Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

People that didn't swallow our governments Tonkin Gulf lie were once considered conspiracy theorists

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:13 PM
Original message
People that didn't swallow our governments Tonkin Gulf lie were once considered conspiracy theorists
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War

Media Beat (7/27/94)

By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon


Thirty years ago, it all seemed very clear.

"American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression", announced a Washington Post headline on Aug. 5, 1964.

That same day, the front page of the New York Times reported: "President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin."

But there was no "second attack" by North Vietnam — no "renewed attacks against American destroyers." By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War.

A pattern took hold: continuous government lies passed on by pliant mass media...leading to over 50,000 American deaths and millions of Vietnamese casualties. snip

But Johnson's deceitful speech of Aug. 4, 1964, won accolades from editorial writers. The president, proclaimed the New York Times, "went to the American people last night with the somber facts." The Los Angeles Times urged Americans to "face the fact that the Communists, by their attack on American vessels in international waters, have themselves escalated the hostilities."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. We were sort of right about just about everything.
Other than that: bunch of radical looney-tunes drug besotted hippy freaks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. image how the shock-and-awe situation room style yellow journalism would have blown up the Tonkin
propoganda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. Sorry, Norm and Jeff
but it's a far cry from doubting the official story to thinking you're smart enough to come up with the real one, one that usually attributes a lot more native intelligence and capacity for planning and execution than the supposed conspirators possess.

Most of us know the Warren Commission was a whitewash but few of us think we know who was behind it, although we'll hazard a guess and label it as such.

We know the 9/11 commission was a whitewash, but very few of us will attribute more than a pressing need to cover up a combination of ignorance and incompetence at the top.

Healthy skepticism and the development of elaborate conspiracy theories are two different animals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. God forbid people should think of dangerous possibilities
Good lord, we can't have that.

Criminal conspiracies happen all the time. If the circumstances of the banking meltdown had been covered up,
would you choose to believe the government's assertion about how it happened?

Believing theories outright is one thing, considering them is another. *Elaborate* criminal conspiracies happen
all the time, no matter what Brother Occam might have liked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff30997 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. Here's another one for you:
Remember the main? or 1941 - a date which will live in infamy? FDR knew it was coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. FDR and Churchill
Edited on Wed Apr-09-08 05:31 PM by LanternWaste
FDR and Churchill, out on FDR's yacht in the spring of 41 were discussing the imminent threat from Germany. Both wanted America to enter w/ Britain against Germany. Both agreed that war with Japan was "the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time"


Jospeh Perciso-- Roosevelt's Secret War.

That anyone entertains even the merest of conjectures that Pearl Harbor was a LIHOP has so much more to read and study from valid, peer-reviewed non-fiction.

Sorry.


Edited to ad source...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
5. I remember watching that on the news.
I was at aparty with a bunch of boring Townies, so I went into the den to watch the Nightly News with the parents of whoever was throwing the party.

And I knew right then that, somehow, what I was watching would have a major impact on my life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vilis Veritas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. Interesting...
IIRC, Tonkin was just the culmination of nearly a decade of cold war tactics trying to thwart communism from over taking the South...Tonkin provided the required 'attack' to get more troops involved, which required 'by-in' from the US citizens...

I think the CIA was in Vietnam around 1954-5...

To bad people forget...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
8. "Conspiracy" - "Conspiracy Theory" - "Conspirator"

Conspiracy
1: the act of conspiring together2 a: an agreement among conspirators b: a group of conspirators
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy

conspiracy theory
a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory

Conspirator
one who conspires : plotter
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspirators


Why are these terms so hard for people to understand.

They're not pejoratives, they're definitions of real world events.

Big crimes almost always involve a conspiracy, i.e., The Gulf of Tonkin charade.

K*R Thanks you

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fireweed247 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
9. I think many people still don't know this
and they don't want to know it.

There are still assholes who think we should have stayed in Vietnam. Gawd this country is fucked up and in big part due to the lies of the Corporate media. We need to start thinking seriously about how to hold them accountable. Enough is enough!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
10. so were people who thought cheney, bu$h* & rumsfeld were wrong on wmd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orwellian_Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
12. Dick Cheney is conspiring in his every waking moment
"The conspiracy phobics believe that conspiracies do not exist, or if they do exist, they are of no great significance...those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: " do you actually think there’s a group of men sitting around a room plotting things/" for some strange reason this image of a group of men ( usually with no women present) actually sitting around a room is considered utterly unbelievable...of course they sit around in rooms. Where else would they meet? They are constantly conferring and they have plenty of rooms at the CIA, the white house, the state department, the FBI, the pentagon, the NSA, and where ever else. And yes, they consciously plot to make certain things happen, to overthrow governments, to set up systems violent repression against reformist or revolutionary governments and movements, to ship arms to clandestine armies. They don’t call it plotting, they call it "planning." they have a whole vocabulary to designate their state-sponsored conspiracies: "secret operations", "covert actions", ’deep operations", " off the shelf-operations", black book operations...at the broader policy level, no one confabulates and plans more than the political and corporate elites of America.

No one does more consciously self-interested policy studies--most of it in secrecy- they have whole professions dedicated to special planning. They spend billions of dollars each year of our tax money to make the world safe for their interests. Yet we have our conspiracy phobics asking us, with incredulous and patronizing smiles, if we really think that the people at the top actually talk to each other about their mutual interests and agendas, and intentionally act in pursuit of their interests...these elites get to know each other. They plant words of ambition and promise in each others ears. They solicit support, offer reassurances, reach understandings. They meet, talk, and plan--yes, in rooms. Their meetings are usually kept private, as are their agendas. They conspire regularly and frequently.

The word "conspiracy" should not be used to dismiss the actuality...in sum, public policy should be directed to the needs of the many rather than the greed of the few. The problem we face is that the ruling interests are profoundly committed to a vision of the world that is ruthlessly exploitative, hegemonic, self-serving, and ecologically unsustainable. Our only choice is to expose and oppose them with all our concerted effort...the conventional view is that power is anti-thetical to freedom, a threat to it. This can be true of state power and other forms of institutionalized authority. However, popular power and freedom are not anti-thetical but complementary: if you do not have the power to limit the abuses of wealth and position, you do not have much freedom. In order to wrest democratic gains from entrenched interests, we the people must mobilize a countervailing power. " the concessions of the privileged to the unprivileged" wrote John Stuart mill in 1869, " are so seldom brought about by any better motive than the power of the unprivileged to extort them"...rather than saying you cannot fight city hall, we might better say that we cannot afford not to. It is often frustrating and sometimes dangerous to challenge those who own and control the land, labor, capital and technology of society. But, in the long run, it is even more dangerous not to do so (Parenti, M. 1998. America Besieged.)."

...

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=5168
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
13. The SCOTUS decision for Bush in Bush v. Gore
Was a form of conspiracy..

Is there anyone who doubts this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samsingh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-09-08 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
14. the repug liars didn't want to be challenged
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC