Rethinking Northwoods.

reply to post by seeker1963

Why did civility take a back seat? Hmmm maybe because you chose to ignore what those whom disagreed with you said?

I have done no such thing, I have responded to you and taken time to respond to each of your posts I am not ignoring your or disregarding what you have to say, I am just disagreeing with your take on this, thats all.

I think you might need to clam down a little.

Why shouldn't it matter?

In my opinion it should not matter, In my view it should not matter because the two are totally different topics that do not belong in a discussion about the other.

if you think differently, that is absolutely fine, just dont get upset when i disagree with you

OR are you saying that because you were the OP you can pick and choose what responses are acceptable?

Don't think i have said that any response is more acceptable than another although i do think it was unacceptable for you to suggest that i would excuse the Tuskegee experiments.

Also, how does your imagination become more important than mine?

errrr when did i say that....

Failing to address the points myself and a few others already addressed to you in this thread!

You know it might be that you are not explaining your point clearly enough, I am trying to do my best to address the points your raise

really I am, it seems like we both agree that 9/11 and northwoods have nothing to do with each other

as such in my view they should not be debated in the same context as such 9/11 truthers have attempted to do so in the past.

if your opinion is different. Fine.

reply to post by seeker1963

It's called precedence! If you are unaware of what that means ask a lawyer or look it up! That is what myself and others have been trying to tell you!

I do understand English and even words of more than one syllable, I dont need to look it up.

I am kind of worried that you think i would need to look that up actually.

says a lot about the kind of impression I must be giving off.

Do you need to look up the word "patronising"

Odd that it took a moderator for their opinion to bring you into topic?

emmmm.....

you know that old saying about the black pot and the kettle?

if not you can look that one up also.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


What was the title of your OP? Let me refresh your memory!

"RETHINKING NORTHWOODS"

Pot meet kettle? Show me where I misinterpreted your intentions of this thread and I will gladly apologize to you for being wrong! I have apologized to people on ATS before, and it won't hurt me at all to get on my knees and apologize to you either!

Quit playing this game and get over it! What did Bonez say that the rest of us weren't trying to say to you? You do realize that you don't have to lick the boots of a moderator don't you? When they participate in a thread they are stepping out of their role as a moderator and acting a member!

I am not sure your OP disturbs me more or you fear of someone whom has a position of authority does.......

Never the less, I am done! So don't sit there and wait for any more arguments from me on this one sided conversation which is dictated by your opinion and your opinion alone!

Just remember this, the watchers ARE being watched!

reply to post by seeker1963


I apologize if you have been trying to make the same point, really I do, but when your first post is so aggressive its quite difficult for me to see through your red mist. You know its actually very difficult for me to write on ATS anymore, I come form a very different perspective from many of you, I try to explore the other possibility that 9/11 was not a inside job, I like to explore the conspiracies and point out there flaws. So when your first post to me talks about me excusing horrors the American government has made in the past all because you dont like what i have to say, you automatically put me on the defensive.

Me logging on to ATS, the worlds biggest conspiracy site and challenging the idea that 9/11 was a false flag and agreeing with the offical story is a bit like me walking into the Vatican and telling everyone that "God is a lie". Believe me it is not easy. A little civility from those who disagree with me would be nice as I always try to be as respectful as i can

So with that said if you were a little more civil to start with perhaps this could have went much smoother.

The differance between what the Mod said (whose boots i dont kiss just ask him) and what you said, he was very civil about it, you were not.

But to get back on topic, fundamentally all I am trying to say with this thread is that when it comes to northwoods it has nothing to do with 9/11 and as such in my view it should not be part of any 9/11 debate.

Again if you disagree that is fine.

the2ofusr1
The timing of this thread is curious considering Turkey's latest revelation no ?

Yes, and this is how you catchee monkee,

www2.gwu.edu... The Johnson McNamara tapes. Remember the OP mentions the US government ONCE, (my caps) considering attacking the homeland and people in the first post. Now all according to how you read that, it could also have meant that they [ONCE] considered a false flag, which is clearly propaganda rubbish.

_BoneZ_

OtherSideOfTheCoin
It should not even be mentioned when debating 9/11, it should be something that the "truther" just dont mention because its such a distance topic. Like i said, it is a "distraction"

Actually, it's not a distraction, nor is it distant to 9/11.

You're digging too deep and missing the whole point. The reason why "Operation Northwoods" gets brought up and compared to 9/11 is because "Operation Northwoods" was thought-up and designed to carry out false-flag attacks on U.S. soil and abroad, and blame those attacks on another country to go to war with that country.

9/11 also was a false-flag attack on U.S. soil to go to war with another country(s). But in this case, the "enemy" wasn't just one country. The "enemy" spans multiple countries, and now a good portion of this country (U.S.). Hell, we even invaded at least one country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with 9/11, and based on false pretenses.

That's how 9/11 and "Operation Northwoods" are related. At its simplest, both = false-flag attacks blamed on other countries to go to war with those countries. Except one was carried out, the other was not. And JFK payed the price for it.

Another reason why "Operation Northwoods" is brought up is to show how diabolical our military industrial complex was 50-years ago, and that it's not out of the question nor impossible to think that another false-flag operation could be designed or carried out.

They designed a false-flag operation before. They can and will do it again.

Yes, and how diabolical is it for a NATO alliance country to talk about false flags over Syria, and not a murmur from the rest of NATO.

I have to agree with Seeker on this issue. Operation Northwoods clearly gives an insight to the diabolical mind set of our government leaders. With that perspective alone and all of the unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 and the official story, it certainly gives credence to the real possibility that 9/11 was a false flag incident.

It wasn't a direct plan for 9/11. However, I'm not a lawyer, but I would think if our government leaders were on trial for 9/11, this revelation would probably be admissible in court to show there has been a history of false flag planning. Not to mention the other factual false flags and exposed secret experiments that Seeker mentioned in his post. So in that respect, can Northwoods be tied in with the conspiracy surrounding 9/11, in my opinion, yes.

Op, in the defense of Seeker, I feel he was on topic. You're creating a small window around this topic to prevent others from disagreeing with your assessment of the Northwoods operation. Just my 2 cents.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Well OP, it's a controversial topic to be sure. In fact, we don't even agree entirely on this for some of the reasoning. However, I'll say I appreciate you writing the thread I've considered writing myself a couple times. Just sitting down and reading the Northwoods papers, which are exactly what it said and what it entailed? It strikes me as unrelated as well. It's another bad idea in a line of bad ideas and in a time of our nation's history where really bad ideas in cowboy ways were mixed with the rare good idea that worked.

I do think it is important to stay open with discussing it though. On 9/11 especially, even the tossing away of a bad theory/reference like this one starts to raise suspicions for the mere action itself, regardless of how logical it is to some of us.

If the papers themselves are read, I think they stand for themselves as what they are. As reckless in their way as MacArthur's idea of irradiating the Chinese border during the Korean war. Just.....ummmm...NO! It seems to have gotten about that response from the decision maker, too.

If anything, Northwoods shows, at least at that point, "TPTB" didn't exist with the power for independent action, since that was "their" plan, if we're calling the Military-Industrial complex a part of it. THAT much, it is good to see and know. At that moment, the President could and did still say 'No..not even close".

Without the contribution of Robert McNamara's tell all 'In Retrospect' , one of the biggest selling books of this kind in history, still in print after sales of over 10 million the presentation, though well done, is incomplete.

Mac's recollections of the events in the early 60's, though self serving, are considered truthful. His obvious admiration of Jack Kennedy sometimes polluted his judgement however he is really the only one who was there-including 'Northwood' and the infamous Doomsday conference that followed.

Several excellent Robert Kennedy Biographies of that time also shed light on the present misinterpretation of 'Northwood'

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

Well OP, it's a controversial topic to be sure. In fact, we don't even agree entirely on this for some of the reasoning. However, I'll say I appreciate you writing the thread I've considered writing myself a couple times. Just sitting down and reading the Northwoods papers, which are exactly what it said and what it entailed? It strikes me as unrelated as well. It's another bad idea in a line of bad ideas and in a time of our nation's history where really bad ideas in cowboy ways were mixed with the rare good idea that worked.

I do think it is important to stay open with discussing it though. On 9/11 especially, even the tossing away of a bad theory/reference like this one starts to raise suspicions for the mere action itself, regardless of how logical it is to some of us.

If the papers themselves are read, I think they stand for themselves as what they are. As reckless in their way as MacArthur's idea of irradiating the Chinese border during the Korean war. Just.....ummmm...NO! It seems to have gotten about that response from the decision maker, too.

If anything, Northwoods shows, at least at that point, "TPTB" didn't exist with the power for independent action, since that was "their" plan, if we're calling the Military-Industrial complex a part of it. THAT much, it is good to see and know. At that moment, the President could and did still say 'No..not even close".

I think related or unrelated is missing the point, the whole raison d'être is the false flag itself, Northwoods was a false flag, that it didn't happen was down to Kennedy, who I dare to say, was not a madman like G.W. Bush. Once you establish that any false flag is a possibility, and that there was a 'false flag' after Kennedy's death, all you need is a common rationale. I consider Northwoods rationale and what happened on 9/11 a common rationale, an attack on the homeland, while the Gulf of Tonkin incident was against Americans not on the homeland. However all three events can be considered excuses for war.
Now you can say that 9/11 was not a false flag, and we are not going to get any written material on it any day soon, classified or unclassified to the contrary, but the incredible amount of excuses, anomalies, evasions and evidence in camera would make for any court case, just as the people's court in...ahem, Malaysia 2012, found G.W.Bush and cohorts guilty of war crimes, and citing 9/11 as a strategic move...a false flag.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Thank you for your response, I am glad that you can at least understand what I am saying even if you may disagree with some of my wider views on the subject matter.

reply to post by smurfy



Actually, no.. Northwoods wasn't a False Flag. Northwoods was an idea, on paper, from some planners and with enough Brass (who had real brass on this one) to get it before the President to consider. By the sound of it, his consideration was short, abrupt and without room for confusion.

In my personal opinion, saying Northwoods tells us anything or has any reference to 9/11 is like saying the "Gay Bomb" has relation to rates of gays in society. That was a real, and very serious idea at one time, by the way...as totally absurd as it sounds. It consistently shows up in the top "you won't believe they considered this" lists. We're probably very well off never knowing the list of bad ideas that never made the grade. We have plenty of ones which did, that still need discovered.

The Northwoods plan does tell me what cold bastards they were at that moment.....but I didn't need that report to know that. We had a 10 year war start a few years later that had conduct happen which made Northwoods look like a pretty tame idea by comparison. Want some reading? Block out a good chunk of hours and curl up with a copy of the Pentagon Papers. That'll curl your toes for things which actually did happen or were in the process of happening when the war got turned off.

reply to post by smurfy

Northwoods was a false flag

No Northwoods was a idea, a idea that was spawned in a time when America was under a massive soviet threat and was looking for any solution possible. It was never a false flag because nothing every actually happened, it is just words on a page.

Once you establish that any false flag is a possibility

Of course it is a "possibility" but there is a whole world of a differance between saying it was "possible" and that it actually happened. Additionally any one with a little imagination could dream up a false flag, its not something that started with the Northwoods revelations. You do not need Northwoods in a 9/11 debate to some how prove or suggest that the government of the day was capable of dreaming up such a devious plot.

I consider Northwoods rationale and what happened on 9/11 a common rationale, an attack on the homeland,

Even if for a moment to save argument we say that yes 9/11 was a false flag, that still does not mean that Northwoods provides any kind of "rationale" for what happened. The two "false flags" would have looked nothing like each other so to say it was the "rationale", so to then argue that Northwoods was the logical basis for the attacks of 9/11 is ridiculous.

Just no.

people's court in...ahem, Malaysia 2012, found G.W.Bush and cohorts guilty of war crimes, and citing 9/11 as a strategic move...a false flag.

That was not even a real court it was a mock tribunal set up by the former Malaysian Prime minister to "prove" that Bush and co had committed war crimes by invading Iraq. I believe they took something like 4 or 5 days to make the decision, and declared they were all guilty of war crimes. However as it was not a "real" court their verdict means absolutely nothing.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by smurfy

 

Northwoods was a false flag

No Northwoods was a idea, a idea that was spawned in a time when America was under a massive soviet threat and was looking for any solution possible. It was never a false flag because nothing every actually happened, it is just words on a page.

Once you establish that any false flag is a possibility

Of course it is a "possibility" but there is a whole world of a differance between saying it was "possible" and that it actually happened. Additionally any one with a little imagination could dream up a false flag, its not something that started with the Northwoods revelations. You do not need Northwoods in a 9/11 debate to some how prove or suggest that the government of the day was capable of dreaming up such a devious plot.

I consider Northwoods rationale and what happened on 9/11 a common rationale, an attack on the homeland,

Even if for a moment to save argument we say that yes 9/11 was a false flag, that still does not mean that Northwoods provides any kind of "rationale" for what happened. The two "false flags" would have looked nothing like each other so to say it was the "rationale", so to then argue that Northwoods was the logical basis for the attacks of 9/11 is ridiculous.

Just no.

people's court in...ahem, Malaysia 2012, found G.W.Bush and cohorts guilty of war crimes, and citing 9/11 as a strategic move...a false flag.

That was not even a real court it was a mock tribunal set up by the former Malaysian Prime minister to "prove" that Bush and co had committed war crimes by invading Iraq. I believe they took something like 4 or 5 days to make the decision, and declared they were all guilty of war crimes. However as it was not a "real" court their verdict means absolutely nothing.

Hi, sorry for the large quote.

It's just weird to open a 911 topic with a scenario like that in the title, and then read how they have nothing to do with each other?

I wonder if Malaysia's missing plane debacle is somehow connected to 911 given this little tid-bit?

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by smurfy

 

Actually, no.. Northwoods wasn't a False Flag. Northwoods was an idea, on paper, from some planners and with enough Brass (who had real brass on this one) to get it before the President to consider. By the sound of it, his consideration was short, abrupt and without room for confusion.

I know it was an idea, I said so in as much as it didn't happen because of Kennedy's intervention. The concept was there though, and it would have been a false flag operation while false flags were nothing new anyway.
There is the other thing regarding the OP. It is an assumption to suggest that Northwoods was the blueprint for 9/11, that is a distraction. There were other events on the homeland in the intervening years before 9/11 that could well themselves, have been false flags.
But, just because Northwoods didn't happen, that is not to say that something similar, like 9/11, would, or could not happen,

reply to post by smurfy

But, just because Northwoods didn't happen, that is not to say that something similar, like 9/11, would, or could not happen,

Granted on that. The thing is, there is almost 40 years separation between a bad idea that got shot down on sight vs a real world event that bore no actual resemblance for details or methods.

I'm all for finding tenuous connections that might lead to others. I've come across some real wild things by running up bunny trails of passing interest that way. I just see this specific plan very often misrepresented across the net for what it was vs. what it really was to read it.

It's beyond tenuous for me. It has been since I did dig up a copy myself.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by smurfy

 

But, just because Northwoods didn't happen, that is not to say that something similar, like 9/11, would, or could not happen,

Granted on that. The thing is, there is almost 40 years separation between a bad idea that got shot down on sight vs a real world event that bore no actual resemblance for details or methods.

I'm all for finding tenuous connections that might lead to others. I've come across some real wild things by running up bunny trails of passing interest that way. I just see this specific plan very often misrepresented across the net for what it was vs. what it really was to read it.

It's beyond tenuous for me. It has been since I did dig up a copy myself.

If I can say this; First off, I don't think there is any doubt that the Pentagon regime of the day thought that they could nuke Russia and win, homeland damage or no, so you can ignore MAD as a deterrent under that thinking. Second, is the role of Lyman Lemnitzer Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1960 to 1962, He approved Operation Northwoods as chairman. It was drafted by the joint chiefs of staff, and who cares if it was one individual who came up with idea or if it was a series of ideas, Lemnitzer was up for it.
It went to McNamara as Secretary of Defense, and it was he who presented it to Kennedy, who rejected it. I don't really know what McNamara thought about it. The reality is at that level, it was much more than an 'idea'

smurfy
It went to McNamara as Secretary of Defense, and it was he who presented it to Kennedy, who rejected it. I don't really know what McNamara thought about it.

It should have never even reached the president's desk. McNamara should have literally cleaned house, within moments after reading it. It should have never reached the JC's eyes either, much less get SIGNED OFF ON, BY THE ENTIRE JOINTS CHIEF'S.

Most Americans would laugh at you in the face if you suggested that their own government could stoop to such lows. But they did, dammit. At least they were dam well ready to.

And I seriously contest the OP's assertion that America wasn't as desperate in 2001. What the OP overlooks is WHO was desperate enough. There just wasn't enough war. PNAC itself, and a New Pearl Harbor needed. My how quickly we forget.

Your OP was destroyed. The American people see the corruption now, and know the kind of people that many politicians really are. Before I could never imagine that rogue elements in our government would go so far as to nuke an American city to invade Iran, for example, but now? I have not one single doubt in my mind they'd do it in a fricken heartbeat, with not an ounce of remorse or shame- just to get their greasy fat paws on Iran's oil fields. Hell, they're halfway there already. The only thing that's stopped them is the backlash and heightened awareness of the public over their utter corruption. Yeah, you're damn right we're watching. Just you try it.

reply to post by smurfy

The reality is at that level, it was much more than an 'idea'

We're just not going to agree on this. You view Northwoods as a failure or connection to what Government could do...and I see it as an outstanding example of our system working precisely how it's supposed to. Whether it did in later years, isn't as clear, but it worked there.

The military did what the military is supposed to do....think things up for ways to break stuff and kill people. It's what they're paid to do. It is ultimately the ONLY thing the Military exists in any society to do. It's not a problem unless they go off and do that on their own.

The second part of that is the civilian leadership who must agree with the morality and need of what those folks who think up ways to break stuff and kill people, consider a good idea. McNamara is a man history judges for far far more than that early look at his lack of judgement. So I won't touch him. Fate already has, I'd imagine. The nation came out okay or this never would have been heard about at all. Ever. Documents never would have survived at all, most likely.

Comparing it to today though has one other flaw. Back in the early 60's, it was a serious atmosphere by all I understand of the period in terms of patriotism, nationalism and pride in our side. Men could have been trusted, in the required numbers, to pull off a deception they could believe had a good cause to it...or didn't believe had an outright bad one, anyway. The average guys that any big thing needs....like 9/11, as well.

We don't have people now that can keep secret much of anything, even when their lives DO depend on it. Headlines of recent years actually carry that tale and the truth of the words. We're in wild times...but radically different times than 1960's America for what works and what doesn't, including secrecy on the level a domestic Northwoods would require in bare bone logistics, IMO.

Just my opinion...and we all have our right to one of course.

Okay, let's have a reprise on the OP/AKA the title of this thread, bearing in mind it is in the 9/11 forum.
First of all rethinking Operation Northwoods has nothing to do with the idea that if implemented, what the result would have been, not even stated. A connection to 9/11? the obvious need to prove that 9/11 was a false flag because of Northwoods is implied, (which didn't happen) is a misnomer, it is no more than a distraction. The reality is that Northwoods does provide just about every gamut that occurred on 9/11 whether you like it or not. The truth is, that the obvious need to prove that 9/11 itself was a false flag.
This thread does not deal with that at all.