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

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
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.
Bullets should still've been doled out.


I'm not sure McNamara rejected it. Depending on what source you believe, McNamara actually took it to the President.

Operation Northwoods



- presented Northwoods to Secretary of Defense McNamara, 3/13/1962

- Commander of U.S. Forces in Europe, 1962 (demotion after McNamara and Kennedy refused his Northwoods plan)

- retires from the military, 1969


And from my previous post:

Just in case there are still questions about this:



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.

Emphasis added.




posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not sure McNamara rejected it. Depending on what source you believe, McNamara actually took it to the President.

Operation Northwoods



- presented Northwoods to Secretary of Defense McNamara, 3/13/1962

- Commander of U.S. Forces in Europe, 1962 (demotion after McNamara and Kennedy refused his Northwoods plan)

- retires from the military, 1969


And from my previous post:

Just in case there are still questions about this:



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.

Emphasis added.

Had you continued with the quote, it would have revealed that

Concluding, Lemnitzer did not mince words: "[T]he Joint Chiefs of Staff recommend that a national policy of early military intervention in Cuba be adopted by the United States. They also recommend that such intervention be undertaken as soon as possible and preferably before the release of National Guard and Reserve forces presently on active duty."

By then McNamara had virtually no confidence in his military chief and was rejecting nearly every proposal the general sent to him. The rejections became so routine, said one of Lemnitzer's former staff officers, that the staffer told the general that the situation was putting the military in an "embarrassing rut." But Lemnitzer replied, "I am the senior military office--it's my job to state what I believe and it's his [McNamara's] job to approve or disapprove." "McNamara's arrogance was astonishing," said Lemnitzer's aide, who knew nothing of Operation Northwoods. "He gave General Lemnitzer very short shrift and treated him like a schoolboy. The general almost stood at attention when he came into the room. Everything was 'Yes, sir' and 'No, sir.'
Emphasis mine


and, another source holds that

It has been reported that John F. Kennedy personally rejected the proposal, but no official record of this exists. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara examined and rejected the proposal, and the President removed General Lyman Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly afterward, although he became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in January 1963.
en.wikipedia.org...

Emphasis added



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Had you continued with the quote, it would have revealed that

. "He gave General Lemnitzer very short shrift and treated him like a schoolboy. The general almost stood at attention when he came into the room. Everything was 'Yes, sir' and 'No, sir.'
Emphasis mine


Sorry, I don't get how that means that McNamara rejected it instead of Kennedy.



and, another source holds that

It has been reported that John F. Kennedy personally rejected the proposal, but no official record of this exists. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara examined and rejected the proposal,
en.wikipedia.org...

Emphasis added



Yes, I read that, too on Wikipedia. I hate to doubt a source but I am questioning WIkipedia as a source. Anyone can write stuff in there.

And all I'm saying is that we don't really know. There are reports that McNamara rejected it and there are reports that JFK rejected it. Regardless, it was rejected at a very high level.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
OK, The plan was stopped by the civilian government, which was a good thing. I'll give credit to kennedy or Mcnamara or Mickey Mouse for that matter, as long as it was stopped.

This still doesn't change the fact the military and intelligence community was more than willing to wage war against its own citizenry.

If you don't find these documents shocking, Then I don't think anything will shock you.

The conversation has been going great so far, I just have one question:

Have we learned anything from this?

Love and light,

Wupy



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
Have we learned anything from this?


Excellent question. I certainly have.

Firstly I learned about Operation Northwoods, which I had never heard of. I also learned several things about the history of the time by researching it. That's always good. And finally, I learned that my suspicions about 9/11 are more and more plausible. I'm not just a left-wing whack-o nutcase for suspecting such a thing of the current military and intelligence community and even the government.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Children living homeless in the US in the street shocks me .
Old people dying in the winter with no one to care for them shocks me.
Pedophiles shock me
Suicide shocks me.
People paying more for coffee than a gallon of gas, that shocks me.


but no, the fact that a government would cover something up, no, that does not shcok me. However, 9/11 is not a cover up, it was an attack and because of the breathing room our govt has other incidents have been averted.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   
While Operation Northwoods was never implemented,Operation Mongoose had full presidential endorsements.

For those of you who are interested, Cuba, 1961-62 cantains 443 documents and memoranda from the State Dept. of Foriegn Relations.

It's not a quick read. It contains about 2.65 MB of information.

Now back to the topic. I'm quite humored at the false visions conjured up by some as being real. To be quite frank, that's OK. There is no need for some to know the truth about things they can't fathom. The less they know, the better off our national security will be.

As for the underlying reasons for ever thinking of Operation Northwoods, it had to be done. Just brainstorming ideas to head off the threat of the day. If we didn't have the leadership in Washington DC at the time of these plans (among many), we'd be speaking a language that's written in Cyrillic today.


[edit on 11/1/06 by Intelearthling]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Gools already mentioned Petrodollars, Peak Oil and PNAC, unfortunately those can hardly be looked into with heads in the sand.

For those of you who think Northwoods could be justified by the circumstances at that time, look into these topics, please. Openly publicized PNAC documents, founding members of which include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Jeb Bush, among other influential but less-well-known people, unambiguously formulated their plans for world domination. They also called for a "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new pearl harbor" in 2000, in order to bolster civilian support for their plans, which proclaimed as fundamental necessity obtaining military control over the middle east and caspian region for their natural resources, as well as heavily increased "defense" spending.

Brief review of history since 2000:

New Pearl Harbor - Check
Increased defense spending - Check
Civilian support for 2 wars as of yet - Check
Control of the middle east and caspian region - partial Check

Coming up next: Iran. I'm quite sure we'll witness another false flag op before july 2006, framing Iran. The PR machine is activated already, for a prime example checkout www.iranfreedomfoundation.org

Alternatively, just watch their nationwide TV spots depicting iranian nukes being set off by Al Qaida in a major american city. Wonder if Hill & Knowlton produced them..."The horror, the horror!"


Denial's a depressant, no remedy.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   
I was really hoping this thread would become productive, but it seems that those with our 'heads in the sand' fall into the category of those who do not agree with your views.

These are operations that occured or were drawn up over 40 years ago. No matter who thought them up, or rejected them, it DID not happen. This is not about peak oil, or Neo-Cons, this is about war mongering generals who wanted war, lived for it. This is pretty evident in all the documentation I have read.

Haven't any of you seen Dr Strangelove, it was a 60's Kubrick film that seems to parallel this type of action about how generals wanted the war, and some politicians did not.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
the fact that a government would cover something up, no, that does not shcok me. However, 9/11 is not a cover up,


I respect that you have this opinion. You're entitled to it and entitled to voice it. My question is, if you are not shocked by corruption in the government, what piece of information do you have that tells you that 9/11 is NOT a cover-up?

After hearing about and being aware of covert plans such as Operation Mongoose (Edit: I mean Operation Northwoods), what line is drawn in the sand that prevents you from considering that 9/11 was such a plan?

In the above quote from you, you say that you believe that the government would cover something up, but then you just know that 9/11 was not a cover-up. My question is how do you know?

And that's a real question. I'm not trying to be a smarty. I just wonder what makes you sure?

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
The truth is i have to have faith in my country, much like a pilgrim to a religion. When one of the leaders of a religion fails to provide for what you believe is right, do you turn my back on them?

I am not blind, but I am also not a bandwagon patriot. I am an American. People who attmept to defile or portray the country I live in upsets me.

.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Well, you should be upset with your leaders then, I guess.

PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" from 2000 is no antique document, it's quite contemporary and fascinatingly outlined the last few years of American history quite accurately. The fact that it's not even classified suggests they're pretty confident in American naivete - your reaction suggests their assessment's quite accurate, unfortunately. Your belief in their benevolency is so solid, they'll manipulate public opinion again like they did with Iraq in order to go after Iran this year, and you probably won't even notice.

Ever heard about "Nayirah" and "Hill & Knowlton"? Or do you only remember "The horror, the horror!"?

What's with the WMD? Ever heard of the "Downing Street Memo"?

How often do you have to be lied to until you question the integrity of someone? Is the integrity of the United States government untouchable, in your opinion?





[edit on 11-1-2006 by Lumos]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
This is not a current administration issue, take a look at anything from 1992-2000 if you want a laugh about national security, defense cuts and failures. Do you fail to remember how often we bombed the hell out of iraq during that time period?

downingstreetmemo.com...
yeah, I know about the downing street memo, and this is a pretty good site with information. However, this alone did not put this war in motion. It was an outline becasue at the time there were concerns over WMD, tht I still fell made their way to Syria.

thanks for the compliment, but I am not niave, I am informed and have an opinion, just like you. As far as leading to a war in Iran, do a little research into the history of this country and see why they should not allow them to posses nuclear weapons, and we are not hte only country. Even Russia who provides them with alot of resources and technology is against it. I am not for a war with Iran, I think alot of lives would be lost. However, I am not going to bad mouth my country.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Thank you for your response.

I just want to make a few points about it as regards me and my beliefs, if you'll allow the slightly off-topic post.


Originally posted by esdad71
The truth is i have to have faith in my country...


I also have to have faith in my country. And I do. I have great faith in this country and the standards and morals upon which it was built. I have unending faith in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I am a patriot and I would die for my country.

Declaration of Independence



That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


The people and our rights are the heart of this country. The government is only there by our request and at our service to secure our rights. That's their job. And the founding fathers made sure that if they weren't doing their job, we had an obligation to get someone else in there who would.



When one of the leaders of a religion fails to provide for what you believe is right, do you turn my back on them?


Yes! If I were a member of a religion and my pastor was corrupt, I would find another pastor. You bet! I don't understand why you wouldn't. Don't confuse loyalty to 'the country' with loyalty to 'the president'. Don't confuse faith in the pastor with faith in God.

I suspect you (and many like you who seem to have blind loyalty to a man who is ruining this country) are unwilling or unable to separate the foundation of this country, its morals, values and standards from the mortal, fallible, corruptible human being sitting in the Oval Office.

I consider it my duty to speak out against the corruption I see fouling what this country stands for. We must see the separation between patriotism to the country and blind loyalty to its 'leader'.



People who attmept to defile or portray the country I live in upsets me.


I have not said one bad word about this country. I LOVE the USA. I am a loyal and patriotic citizen of this country. That's why I take it so seriously when I see corruption at the helm steering it towards destruction.

Edit for spelling and clarity.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
esdad71, what if not the WMD scare put this war in motion? The DSM alone doesn't document the whole process of disinformation that was going on, but it provides proof that it was an orchestrated effort, and that's crucial information.

You didn't even address PNAC or Nayirah, why? Did you do some research on those two topics? Guess not. Do it, for the love of your country!



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
........
My question is, if you are not shocked by corruption in the government, what piece of information do you have that tells you that 9/11 is NOT a cover-up?


I know these questions were not directed at me, but if i may.

Reasons why I don't believe 9/11 is a coverup.

1.) Because Islamic radicals have tried to blow up the wtc before.

2.) Because Islamic radicals have professed their hatred towards the west in general but more so towards the U.S. because we choose to defend Israel and because our way of life is a threat to the radical islam way of life.

3.) Because Islamic radicals have been doing the same thing in other countries, killing as many innocent civilians as possible.

4.) Because they have blown themselves up in places like Madrid while yelling in arabic allah is great when the police found evidence of some of the people who were involved in the bombings of 3/11 in Madrid. What "cover up agent" is going to do that?.... That is only done by men/women who have been blinded to hate a society that is different from theirs by radical Islam.

BTW, many times have I presented evidence that the government of Spain has found evidence that Islamic radicals planned for 9/11 in Spain alongside other evidence which I have posted from Spain, the Czech Republic and other countries which pointed to a link between Iraq, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

But nomatter what evidence is shown, even from other countries, there are people that are blinded by their hatred towards the present administration, and these people just want to believe "that the government must have been behind 9/11," when the evidence shows the contrary.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
After hearing about and being aware of covert plans such as Operation Mongoose, what line is drawn in the sand that prevents you from considering that 9/11 was such a plan?


Operation Mongoose, or Operation Cuba, was an operation to overthrow the communist regime in Cuba...what does that have to do with 9/11? What link are you talking about exists between "Operation Mongoose" and 9/11?



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In the above quote from you, you say that you believe that the government would cover something up, but then you just know that 9/11 was not a cover-up. My question is how do you know?

And that's a real question. I'm not trying to be a smarty. I just wonder what makes you sure?

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]


Of course governments cover up information. All of them do and that will never change. Governments cover up information so their enemies do not find that information and use it against governments.

How do i know that 9/11 was not a government conspiracy? I already stated why above.

My question is, what link is there between Operation Mongoose and 9/11?

Why are people claiming "the U.S. government did all this" yet other countries have shown evidence which points to the fact that these attacks, "including the one in 9/11" were done by Islamic radicals?

In fact there are people that would never think otherwise nomatter what evidence is presented, which even comes from other countries, and which shows the contrary to what some keep trying to claim.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Islamic radicals planned for 9/11


Thanks for your answer, too.
I happen to agree with you on this point. I think that Islamic radicals hijacked those airplanes on 9/11 and crashed them into the WTC.

I also think this administration knew about it ahead of time and allowed it to happen, had explosives pre-planted in WTC1, 2, and 7 to bring them down and used the whole catastrophic event as a justification for the war on terror and ultimately the war in Iraq.

If the buildings had just burned and fizzled out on top, it wouldn't have been enough to create such a frenzy in the US citizenry to support a war against the Islamic Radicals. Those buildings had to come down and thousands had to die.

So, your evidence that Islamic radicals planned and executed the 9/11 disaster is wasted on me.




What link are you talking about exists between "Operation Mongoose" and 9/11?


I'm so sorry! I meant Operation Northwoods. (I have edited that statement) It makes no difference, though.

I'm not talking about a link per se. I'm simply pointing out that if our top military can sit around a table and devise such a plan and present it to the president as a viable and necessary action, without some (most) of them standing up and saying, "WTF are you suggesting?!?! Killing our own people to get a war started"? -- it's not a big stretch (in my mind) that perhaps Cheney and Rummy maybe along with the Joint Chiefs would come up with a way to use a genuine terrorist attack to further their agenda and facilitate what they think is a beneficial war.

I believe that answers all the questions in your post. If not, let me know.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Ahh...the bravado of a keyboard...

PNAC is a think tank, I am aware of who they are. and if you are referring to the nurse who supposedly 'started' GW 1. then yes i know who she is.

en.wikipedia.org...:Cyan/kidnapped/Nurse_Nayirah

So, are you stating that you believe the testimony of the 2 nurses who were there, who could have been firghtened or coerced in thier statements, were bieng truthful? what is never stated is whether or not she was a nurse or not, jsut becasue she is the daughter of a prominent person she is a liar?

So now we are associating the PNAC with 'Operation Northwoods'?

stay on target and try not to attack my knowledge



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If the buildings had just burned and fizzled out on top, it wouldn't have been enough to create such a frenzy in the US citizenry to support a war against the Islamic Radicals. Those buildings had to come down and thousands had to die.

So, your evidence that Islamic radicals planned and executed the 9/11 disaster is wasted on me.

I believe the capacity of WTC 1 and 2 is around 50,000 combined, so if only approximately 3,000 people were killed on 9/11 then the attack could be considered somewhat of a failure. Seems to me that the US gov't would have wanted to maximize casualties for optimum effect.





posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I believe the capacity of WTC 1 and 2 is around 50,000 combined, so if only approximately 3,000 people were killed on 9/11 then the attack could be considered somewhat of a failure. Seems to me that the US gov't would have wanted to maximize casualties for optimum effect.


Ah... but the US government didn't time the event. They were just ready for it. The terrorists planned and executed it. The government was just standing by ready to capitalize on it whenever it happened. As it was, they totalled the buildings for optimum effect.

If those buildings hadn't come down, maybe 500 people would have been killed.

Just my opinion.

And... based on results, I'd say approx 3,000 was enough.


[edit on 11-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join