CONS: Project Northwoods. America's plan to attack America.

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky remember that the Russians wanted to point nukes at us from 90 miles away. Our military was prepared to prevent that from happening.

Had the Russians been allowed to succeed, then the entire world political scene today would be different, and I don't think for the better.

This isn't an endorsement of Northwoods. It's an attempt to understand why the military would plan it in the first place.

Fire away.


I really dont understand how that would change anything. 90 miles away or 2000 miles away does not matter, it would be retaliation and total anihilation anyway. And do not forgett all the nukes in NATO contries in Europe close to USSR borders. I think operation northwoods is nothing more than a example of cynisism and/or paranoia.




posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I am shocked to see that so many people haven't heard about this, especially Loam and Valhall, who can hardly be said to be living under a rock. Goes to show how poorly this thing was presented in the news.
In addition to false flag domestic sabotage operations, one plan was to invade cuba and give the cubans vital information so that they could defeat the force, and thus say 'these damn commies are seriously dangerous, we need to go all out'.


before you say "It's never right to do wrong", remember that the Russians wanted to point nukes at us from 90 miles away. Our military was prepared to prevent that from happening.

The threat of the communists does not justify being a traitor. There has to be a limit and Northwoods goes far beyond the limit. Who cares if the russians had nukes pointed at anyone, these guys were engineering a war, not working to prevent it.


This isn't an endorsement of Northwoods. It's an attempt to understand why the military would plan it in the first place.

Because those...chowderheads..that thought it up were completely brainless morons and dangerous, vile, goons, conspiratorial degenerates infact. If those....chowderheads...had been allowed to go through with this, there wouldn't be an america, there'd be this ungodly monstrousity that had replaced it and was just as bad as the communists, who were loathesome also.

[edit on 8-1-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

I really dont understand how that would change anything. 90 miles away or 2000 miles away does not matter, it would be retaliation and total anihilation anyway.

It made a huge difference. It was the time when the world was the closest to facing nuclear annihilation, ever. The Russians were anxious to establish a strategic base in Cuba in the wake of the political unrest going on in Cuba. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the result.


[i[from Nygdan Because those...chowderheads..that thought it up were completely brainless morons and dangerous, vile, goons, conspiratorial degenerates infact.

This didn't happen in a vacuum. It's not as if the US just decide to annex Cuba for the sugar fields and casinos.

It's difficult to discuss one incident without looking at it in context of the entire time period, which included the overthrow of Batista up through the Cuban Missile Crisis, and included the Bay of Pigs invasion, Operation Mongoose, and others.

If guilty are to be named, start with Eisenhower. That's what you get for putting a military man in the WH, imo. And hang Lemnitzer, while you're at it. Give McNamara a medal for standing his ground against Lemnitzer. But don't condemn the whole USA, because of a plan concocted by a handful of men who, without the benefit of historical precedence to guide them, were acting in the new age of nuclear weaponry and the ideological battle of us vs communism. It is not fair to indict the entire US military, the office of the presidency, or what we carry in our own hearts as citizens. And it in no way justifies a conclusion about 9/11.

Someone asked, did GWB ever hear about this? What would be your best guess on that?



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I am RARELY ever shocked by anything. This one GOT ME.

Let's review:

In the 1950's - 1960's we had a definate threat looming over our heads in the form of the USSR and their expansionism of communism.

Our military Joint Chiefs devised a scheme with which to rally support for an invasion of Cuba using the phony hi-jacking and destruction of civil aircraft and the civilians riding inside them.

This DOES sound a little FAMILIAR no? Now I am not prepared to roll over and proclaim that the US Government perpetrated 9/11. I am prepared to go back and review the "theories" that support this position though.

It is just downright spooky to think about. I agree with JSobecky that in the context of the times this makes sense, that's what bothers me most about it. In the context of the geo political situation of 2001 it makes total sense too.

The part that leves me hanging though is the motive. I understand NOT wanting ICBMs on the island of Cuba (YES it makes a huge difference when they are only 90 miles away! Accuracy is assured at that range compared to several thousand miles) and doing just about anything to avoid it taking place.

What was there in 2001 that would motivate the catastrophe we witnessed? I doubt ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban was that important. It has to be the spread of Militant Islam, this is the new "threat". Anyone have any thoughts on this ?

Springer...



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Springer,

Ever consider that establishing a stronger, more permanent, controlling presence in the Middle East might be a rather high priority?

Not by proxy, as with the Saudis, Israelis, Afghanis, etc., but more by direct occupation. What better way to "feel the pulse" than by having a finger on the artery, per se.

Just my $.02, for now...

[edit on 1/8/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Okay, but it seems that in the Northwood Project, it would involve no real casualties. Now if we take a fresh look at 9/11, but, there were.

I would tend to think that if anything along the lines of Northwood were part of 9/11, it is more likely that they just knew it was coming and did nothing, because it would serve the purpose by letting it occur.

Actually there are probably a million new possibilities running through my head at this point after reading this thread.

Again, in Northwood we see my big pet peeve about 9/11 (and the theories about the towers not being hit by the commercial airliners) in the example of the students plane crashing. No explanation for who these kids were or how it would be explained that they didn't die, or where they were if people were told they did. Doesn't this whole thing seem a little sloppy and not thought through? Is it just me?

I admit to being one of the ones that had missed these threads till now, I also admit my head is reeling from this information.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I just find it really sad that here is a group of people that took an oath to the constitution, promising to protect it and to obey the laws of the land, and they are pretty much commiting blatent treason. If not treason then a whole mountain of felonies.

I don't consider this to be a smoking gun for anything 9/11 related. I do consider it to be a gun though. A gun that was held in the hand of the US government and against the head of its own citizens. Just cause they didn't pull the trigger doesnt mean squat. They should never have picked this gun up in the first place.

I too found this to be very shocking. God help us all.

Love and light,

Wupy



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I don't think that anyone can deny that there have been some military analysts who have been a bit "wacky" in some of their contingencies plans. In fact, there are many contingency plans, including plans offered by agencies such as NASA, which no sane person would ever even consider. In this instance operations Northwoods was a draft to a plan presented to the joint chief of staff back in the 60s, and which at the end was rejected.

In fact if you want to talk about anyone planning to make such attack on U.S. soil, for whatever reason, you would have to consider even more that in 1999, two Chinese military officers published a book with the blessings of the CCP and which describes such an attack on the world trade center using Bin Laden or some other terrorist.

[edit on 8-1-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

from Springer
What was there in 2001 that would motivate the catastrophe we witnessed? I doubt ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban was that important. It has to be the spread of Militant Islam, this is the new "threat". Anyone have any thoughts on this ?

Springer...

First off, I haven't bought the gov't setting up 9/11 either. But if I were to believe that, I would say that it was a combination of threat and opportunity. The opportunity was to move right next door to Iran and Syria for military and economic reasons. The "threat" was manufactured as a reason to put a down payment on that summer house between the rivers.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Relentless,

I'm not willing to go as far as to say that 9-11 and the proposed outcome of Project Northwoods are carbon copies of one another, yet the actuality of events subsequent to 9-11 do tend to display some of the same "Problem - Reaction - Solution" scenario.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

from Relentless
Okay, but it seems that in the Northwood Project, it would involve no real casualties. Now if we take a fresh look at 9/11, but, there were.

The drone plane was only one facet of Northwoods. Had it ever been launched, it would have been much worse. Violent terrorism was planned in several American cities, and believe it or not, they supposedly also kicked around the idea of blowing up astronaut John Glenn during his rocket launch and blaming it on the Cubans.

But take note of what Muaddib says - military wackos are not uncommon throughout history. Thankfully, Northwoods never came to fruition.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
What was there in 2001 that would motivate the catastrophe we witnessed? ...
It has to be the spread of Militant Islam, this is the new "threat". Anyone have any thoughts on this ?

Springer...


My opinion?

What about greed? Power? World domination as a motive?

Back in the '60s, there was still a smidgen of basic humanity in the leaders of the world. Sure, they were mean, underhanded, sneaky, corrupt to a degree, but (I believe) they were little angels compared to the puppetmasters behind the Bush administration.

The 'spread of militant Islam' is just the distraction those puppeteers are using to keep us all busy concentrating on saving ourselves. It's the threat, the fear that keeps us from realizing what they're doing.

As regards the lives lost on 9/11, what are 3000 lives when compared with the country's population? And if they are really as corrupt and basically evil as I think they are, 3000 lives ain't crap. Look at the lives they've taken in Iraq. Ten, maybe 100 times that? Look at the poison in our food, our air. If I'm right, other people's lives don't mean squat to this group, regardless of their nationality.

And if none of that makes sense, perhaps it's a global conspiracy that has yet to be examined.

There are lots of possibilities for motives.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Well after reading this I have two big questions.

Is there any hint to who the actual person(s) who came up with or were involved in this scheme are/were?

If so are they still around?

Northwood in the least proves there are people in higher offices they will do anything to push their agenda. At the worst it sets a precedent for things that may have come since.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
To answer your questions:
Yes
No

Just kidding. It actually seems to be Dwight David Eisenhower who may have come up with the original thoughts:

The idea may actually have originated with President Eisenhower in the last days of his administration. With the Cold War hotter than ever and the recent U-2 scandal fresh in the public's memory, the old general wanted to go out with a win. He wanted desperately to invade Cuba in the weeks leading up to Kennedy's inauguration; indeed, on January 3 he told Lemnitzer and other aides in his Cabinet Room that he would move against Castro before the inauguration if only the Cubans gave him a really good excuse. Then, with time growing short, Eisenhower floated an idea. If Castro failed to provide that excuse, perhaps, he said, the United States "could think of manufacturing something that would be generally acceptable." What he was suggesting was a pretext a bombing, an attack, an act of sabotage carried out secretly against the United States by the United States. Its purpose would be to justify the launching of a war. It was a dangerous suggestion by a desperate president.

Although no such war took place, the idea was not lost on General Lemnitzer But he and his colleagues were frustrated by Kennedy's failure to authorize their plan, and angry that Castro had not provided an excuse to invade.
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

I realize that the source given is not impeccable, but I'm sure you could google up supporting sources.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

My opinion?
....................
The 'spread of militant Islam' is just the distraction those puppeteers are using to keep us all busy concentrating on saving ourselves. It's the threat, the fear that keeps us from realizing what they're doing.


If the "spread of Militant Islam" is just a "distraction", like you are saying, I guess most of the world is involved in this "distraction", hence most of the world was probably played some part in the attacks on 9/11.

BTW, the WTC was also attacked by Islamic radicals back in 1993, was that also just a distraction?....

How can a government, who is seen by Islamic radicals as "the devil", use such Islamic radicals to make these attacks? They can't, since said government is the "devil", hence radical Islam is a real thread and not some "distraction".

Islamic radicalism is real and it is happening as we speak all over the world. Unless you do want to claim now that the whole world was involved in the attack on 9/11, when they created the Islamic radical "distraction" as you call it.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
As regards the lives lost on 9/11, what are 3000 lives when compared with the country's population? And if they are really as corrupt and basically evil as I think they are, 3000 lives ain't crap. Look at the lives they've taken in Iraq. Ten, maybe 100 times that? Look at the poison in our food, our air. If I'm right, other people's lives don't mean squat to this group, regardless of their nationality.


Yep, and there are lots of groups, and even some nations, who loved what happened in 9/11 and would see the lives of 3,000 people as nothing when it comes to furthering their agendas.

As for the "poisoning of our air and food" it comes as a cause from the industralization of the world.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
If the "spread of Militant Islam" is just a "distraction", like you are saying, I guess most of the world is involved in this "distraction", hence most of the world was probably played some part in the attacks on 9/11.


I don't know how you came to these conclusions. Sure, militant Islam (i.e. Al Qaeda, etc.) have desires to grow their armies, but it's the US government and the media that are spreading the fear about it and blowing it entirely out of proportion.

And I would venture to say that without the help and support of the US government, Al Qaeda et al would be a struggling ideal in the minds and hearts in a few remote areas of several Middle Eastern countries. Don't forget the support we gave these organizations in the period leading up to 9/11...



BTW, the WTC was also attacked by Islamic radicals back in 1993, was that also just a distraction?....


I wouldn't say that. It could have been real. In which case, it just shows the relative impotence of the movement. It could have been a trial. To see how the citizenry would respond. I have no idea.



How can a government, who is seen by Islamic radicals as "the devil", use such Islamic radicals to make these attacks?


Have you ever heard of anyone proclaiming that their partner in crime is really their enemy? Many con jobs work on this premise.



Islamic radicalism is real and it is happening as we speak all over the world.


Yes, it is real. But is it as prevalent as we're being led to believe? And more importantly, to whom does it owe it's existence and current strength? Who has supported and nurtured it to become the monster fear that it has become since 9/11? Who is benefitting?



Unless you do want to claim now that the whole world was involved in the attack on 9/11, when they created the Islamic radical "distraction" as you call it.


This is the part of your conclusion that I do not understand. The distraction has been built and fed by those who would benefit from it, in other words, the puppeteers. The rest are just followers.



As for the "poisoning of our air and food" it comes as a cause from the industralization of the world.


And who sets the regulations on the industries? The government. To whom do these industries give great sums of money to relax the standards and regulations under which they operate? The government.



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
The more I read about this and the CIA's involvement with Cuba the more disturbed I become. This is just a few lines from Wikipedia on the subject, although this is listed after operation Northwoods:


1971: Anti-Castro group releases anti-swine virus in Cuba and the Cuban government is forced to kill 500,000 pigs. CIA agents delivered a sealed container that contained the virus to Cuban group in Ft. Gurlick, Panama Canal Zone. CIA paramilitary center helped train members in para-military ops.



In 1981, the CIA released a dengue fever in Cuba, resulting in 340,000 people being infected and 116,000 hospitalized. 158 people died, including 101 children. Cuba had not previously experienced any cases of the disease.



Who the hell is in charge of all this?????? This is criminal in its insanity.

I think i'm going to have to stop reading and researching this or I might just become an activist against the government or something.

Wupy

Edited to fix external source quotations.

[edit on 8-1-2006 by mrwupy]



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
If as far back as 1962 the top levels of the defense department were considering using substitute planes to justify a war it wanted, I find the ramifications for 9/11 to be seriously disturbing.

I'm not disputing this... I believe that the whole idea that our government could do this.

But, I know personally a person who lost her husband that day. He was a ticketed passenger on the plane that hit the Pentagon, and his wife personally saw him off at the airport. And he hasn't shown back up and other people who knew them better don't believe he would have left on his own. And yes, we have talked about it. So whatever happened and whoever did it, I really believe that at least one person was killed in the process.

TU



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
This is good stuff mrwupy. Thanks.


...I've been readin up on radio and microwaves - weapons technology spun off as communications technology. Point is, it can and does kill people... Ahhh, the military-industrial complex. Ya gotta love it. Will collect some info and links to post. BBL



posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tantalus_unbound
But, I know personally a person who lost her husband that day.
TU


I believe 3000 people were killed that day. I don't think anyone is disputing that.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join