4 ms·

History buffs will realise that situations like this can be done purposefully. For example the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident in August 2, '64. [0] A wary China insp

History buffs will realise that situations like this can be done purposefully. For example the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident in August 2, '64. [0] A wary China inspects the device, hands it back and defuses the situation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

knz 10y ago
The Gulf of Tokin involved an actual "attack"/rounds fired not seizure of equipment. It's a different order of magnitude.
- granfalloon 10y ago
  I think that's actually bootload's point? A policy of measured, non-violent responses to perceived aggression -- like China's response here -- is a good way to avoid being tricked into war. (Compared to North Vietnam's response to our encroachment in the Gulf of Tonkin, which many suspect was an attempt to goad them into war.)
- bootload 10y ago
  "even today we're finding that--as in the Tonkin Gulf incident--very equivocal, limited evidence as to who did what and why and what happened is being used right now by hawks to encourage us to engage in hostilities again." -- Dan Ellsberg [0] This is history, so I tend not to get too worked up about it. What I will say is we only know, what we are told and the truth is getting pretty slippery. That quote above was by Daniel Ellsberg who was the ^Snowden^/^Assange^ of his time. An insider who saw the nonsense behind the LBJ/McNamara explanations of Vietnam and released the Pentagon Papers. Read the post below and if you have questions about this, ask Dan himself ~ https://twitter.com/DanielEllsberg https://twitter.com/DanielEllsberg [0] "Why the Gulf of Tonkin Matters 50 Years Later (1/2)" ~ http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12180#pop1 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=...
  - knz 10y ago
    Hence "attack".

knz 10y ago

The Gulf of Tokin involved an actual "attack"/rounds fired not seizure of equipment. It's a different order of magnitude.

granfalloon 10y ago
I think that's actually bootload's point? A policy of measured, non-violent responses to perceived aggression -- like China's response here -- is a good way to avoid being tricked into war. (Compared to North Vietnam's response to our encroachment in the Gulf of Tonkin, which many suspect was an attempt to goad them into war.)
bootload 10y ago
"even today we're finding that--as in the Tonkin Gulf incident--very equivocal, limited evidence as to who did what and why and what happened is being used right now by hawks to encourage us to engage in hostilities again." -- Dan Ellsberg [0] This is history, so I tend not to get too worked up about it. What I will say is we only know, what we are told and the truth is getting pretty slippery. That quote above was by Daniel Ellsberg who was the ^Snowden^/^Assange^ of his time. An insider who saw the nonsense behind the LBJ/McNamara explanations of Vietnam and released the Pentagon Papers. Read the post below and if you have questions about this, ask Dan himself ~ https://twitter.com/DanielEllsberg https://twitter.com/DanielEllsberg [0] "Why the Gulf of Tonkin Matters 50 Years Later (1/2)" ~ http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12180#pop1 http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=...
- knz 10y ago
  Hence "attack".