5 ms·

And this is quite an irrelevant fact. How many people know/remember that the US faked an attack on it's fleet on August 4 to join the Vietnam war?

by cies 3y ago

hef19898 3y ago
The Tonkin Incident. Well, Wikipedia has a decent enough write up of the whole Vietnam War, including the French one, including Tonkin. The problem is less that those crucial facts are not know, but rather that they get ignored in public discourse.
- cies 3y ago
  Exactly! Same for the --benign-- roman wages in salt story. It will get ignored.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    And than all kinds of people will use that bit for all kinds of weird theories.
    - cies 3y ago
      That do not harm a million Iraqi or Viet civs. Plenty of groups believe/ promote all kinds of "weird theories". As long as they are harmless I dont care. The moment it involves cutting baby penisses or promoting hate I'm voicing myself out against.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        The cutting baby penisis remark was totally uncalled for, and can be seen offensive.
lifeisstillgood 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident One real attack August 2, one confused incident where actually no attack happened. It's kind of true but really it's hardly a false flag operation (paraphrasing and being kind to US administration - US Navy breached territorial waters, exchanged fire on Aug 2, then on Aug 4 they fired upon radar returns and possible signals traffic. The second time there was no actual North Vietnamese and the Navy expressed doubts but US administration wanted to escalate and both incidents became conflated. It's not the same as for example pre-planned false flag operations. Is there a fine line? Yes. exactly where that is is hard to say.
- cies 3y ago
  I'd say knowingly trying to claim an attack that did not happen is --not a false flag-- but certainly a govt conspiring to deceive "the people". Not sure what's worse. And see the result: how many dead Viets? I recently heard a US TV anchor say "all civilian deaths since WW2" (they meant to say "US civ deaths"). The Iraqi WMDs were a similar hoax to get "involved". I never trust a word 3 letter agencies again: professional lairs with zero accountability.
  - jvanderbot 3y ago
    I didn't read the above to mean "Knowingly trying to claim at attack that did not happen". I read it as "We aren't sure there's someone there, but please just shoot anyway we need to be aggressive", and political officials portrayed that as "Attack" without proof. These are congruent accounts with different interpretations, and I tend to believe public speakers are opportunistic spin doctors, not world-shaping conspirators. As for "never trust a 3 letter agency", that's quite an extreme viewpoint. CDC? EPA? FBI? CIA? NSA? All of them do good, even if their findings can be spun ( or are even directed to be spun ).
    - cies 3y ago
      > CDC? EPA? FBI? CIA? NSA? All of them do good What do you think is the good? Maybe the FBI to some extend (my point was quite a hyperbole I know). But under the line they mostly do bad imho. And they spin their own "findings", that's how we got into this conversation. I the plan was to invade Vietnam/Iraq, and the attack are propped up to "allow" then to invade. If you think they govt was deceived by it's own speakers, that to my is quite a stretch... The plan was to invade, and the story was made to match. That is a conspiracy in and of itself.
      - jvanderbot 3y ago
        If you're writing off CDC and EPA entirely then I think there's no common ground here.
  - deleted 3y ago
ilovecurl 3y ago
If you are ever in the Seattle area, you can tour one of the destroyers that was involved in that incident, the USS Turner Joy, which is docked right next to the ferry terminal in Bremerton.
narag 3y ago
How many people know/remember that the US faked an attack on it's fleet on August 4 to join the Vietnam war? BTW, have you heard of the Maine?

And this is quite an irrelevant fact. How many people know/remember that the US faked an attack on it's fleet on August 4 to join the Vietnam war?

by cies 3y ago

And this is quite an irrelevant fact. How many people know/remember that the US faked an attack on it's fleet on August 4 to join the Vietnam war?

hef19898 3y ago

The Tonkin Incident. Well, Wikipedia has a decent enough write up of the whole Vietnam War, including the French one, including Tonkin. The problem is less that those crucial facts are not know, but rather that they get ignored in public discourse.

cies 3y ago
Exactly! Same for the --benign-- roman wages in salt story. It will get ignored.
- hef19898 3y ago
  And than all kinds of people will use that bit for all kinds of weird theories.
  - cies 3y ago
    That do not harm a million Iraqi or Viet civs. Plenty of groups believe/ promote all kinds of "weird theories". As long as they are harmless I dont care. The moment it involves cutting baby penisses or promoting hate I'm voicing myself out against.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      The cutting baby penisis remark was totally uncalled for, and can be seen offensive.

lifeisstillgood 3y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident One real attack August 2, one confused incident where actually no attack happened. It's kind of true but really it's hardly a false flag operation (paraphrasing and being kind to US administration - US Navy breached territorial waters, exchanged fire on Aug 2, then on Aug 4 they fired upon radar returns and possible signals traffic. The second time there was no actual North Vietnamese and the Navy expressed doubts but US administration wanted to escalate and both incidents became conflated. It's not the same as for example pre-planned false flag operations. Is there a fine line? Yes. exactly where that is is hard to say.

cies 3y ago
I'd say knowingly trying to claim an attack that did not happen is --not a false flag-- but certainly a govt conspiring to deceive "the people". Not sure what's worse. And see the result: how many dead Viets? I recently heard a US TV anchor say "all civilian deaths since WW2" (they meant to say "US civ deaths"). The Iraqi WMDs were a similar hoax to get "involved". I never trust a word 3 letter agencies again: professional lairs with zero accountability.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  I didn't read the above to mean "Knowingly trying to claim at attack that did not happen". I read it as "We aren't sure there's someone there, but please just shoot anyway we need to be aggressive", and political officials portrayed that as "Attack" without proof. These are congruent accounts with different interpretations, and I tend to believe public speakers are opportunistic spin doctors, not world-shaping conspirators. As for "never trust a 3 letter agency", that's quite an extreme viewpoint. CDC? EPA? FBI? CIA? NSA? All of them do good, even if their findings can be spun ( or are even directed to be spun ).
  - cies 3y ago
    > CDC? EPA? FBI? CIA? NSA? All of them do good What do you think is the good? Maybe the FBI to some extend (my point was quite a hyperbole I know). But under the line they mostly do bad imho. And they spin their own "findings", that's how we got into this conversation. I the plan was to invade Vietnam/Iraq, and the attack are propped up to "allow" then to invade. If you think they govt was deceived by it's own speakers, that to my is quite a stretch... The plan was to invade, and the story was made to match. That is a conspiracy in and of itself.
    - jvanderbot 3y ago
      If you're writing off CDC and EPA entirely then I think there's no common ground here.
- deleted 3y ago

ilovecurl 3y ago

If you are ever in the Seattle area, you can tour one of the destroyers that was involved in that incident, the USS Turner Joy, which is docked right next to the ferry terminal in Bremerton.

narag 3y ago

How many people know/remember that the US faked an attack on it's fleet on August 4 to join the Vietnam war? BTW, have you heard of the Maine?