As Secretary of State Mike Pompeo alleges that Iran attacked two vessels in the Gulf of Oman without any substantial evidence except for, “based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping.”
In fact, even CBS News reported the Japanese owner of the oil tanker, Kokuka Courageous, that was attacked in the Gulf of Oman contradicted Pompeo’s and the US’ account of the incident.
The Ron Paul Liberty Report, and Jake Morphonios of Blackstone Intelligence both discussed the incident and compared it to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, which of course immediately escalated US involvement in Vietnam. The two videos, a combined two-hours in length, can be seen here and here.
And actually, as I was writing this article and linking sources, Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Liberty Report were in the middle of this video on their YouTube channel, entitled ‘Credibility Crisis, No One Believes Pompeo on Iran,’ so be sure to check it out.
Back to the Gulf of Tonkin. It’s the latest false flag attack I wish to discuss with you today, so let me go ahead and first provide a little background on the subject.
The incident occurred on two separate occasions. The first on August 2nd, 1964, and the second on August 4th, 1964. The story goes that North Vietnamese warships fired upon the USS Maddox, a naval ship passing through international waters. The second attack on August 4th prompted President Lyndon Johnson to sign the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
Now, does the official story continue to hold up?
Contradicting Historical Evidence
On August 2nd, 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred when the USS Maddox, supposedly set forth for a peaceful mission reported a surprise attack from North Vietnamese warships in the Gulf of Tonkin.
The Maddox reported another attack two days later on August 4th, prompting President Lyndon Johnson to launch strikes in retaliation and signing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which greatly escalated US involvement in Vietnam.
While the story held water for years, with the US government repeatedly stating it did nothing to provoke an attack while the Johnson administration maintained it acted with restraint, citing retaliatory strikes following the second attack, it was later found that the USS Maddox was not acting peacefully.
My evidence is as follows and for further review, Freedom Flames, simply click the highlighted links which will funnel you to the appropriate sources.
As outlined in Operations Plan (OPLAN) 34-A, the US looked to sabotage and north Vietnamese operations in Vietnam as early as January 7th, 1964, as well as expand Intel missions into the region.
Also stated in OPLAN 34-A is, “Sabotage and propaganda operations in North Vietnam in the last year and a half have been most disappointing,” in the words of McGeorge Bundy, National Security Advisor at the time to the Johnson administration.
What was the USS Maddox really doing so close to North Vietnamese territory?
It was in fact, conducting maritime raids on North Vietnamese coastal targets, assisting South Vietnam in such raids. Prior to the August 2nd engagement, the Maddox approached two offshore islands it saw as targets, Hon Me, and Hon Ngu.
While the battle did occur in international waters, North Vietnam made the connection between the Maddox’s actions and the 34-A raids, pointing to evidence that the USS Maddox most likely initiated the first shots.
Also, as outlined in the NSA’s archives made available to the public forty years after the attack occurred in 2004, there’s evidence that the August 4th attack never happened at all.
Navy pilot James Stockdale, who was at the scene, can be quoted as to writing, “No boats, no boat wakes, no ricochets off boats, no boat impacts, no torpedo wakes—nothing but black sea and American firepower.”
Stockdale later wrote, “There was absolutely no gunfire except our own, no PT boat wakes, not a candlelight let alone a burning ship.”
Stockdale did state, however, that the USS C Turner Joy, which Johnson had ordered to accompany the Maddox, point her guns at the supposedly attacked destroyer.
Captain John C. Herrick, commander of the destroyer division to which the Maddox belonged, radioed into the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific (CINCPAC), stating he was doubtful of many of the aspects regarding the August 4th attack.
Herrick’s report stated, “A review of the action makes many reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects on radar, and overeager sonarmen may have accounted for various reports. No visual sightings had been reported by the Maddox, and the Commander suggests that a complete evaluation be undertaken before any further action.”
You can review the source in full at this link: Essay: 40th Anniversary of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, by John Prados
As stated in the Corbett Report, this attack ‘had been suppressed long enough to have its intended effect: rallying the public for war.’
I hope I presented a well-crafted counterargument to the incident that kick-started one of the bloodiest conflicts in World History. For my international readers, you may know of this conflict as the American War, as it’s stated in many corners of the world. We here in the States have always called it the Vietnam War, so I hope this clears some confusion when I used the term earlier in the article.
Also, thus far I’m quite pleased with the responses in the comments section, and if you would like me to elaborate further on anything posted in the above sections, feel free to state so in the comments section. If you found this article thought-provoking and helpful, please share it to your social media pages to help spread an alternative argument to the mainstream, official accounts regarding this and other events that conditioned the American people for war.
In my next episode, I want to talk about a war that was kick-started via a media firm called Hill & Knowlton, hired by the US government to sell to the American people a conflict that over the next two decades, would escalate into Orwellian-style perpetual war.