Page 1 of 1

Are the Two Attacks on Oil Tankers a False Flag?

Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:04 am
by Stu
The Japanese tanker had just filled up with oil from Iran - would Iran really be that stupid as to then go and attack it just as it leaves it's port. I know there are some hot-heads in Iran (like in any country) but I have my doubts they would be this stupid.

Can you hear that? Sounds like the drums of war.



Re: Are the Two Attacks on Oil Tankers a False Flag?

Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:06 pm
by edwardmurphy
The phrase "false flag" is way too tinfoil hat for me, but I don't believe Pompeo's claim that Iran did it.

First off, the last time the GOP took us to war it was to deal with nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. There's a bit of a credibility gap there now.

Second, I can't picture Iran hitting the self destruct button like that. Why would they do such a thing? What could they possibly hope to gain?

Third, apart from a hot economy Trump and the GOP have literally nothing going for them. The economy was hot in 2018 too, and they got shellacked at the polls. They need a huge distraction before 2020, and war with Iran would fit the bill nicely. It also happens to be John Bolton's wet dream. So yeah, this is awfully convenient for a bunch of people I don't trust at all.

I think this is the Trump Administration looking to spin a terrorist attack to their advantage.

Re: Are the Two Attacks on Oil Tankers a False Flag?

Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:05 pm
by Philip
What, did the Navy fake the video?

Re: Are the Two Attacks on Oil Tankers a False Flag?

Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:34 pm
by edwardmurphy
I doubt it, but that doesn't mean that Pompeo's assessment is accurate. As I said, our justification for invading Iraq was completely fake. That's not opinion, it's verified fact. I could see the current situation with Iran being akin to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

Re: Are the Two Attacks on Oil Tankers a False Flag?

Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 7:05 am
by edwardmurphy
I feel like that last post is kind of garbled, and since I can't just edit it I'm going to try and clarify here.

What I'm saying is that it's not clear what happened, anymore than it was clear what happened during the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. The Second Gulf of Tonkin Incident - the one that Johnson used to justify increasing our involvement in Vietnam - was most likely just a confused mess in which a couple of American destroyers were shooting at nothing. Johnson wanted his war, so he pretended that he had a smoking gun. The rest is history.

Or more recently there was the Iraq WMD scam. Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 911 - those a-holes were mostly Saudi Arabian - and no weapons of mass destruction, either. The Bush Administration wanted a war with Iraq, so they fed us a story. We bought it, and the result was tragic for everybody.

Or less recently, there was the Maine Incident in Havana Harbor. The explosion was probably an accident, but W.R. Hurst wanted a war, so he ginned one up.

This time around I think that the White House wants a conflict with Iran, so they've been waiting for something to happen that they could spin as Iranian aggression. They laid the groundwork by pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, imposing additional sanctions, declaring the Republican Guard a terrorist organization, putting John Bolton - the most fanatical Iran hawk in Washington - on the Administration payroll, and ramping up the American military presence in the Gulf. Now they have their incident, and they're working overtime to sell it as a clear, deliberate, and unprovoked attack by the Iranian military. But it's not clear. That region is a mess and the fog of war is in effect. We need more information.

In short, I don't buy it. I think it's more likely that the Trump Administration is looking to manufacture a fight. It wouldn't be the first time.

Re: Are the Two Attacks on Oil Tankers a False Flag?

Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 7:12 am
by Philip
Ed: I doubt it, but that doesn't mean that Pompeo's assessment is accurate.
I realize that - but I'm asking would the Navy be crazy enough to fake something as an excuse to cause hostilities? I'm not talking about Iraq and the past - but the Navy of TODAY.
Ed: As I said, our justification for invading Iraq was completely fake. That's not opinion, it's verified fact. I could see the current situation with Iran being akin to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
Yes, we have to be careful. But there is much more scrutiny possible now. Trump does not want war - sees it as economically disastrous.

Re: Are the Two Attacks on Oil Tankers a False Flag?

Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 9:21 am
by edwardmurphy
Philip wrote:
Tue Jun 18, 2019 7:12 am
I realize that - but I'm asking would the Navy be crazy enough to fake something as an excuse to cause hostilities? I'm not talking about Iraq and the past - but the Navy of TODAY.
The Navy didn't deliberately fake the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, they just misinterpreted the data. Given time they'd have figured it out, but Johnson didn't give them time. He wanted an excuse to increase American involvement in Vietnam, so he jumped all over it.

The same is true for the Second Gulf War. Given a bit of time our intelligence services would have gotten it right, but the Bush Administration didn't give them time. Instead they pushed hard for immediate military action, and they got what they wanted.
Yes, we have to be careful. But there is much more scrutiny possible now. Trump does not want war - sees it as economically disastrous.
I don't think that's true. A war with Iran, assuming that he can drum up popular support, could save Trump's Presidency and his legacy. Stuff like this is becoming a problem, and if there's an economic downturn before the next election cycle Trumpism will go down in flames and take the whole GOP with it.

Besides, war would also be a spectacular opportunity for profiteering - think Haliburton - and that kind of shady business is totally in Trump's wheelhouse. Check out War is a Racket by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC (R).



He was talking about WWI, but it applies just as well today. Nothing has really changed. Rich guys love war - they risk nothing and make massive profits.

Re: Are the Two Attacks on Oil Tankers a False Flag?

Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 9:26 am
by RickD
EdwardMurphy wrote:
He was talking about WWI, but it applies just as well today. Nothing has really changed. Rich guys love war - they risk nothing and make massive profits.
That disgusts me to no end.

Re: Are the Two Attacks on Oil Tankers a False Flag?

Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:45 am
by Philip
Almost every candidate, president and congress member have been wealthy. So we just forbid anyone making over $________ from being in our country's leadership?

Re: Are the Two Attacks on Oil Tankers a False Flag?

Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:58 am
by Stu
All part of the plan - certain countries will be toppled according to General Wesley Clark.