• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tanker Attacks Gulf of Oman

Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus:

So you can check my facts below:

The Truth About Tonkin | Naval History Magazine - February 2008 Volume 22, Number 1

The USS Maddox was collecting sigint during military raids conducted by the South Vietnamese military under the command of General Westmorland and according to OpLan 34a. The Maddox had been present several days before when North Vietnamese PT boats had chased the South Vietnamese assault boats away from their attacks on North Vietnamese territory. The USS Maddox had sensibly withdrawn in order to not get mixed up in the cross fire. The US Navy and Air Force were also conducting regular air strikes against the North Vietnamese coast and islands and using ships like the Maddox to assess the effectiveness of the strikes at this time.

On August 2 another set of raids had gone in early that morning and the USS Maddox had picked up sigint that the North Vietnamese were preparing to sortie some boats in response. The captain then sensibly ordered the Maddox out of the area as a precautionary measure but then at 10:45 reversed his decision and started steaming back towards the North Vietnamese coast. The North Vietnamese PT boats took the bait and moved towards the Maddox's position. When the PT boats approached to a distance of 5 knots, (10,000 yards) the USS Maddox fired three rounds of 5" gunfire over the lead boat's bow as a warning. When the patrol boats did not change course fast enough the Maddox opened up with 3" and 5" fire galore. The Vietnamese patrol boats then attempted to close and launched at least four torpedoes in response to the US fire and fired 14.5 mm LCMG fire at the US Destroyer but then they high tailed out and sustained some damage doing so. Meanwhile the Maddox was expending several hundred rounds on the retreating North Vietnamese boats without much effect. Then it called in naval air strikes on the retreating boats by some Cruaders which further damaged the retreating PT boats.

The US Government intentionally misrepresented the facts of the Aug 2nd and the Aug. 4th incidents to other members of American Government, to the American people and to the international community. Thus the deception was key to how future events would unfold. The deception was what made the whole escapade a false flag operation against the American Congress and the American people.

The USS Maddox was thus the "switch" in a bait and switch routine involving US destroyers, US-provided South Vietnamese assault boats, South Vietnamese commandos, plus US strike aircraft and interceptors. The USS Maddox was effectively bait and the phantasmal attacks of August 4th coupled with the lying about both attacks sealed the fate of Vietnam. Five days later the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was drafted and passed in haste based on false information and the US was effectively at war with North Vietnam.

Here is a bit of primary source material that shows the lying in Congress by the Administration from the get go.

http://www.congressionaltimeline.org/Documents/88th_08101964_McNeilReport.pdf

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

You have yet to show the Maddox representing itself as anything but a US ship.

False Flags are intentional acts of deception in which the actor attacks a target with the hopes retaliation for the attack falls on someone else or to prevent retaliation upon the actor....

The Lavon Affair for example.

The Boston Tea Party can be called a false flag.
 
Fledermaus said:
You have yet to show the Maddox representing itself as anything but a US ship.

False Flags are intentional acts of deception in which the actor attacks a target with the hopes retaliation for the attack falls on someone else or to prevent retaliation upon the actor....

The Lavon Affair for example.

The Boston Tea Party can be called a false flag.
Click to expand...

Fledermaus:

The USS Maddox was just one component in the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. The fact that it was not disguised or flying false colours is irrelevant to the modern definition of a false flag operation. If this incident had occurred in the 17th or 18th Century, then you might have a point. But 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin was in the 20th Century and thus a false flag operation under the modern definition of a false flag operation. That definition is:

A false flag is a covert operation designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility.
Click to expand...

The US Government was involved in planning and executing covert raids in North Vietnam. It used those raids to eventually induce a reaction from the North Vietnamese. It then characterised that reaction as unprovoked aggression by deceiving the public about which side had initiated combat. It then made public statements that if another similar attack was carried out there would be serious consequences and escalation for the attackers and their state. It then fabricated a second attack or grossly distorted its own misreading of the situation on August 4th, 1964, so as to construe it as another unprovoked attack by North Vietnam. The US Administration and military then lied to the Congress and to the American people about the events of August 2nd and August 4th, 1964. As a result of these lies, the Congess hastily drafted and passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution on August 7th and opened the door for overt, full-scale, direct US participation in the Vietnam War.

The false flag operation was done to the US Government and to the American people by the US Executive and the deception was that the USS Maddox was the victim of an unprovoked attack on August 2nd rather than the initiater of the attack. The August 4th deception compounded the deceit. The US and South Vietnam were also involved in False Flag operation against the North in the Gulf of Tonkin but the USS Maddox played only a supporting role in those deceptions. Its historical role turned out to be as a Judas Goat (disguised as a lion) and it was used to draw the North into approaching too close and then it sealed the deal by initiating combat. That misrepresented combat then became the falsified pretext for morphing and expanding a covert, limited war into an overt and unlimited war and this transformation was based on a web of lies and deception. The false flag was targetted at America by the Executive of the US Government.

If Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Bolton get their way this martial creep will happen again, but this time to Iran, in a web of deception and deceit spun from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the USA and perhaps the State of Israel too. People like yourself only encourage this behaviour by distracting from the issue at hand, with irrelevant diversions which serve as distractions. I believe your diversions may be good intentioned but they are still diversions. In my books the US Government and some of its branches are indeed the "usual suspects" and have been for almost 75 years. 1947 and 1949 were very bad years for the monsters birthed by the US Government in those years. Truman either wittingly or unwittingly realised James Madison's worst fears and nightmares in those two years and the monsters he sired keep growing in terror even today.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Evilroddy said:
Fledermaus:

The USS Maddox was just one component in the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. The fact that it was not disguised or flying false colours is irrelevant to the modern definition of a false flag operation. If this incident had occurred in the 17th or 18th Century, then you might have a point. But 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin was in the 20th Century and thus a false flag operation under the modern definition of a false flag operation. That definition is:



The US Government was involved in planning and executing covert raids in North Vietnam. It used those raids to eventually induce a reaction from the North Vietnamese. It then characterised that reaction as unprovoked aggression by deceiving the public about which side had initiated combat. It then made public statements that if another similar attack was carried out there would be serious consequences and escalation for the attackers and their state. It then fabricated a second attack or grossly distorted its own misreading of the situation on August 4th, 1964, so as to construe it as another unprovoked attack by North Vietnam. The US Administration and military then lied to the Congress and to the American people about the events of August 2nd and August 4th, 1964. As a result of these lies, the Congess hastily drafted and passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution on August 7th and opened the door for overt, full-scale, direct US participation in the Vietnam War.

The false flag operation was done to the US Government and to the American people by the US Executive and the deception was that the USS Maddox was the victim of an unprovoked attack on August 2nd rather than the initiater of the attack. The August 4th deception compounded the deceit. The US and South Vietnam were also involved in False Flag operation against the North in the Gulf of Tonkin but the USS Maddox played only a supporting role in those deceptions. Its historical role turned out to be as a Judas Goat (disguised as a lion) and it was used to draw the North into approaching too close and then it sealed the deal by initiating combat. That misrepresented combat then became the falsified pretext for morphing and expanding a covert, limited war into an overt and unlimited war and this transformation was based on a web of lies and deception. The false flag was targetted at America by the Executive of the US Government.

If Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Bolton get their way this martial creep will happen again, but this time to Iran, in a web of deception and deceit spun from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the USA and perhaps the State of Israel too. People like yourself only encourage this behaviour by distracting from the issue at hand, with irrelevant diversions which serve as distractions. I believe your diversions may be good intentioned but they are still diversions. In my books the US Government and some of its branches are indeed the "usual suspects" and have been for almost 75 years. 1947 and 1949 were very bad years for the monsters birthed by the US Government in those years. Truman either wittingly or unwittingly realised James Madison's worst fears and nightmares in those two years and the monsters he sired keep growing in terror even today.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Come on Roddy...

You post the definition then veer off completely.

Read what I wrote and reread the definition you presented...

The Maddox was not a false flag.

Bait? Yes.

Bait =/= False Flag.
 
Fledermaus said:
No, really.

Congrats on making a claim and running from it for so long...
Click to expand...

Congrats on dragging out your whine fest for three pages. It's entertaining me. I'm really curious to see how long you'll keep responding with the same gripe.
 
Northern Light said:
Congrats on dragging out your whine fest for three pages. It's entertaining me. I'm really curious to see how long you'll keep responding with the same gripe.
Click to expand...

No. Really. You win. The US and Israel can be the "usual suspects" for "BS false flags".

As you continue to respond.
 
All I can say is the evidence looks to shady to be iran responsible since they have zero to gain and everything to lose.

However to the un named who believe the us is behind it, it is possible two destroyers were nearby when it happened, and the us story has changed multiple times, however there are numerous factions who would benefit like israel, saudi arabia, uae, russia(yes oil prices jumping benefits them greatly) al quaeda and isis who both oppose greatly the shia govt of iran, nearly every sunni govt as they oppose shia which is what runs iran, oil companies, well too many to list.

To simply believe the us is behind it is to rule out too many factions and refuse to examine the possibilities.

I did not list yemen because the houthis are actively at war with the saudis and have been very vocal about what they do, and they have intentionally targetted arab and uae military and oil production/shipping but have always claimed any attack done by them.
 
beerftw said:
All I can say is the evidence looks to shady to be iran responsible since they have zero to gain and everything to lose.

However to the un named who believe the us is behind it, it is possible two destroyers were nearby when it happened, and the us story has changed multiple times, however there are numerous factions who would benefit like israel, saudi arabia, uae, russia(yes oil prices jumping benefits them greatly) al quaeda and isis who both oppose greatly the shia govt of iran, nearly every sunni govt as they oppose shia which is what runs iran, oil companies, well too many to list.

To simply believe the us is behind it is to rule out too many factions and refuse to examine the possibilities.

I did not list yemen because the houthis are actively at war with the saudis and have been very vocal about what they do, and they have intentionally targetted arab and uae military and oil production/shipping but have always claimed any attack done by them.
Click to expand...

Beerftw:

You make good points. We really don't know what's going on with the attacks on the 12 ships to date in or near the Persian Gulf. I would add however that we should not rule out non-state actors such as professional PMC's acting on behalf of an "interested" state despite Mr. Pompeo's assurances that such attacks are too difficult for non-state actors to pull off. Limpet mines are 1940's technology and delivering them by power-assisted is not outside frogman, by mini-sub or by low flying drone is not outside the capabilities of many PMC's with tacit state backing. If mercenaries could defeat the Egyptian army in the Yemen or crush the Omani resistance, or topple African governments, then a few well trained and well supported mercenaries should be able to pull this scheme off.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Beerftw:

You make good points. We really don't know what's going on with the attacks on the 12 ships to date in or near the Persian Gulf. I would add however that we should not rule out non-state actors such as professional PMC's acting on behalf of an "interested" state despite Mr. Pompeo's assurances that such attacks are too difficult for non-state actors to pull off. Limpet mines are 1940's technology and delivering them by power-assisted is not outside frogman, by mini-sub or by low flying drone is not outside the capabilities of many PMC's with tacit state backing. If mercenaries could defeat the Egyptian army in the Yemen or crush the Omani resistance, or topple African governments, then a few well trained and well supported mercenaries should be able to pull this scheme off.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Limpet mines are not only outdated, they do no majpr damage unless they are below the water line, as the need the resistance of the water for the boom to be projected properly. All of these attacks are above the water line, so if they were limpet mines they were placed above the water line, which any state actor like iran knows does minimal damage. Placing them above the water line looks good for news articles but does nothing in taking out watercraft, like the purpose was never to sink any of the watercraft.
 
beerftw said:
Limpet mines are not only outdated, they do no majpr damage unless they are below the water line, as the need the resistance of the water for the boom to be projected properly. All of these attacks are above the water line, so if they were limpet mines they were placed above the water line, which any state actor like iran knows does minimal damage. Placing them above the water line looks good for news articles but does nothing in taking out watercraft, like the purpose was never to sink any of the watercraft.
Click to expand...

Beerftw:

Yes. The attackers may want to cause damage which is visible but not critical to ship survival. Sinking a tanker full of petro-chemicals could create an ecological disaster so if the patrons of the non-state actor or if the state actor are local they might want to avoid a costly clean up while still sending their message, whatever that message is.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Here is question I have: are the damaged oil tankers u.s vessels?
Click to expand...

UW13:

No. They're Saudi, Emirati, Norwegian, Japanese tankers and Iranian (merchant ships, not tankers) to date.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Then the United States cannot use these attacks as a casus belli for war.
Click to expand...

UW13:

The smooth and uninterrupted flow of oil from the Persian Gulf region is an "American interest" and attacks on US allies are a casus belli according to many recent US administrations. Most recently that position has been loudly reiterated by SoS Mike Pompeo. If the American Administration wants war, then they will find (or make?) a pretext and only the Congress can stop them. Perhaps wide-spread public demonstrations might cause the US Administration to pause, but I doubt that given the nature of the men and women driving this policy of militarism.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Beerftw:

Yes. The attackers may want to cause damage which is visible but not critical to ship survival. Sinking a tanker full of petro-chemicals could create an ecological disaster so if the patrons of the non-state actor or if the state actor are local they might want to avoid a costly clean up while still sending their message, whatever that message is.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

I assumed the point was to be visible with minimal damage, as a state actor actually trying to eliminate such tankers would have had no issue doing such, and the fact the supposed mines were above water line indicates it was done as a media stunt more than intentional downing of the ships.
 
Fledermaus said:
You whined that this went on yet you can't help but continue...
Click to expand...

I wasn't whining. In fact, I said that your continued flailing was entertaining to me. It still is.

You just said "you win" so I thought it was over? :lamo

:popcorn:
 
justabubba said:
Powell Calls His U.N. Speech a Lasting Blot on His Record - The New York Times
Click to expand...

And Powell knew it at the time.

Which is what he gets from being the White House Negro to conservative white rich Republicans starting with Ronald Reagan. Once Powell went to work in the WH he kept getting more stars on his shoulders. Reagan and Bush 41 made Powell a made man. Powell wasn't incompetent, he simply looked good in his uniform and he was good at serving tea in the WH.
 
justabubba said:
which nations/organizations have the military ability to inflict the damage
Click to expand...

Just about any nation, or non-nation organization.

However, Iran has been known to have used limpet mines for decades. That was one of their favorite tactics in the Iran-Iraq War. And they are the only major nation-state which brags about this ability to the world, and shows off and brags about their newest generation of limpet mines.

We even had a case in 1980 where a conservation group used a limpet mine to sink a whaling vessel in Portugal. And the Argentines were going to use them against British ships during the Falklands War, but the plans were discovered and the operation scrubbed.

The Houthi have also used them against Saudi ships in their ongoing conflict with them in Yemen. And it should be mentioned that the Houthi are funded, trained, and supported by Iran.

Limpet mines are not terribly sophisticated, so it could be any number of state or non-state actors in the region. However, it should also be noted that most of the ones active in the area are also supported by Iran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom