Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (100191)	6/10/2007 2:28:39 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

You did NOT list 3 valid examples of US false flag operations. The first didn't actually happen. Someone may have planned it but it was never implemented. Second, Pearl Harbor was ACTUALLY ATTACKED by Japanese naval air forces. A false flag operation would have involved US planes disguised as Japanese attacking Pearl. The conspiracy theory that FDR knew they were going to attack is just that - a conspiracy theory. We should remember Japan was a very aggressive, brutal, and militarily superior power at the time. Not something FDR could manipulate like a puppet from Washington. Third, even the Tonkin Gulf incident involved an actual attack by NVNese naval forces: On 2 August the Maddox was attacked by three North Vietnamese P-4 patrol torpedo boats 28 miles (45 km) away from the North Vietnamese coast in international waters.[3] The Maddox evaded a torpedo attack and opened fire with its five-inch guns, forcing the patrol craft away. U.S. aircraft launched from Ticonderoga then attacked the retiring P-4s, claiming one as sunk and one heavily damaged. In fact, none of the three vessels was sunk. The Maddox, suffering very minor damage from a single 14.5-millimeter machine gun bullet, retired to South Vietnamese waters where she was joined by the destroyer Turner Joy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident <io>you use your typical righty tactic of of saying they are all invalid, just because you say so. In case you haven't noticed, I've given reasons why your three examples shouldn't be accepted. You otoh have simply said they are valid because you say so. You are like the little kid who thinks he never loses because he appoints himself the judge of who is winning and always picks his side. You haven't PROVEN anything, except what an ignoramus you are. But we all knew that already, so even your exhibiting that again is not new. See you're doing it again.