Eots on Gulf of Tonkin

[eots]

NSA report confirms Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened ...NSA report confirms Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened .... from Lehigh University and received his BA from the University of New Hampshire. ...
www.americablog.com/2008/01/nsa-report-confirms-gulf-of-tonkin.html - 16

 

[eots]

I am pleased to learn that. Those Straits must be kept open, or the world price of oil will go even more berzerk than it already has.

this has nothing to do with the topic spammer! why don't you discuss other incidents of foreign patrol boats having incidents with u.s war ships like tonkin for example wouldn't that be more in keeping with the topic ?

 

[eots]

No, it would not, nitwit. We are discussing an incident from the Persian Gulf that happened two days ago, not an incident from 45 years ago.

those that don't learn from history are bound to repeat it....nitwit

 

[eots]

Another One Of Gunnys Cut And Paste With My Name On It BECAUSE AGAIN THE ADMITTED NOT IN DISPUTE FACTS ON TONKIN ARE APPARENTLY ANOTHER CONSPIRACY THEORY

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your attempt to claim the recent events in the Gulf were faked make this a fine candidate for " Eots" wet dream land.

 

[eots]

Your attempt to claim the recent events in the Gulf were faked make this a fine candidate for " Eots" wet dream land.

tonkin was fake ,so why wouldn't you consider that this may also be ?
AND THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT TONKIN IF YOU WISH TO TALK ABOUT YOUR FANTASY'S OF WET DREAMS GO START YOUR OWN HOMO EROTIC THREAD TO VENT YOUR PERVERSIONS

 

[RetiredGySgt]

tonkin was fake ,so why wouldn't you consider that this may also be ?
AND THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT TONKIN IF YOU WISH TO TALK ABOUT YOUR FANTASY'S OF WET DREAMS GO START YOUR OWN HOMO EROTIC THREAD TO VENT YOUR PERVERSIONS

Sorry, you don't get to tell me where or what to post. And since YOU claim that the latest incident was faked and referred it to Tonkin, guess what? I AM on topic.

If I were going to allow someone to order me about and post as they demanded, I would rather follow Maineman then you. At least he has proven he is neither helpless nor consumed by delusions like you are.

 

[eots]

Sorry, you don't get to tell me where or what to post. And since YOU claim that the latest incident was faked and referred it to Ton kin, guess what? I AM on topic.

If I were going to allow someone to order me about and post as they demanded, I would rather follow Maine man then you. At least he has proven he is neither helpless nor consumed by delusions like you are.

I did not claim it was fake I said it should be considered as other incidents have without question been admitted fakes and did not tell you where post
I requested you vent the homo erotic elements else where in attempt not to mare myself and the memory of tonkin with such perversions

 

[eots]

-

Ok, now this is funny.
First we heard the “news” from unconfirmed and anonymous Pentagon officials about an insident involving IRGC speed boats and the US navy in the Persian Gulf,

The Pentagon said that in the incident early Sunday, five small Iranian boats repeatedly “charged” U.S. warships in the Gulf’s Hormuz Strait and dropped boxes in the water. The boats warned the U.S. ships that they would set up “explosions,” a U.S. Defense Department official said.

The U.S. craft were on the verge of opening fire when the Iranian boats fled, the official said, calling the incidident “the most serious provocation of its sort” in the Gulf. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Source

then the next day, we heard a named pentagon official give more data on the subject and Admiral Cosgriff

The Iranians “maneuvered aggressively” in the direction of the US ships, said Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of US 5th Fleet, which patrols the Gulf and is based at nearby Bahrain. The US ship commanders took a series of steps toward firing on the boats, which approached to within 500 yards, but the Iranians suddenly fled back toward their shore, Cosgriff said.

At one point the US ships received a threatening radio call from the Iranians, “to the effect that they were closing (on) our ships and that the ships would explode — the US ships would explode,” Cosgriff said.

“Subsequently, two of these boats were observed dropping objects in the water, generally in the path of the final ship in the formation, the USS Ingraham,” he added. “These objects were white, box-like objects that floated. And, obviously, the ship passed by them safely.”


That last statement is something extraordinary.

If the IRGC boats actually did what this guy said, then they made an extremely dangerous mistake and the person in charge of that ship should be court marshaled. They obviously broke their codes of conduct by not reacting in a dangerous situation where “guns were pointing at the boats” and “ready to shoot” as the original story said the first day.

The Iranian boats made “threatening” moves toward the U.S. ships and in one case came within 200 yards of one of them, the U.S. officials said.

When the U.S. ships heard that radio transmission, they took up their gun positions and officers were “in the process” of giving the order to fire when the Iranians abruptly turned away, the U.S. officials said.

Source CNN January 7th.

Ok, let me think the situation, you are the man in charge of a US ship, you order yourt officers to be in firing position, you see boats getting too close to you (200 yards on CNN, compare to 500 yards said by Admiral Cosgriff), and then you hear on the radio that you are going to explode, and soon enough you see one of the boats dropping white boxes in the path of one of your ships and YOU DON’T DO ANYTHING to stop it?

Come on man, this non-action means one of the following:

The commander of the US ship did not see the situation as dangerous and the action of the IRGC boats as threatening
The commander made HUGE mistake in not stopping the boats and blow up the boxes
The whole thing is a lie
You can choose any of the above, but I personally believe #3.

Now, back to what IRI video shows.

The quality of the voice is much better than the one of the US video, the guy in this video surely has a true Iranian accent (unlike the BS media released by the US), you see 3 US ships passing by and some IRGC speed boats coming back from them, so basically, this can be fake as well, because no one really knows about the date/time of the incident, but in any case, this is much more credible video than the one you can see in Youtube (at the end of this article).

The guy in IRI’s video is surely one of the ass-hole Sepahi (IRGC) guys probably from Kezerun (guessing here), and surely he looks and acts like one of those bastards as well.

This situation is really serious, and should not be forgotten, this is the way US government acts, and lies like this can start a war. If we do not stop them and call them off when they make such childish montage, then it will be very difficult to call them off when they do a real false flag operation to justify a war!

BBC NEWS

Judge for yourself, and for fuck sake BBC, the name of the place is PERSIAN GULF, you fucking morons.

Irainian Version full

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAKdGuKvXNM&feature=related[/ame]


YouTube - British Navy Admits Sailors were Spying on Iran
A dingy with soldiers armed with 5.56mm rifles vs 2 armoured ...
1 min 29 sec -
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtEvibRZYU0[/ame]




http://www.abdolian.com/thoughts/?p=1699

-

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your moronic drivel gets worse and worse.

What it shows is we let enemy or potential enemy craft to close to our vessels because of the "bad press" if we shoot them.

I know exactly what we would be hearing now if those 5 boats were gunned down. You would be howling we attacked them for no reason and there was no danger, The press and other assorted morons would be telling us how our cowboy antics caused an international incident and we are on the verge of invading Iran.

on and on and on......

 

[eots]

Your moronic drivel gets worse and worse.

What it shows is we let enemy or potential enemy craft to close to our vessels because of the "bad press" if we shoot them.

I know exactly what we would be hearing now if those 5 boats were gunned down. You would be howling we attacked them for no reason and there was no danger, The press and other assorted morons would be telling us how our cowboy antics caused an international incident and we are on the verge of invading Iran.

on and on and on......

so has the government staged and misrepresented other similar incidents yes or no . has the government murdered in own citizens in through experimental drug and bio weapon test yes or no

 

[Dirt McGirt]

so has the government staged and misrepresented other similar incidents yes or no . has the government murdered in own citizens in through experimental drug and bio weapon test yes or no

Did Eots drop out of English before the 4th grade? Yes or no?

 

[eots]

Did Eots drop out of English before the 4th grade? Yes or no?

I find it amusing that you of all people would question my education or my proficiency in the English language. as all I have ever seen from you is ten word sentences of limited vocabulary and absolutely no substance

 

[Gunny]

I did not claim it was fake I said it should be considered as other incidents have without question been admitted fakes and did not tell you where post
I requested you vent the homo erotic elements else where in attempt not to mare myself and the memory of tonkin with such perversions

I refer you to post #6, and I quote you:

"tonkin was fake ,so why wouldn't you consider that this may also be ?"

North Vietnam's leaders, who knew from their own intelligence sources about the American connection to Operation 34A, were determined not to bend to U.S. pressure. Hanoi directed its navy, which had not been able to catch the fast PTFs, to attack the slower American destroyer. On the afternoon of 2 August, the Communists dispatched three Soviet-built P-4 motor torpedo boats against the USS Maddox. Torpedoes launched from the P-4s missed their mark. Only one round from enemy deck guns hit the destroyer; it lodged in the ship's superstructure. The North Vietnamese naval vessels were not so fortunate. Shellfire from Maddox hit the attackers. Then F-8 Crusader jets dispatched from the aircraft carrier USS Ticonderoga (CVA 14) strafed all three P-4s and left one boat dead in the water and on fire. The action over, the USS Maddox steamed toward the mouth of the Gulf of Tonkin and supporting naval forces.

President Johnson and his national security advisors were surprised that Ho Chi Minh had not only failed to buckle under U.S. military pressure but had reacted to it in such a bold way. President Johnson, Admiral Ulysses S. Grant Sharp, the commander of American military forces in the Pacific, and Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, decided that the United States could not retreat from this clear challenge. They reinforced the USS Maddox with the destroyer USS Turner Joy (DD 951) and directed Captain Herrick to continue his intelligence-gathering mission off North Vietnam with the two naval vessels.

On the night of 4 August 1964, the warships reported making contact and then being attacked by several fast crafts far out to sea. Officers in the naval chain of command and U.S. leaders in Washington were persuaded by the interpretation of special intelligence and reports from the ships, that North Vietnamese naval forces had attacked the two destroyers. More recent analysis of that data and additional information gathered on the 4 August episode, now makes it clear that North Vietnamese naval forces did not attack Maddox and Turner Joy that night in the summer of 1964.

In response to the actual attack of 2 August and the suspected attack of 4 August, President Johnson ordered Seventh Fleet carrier forces to launch retaliatory strikes against North Vietnam. On 5 August, aircraft from carriers Ticonderoga and USS Constellation (CVA 64) destroyed an oil storage facility at Vinh and damaged or sank about 30 enemy naval vessels in port or along the coast. Of greater significance, on 7 August the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed the so-called Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which enabled Johnson to employ military force as he saw fit against the Vietnamese Communists. In the first months of 1965, the President ordered the deployment to South Vietnam of major U.S. ground, air, and naval forces. Thus began a new phase in America's involvement in the Vietnam War.

http://www.paperlessarchives.com/vw_gulf_of_tonkin.html

There was nothing fake about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Herrick and his crew indeed believed they were under attack. Regardless, as the facts presented above show, the USS Maddox WAS attacked by the NV Navy.

Enjoy attempting to refute.

 

[eots]

Gulf of Tonkin Incident
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Chart showing the U.S. Navy's interpretation of the events of the first part of the Gulf of Tonkin incidentThe Gulf of Tonkin Incident was the casus belli of the Vietnam War. It was a pair of supposed attacks allegedly carried out by naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (commonly referred to as North Vietnam) against two American destroyers, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. The incident occurred on August 2 and 4, 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin.[1]

The outcome of the incident was the passage by Congress of the Southeast Asia Resolution (better known as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), which granted President Lyndon Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for escalating American involvement in the Vietnam Conflict, which lasted until 1975.

In 2005, it was revealed in an official NSA declassified report[2] that the first alleged attack, on the destroyer Maddox, was in fact carried out after the Maddox fired first. In 2008, another declassified NSA report[3] revealed that no attack happened on August 4.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident



By National Security Archive contact: John Prados
Republished from The National Security Archive, George Washington University
Newly Declassified National Security Agency Documents Show Analysts Made
Washington, D.C., 1 December 2005 – The largest U.S. intelligence agency, the National Security Agency, today declassified over 140 formerly top secret documents — histories, chronologies, signals intelligence [SIGINT] reports, and oral history interviews — on the August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident. Included in the release is a controversial article by Agency historian Robert J. Hanyok on SIGINT and the Tonkin Gulf which confirms what historians have long argued: that there was no second attack on U.S. ships in Tonkin on August 4, 1964. According to National Security Archive research fellow John Prados, “the American people have long deserved to know the full truth about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The National Security Agency is to be commended for releasing this piece of the puzzle. The parallels between the faulty intelligence on Tonkin Gulf and the manipulated intelligence used to justify the Iraq War make it all the more worthwhile to re-examine the events of August 1964 in light of new evidence.” Last year, Prados edited a National Security Archive briefing book which published for the first time some of the key intercepts from the Gulf of Tonkin crisis.

 

[eots]

America entered a sovereign Nation and was blowing up parts of the infrastructure they where not in international waters and they fired first there is no question a incident in tonkin occurred but the way its was presented was false... a fake

 

[Gunny]

Gulf of Tonkin Incident
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Chart showing the U.S. Navy's interpretation of the events of the first part of the Gulf of Tonkin incidentThe Gulf of Tonkin Incident was the casus belli of the Vietnam War. It was a pair of supposed attacks allegedly carried out by naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (commonly referred to as North Vietnam) against two American destroyers, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. The incident occurred on August 2 and 4, 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin.[1]

The outcome of the incident was the passage by Congress of the Southeast Asia Resolution (better known as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), which granted President Lyndon Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for escalating American involvement in the Vietnam Conflict, which lasted until 1975.

In 2005, it was revealed in an official NSA declassified report[2] that the first alleged attack, on the destroyer Maddox, was in fact carried out after the Maddox fired first. In 2008, another declassified NSA report[3] revealed that no attack happened on August 4.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident



By National Security Archive contact: John Prados
Republished from The National Security Archive, George Washington University
Newly Declassified National Security Agency Documents Show Analysts Made
Washington, D.C., 1 December 2005 – The largest U.S. intelligence agency, the National Security Agency, today declassified over 140 formerly top secret documents — histories, chronologies, signals intelligence [SIGINT] reports, and oral history interviews — on the August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident. Included in the release is a controversial article by Agency historian Robert J. Hanyok on SIGINT and the Tonkin Gulf which confirms what historians have long argued: that there was no second attack on U.S. ships in Tonkin on August 4, 1964. According to National Security Archive research fellow John Prados, “the American people have long deserved to know the full truth about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The National Security Agency is to be commended for releasing this piece of the puzzle. The parallels between the faulty intelligence on Tonkin Gulf and the manipulated intelligence used to justify the Iraq War make it all the more worthwhile to re-examine the events of August 1964 in light of new evidence.” Last year, Prados edited a National Security Archive briefing book which published for the first time some of the key intercepts from the Gulf of Tonkin crisis.

I use actual government documents to support my argument, you use Wikipedia.

America entered a sovereign Nation and was blowing up parts of the infrastructure they where not in international waters and they fired first there is no question a incident in tonkin occurred but the way its was presented was false... a fake

The USS Maddox was 8 miles offshore. North Vietnam claimed 5 miles. The USS Maddox was in international waters.

Further, N Vietnamese radar had tracked the USS Maddox the entire time the South Vietnamese Navy raided N Vietnam and KNEW the USS Maddox was not part of the raid.

Try again.

 

[eots]

[

QUOTE=GunnyL;639273]I use actual government documents to support my argument, you use Wikipedia.:rolleyes

:



Gulf of Tonkin - 11/30/2005 and 05/30/2006Please Note: These historical documents are PDF images of formerly classified carbon paper and reports that have been declassified. ...
www.nsa.gov/vietnam/ - 10k

The USS Maddox was 8 miles offshore. North Vietnam claimed 5 miles. The USS Maddox was in international waters

.

Since the late 20th century the "12 mile limit" has become almost universally accepted.


[PDF] LIS No. 99 - Vietnam (VN) 1983File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
(Hai Thanh, "The Base Line of Vietnam's Territorial. Waters.") 12. There is no clear distinction between "gulf" and "bay" in current international legal ...
www.state.gov/documents/organization/58573.pdf

Further, N Vietnamese radar had tracked the USS Maddox the entire time the South Vietnamese Navy raided N Vietnam and KNEW the USS Maddox was not part of the raid

.

Try again.[/QUOTE]

even you must realize how stupid this statements is AMERICAN FORCES are ashore blowing up infrastructure (an act of war), a US ship sits 5- 8 miles off shore but they didn't actual blow anything up on shore so they are not a part of it and should be not viewed as a threat ,then when approached by patrol boats the US FIRES FIRST give it up...your wrong

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In 1964 the limit was NOT 12 miles, try again you retard.

 

[eots]

Vietnam

Maritime claims:
territorial sea: 12 nm
contiguous zone: 24 nm
exclusive economic zone: 200 nm
continental shelf: 200 nm or to the edge of the continental margin
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/vm.html


SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE LEGAL CONTROVERSIES CONCERNING AMERICA'S ...ambiguous terms that " by the end of 1964, North Vietnam may well ...... 12-mile territorial water limit. During Hearings before the U.S. Congress, it ...
iclq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/17/4/953.pdf

so your whole argument hinges on 8 miles vs 5 miles...reta..no never mind