Matt’s 2 cents worth

-WiscoDave

This entry was posted in WiscoDave, You can't make this shit up. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Matt’s 2 cents worth

  1. Joe Blow says:

    Who said it wasn’t (American hired hands) someone else removing it, or attaching it, or a complete and total fabrication (aka calling JJ Abrams)?
    No, the old addage “Qui bono”? Comes to mind. Who benefits? Certainly not Iran, why would they poke the angry tiger?
    Funny how the bill was rushed to the floor on an unscheduled vote and several senators changed their opinions right around that time….

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-14/senators-switched-key-votes-bill-gulf-arms-ban-hours-after-tanker-attacks

    Nothing to see here, move along. This is not the Gulf of Tonkin after all. Sheesh!

  2. Jimbob says:

    The other scenario of course is the only people willing to remove the “mine” are people who not it’s not a mine…. and are there only for the purpose of creating “evidence” to the need for a war… see weapons of mass distraction or the large cartoon bomb courtesy of Israel

  3. orlin sellers says:

    Except the crew said whatever hit them came flying at them How do we know the people in the boat were Iranians? Why would Iran do this to one of their friends when the Iranian government was hosting Japan leaders to discuss trade?
    Time again to recall George Carlin’s wise advice: Never believe anything the government tells you.

    • FaCubeItches says:

      “Why would Iran do this to one of their friends when the Iranian government was hosting Japan leaders to discuss trade?”

      Protection rackets are an old business.

      Nice shop you have here, sir. But some of the locals – they can be troublesome. You never know when you might get robbed or vandalized. But, if you were to say…pay me 5% of your profits, I would make sure that no one would touch you.

      Or, put another way:

      We’re in the business of not sinking oil tankers. And for a very reasonable fee, we can not sink your oil tankers, too.

      • Larry says:

        It’s likely factionalism within Iran — one group trying to out nutball the others. Kind of like the Democratic candidates all trying to out-left the others.

  4. Plankton67 says:

    I just have not yet figured out who the real audience for this show really is. As far as I know, nobody was killed in this. At this point, it is Kabuki theater combined with Chinese shadow puppetry. I would suspect that any real deal would light off in late August/ early Sept, in time to impact the entire 2020 election and distract the masses…. in minecraft.

  5. daddy-o says:

    Why would you place an explosive above the water line?

    • MadMarlin says:

      Would setting the mine below the water line make any difference when trying to blow up an oil tanker? I would think below water line might impede a really good fire, but then again maybe they didn’t want it to sink but burn for a long time. That way they get exciting media coverage and not a photo of of just an oil slick where the ship sank. Terrorists seem to love media attention. Just my observation because I’m about dumb as a bucket of rocks in regards to maritime combat tactics as well as many other topics.

      • Larry says:

        Given the boat they were using and the seas, they might not have been able to attach it underwater. Or they might have wanted the showy fire. And their mine could’ve been a dud with “Made in Iran” written all over it, do they’d want to remove it.

      • MN Steel says:

        As a former combat engineer, explosives exposed to open air perform not as well as tamped explosives.

        Tamped by a denser media like seawater, which is just a tad denser than air, and the whole reason limpet mines are named after a barnacle-type mollusk.

      • arc says:

        Water doesn’t compress. An underwater explosion against a ships hull will do a fair bit more damage. Above the water, well… kind of just burns the paint.

  6. Paraclete says:

    Bracken has the experience to know of what he speaks…

  7. OldNFO says:

    That’s exactly right.

    • Sanders says:

      Let’s break that in to little bits.

      No USA ships are involved.
      No USA citizens are involved.
      No USA territory or waters are involved.
      All cargo was headed to Asia.

      This. Is. Not. Our. Problem.

      • Larry says:

        Not our circus, not our monkeys. In fact, we should be pointing out that we are a much safer source of oil.

  8. Georgiaboy61 says:

    It is little-known that false-flag operations kicked off the Second World War in Europe and in Asia as well.

    After successfully-bullying Czechoslovakia and absorbing the Sudetenland – the western region of that nation home to some three million people – Adolf Hitler turned his attention to Poland and the thorn in Germany’s side – namely, the Danzig Corridor which partitioned East Prussia from the rest of Germany. Unknown to the West, Hitler and Stalin had already made plans to carve up Poland and split the spoils amongst themselves. They lacked only a suitable pretext for taking action.

    Impatient, Hitler’s subordinates in the SS-Gestapo supplied an answer. If the Poles would not act provocatively towards the Reich, SS operatives would do it for them in such a way as to supply a casus belli to Hitler and the Nazi Party, thereby the German people. Under the direction of Sturmbannführer (Major) Alfred Naujocks, a team of SS-Gestapo operatives shot-up a radio station on the Polish-German frontier at Gleiwitz. Concentration camp prisoners dressed in Polish uniforms were machine-gunned and left at the scene as forensic “evidence” that Polish troops were responsible for the attack. Citing the attack, Hitler invaded, sending the Blitzkrieg roaring into Poland on 1 September 1939.

    We know of the so-called “Gleiwitz Incident” because Naujocks survived the war and testified at the Nuremberg Tribunals, disclosing the full details behind this false flag attack.

    The Japanese Empire had been busy in China as well. The following summary, from Wikipedia, is accurate:

    “The Mukden Incident, or Manchurian Incident, was an event staged by Japanese military personnel as a pretext for the Japanese invasion in 1931 of northeastern China, known as Manchuria.On 18 September 1931, Lt. Suemori Kawamoto of the Independent Garrison Unit detonated a small quantity of dynamite close to a railway line owned by Japan’s South Manchuria Railway near Mukden (now Shenyang). The explosion was so weak that it failed to destroy the track, and a train passed over it minutes later. The Imperial Japanese Army accused Chinese dissidents of the act and responded with a full invasion that led to the occupation of Manchuria, in which Japan established its puppet state of Manchukuo six months later. The deception was soon exposed by the Lytton Report of 1932, leading Japan to diplomatic isolation and its March 1933 withdrawal from the League of Nations…”

    It is possible, although it has not been proven, that the Gleiwitz Incident was modeled upon this Japanese false-flag operation in Manchuria.

    In modern times, as recently as two years ago, the Turkish intelligence service – i.e., our so-called “NATO Allies” – were caught red-handed faking (staging) chemical weapons atrocities against Syrians. The chemical weapons attacks seemed real-enough; people were killed. The false flag was that the atrocities were blamed on the Assad government of Syria, when the actual perpetrators were the Turks themselves and their allies. The “chemical weapons attacks” template has been tried multiple times dating back to Obama’s second term, but has not succeeded in dislodging Assad from power, the object of the exercise.

    Anyone who believes that the U.S.-NATO powers are above such underhanded tactics is being extremely naïve. Dangerous so, even. The U.S. has gone to war on false pretenses on many occasions, dating back to the explosion of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor in1898. That vessel exploded due to a design flaw which placed her coal bunkers and boilers too close to her forward powder magazine. That was unknown then, but instead of stepping back and considering the possibility of an accident, the powers-that-be rushed to war with Spain. Why? Because they saw low-hanging fruit ripe for the plucking, and decided to pick it. Spain was weak and bankrupted; she could not resist the U.S., an up-and-coming world power.

    Newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst had sent noted artist Frederick Remington to Cuba, with instructions as follows: ““You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war,” and he did just that in his papers. The birth of yellow journalism and muckraking, they call it.

Play nice.