Originally posted by Muaddib
Now can we stop the "let's blame everything on the U.S." and get back on topic?.... thanks...

The thread's title is "America's plan to attack America."

IMO, talking about how America attacks everyone else including her own is very much on topic. Describes the context. Accurately.

Originally posted by Muaddib
But to anwser your question, many countries in the world, including France, Germany, Spain, Russia, etc, etc, "are spreading fear about radical Islam"....
...
And don't forget that then the Russians
...
Let's get back on topic please.....

This is a classic tactic to take the attention off of the subject, which is "America's plans to attack America" (see thread title). I AM on topic. Bringing in Russia and France and the rest of the world is an attempt to lead me OFF topic as far as I can see. Classic.

Use google and put in "Islamic terrorists "insert European country of choice" and see what you come up with....

And, as I asked, who gave birth to this movement? Who nurtured and supported it? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying that we made it what it is today.

You have the lawyers to thank for that, and those who have been bought to change the laws,

That would be the government, like I said.

Now can we stop the "let's blame everything on the U.S." and get back on topic?.... thanks...

Again, I am on topic. It is you who would have us bring up every other nation in the world and talk about them as in "They do it, too"! I'm talking about the US because it's where I was born and raised. It's where I live. It's my country and the topic of this thread!

I've been on topic this whole thread. Northwoods was a plan of the USA, not Russia, France, Spain or Germany.

Just curious. What do you think the topic is?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

This thread absolutely is about a possible connection to the Bush Administration and a possible forerunner to 9/11. It’s mentioned in the very first post and on every page of this thread. Northwoods itself is old news. The possible connection to 9/11 is the news of this thread. It's uncomfortable, but it's what we're talking about.

And what is your proof that this draft plan which was rejected back in the 60s, when we were on the brink of a nuclear war, was used for the attacks on 9/11?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
How about the war that the whole thing was meant to cause? Do you think no lives would have been lost in the war?

Would you care to show us here what the Cuban and Russian government were planning back in the days? I don't think you can, quite simply because any plans, and rest assure they had many, they had would never be released to the public.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
For those who think that 'taking lives' is some kind of a definitive threshold that our government would not cross; that Northwoods is different than 9/11 because the Northwoods plan took no lives, and therefore could not possibly be the plan for 9/11, I invite you to consider the character of a government that would set up a fake situation just to cause a war. A war means lost lives. A war, based on false pretenses as outlined in the Northwoods document would most certainly have cost the lives of our military.

And perhaps you should consider a few things. 1.) This was back in the 60s when there was a threat of nuclear war.
2.) It was rejected.
3.) It happened during another administration which is not in power today.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So saying that the planes would have been emptied, doesn’t mean that nobody would have died. People, Americans, would have been knowingly sacrificed, not to mention whoever was dragged into this false war.
[edit on 9-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

That false war?... perhaps you should read up on what was happening back in those days. Both sides were on the brink of a nuclear war...it was no "false war."

Originally posted by Muaddib
And what is your proof ...

I said it's about a possible connection...
...
The possible connection to 9/11 is the news of this thread.

Would you care to show us here what the Cuban and Russian government were planning back in the days?

WTF? Here we go again. Distraction from the real subject... what the USA government was planning!

That false war?... perhaps you should read up on what was happening back in those days. Both sides were on the brink of a nuclear war...it was no "false war."

I was speaking of the war that the Northwoods project was planned to start.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Just curious. What do you think the topic is?

Isn't the topic about Operation Northwood a draft plan made in the 60s and rejected back then?

What is the proof that this was used in 9/11?

What does pollution have to do with Operation Northwood?

What does blaming all Islamic radical attacks as "a U.S. plan which is being promoted only by the U.S. government and it's media" as you are trying to assert, have to do with operations Northwood?

You are using this thread for the daily "Let's blame everything that happens in the world on the U.S."

Operations Northwood was a draft plan, which was rejected.

How do you jump from this rejected draft plan to "9/11 is today's Operations Northwood" is beyond understanding to me. What is the evidence that connects both? Are we going to proclaim it was so because some people want to assume "it must be so because some people know that president Bush would have accepted this plan" or some other assumption made by some members?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Mahree
It seems like a big difference to me from the Northwoods plan to what actually happened and the loss of life on US soil during the 911 attacks.

Yes, there IS a big difference. And if my suspicions (and those of many others) are correct, the difference is that one was prevented from being carried out and the other one wasn't. And the most powerful 'wiser head' in the Northwoods scenario was killed in a highly questionable assassination the following year, as has been pointed out many times.

I believe that it was only in this thread that I learned about JFK assignation being connected to the Northwoods plans. The dates do make it a possible scenario certainly. But, that still isn't the point that I wanted to make. Possibly it doesn't even matter and if this is so I apologize for taking up your time.

I don't understand the distinction about the loss of life "on US soil". Why does that make any difference? Loss of life is loss of life regardless where it takes place. If a government needed the world behind it to carry out a plan, I hardly think the location of the deaths would matter. If anything, it would be important to the people of the USA to have it happen right in their back yard.

I guess I am beating a dead horse here, but the Northwoods plan did not call for loss of life to start the ball rolling. Except for some harassment in Florida all other activity centered on Cuba. 911 was a violent attack on United States citizens on United States soil. I admit that I do not believe our government would violently attack United States citizens.

Fair enough. I do not share your positive outlook. I am much more skeptical, suspicious and cynical.

I do understand that we have widely different outlooks on life.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
WTF? Here we go again. Distraction from the real subject... what the USA government was planning!

Once again, it was not what the USA government was planning! The USA gov't in fact squelched Operation Northwoods. They were the good guys in this whole picture. This has been stated and proven by several members posting in this thread; how many times must it be repeated?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I was speaking of the war that the Northwoods project was planned to start.

It was a draft, a brainstorming session to see what possible options nomatter how crazy they were they had back in the 60s....which was rejected might I add again...

Ideas which come up in brainstorming sessions, or drafts, don't mean they will be accepted. It is a way to find out how many options are available, but it doesn't mean any of these options will be used.


[edit on 9-1-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by loam
It is no surprise to me that you threw your support to Anne Coulter in that other thread, because your logic here is the very type of intellectual dishonesty I referenced there.

Please concentrate on the issues, not the perceived personalities of other posters.

muadibb
It was a draft, a brainstorming session to see what possible options nomatter how crazy they were

No. It was not. It was a plan submitted to the president and rejected by him, it wasn't just 'here's some whacked out stuff that is being floated'. It was 'here's what we need to do'.

[edit on 9-1-2006 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Isn't the topic about Operation Northwood a draft plan made in the 60s and rejected back then?

Yes, along with the possible connection to 9/11, yes. Read the original post in its entirety.

What is the proof that this was used in 9/11?

There is no proof. No one has claimed it as fact. It is simply supposition on a conspiracy board.

What does blaming all Islamic radical attacks as "a U.S. plan which is being promoted only by the U.S. government and it's media" as you are trying to assert, have to do with operations Northwood?

I didn't say that. I didn't assert that. You are putting words (with quotations around them, no less) into my mouth. Show me where I said that. Elsewise, please don't mis-quote me.

You are using this thread for the daily "Let's blame everything that happens in the world on the U.S."

Whatever.

Operations Northwood was a draft plan, which was rejected.

I never said differently. (Where do you get the "draft" part? It was an official plan by top military.)

Originally posted by Mahree
I guess I am beating a dead horse here, but the Northwoods plan did not call for loss of life to start the ball rolling.

Understood. What is the point? I'm not implying that Northwoods and 9/11 are exactly alike so they must be connected. I'm simply saying that if the plan of Northwood was seriously considered at some point by top military officials, it doesn't seem like a huge stretch to me to think that our government or military or both might make and carry out another silimar plan. That's all anyone is asserting here, I believe.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Once again, it was not what the USA government was planning!
...
This has been stated and proven by several members posting in this thread; how many times must it be repeated?

I'm sorry, you're right, it was the Joint Cheifs of Staff, the heads of all branches of the US military. Is that correct? Perhaps a link or a quote might be more helpful than a frustrated denial with no additional information. Just a thought.

And if this plan was presented to Cheney or Bush or Rumsfeld today (or 5 years ago), I don't have any faith that any of them would have the nerve, the guts, the honor or integrity that JFK did to turn it down. Bush is no JFK.

Just because the government of the 60s turned it down, doesn't mean today's government would. In fact, it's my opinion that today's government would be the ones pushing for it.



[edit on 9-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

I find the rush to judgement by some posters without consideration of the situational context of the times when it occurred to be a little chilling. The people who thought such plans up were not unspeakable monsters to be banished or shot, they were patriotic americans doing their jobs. Nuclear tipped missiles in Cuba were only about three minutes away from Florida and that prospect frightened the crap out of a lot of people. However, the population of this country has never been particularly prone to accept the general concept of a pre-meditated military strike against anyone. Some in the military seriously considered such action, while others (a la Northwood) considered other options that amounted to the same thing, but which would serve to get the general population behind the action. The fact the plan was rejected says more about the country's leaders than the fact it was considered to begin with.

I suppose for me the finding of these documents will have me asking for the rest of my life, Who would benefit the most from this disaster?

The next time a building is bombed or a plane hijacked or a ship sunk, I can no longer just accept the talking heads version that it was the bad guys who hate freedom.

The people who drew up these plans didn't need presidential approval for every single action they took. This was signed off on by every member of the JCS before it even went before the president.

I can't help but wonder what they were doing that the president didn't know about.

Just some thoughts,

Wupy

Originally posted by mrwupy

The people who drew up these plans didn't need presidential approval for every single action they took. This was signed off on by every member of the JCS before it even went before the president.

I can't help but wonder what they were doing that the president didn't know about.

Me neither.

Originally posted by mrwupy
I suppose for me the finding of these documents will have me asking for the rest of my life, Who would benefit the most from this disaster?

The next time a building is bombed or a plane hijacked or a ship sunk, I can no longer just accept the talking heads version that it was the bad guys who hate freedom.

The people who drew up these plans didn't need presidential approval for every single action they took. This was signed off on by every member of the JCS before it even went before the president.

I can't help but wonder what they were doing that the president didn't know about.

Wupy,

In my opinion, this is the point that soooo many are evading/missing.

Yes, it was just a proposal, BUT it was THE proposal put forth to the Commander-In-Chief, for final approval.

The Northwoods Document/Proposal was NOT simply a proposition by a few crackpot military planners. It was THE plan put forth, signed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for Presidential Approval!

At the time it was their, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, best recommendation as to a possible course of action.

[edit for punctuation]




[edit on 1/9/2006 by 12m8keall2c]