portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

imperialism & war | political theory

Trump & Bolton Jump Start WWIII With A Gulf of Tonkin, 911 Style False Flag

The goal? Armageddon.
The United States military still thinks it can win a nuclear exchange with anyone. The Kissinger mind-set still reigns supreme in the bowels of the Pentagon. Throw in the 'born again' religious fervor that anticipates the return of Jesus Christ as the stunning climax to a biblical planetary catastrophe, and you have the basic Trump / Bolton recipe for possible global annihilation. Any student of the Vietnam War knows that it was kicked off with a false-flag operation known as the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident". LBJ claimed communist gunboats attacked a U.S. Navy vessel, triggering the horror show that killed over 55,000 Americans- average age 19. Of course nobody attacked anyone else in the Gulf of Tonkin. A sheer lie that left a million asians dead and America divided for years. The Japanese crew on one of the struck tankers reported seeing a torpedo like object racing toward them just before the explosion. The first news reports all mentioned a "torpedo". Why would Iran attack a Japanese tanker while Japan's leader is visiting Iran in order to chill out the situation between Iran and the U.S.? They're not insane. But Trump and Bolton and Pompeo obviously are. You have to realize that there is a major bloody conflict going on in Yemen, with the Saudis (with lots of U.S. assistance) have engineered famines. Carpet bombing civilian areas is Saudi Arabia's specialty. Navy drones from Uncle Sam assist daily with targeting "rebel" areas so the Saudis can make the most of the billions in weapons Trump sold them last year. The whole area is awash in United States military, and torpedoing a tanker is a walk in the park. The Japanese captain swears it wasn't a mine. And that grainy video of a supposed "Iranian Warship"? I don't see any detail at all. That vid wouldn't stand up in court no matter what the case was about. They could have been removing something placed there by someone other than their own military. And is that really an "Iranian" warship? It looks like a fishing boat out of Seattle- there are no visible markings on it- rare for a "Navy" in a potential war zone. Israel under Trump's good buddy Bibi can't wait to see Iran destroyed and has been pushing for war for years. It's a theological argument in the long run. The Crusades have never really been over. Europeans are still brainwashed with bizarre racial and religious doctrines that declare Islam the enemy of Christianity and thus Western Civilization. Toss in Bible prophecies and possible impeachment President Mike Pence and you have the perfect storm for the real war to end all wars. Think Putin will just lay back and watch the U.S. and Saudis and Israel re=write the entire map that borders his nation of 11 time zones? Good luck on that one. Nailing a ship is a time honored false flag method. The Lusitania comes to mind. 1,000's of innocents murdered! screamed the headlines back then. Only later did we discover that yes indeed, the Lusitania was carrying tons of weaponry and ammo bound for the war fronts of Europe- a valid reason for Germany to torpedo it. Letting Trump and the Pentagon off the hook for this obvious lie would spell the ultimate betrayal by this administration of the Nation as the stage is set for more bloodshed in the name of The Land of the Free and Home of the False Flag Attack. Like Judge Judy always says: "If something makes no sense it probably ISN'T TRUE"

"Trump" ? 15.Jun.2019 13:15

_

Trump himself is responsible for this?

war or direct-engaged military conflict with Iran will *NEVER* be initiated on Trump's watch ( unless _perhaps_ ?? a U.S. asset in the Gulf is directly threatened i.e. a U.S. Navy or -registered/flagged vessel is attacked).


as for Bolton he's just another neocon that Trump happened to hire for the 'team'.






rAT [QUOTE]:
------------
" You have to realize "
------------

that, rAT is off his medications again.

weed 15.Jun.2019 15:21

rAT

just WEED you Trump loving fool you.

yeah, 'weed'... 16.Jun.2019 12:58

_

whatever rAT

you and others have been ***mming this site (and others) with "upcoming war vs. Iran!" hysteria for a decade or more. Back to the Cheney/Bush days.

NO ***KING WAY the United States is getting into a ground war with Iran, ever. Simply is not and would never be worthwhile.

sure there could ?? be some reprisal (_only_ in case of a direct attack on U.S.-flagged or -registered vessel) aerial strikes. But _never_ "war" or "World War III".


and again, ---> *NONE of this has ANYTHING to do whatsoever with Trump himself. The Gulf situation and the U.S.'s diplomatic/military 'adversarial' relationship with Teheran has existed since the 1990s (prior to that the U.S. funded both Iran and Iraq against each other).


get some treatment for that Trump Derangement Syndrome (<-- it's a thing).

RE: these latest tanker 'attacks' in particular 16.Jun.2019 13:14

_

Saudi forces have launched strikes against bases in Yemen (CentCom meanwhile reports that, on June 13th, a U.S. MQ-9 drone was ineffectively fired upon by a SAM from Yemen, following the MQ-9 shootdown on June 6th). This is a 'coalition'-style response to the recent threatening of shipping in the seaway. i.e. exactly as the U.S. administration has been rhetorically indicating. No different than anything in the past 5 decades. Same old same old. Spice will continue to flow on behalf of the most-concerned entities.

Who did it (placed mines on and damaged the tankers)? I'm still open to the possibility of "false flag"; but only with solid corroborating evidence. Looks like elements of the Iran regime (which **--> by the way isn't a monolithic military/political force but rather is internally factionalized), for the moment. The 'Kokuka Courageous' crew reportedly saw "flying objects" just prior to the attack on their vessel.

- 16.Jun.2019 16:25

rAT

"-" actually believes what Trump says. LOL!! Trump & Co. are the biggest gang of liars to ever hit the big time. They put the USA in this terrible position- it's definitely NOT the "same old thing"- Now they want to use the US Navy as escorts for tankers. Talk about an incendiary situation. These assholes are setting the whole thing up for WAR. That crew witnessed TORPEDOES coming at them for Chrissakes. Now even Adam Schiff is agreeing with Trump's assessment. The Dems agreed with the 911 Commission too- they're just as willing to accept a possible false flag too. Who's going to question Trump about something as seriously deranged as starting a war with Iran through devious means? That's how the GOP started the Iraq War- with a ton of bullshit about WMD's that never existed. The lying Republican demons that planned and executed the 911 attacks are quite capable of initiating another war using the same deceptive disinformation techniques perfected by the Warren Commission over 50 years ago. Since JFK's murder the USA has been under the control of Nazi/Odessa devotees that remain in power right now. Prescott Bush was Hitler's banker- if you think Nazi-ism isn't part of the Bush legacy you're just not doing your homework. Trump is totally controlled by these same forces and loves to be compared to "strongmen" that rule by fascist decree. From Kim to Duerte, bloody tyrants are his psychological mentors and heroes. The Democrats and the MSM will not save us from the evil that permeates the government and military. Insane actors like Bolton and Pompeo will only get us deeper into a shit swamp we can never escape.

more Blah, blah, blah from rAT 16.Jun.2019 17:20

_

"assholes are setting the whole thing up for WAR" ....... Lol. Everything relevant about the Gulf tankers topic was stated in my:
15.Jun.2019 13:15
16.Jun.2019 13:14
16.Jun.2019 12:58
postings. RE: "even Adam Schiff is agreeing with Trump's assessment" See ^ above. 'Party politics' has absolutely ZERO to do with Gulf shipping policy. And as reference numerous times with his public statements for DECADES, Trump *hates* war. He is the only U.S. political figure to mention millions of dead Iraqis (as a result of the illegal military invasion and occupation) and publicly state that what the U.S. did to the Iraqi people was a human rights disgrace.


RE: 9/11, the entire U.S. foreign policy for the next century is BASED UPON that day. Nobody in USGov is going to stray from the War On Terra 'party line' including Trump.

rAT: "definitely NOT same old thing" / "USA under control of Nazi/Odessa" 17.Jun.2019 01:51

_

Huh?

so, which is it rAT?

[DIRECT QUOTES FROM 'rAT', below]

1) "it's definitely NOT the "same old thing""

or,

2) "Since JFK's murder the USA has been under the control of Nazi/Odessa devotees that remain in power right now"
[ Hint: ^ This sounds a heckuva lot like the "same old thing", at least for the 50+ years since Kennedy was offed. ]


Same old "Nazi/Odessa devotees that remain in power", or.... Not?




rAT = mentally incompetent , and also incapable of consistent logic within even a single posting.

Lol

huh? 18.Jun.2019 18:26

rAT

huh?

Bernie ain't buying it 18.Jun.2019 18:28

rAT

Even Bernie Sanders isn't swallowing Trump's bullshit about who attacked those tankers. He's been talking about the Gulf of Tonkin all fucking day. But rave on.

"Huh?" "Bernie" "Gulf of Tonkin" "all fucking day" keep drinkin' that KoolAid 18.Jun.2019 22:38

_

holy shit,

rAT is unraveling right in front of our eyes / as he posts on Portland Indymedia.

Bernie Sanders (whose initials are appropriately, "B.S.") is totally, utterly and completely ---> *irrelevant* <--- after the events of June-July 2016.
He no longer has any relevance in national politics/issues or international affairs, after those occurrences (i.e. failing to challenge or answer the skullduggery of the DNC after they sabotaged his nationwide presidential campaign during the entire year leading up to that summer's convention).

Bernie Sanders (as of year 2019)
= 0.
Nada.
nothing
zilch
nil
diddly-squat
naught
hill of beans
ZEE-ROE.



( BTW, "Gulf of Tonkin" has absolutely *ZERO* to do with what happened last week to those tankers:

1) Gulf of Tonkin was based upon *MILITARY-MILITARY* ship encounters i.e. U.S. naval vessels that had been, purportedly, fired upon by North Vietnamese naval vessels and,
2) Iran has no military strength to compare with the U.S. particularly in naval and air power in the Gulf. Even one aircraft carrier strike group would be enough to destroy most of Iran's major infrastructure, not to mention completely decimate their 'navy'. Also, addendum to 2): the only "problem" with Iran (as has been the case for decades) is their physical proximity to the strategically situated and geographically narrow Gulf seaway, which of course provides maritime access for vessels of many nations which transact in oil resources with countries in that vicinity. An entire range of international shipping commerce is thus 'threatened' by Iran's mere presence let alone their occasional shenanigans within that seaway, which has been going on for decades and of course also has been 100% totally monitored and managed by the U.S. and other forces.
3) in the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, the U.S. already had forces deployed (as of October 1964) on the ground within South Vietnam itself. The U.S. does not have military forces deployed in Iran.
4) The Saudis, as noted ^^^ above, have already responded militarily by attacking Yemen bases (which additionally threaten Gulf shipping). The United States will **NEVER** ***KING *****EVER***** militarily invade or occupy the nation of Iran (let alone be "at war" with them, any more than we are-have been "at war" with either Afghanistan or Iraq). Absolutely *ZERO* comparison(s) can be made to the strategic, military, economic, or geopolitical situations in the Gulf 2019 vs. Gulf October 1964.

http://JustGiveItUpFOREVER-rAT
please refrain from EVER posting on the Internet again, rAT.

Mrs. Dash 19.Jun.2019 15:05

rAT

You really let your cat out of the bag Mrs. Dash. You are an uneducated IDIOT in addition to being a full time troll for the forces of evil now running the nation. Do you get paid by the word to deconstruct and razz me every time I express my opinion? I'm flattered that you're so damn upset with my meager offerings. It just proves I'm on the right track when blathering fools like you start getting on my case. You must be the 300 pound loser living in his mother's basement with nothing to do all day but jerk off to Donald Trump speeches and post incredibly inane bullshit. The USA kisses Saudu ass and always will. Saying war with Iran is impossible is impossibly naive if not impossibly moronic. You can always tell an intellectually bankrupt blogster by the amount of space they waste denigrating the writer instead of seriously debating or discussing issues. Another "neener neener" zombie with it's tongue sticking out, incapable of rational thought and feeling. I've dealt with HUNDREDS of trolls on this site for almost two decades, but I must admit that you take the cake for tedious, non-relentless obsessive cyber stalking. You are a fucking JOKE Mrs. Dash and Bernie Sanders beats your hero The Donald Devil by a shitload of votes. Even in Nazi-ridden Florida. Sanders has more class and style and truth in his fingernail that you have in your whole body. Rave on Mrs. Dash. Your seasoning tastes like shit.

best you can do, rAT? 19.Jun.2019 20:26

_

the U.S. is not, and CAN NOT, be "at war" with a country such as Iran because the military and economic power disparity between the 2 nations is of such a magnitude as to make it irrelevant for consideration.

What is so difficult (for you...) to comprehend about ^ that?

Most that could ever possibly occur, is that the U.S. would destroy Iran's infrastructure and decimate its civilian population with both nuclear (probably just a few of <--those) and conventional-explosive weapons. After that, the U.S. would then be forced to militarily _OCCUPY_ the partly-irradiated country.

Iran, in case you never noticed, has a substantially mountainous geography. It would be exceedingly difficult and COSTLY (think $$$$) to maintain a military occupation of such mountainous and inacessible country, given that many local insurgencies would continue there for years if not decades against the boots-on-ground U.S. invaders.


You like to post colourful and nonsensical cr&p to this site (I've viewed it for 2 decades - and I was here before you were). But you are a mere attention-seeker with nothing but (mal-) odor and flavor to offer: Zero substance.

rAT for USA President 2020! Yo!

John Bolton is DEMENTED. 21.Jun.2019 23:44

Hey rAT **WATCH THIS**!

( also note, that Trump's first question to military commanders when they asked his permission to commence strikes yesterday:
--> " How many people will be killed? "
Trump thus declined to launch the air and missile strikes, thinking it a 'disproportionate' response to the shot-down U.S. Navy drone  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2019/06/437575.shtml )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c0jMsspE7Y
**WATCH ^THIS** rAT: your 2020 election DEPENDS on it!

and p.s. hey rAT *also* see THIS 22.Jun.2019 16:27

partly-related to Vid previously ^linked

22 June 2019: Trump Response To Question RE: Warmonger, NS Advisor John Bolton / Iran


Trump Unleashes On Uber-Hawk Bolton: We'd Be Fighting "Whole World At One Time" 25.Jun.2019 00:52

Mon, 06/24/2019 - 15:44

Trump Unleashes On Uber-Hawk Bolton: We'd Be Fighting "The Whole World At One Time"

In a stunningly frank moment during a Sunday Meet the Press interview focused on President Trump's decision-making on Iran, especially last week's "brink of war" moment which saw Trump draw down readied military forces in what he said was a "common sense" move, the commander in chief threw his own national security advisor under the bus in spectacular fashion.

Though it's not Trump's first tongue-in-cheek denigration of Bolton's notorious hawkishness, it's certainly the most brutal and blunt take down yet, and frankly just plain enjoyable to watch. When host Chuck Todd asked the president if he was "being pushed into military action against Iran" by his advisers in what was clearly a question focused on Bolton first and foremost, Trump responded:

"John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time, okay?"

Trump began by explaining, "I have two groups of people. I have doves and I have hawks," before leading into this sure to be classic line that is one for the history books: "If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time, okay?"

During this section of comments focused on US policy in the Middle East, the president reiterated his preference that he hear from "both sides" on an issue, but that he was ultimately the one making the decisions.

When pressed on the dangers of having such an uber-hawk neo-conservative who remains an unapologetic cheerleader of the 2003 Iraq War, and who laid the ground work for it as a member of Bush's National Security Council, Trump followed with, "That doesn't matter because I want both sides."
Image source: Reuters

And in another clear indicator that Trump wants to stay true to his non-interventionist instincts voiced on the 2016 campaign trail, he explained to Todd that:

I was against going into Iraq... I was against going into the Middle East. Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East right now.

It was the second time this weekend that Trump was forced to defend his choice of Bolton as the nation's most influential foreign policy thinker and adviser. When peppered with questions at the White House Saturday following Thursday night's dramatic "almost war" with Iran, Trump said that he "disagrees" with Bolton "very much" but that ultimately he's "doing a very good job".

Bolton has never kept his career-long goal of seeing regime change in Tehran a secret - repeating his position publicly every chance he got, especially in the years prior to tenure at the Trump White House.

Tucker's epic "bureaucratic tapeworm" comment:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c0jMsspE7Y

But Bolton hasn't had a good past week: not only had Trump on Thursday night shut the door on Bolton's dream of overseeing a major US military strike on Iran, but he's been pummeled in the media.

Even a Fox prime time show (who else but Tucker of course) colorfully described him as a "bureaucratic tapeworm" which periodically reemerges to cause pain and suffering.