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

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Nygdan
Please concentrate on the issues, not the perceived personalities of other posters.

jsobecky's faulty "logic" is the issue I addressed... I otherwise have made no express comment about personality.

Nonetheless, (and because it's nice to see the word please on occasion

), I will apply extra scrutiny to my declarations.

I suggest jsobecky do the same... or I may have to avail myself of our brand new law signed by the "truth" seekers in our government. See here.

loam, your actions border on stalking and trolling. Mods, please take notice.

from Benevolent Heretic
quote: 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.

Sorry for sounding frustrated. Links and quotes have been supplied, but it's easy to forget that not everyone has the time to read every response, especially when the thread length exceeds several pages.

Interested readers: there are several links in this thread which identify the authors of Operation Northwoods to be the JCS. The Operation was rejected by the Kennedy administration. Feel free to research this thread for those links.


[edit on 9-1-2006 by jsobecky]

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 ...

Hey Wupy!... welcome to ATS!

Do you know who the top people where at the CIA around that time?

On Springer's point about motivation in his 911 parallel: Petrodollar Warfare. That and a little forum we call Peak Oil.

And don't forget about PNAC.
.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

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.

I agree. This operation was one signature away from becoming a reality. Suppose Kennedy had been doped up or in a hurry to see Marylin that day and didn't bother to read it, just signed and hurried off to other things.

The military establishment had the plans and were more than willing to wage a war against their own citizens to acheive a political objective.

This is very scary stuff.

Wupy

Originally posted by Gools

Hey Wupy!... welcome to ATS!

Do you know who the top people where at the CIA around that time?

On Springer's point about motivation in his 911 parallel: Petrodollar Warfare. That and a little forum we call Peak Oil.

And don't forget about PNAC.
.

Thanks for the welcome Gools, i'm very happy to have found this site

That is a good question about the CIA. I beleive Dulles was in charge at the time and Kennedy replaced him not long after this proposal.

The head of the Joint cheif of Staff was fired, although he was shortly after that made the supreme commander of NATO forces. I wish I could get a job like that after being fired.

Love and light my friends,

Wupy

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
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!

And what do you guys think would happen if another president were in office? Kennedy was too good to us. He was shot. Put a George Bush in there and imagine what might've happened.

These things really do work, too. They are amazingly effective at riling people up. The Nazis used the same tactic when they burned down their Reichstag, justifying future invasions and eventual WW2 for German "Homeland Security." The Gulf of Tonkin resulted in our whole involvement in Vietnam and the deaths of so many thousands individuals. These things are just historical fact.

Northwoods was rejected. It disgusted Kennedy. Lucky us! It was also only one such proposal - made to only one president. Reality kind of sucks, huh.

Originally posted by bsbray11
only one such proposal - made to only one president.

Would you please show me the other proposal(s) put forth for Presidential approval?

Thanks in advance ...

[edit to add]
Thank [insert higher power here] Kennedy turned it down!
Otherwise ... ?!



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

Not to seem demeaning, in any way shape or form, but I do have to say that if anyone, for one minute, questions the possibility that our government, or a portion thereof, is/was incapable of the types of actions recommended by the Northwoods document, then I feel they truly have their head buried in either complete patriotic denial or a bed of sand.

While there may be no relevence, nor connection, between Project Northwoods and the events surrounding 9-11, one only has to take a brief glance at our government's history to realize the proven implications for past similar actions.

Whether domestic or abroad, the US gov't. has, throughout it's brief history, attempted to promolgate the American Way throughout the world. Our history, as a nation, is replete with overt/covert operations beneficial to our best interests, with little or no regard to the remote/local public approval nor admonition.

While I don't mean to single out any member(s) individually, I do feel the need that past and present accountability/culpability be made clear.

The Northwoods document (Project Northwoods proposal) was NOT simply a loose-leafed "memo", per se.

The proposal for "Project Northwoods" was a thoroughly defined "package", based upon that which had been tasked, and was returned for approval, signed and approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for President Kennedy's approval.

40+ years ago!!!

Yes, for the most Project Northwoods is old news. However, this thread makes it apparent that the topic/subject/history needs to be revisited.

Originally posted by mrwupy
That is a good question about the CIA. I believe Dulles was in charge at the time and Kennedy replaced him not long after this proposal.

I was thinking more along the lines of operational people.

There's a link to a video somewhere on ATS (that I can't find right now) exploring the connections of a certain top CIA operative involved with the financing of "Operation Mongoose" and the whole Bay of Pigs fiasco and its connection to the Kennedy Assassination. I really wish I could find the video because the facts are hard to piece together and it does a nice job. There are some threads on some of the puzzle pieces.

The Bay of Pigs is an example of one of those "contingency" plans that was executed and failed.

I remember a few things, like money and supplies for the operation being funnelled through the Zapata Offshore Oil Company.

Guess who ran it out of Houston? Hints... he later became CIA Director, then Vice-President and eventually a one term President.

These kinds of people have always been attracted to power.

I don't understand what it is about 'The Vote' that makes us believe the people we vote for are somehow better than us or entitled to special treatment, or that they have our best interests at heart. Why so many go out of their way to protect and defend these cretins is beyond me.

In an open democratic society people could debate whether or not a decision was good or bad. Not, whether or not, the decision was made at all (or even contemplated).

The failure of "the press" and the Justice branch of Government on these kinds of issues exposes the fairytale that is current democracy.

The very need to hide and keep these things secret shows how wrong they are in the first place, and the latent power the citizenry has if it would only wake up.

Secret and oppressive governments don't lead to good things. After all, these days, social unrest is visible in many countries, even "stable" ones like France.

Some people are waking up, some are already angry for any number of reasons.

I don't know much about the whole Titor phenomena, but just because some guy claims to be from the future and predicts a civil war by a date which has passed, thus proving he's a hoax, doesn't mean that one can't be brewing just under your nose.

/long rant and my "first Titor".
.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Would you please show me the other proposal(s) put forth for Presidential approval?

Thanks in advance ...

I think you missed my entire point there. That point was that it's fortunate that we look back on this at all, with the view of 'this could have happened.'

Had it been signed, I'm 99% certain that we would still be arguing over whether or not the government was complicit, to this day.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Would you please show me the other proposal(s) put forth for Presidential approval?

Thanks in advance ...

I think you missed my entire point there. That point was that it's fortunate that we look back on this at all, with the view of 'this could have happened.'

Had it been signed, I'm 99% certain that we would still be arguing over whether or not the government was complicit, to this day.

Had it happend/had it been signed, IMO, is irrelevent today. Yes, the "yea" or "ney" back then would, most definitely, have a direct impact upon the current geopolitical landscape. No doubt!?

My point here being, giving consideration to the proposal(s) of the past, which have been proven to be only a signature away from "history", what is and has transpired since.?! ... with or without public approval/acceptance.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
My point here being, giving consideration to the proposal(s) of the past, which have been proven to be only a signature away from "history", what is and has transpired since.?! ... with or without public approval/acceptance.

To use a tired cliché, that all depends on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go.

We could go from the Gulf of Tonkin, which led to the deaths of some 58,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese,

to Iran-Contra, which destroyed the country of Nicaragua and got the US condemned for terrorism by the World Court (only country on Earth with such a distinction),

to 9/11, which would admittedly be the hardest for most Americans to swallow because of its closeness to home, but is nonetheless riddled up and down with the very same types of troubling information that follows all the Reichstag Fires and Gulf of Tonkins and (what would be) Operation Northwoods.

• Our military engages in scandalous and long-lasting wars with other countries, even killing thousands of our own boys in the process, and it's to be expected.
  
• Our military kills many, many thousands of innocents in other countries through large-scale bombings episodes over densely populated cities, and burning down rural villages, and on and on. It's to be expected.
  
• Our military kills a relative handful of its own civilians in order to engage in more long-lasting and brutal, scandalous war, and suddenly it's unbelievable!

Well, all I'm wondering, is what makes you any damned better to them than a Vietnamese?




Btw, that last part is addressed to no one in particular. Rhetorical question of sorts for anyone interesting in asking it.

[edit on 9-1-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yes, he did. The History Place is a good site to read for a brief overview of what happened during that time.

That site has a lot of information.

Thanks, I'm checkin' it out!

Originally posted by Gools
Secret and oppressive governments don't lead to good things.

Yes. ....and it appears so few realize that.

Originally posted by Gools
The failure of "the press"

That can be laid at our feet. The press is merely a business. They give us what sells.

Originally posted by Gools
and the Justice branch of Government

...a victim of the executive ...and an abdication of the legislature.

...both of which can also be laid at our feet.

It sure is one hell of a mess... :shk:



[edit on 10-1-2006 by loam]

Originally posted by Nygdan
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]

The proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," a draft memorandum pdf) written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group. The draft memo was presented by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 with one paragraph approved, as a preliminary submission for planning purposes. However, McNamara rejected the proposal.

Excerpted from.
www.nationmaster.com...

Note the parts in bold "draft memo which had one paragraph approved and was presented as a preliminary submission for planning purposes which was rejected by McNamara." It didn't even reach president Kennedy.

[edit on 10-1-2006 by Muaddib]

Muaddib

I'm still not comforted by that. Are you?

The idea that restraint happened at McNamara's level does not explain all the levels beneath him.

The mere fact that this draft could be advanced at that level suggests there were many people in the government who thought it "ok" to advance such a plan.

Some guy didn't just work on this proposal and slip it directly to McNamara. It was worked upon by teams of people....and reviewed by teams of people......

...people who believed it was ok to lie to the American public...

*Puts on ATS kook hat*

In terms of career progression, at what level of government would you assume the guys who worked under the tutelage of these "honorable" planners, then, have today? Think about that.

60 years is nothing.


[edit on 10-1-2006 by loam]

Originally posted by Muaddib

The proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," a draft memorandum pdf) written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group. The draft memo was presented by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 with one paragraph approved, as a preliminary submission for planning purposes. However, McNamara rejected the proposal.

Excerpted from.
www.nationmaster.com...

Note the parts in bold "draft memo which had one paragraph approved and was presented as a preliminary submission for planning purposes which was rejected by McNamara." It didn't even reach president Kennedy.

I was fully aware of McNamara's role in reigning Lemnitzer in. I thought JFK knew about it also, but that's neither here nor there because he would have squashed it also.

If you're right, and I have no reason to doubt you, it is further proof that it only takes one person to change the course of history.

I still have a problem with the 9/11 link, though. Is it possible that they are linked? I guess so - anything is possible. Is it probable they are linked? I doubt it. Governments, and students of history, are well aware of the treachery that men are capable of. History is replete with examples of betrayal of one's own state. This seems to be an epiphany to some people here. Myself, I'll remain vigilant while maintaining faith in the good men of the world. I don't buy into that automatic guilt by association bit.

Please take some time and read some history books and realize that this has occured at all levels of government since the beginning of time. I am not blind to the fact that my government is corrupt on certain levels, I challenge you to show me one that is not.

Why don't you look into the chemical testing that the US Army did in the 30-60's on their own citizens if you want to be upset or concerned. These were not suggestions, they were plans.

Also, in the early 60's something like this could be kept quiet, but I feel in todays 'embed' with the first wave mentality, that it could never occur again. 9/11 was not a staged incident by our government, i mean, what did they gain?

Folks, if you think we needed 9/11 to invade Iraq, you are wrong. That plan was in the ready I am sure before bush came into office. Until the men in black body armor knock on my door and ask me to leave, I'll support my country. and remember, don't let them see the Big Board!!!

Originally posted by loam
I'm still not comforted by that. Are you?

I am not comforted by the word 'draft', either. If I found out my boss had drafted a plan to kill me and several other employees, but his boss wouldn't sign it, I would not brush it off as 'only a draft'...

Originally posted by jsobecky
I was fully aware of McNamara's role in reigning Lemnitzer in. I thought JFK knew about it also, but that's neither here nor there because he would have squashed it also.

Just in case there are still questions about this:

In the final sentence of his letter to Secretary McNamara recommending the operations, Lemnitzer made a grab for even more power asking that the Joint Chiefs be placed in charge of carrying out Operation Northwoods and the invasion. "It is recommended," he wrote, "that this responsibility for both oven and covert military operations be assigned to the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

At 2:30 on the afternoon of Tuesday, March 13, 1962, Lemnitzer went over last-minute details of Operation Northwoods with his covert action chief, Brigadier General William H. Craig, and signed the document. He then went to a "special meeting" in McNamara's office. An hour later he met with Kennedy's military representative, General Maxwell Taylor. What happened during those meetings is unknown. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer that there was virtually no possibility that the U.S. would ever use overt military force in Cuba.

Undeterred, Lemnitzer and the Chiefs persisted, virtually to the point of demanding that they be given authority to invade and take over Cuba. About a month after submitting Operation Northwoods, they met the "tank," as the JCS conference room was called, and agreed on the wording of a tough memorandum to McNamara. "The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the Cuban problem must be solved in the near future," they wrote. "Further, they see no prospect of early success in overthrowing the present communist regime either as a result of internal uprising or external political, economic or psychological pressures. Accordingly they believe that military intervention by the United States will be required to overthrow the present communist regime."

Emphasis added.

If you're right, and I have no reason to doubt you, it is further proof that it only takes one person to change the course of history.

Agreed. And that means we were just one person away from executing Northwoods. That's a good thing? I desire a much wider buffer zone... Had that one person decided the other way (along with the number of military heads) things would have been very different.

Does anyone think Bush has the strong moral character of JFK?

I still have a problem with the 9/11 link, though.

I'm not claiming a 'link' really. I don't think they're linked. I think the presence of Northwoods (and the other plans mentioned) shows a level of corruption within the controllers of the government and military of this country (yes, and others, but I don't live in those and trust them to do what's in my best interest) that indicates to me that 9/11 could have been one such plan, one person away from being executed. And that one person would have been Bush...

Originally posted by esdad71
Please take some time and read some history books and realize that this has occured at all levels of government since the beginning of time. I am not blind to the fact that my government is corrupt on certain levels, I challenge you to show me one that is not.

Then you should have no problem with the possibility of them arranging, allowing or foreknowledge of 9/11.

Folks, if you think we needed 9/11 to invade Iraq, you are wrong. That plan was in the ready I am sure before bush came into office.

I'm sure you're right. But they needed a 'Pearl Harbor-type event' to get the citizenry fired up enough to willingly support and pay for this invasion.

Until the men in black body armor knock on my door and ask me to leave, I'll support my country.

So will I. I support my country 100%.

Originally posted by jsobecky
loam, your actions border on stalking and trolling. Mods, please take notice.

Oh, we do take notice, jsobecky. The old adage 'it takes two to tango' comes to mind infact. But lets all get back on topic.

astronomer68
they were patriotic americans doing their jobs

They were traitors to the state, not patriots.

and that prospect frightened the crap out of a lot of people

And, as so often when the people are frightened, goons attempt to do some hideous things.

mrwupy
just signed and hurried off to other things.

Or, suppose he simply agreed. The threat of obliteration from the communists was real. In the history that played out, the communists fell apart, because, in part, the US was able to first contain them and then start 'rollback'. Cuba acted to spread communism to africa and the rest of america south of the Rio Grande. Suppose that the communists had never falled, and it did come down to a thermonuclear war, in which the US lost against a globular communist alliance, and a stalinist dictatorship was installed in Washington. IF that had been the history that played out, future generations might not care about how many people would've been killed to prevent it.

Still doesn't change the fact that the plan was an act of treachery nor that the people that dreamed it up should've been executed.

muaddib
presented as a preliminary submission for planning purposes which was rejected by McNamara

Thanks for the correction. The orignal newspaper report I read on it noted that the 'civilian government' rejected it, which I took to mean the presidency, apparenlty its the Defense Secretary. Thank you.
Bullets should still've been doled out.