Sunday, May 23, 2010


New conspiracy theory: Sinking of S. Korean ship was a “false flag” operation to keep US base in Okinawa

by Larry Geller

You be the judge.

Okinawans were outraged Sunday that Japan's prime minister reneged on his campaign pledge to move a strategic U.S. military base off their island, a broken promise that deepens political confusion ahead of nationwide elections.

One reason for the change was the sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan, blamed on North Korea, they said. The possible attack underscored serious security challenges in the region and the importance of the U.S. military presence, they said.   [MSNBC (AP), Japan leader apologizes over US base on Okinawa, 5/23/2010]

How convenient the timing. Just when Japan was about to shut down the hated military base, an attack comes out of the blue, splitting a South Korean ship in two but leaving big enough pieces of the torpedo so that it can be identified as of North Korean manufacture.

Whether or not Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama planned to shut down the base before, the attack provided perfect cover for him to give in to US pressure and keep it open. Japan fears an attack from a militant North Korea.

North Korea has denied that they were responsible. And the torpedo is of the same type that they have been selling to others. Could I have been the only one to come up with the idea that maybe North Korea was indeed not responsible for the attack? The attack sure worked for the US.

Knowing that this thought will be instantly dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” does not mean that it shouldn’t be explored. Google reveals that others have had the same idea already.

First, the definition of a “false flag operation” from Wikipedia:

False flag operations are covert operations which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.

The same Wikipedia article lists several false flag operations carried out by countries including the US. For example:

In 1953, the U.S. and British-orchestrated Operation Ajax used "false-flag" and propaganda operations against the formerly democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq. Information regarding the CIA-sponsored coup d'etat has been largely declassified and is available in the CIA archives.

From False Flag in Korean Waters (Allvoices, 5/20/2010):

To prove this is a false flag let us first debunk this evidence with common sense (it is all we’ll really need). First is the report that scraps of an exploded torpedo match that of North Korean design. Okay if one torpedo is large enough to break a ship in two as the reports have indicated what are the odds it will have any pieces large enough left that could match anything? None. They would have an easier time getting me to swallow the lie that it was metal mined from North Korea. At least that would be easier to fake.

Second Piece of evidence is the piece with serial numbers on it matching North Korean markings on a torpedo that Seoul obtained years earlier (interesting little fact there). That brings me back to the last debunking. How would you find any piece large enough from a torpedo explosion off the bottom of the ocean that would have serial numbers on them? Isn’t that a little too farfetched to even consider that they would happen to find pieces large enough to match to a design and they happen to have serial numbers on them that link them to North Korea.

The writer hasn’t “proved” that the sinking was a false flag operation. It’s just a theory, and depends on the argument that the torpedo would have been destroyed in the explosion. Not unreasonable, but barring review by experts, not proof.

My initial thought, knowing nothing about torpedoes, was that such an attack by North Korea, for no apparent purpose, would be sure to impact Japan’s decision on the Okinawan base. So in fact, it would be better for North Korea not to do anything provocative until the bases were packed up and out of there. The attack, if it was by North Korea, defies logic in several ways.

This is very much a story in progress, let’s see what happens.



hmmmm, I'm not a conspiracy "theorist" but I got to your "story" because I thought the same thing - and I am very pro-USA.

this is kinda thin-threaded... but... were there really 46 (?) dead ? What are the chances that S.Korea would go along with this (probably nill) ??

ok - so, assuming there are 46 (?) dead - and that S. Korea would NOT go along with this "orchestration" - then, a really in-depth analysis of change-of-hands on that "missle" and clear notion of where "hit" occurred and who monitors those waters and did anyone notice anything.

I am very skeptical about North's intentions - but, everything is possible and nothing makes much sense with the North. But, it is an interesting possibility.

and there's a second "point" - an operation this significant which is strategic in nature, and would have taken months (min) to plan - would have to have approval from director and above !! would Panetta and Obama approve this ?? I kind'a don't think so.

How 'bout Putin ? Would Russia benefit if the US got bogged down into another diplomatic battle away from Middle East/Afghanistan ? Or to draw US/S.Korea into a conflict ? I don't think China has the "know-how" to plan and execute this - but Russia surely does.

Especially since the US's interest is so thinly disguised - russia would surely benefit from lack of suspicion thrown its direction.

Makes sense.
Why in the world would a government sink one ship. NO MOTIVES. They can't afford problems I think this is a way for the US to finish the war they started against communists. You'll see in a short period of time I war will start. The nearly half century stale-mate between the north and south will resume.

What makes you an armaments and explosives expert? I don't find it implausible at all that recognizable torpedo fragments were discovered after the blast. The torpedo wouldn't vaporize, it would fragment into chunks of a variety sizes - many of which can be retrieved. Recent history is full of examples of explosive laden truck and car bombs with far more explosive force than was packed into this torpedo that yielded many clues (VIN and parts serial numbers) that lead to the origin of the vehicle and its paper trail of owners (e.g., think world trade center bombing #1). And if you are looking for possible reasons for North Korean political gain from such an attack - look no further than the alleged succession struggle that may be happening behind the walls of this oppressive regime. Kim Jong-Il wants to be succeeded by sonny-boy and needs to remind his hungry, frightened population now and then that his family dynasty is best suited to protect North Korea by standing up to the West. They are so use to pulling just this kind of stunt (in order to gain concessions from the west and/or remind their subjects who is boss), I have no problem seeing this as just another act in the drama.

Any crime has three elements: Means. Motive. Opportunity. Who benefits? Follow the money! Study previous motive operandi. In these kind of operations, inevitably, THE PAPER TRAIL ALWAYS LEADS TO THE PATSY. That is why the "evidence" (which shouldn't even exist) was planted there in the first place.
North Korea could never win any war. We know the regime is kooky, but self preservation is their primary goal. Plus- they have no capability to pull this off. The South Korean Cutlass had very advanced anti-submarine detection equipment.Crap, that was its primary mission. Its defenses could never be penetrated by any North Korean weaponry. This obvious fact has to be the main argument for North Korean non-involvement.
Here is a short course on war: (1) Don't get into a war you can not win. (2) Advantage always goes to the attacker. Because, after all, they planned the damned thing. (3) Make it look like the other side started it. (4) If possible, get someone else to fight the war for you.(5) Make a lot of money from the conflict. Now that is a perfect war!
Hey, don't get mad because I read history. Just name one war that wasn't started this way. 1+1=2... 2+2=4 Just add it up. Some commentators here think that 1+1=3.That's Funny. Lets just round up the usual suspects.

I agree with your analysis. The North knows it would lose the war (and they probably haven't seen The Mouse that Roared). On the other hand, they also know that S. Korea doesn't want a war because of the likelihood that Seoul would be pounded.

On balance, the world should realize that N. Korea may be speaking the truth.

They don't seem to have many friends left, though. I hope sanity prevails. We don't need more wars. You'd think some country in this world would question the evidence presented along the lines you have mentioned.

President McKinley told the American people that the USS Maine had been sunk in Havana Harbour by a Spanish mine and they supported the Spanish American War. There had been no mine.

Hitler told the German people that Poland had attacked first and staged fake attacks against German targets to convince them to attack Poland. World War 2 followed.

FDR claimed Pearl Harbour was a surprise attack. It wasn't. Tricked by the lie of a surprise attack, Americans marched off to war.

President Johnson took advantage of an inexperienced sonar man's report of torpedoes to lie about the Gulf of Tonkin and send Americans off to fight in Vietnam. There were no torpedoes in the water.

The USA and its allies went into the Iraq war based on the lie of the “Weapons of Mass Destruction”.

Bob of Brisbane

Just to comment on the earlier statement by someone here "The torpedo wouldn't vaporize, it would fragment into chunks of a variety sizes", My friends don't you remember that the flight that hit pentagon on 911 just vapourized and not even the black box was recovered. 'Believe what you want to, but just remember that it is not always the truth'.

Post a Comment

Requiring those Captcha codes at least temporarily, in the hopes that it quells the flood of comment spam I've been receiving.

<< Home


page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Newer›  ‹Older