Friday, February 12, 2010

Remember the Maine!

As they have done before, Russia Today are broadcasting more conspiracy silliness interviewing some kid from the organization, We Are Change, who are regular guests. In this case some new photographs taken in New York on 9/11 have been released presumably showing new evidence of explosions or a guy lighting a thermite charge with a match (or something like that).



Okay, so it's not that interesting, but I did notice when asked why the US government would want to stage the attacks themselves, the WAC guy says that false flags have been going on since the dawn of civilization and cites as one of his examples, the USS Maine! This one seems to be the precedent de jour right now so I just thought I'd mention to regular readers Mark and Peter, residents of New York, that if they head down (up?) to a place called Fort Totten they can see some 100 year-old grafitti commemorating the sinking of that ship.

I stole the following picture from this site.



Of course, as I mentioned before, there doesn't seem to be much evidence for saying the USS Maine was sunk in a false flag attack.

When did this conspiracy theory become Mainestream?

12 comments:

Peter said...

Fort Totten is a nice little park in Queens, not that far from Shea Stadium, I mean Citi Field. I haven't been there in years. Never saw that graffiti though!

There's a big USS Maine monument at the Columbus Circle entrance to Central Park in Manhattan also.

I think today it seems incredibly improbable that the Spanish had anything to do with this calamity. Still, made for an amazing propaganda tool!

angrysoba said...

Yes, I think today a spontaneous onboard fire is considered the most likely cause of the explosion.

There have been several other examples of this happening aboard warships.

Marylander said...

Mainestream! I love shtick!
I always thought this was one of the more interesting events in history as it preceded the war that established the United States as an oversees power.
It seems pretty obvious to me that we had designs on Spanish colonial possessions and were just waiting for an excuse to seize them. Of course, the excuses always come, without the need for elaborate conspiracies.
If we didn't want war we could have looked the other way with the Maine or proclaimed that the Lusitania was an accident, but in both case we wanted war and when the opportunities presented themselves, we took them, as we should have.
Well ok, I'm still undecided about WWI as that entire undertaking strikes me as one giant meaningless slaughter of Europeans, but I'm willing to give our leaders at the time the benefit of the doubt.
Astro-German hegemony over the whole of Europe doesn't strike me as a desirably outcome but God... what senseless slaughter.
Plus it weakened the Czar to the point that a Revolution was able to occur. Of course history is replete with what-if's like that.

Greywolf said...

Soba's point is that there is no evidence that the US gvt.or military blew up the Maine and then blamed it on the Spanish, which there isn't. So I think you're quite right there, Soba.

So we're left with, (a) the Spanish did it, (b) it was an accident, and (c) (which I don't think Soba has considered) someone else did it and the US decided to blame it on the Spanish.

Unfortunately, we can't pin this one on the Israelis, as it was a bit before their time. But among Maine false flaggers, shady forces seeking independence for Cuba are sometimes fingered. However, anyone trying to prove that would have a hard time today. Like so much of what we've been taught happened in history, at this point it's a matter of faith.

"Who sank the Maine remained a mystery until Adm. Hyman G. Rickover, father of the U.S. nuclear navy, put experts to work on the case. Their 1976 report concluded the explosion was almost certainly caused by the "spontaneous combustion of coal in a bunker that abutted a powder magazine." Other experts concluded the Rickover report was flawed and concluded Spanish fanatics had set off a mine. It could also have been Cuban saboteurs."

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?55265-Commentary-Remembering-The-Maine-In-Iraq&p=1131002&viewfull=1

Greywolf said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
angrysoba said...

Soba's point is that there is no evidence that the US gvt.or military blew up the Maine and then blamed it on the Spanish, which there isn't. So I think you're quite right there, Soba.

So we're left with, (a) the Spanish did it, (b) it was an accident, and (c) (which I don't think Soba has considered) someone else did it and the US decided to blame it on the Spanish.



In fact, I do know of the theory that Cuban freedom fighters blew up the Maine. I don't believe it because I think it palpably silly that the Cubans, who did seem to want independence from the Spanish, would blow up a vessel of the only country that might stand beside them while having no guarantee that the Americans would pin the blame on the hapless Spaniards.

It seems another example of "cui bono" that makes no sense except in hindsight.

Greywolf said...

"I don't believe it because I think it palpably silly that the Cubans, who did seem to want independence from the Spanish, would blow up a vessel of the only country that might stand beside them while having no guarantee that the Americans would pin the blame on the hapless Spaniards."

But that's just you, isn't it? You don't believe in false flag operations or conspiracies by governments and political movements or Big Lies any form of deception significantly more devious than you are capable of executing yourself.

I think you lack sufficient imagination, instinct, suspicion or sensitivity to socio-political under and overtones and so you are incapable of perceiving certain aspects of the world. Some people are colour blind, some can't taste or smell cyanide, others are deaf to certain frequencies of sound.

What you may regard as common sense looks to me more like the argument from incredulity hitched to a refusal or an inability to explore motive, as to do such would be to indulge in "conspiracy theorizing".

Perhaps the Cubans did have a guarantee that the sinking of the Maine would bring in the US on their side. Then again, perhaps not. But there were powerful forces in the US who wanted a war with Spain and they needed an excuse to start one. And they got lucky, as such people very often do.

Let's put the thing into more human proportions. Two gang bosses are in opposition and the more powerful one wants to put down his rival. The two go for a "friendly" drink in a bar with their entrages and fellow bosses and the more powerful one suddenly becomes angry, tells the other, "You spilt beer on my shoes. Now clean it up!" The other is left with two choices: denial and contention, or else cringing acceptance followed by a humiliating apology and cleanup operation on his knees.

Happens all the time in gangster society, which appens to be a close analogy of real world of large organizations including nation states.

At the end of the day, for the gangsters, it doesn't matter who did the deed. All that matters is who it can plausably be blamed on and how it can be exploited.

We call something "flase flag" when one agent does it and then blames another. But is it not also "flase flag" when one agent blames another for something they know was done by a third party or an accident? This is a question I have never considered until now, and I'm not sure in my own mind of the answer.

Marylander said...

But is it not also "false flag" when one agent blames another for something they know was done by a third party or an accident?
This is a good point but I believe the term implies the first agent actually carrying out the action and blaming it on someone else. As in, he attacked using a false flag. Although what you're describing is only slightly less nefarious.

angrysoba said...

Perhaps the Cubans did have a guarantee that the sinking of the Maine would bring in the US on their side.

If they did then only the US government could give such a guarantee of military action. If they're the ones who put the Cubans up to it then they would be responsible. I would consider that to be a US-backed false flag and not falling under category (c).

It would, of course, be interesting if there was evidence for such a deal.

Otherwise, as much as you dislike this, the burden of proof is on you to show that Cuban revolutionaries got aboard the Maine and blew up its ammunition cache.

We call something "flase flag" when one agent does it and then blames another. But is it not also "flase flag" when one agent blames another for something they know was done by a third party or an accident?

Well, I imagine that a "false flag" attack refers originally to such events as one ship flying, say, the Union Jack, instead of the Jolly Roger or other such devious maneauvres. In other words, an attack in which one side poses as another.

If the US blew up its own ship or if they paid some Cuban revolutionaries to do it then I would call it a "false flag" attack, yes. If it was an accident and the US blamed it on the Spanish, as is most likely, I would call it a lie, a libel - if written, or slander - if spoken, a calumny or a bloody great big dirty fib.

angrysoba said...

If it was an accident and the US blamed it on the Spanish

Just to clarify, that should read, "If it was an accident, and the US knew it was an accident but chose to blame it on the Spanish".

Greywolf said...

Otherwise, as much as you dislike this, the burden of proof is on you to show that Cuban revolutionaries got aboard the Maine and blew up its ammunition cache.

Oh no it isn't.Because (a), we are not in a court of law or playing University Challenge, and (b) I'm not attempting to prove anything. I'm only saying that based on what is publicly known, certain things cannot be ruled out.

If you want to play the "Pwoofer", then surely the burden of proof is on you to prove that the burden of proof is on me, because you are the one making the assertion. I was merely speculating on what might possibly have happened.

angrysoba said...

I'm only saying that based on what is publicly known, certain things cannot be ruled out.


I agree. Maybe a Frenchman did it. I am sure there were geopolitical "cui bono" reasons why the French would be happy to see the US and Spain at each others throats.

Or it could have been an Englishman for the same reason.

The thing is that if we grant Admiral Rickover's study into the cause of the sinking of the Maine then we'd probably see the internal source of the explosion as more likely than an external one.

If we disagree with Rickover then surely it is only a matter of politeness to point out why.

But, if the Cubans were responisble and we agree it was an internal cause then the question is why did the Cubans choose the apparently more difficult task of getting aboard the ship to destroy it rather than laying a mine?

Well, okay, maybe they had no explosives of their own.