived in America for years will often pronounce "please" as "peh-leeze", or in this case, "explode" as "exp-eh-lode". On the tape, "explode" is pronounced perfectly, albeit as if the speaker was a villain addressing a superhero. Further, it is unimaginable, given what is known about the Revolutionary Guards (and I have met many), that one of its corps would speak in a such a manner, even if the accent were correctly Persian...

Continued...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hooman-majd/its-a-fake_b_80682.html

Good cath, Rep

Very important stuff, indeed.

Amazing

Granted I should not be shocked but I am. Apparently it is ok to break the law in some cases.
You can admit to false flag operations and well I guess it is ok. No investigation no charges filed barely a mention in the press...afterall didn't McNamara shed a tear or two for all those who suffered for his "mistake".

You can break the law and international treaties regarding torture and ...nothing. People don't seem to realize it's illegal. Is waterboarding torture?? or maybe it's more complicated "extraordinary rendition".

Probably the underlying thought is more along the lines of "do you think the commies are any better? do you think the islamofascists fight fair? Do what you need to do to protect us from communism or terrorism."

So demoralizing to any who care for justice.

Send this out all over

Stories (truth leaks) like this help break down the psychological barriers to the whole diabolical truth.

I hope there is more coming out on this.