It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by shyataroo
...............
A line frequently quoted from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts” (page 50). The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
.................


Is that really saying that they want such a catalist event? or is it stating a fact? There is no mention to "a possibility."

The only plan that i have seen coming directly from government officials which goes into detail and outlines such "catalyst event", is the plan outlined in the Chinese book "Unrestrictive Warfare" written by two Chinese high ranking military officers, which goes into more detail in how China should be fighting the war in the 21st century. As an example by use of an attack on the trade center and using Bin Laden or other terrorists in such terrorist attacks on the U.S.


While demonstrated their intellectual arrogance, the Chinese authors belittle U.S. military leaders, saying: “Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack by bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwidths understood by the American military.” They add that Americans have refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition, or utilize non-military means.


Excerpted from.
home.earthlink.net...

Here is a link to part of the information which can be found in the Chinese book "Unrestrictive Warfare"

www.taiwansecurity.org...


The collapse of the Soviet Union was said to mark the downfall and discreditation of communism. However, the communist People's Republic of China (PRC) is experiencing enormous economic growth and is now the world's third largest economy. This expansion imposes increasing demands for oil, resources and markets. These are the kind of strategic needs that drove European colonization and so-called American economic imperialism.

Abandoning its former isolationist stance, China is engaged in the global marketplace, competing with the Western powers, but lacking all the tools required for success. As Chinese theorists plan for an era of global competition, military planners from the People's Liberation Army are preparing for an era of confrontation. Their doctrine calls for China to engage in "Unrestricted Warfare."

This doctrine suggests targeting America, or others who obstruct China's progress with an array of military, economic, psychological, financial, ideological, terrorist and media tactics to weakem their resistance to Chinese interests.
China's near-term focus is on the Middle East and Central Asia, where the Chinese have built new relationships with military assiatnce and weaponry, including nuclear weapons related technology and long-range missiles.

In the coming years, America and the West will become increasingly aware of the China Syndrome.


Excerpted from.
home.earthlink.net...



In their book "Unrestricted Warfare" the Chinese senior military officers Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui present China's master plan to destroy America. CIA and the security establishment are well informed about this declaration of war but I have not yet seen any kind of acknowledgement of the fact and heard any warning of the American people. Unrestricted warfare means according to the authors that in their war there are no rules whatsoever and nothing is forbidden. The
American and coalition forces in Iraq are learning fast what that means - killing at random soldiers, civilians, men, women and children. The attack on the towers of the World Trade Center, on the Spanish railway station, and the never ending killings of civilians in Israel make this principle abundantly clear.


Excerpted from.
voncampe.com...

PS: I apologize for taking this off topic, but I wanted to point to shyataroo, and any other member who think otherwise, how another nation would profit from something like this, and also to present their plans to destroy America.

Think about it, why would U.S. officials want to "destroy America. It would be like saying that Russian officials want to "destroy Russia" or Chinese officials want to "destroy China." It makes no sense, why would officials in a country want to destroy their own country?


[edit on 13-1-2006 by Muaddib]




posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
It makes no sense, why would officials in a country want to destroy their own country?


Sorry to but in but, money has no colour or nationality and neither do criminals who break laws.

If you could maneuvre your way into power, what would you do with it?

Set yourself up and your friends to thank them for putting you there? It seems that's how it works. I mean, why else would you spend millions of dollars getting a job that pays a few hundred thousand a year with the responsibility of running the country? Destroying it is a byproduct of the corruption.

Can someone name me some recent altruistic leaders? in say the G8? Any government without scandal?

Blind trust in any government is foolish.
.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
Blind trust in any government is foolish.


Well said Gools!
But I feel that sentence requires amendment...

Blind trust in any government is foolish!



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gools

Originally posted by Muaddib
It makes no sense, why would officials in a country want to destroy their own country?


Sorry to but in but, money has no colour or nationality and neither do criminals who break laws.

If you could maneuvre your way into power, what would you do with it?
...............
Blind trust in any government is foolish.
.


It is not blind trust that i have but common sense. Noone, and I mean noone could have predicted which way the stock market was going to go after 9/11, or how the American people would react. It could have bankrupted the U.S. and the rich people living in the U.S., but luckily it didn't.

Noone could have predicted how most people in the U.S. would have reacted to this attack hence the impossibility for such attack to be done and perpetrated by U.S. officials, however there are other people who have profited and will continue to profit from such occurrences, and these same people also would profit if there is dissent between the American people and the people from the world and if this blame can be placed on the U.S. government it would profit them even more.

Anyways, the plans which specified exactly what sort of attacks needed/need to occur to destroy America, financially, politically and in the battlefield came not from any U.S. official, but from two Chinese high ranking officers which state that these sort of attacks are needed to secure their own future as the next greatest power in the world.

[edit on 14-1-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Northwoods On The Air

Here's a link to the new podthread for the Two Amigos podcast SkepticOverlord mentioned above:

ATS.C: 2 out of 3 Amigos: Operation Northwood

Check it out, and don't be shy about jumping in!!



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Muaddib, as usual, you make valid points that many others would be wise to peruse. Today's battlefields are more technological and economic than physical, but they are none-the-less battlefields. And, as with all physical battles, there are winners and losers. There may be no blood shed in these global conflicts but countries can be devastated economically and sink into oblivion just as surely as if they had been nuked into submission.

One disturbing trend I detect today is for countries like the U.S. to depend increasingly on physical force of arms. Historically this tendency seems to reflect a general decline in the cultural, economic, scientific and technological vitality of a country. When a country is healthy and vital the people of that country seem to develop a sense of purpose or destiny and rely more on the strength of their ideas than upon physical might. It is only when their ideas cease to be widely accepted that such countries begin to rely on force of arms. Having said that, I must also point out that there are exceptions--not many, but enough to be significant.

[edit on 14-1-2006 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68

Historically this tendency seems to reflect a general decline in the cultural, economic, scientific and technological vitality of a country. When a country is healthy and vital the people of that country seem to develop a sense of purpose or destiny and rely more on the strength of their ideas than upon physical might.




right on the spot, like a wifebeater with low selfconfidence.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
As I said in my podcast, Northwoods was a scenario where the end justified the means. The president we have now believes he has been appointed by God to set the world right and I firmly believe that "The end justifies the means" is high on his list of any scenario.

I honestly believe that programs such as Northwoods are being carried out to this day.

Wupy



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Alternate Reality


Originally posted by mrwupy
I honestly believe that programs such as Northwoods are being carried out to this day.

If they weren't, I would consider that a major shift in policy.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
I knew of this for awhile and was never really shocked by it. The US has planned for all type of crazy things.

The US made up plans to Attack Canada a step-by-step plan to invade, seize and annex our neighbor to the north, all covered under the one time secret "War Plan Red"

There was plans to attack England, Mexico, Israel you name it .

Did they ever carry them out? NO Did they ever carry out Operation Northwoods and blame it on the Cubans? NO. There thousands of plans for nucler firststrikes on Russia,China, Cuba, Korea etc.. where they ever carried out? NO

The US is full of crazy plans that never are carried out.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The US is full of crazy plans that never are carried out.


How do you know?

If Operation Northwoods was actually carried out, do you think you would believe it? Or do you think you would be on here trying to debunk those outlandish conspiracy claims that government was behind that fiendish Cuban attack?

And unlike the plans to invade Canada, Britain, etc., this one was actually in the works to be done. It's presentation was handled rather sloppily, but there were intentions of getting it through and starting the war with Cuba that our government has been after for decades. It wasn't far off from actually going down; only one or two people that actually mattered were holding it back.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I don't care if they draw up plans to attack Canada, Mexico, Isreal or the former soviet union.

It troubles me when they draw up plans to attack their own citizens.

There is a huge differance between the two matters.

Wupy



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   
They have had loads of other crazy plans other then invading close allies. What about mind control on the US public, planning and simulating chemical and bio weapons attacks on the US public. They even went one to do earlier testings for that one using inert materials on a unknowing public to see how everything spread.

Its just my opinion but this type of stuff is 'old hat' the goverment has been planning such crazy stuff for decades.

The scariest plans dreamed up you will never know about and will never be released in any FOIA document like Operation Northwoods

[edit on 25-1-2006 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 25-1-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

How do you know?


Maybe because they were not carried out and you can read about them?....



Originally posted by bsbray11
If Operation Northwoods was actually carried out, do you think you would believe it? Or do you think you would be on here trying to debunk those outlandish conspiracy claims that government was behind that fiendish Cuban attack?


Well, the thing is it was not carried out and this, nor any other contingency plan means that "the U.S. is going to do this for sure."

Are you aware of the concept "brainstorming"? Where ideas are exchanged, no matter how crazy they sound, just to make sure anything possible is covered?



Originally posted by bsbray11
And unlike the plans to invade Canada, Britain, etc., this one was actually in the works to be done. It's presentation was handled rather sloppily, but there were intentions of getting it through and starting the war with Cuba that our government has been after for decades. It wasn't far off from actually going down; only one or two people that actually mattered were holding it back.


No....it was a draft plan to discuss any possibilities, which never came to be.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by bsbray11

How do you know?


Maybe because they were not carried out and you can read about them?....


I was asking how he knew that no such plans have ever been executed, as he was suggesting that none ever have.

Simple answer: he doesn't. And neither do you, and neither do I.

Trying to prove that you do is like trying to prove a negative. It's ok to just drop the ego and admit ignorance every now and then; we're only human.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I was asking how he knew that no such plans have ever been executed, as he was suggesting that none ever have.

Simple answer: he doesn't. And neither do you, and neither do I.

Trying to prove that you do is like trying to prove a negative. It's ok to just drop the ego and admit ignorance every now and then; we're only human.


Oh boy.... Showing that this draft plan, which was rejected, did not happen has nothing to do with ego.... First of all, we know it didn't happen, because it didn't happen. Second of all, this is no proof that 9/11 was a plan done by the U.S. government....

BTW, perhaps you should listen to your own advice and admit to being ignorant in "other" certain threads.


[edit on 26-1-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I guess I'm just more jaded than most, but I wouold be more surprised to find out such plans didn't exist than to have it confirmed that they do.

Deception is the nature of politics. Power is obtained by convincing people you are the solution to their fears or desires. Fears and desires are easily fabricated.

If you "follow the money", the US federal government has proven the winner from 9/11. It is more powerfull and unrestricted than ever before in history. I hate using Nazi examples, but they are the most commonly known. Hitler's henchmen fabricated the crisis that resulted in his (and their) rise to power.

These things really do happen, and 9/11 smells like one of them. I find it difficult to believe that Al Qaeda simply underestimated the outcome of such an attack. They are painted as lucky simple minded fools by the US media, who conveniently receive most of their information about the group from the US government itself.

Al Quaeda really was involved in 9/11, but that doesn't mean they masterminded it or were the ones who made sure it was a "success". What better deception than to get your enemy (or perceived enemy) to carry out your plans for you? Bin Laden once worked for the CIA. Are we sure he really ever stopped working for them? A military barracks here, a boat attack there- it doesn't take much to convince the citizens Bin Laden is a real enemy, all the while never taking any serious action against him even though we often knew where he was.

Is it just dumb luck that the same Bin Laden who so foolishly underestimated the US response is still at large even though many of his top commanders have been killed/captured, while at the same time we found Saddam hiding in a hole under a house in very little time?



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
.......................
I hate using Nazi examples, but they are the most commonly known. Hitler's henchmen fabricated the crisis that resulted in his (and their) rise to power.
.......................


Why is it that there are people who always try to "tie in the nazis to the U.S."?.....

I would think that anyone trying to talk about a topic such as Hitler, and Nazis, would have known a bit on the history and the facts about Hitler and Nazism....

Hitler was a National Socialist, who believed that democracy renders a nation weak because minorities are all weak according to him.

BTW National Socialism is commonly known as Nazism.

The U.S. government has as much in common with the Nazis and Hitler as daylight has in common with nightime......which is pretty much nothing at all.



Originally posted by spamandham
Is it just dumb luck that the same Bin Laden who so foolishly underestimated the US response is still at large even though many of his top commanders have been killed/captured, while at the same time we found Saddam hiding in a hole under a house in very little time?


Osama Bin Laden has more experience in hiding than Saddam ever did....Saddam had been living in palaces most of his adult life and he didn't want to leave that way of life. Osama has been willing to leave all conforts to fight for his dellusional antics.... There is a big difference. Someone who is not used to hiding is easily captured.

Osama has many millions of dollars hidden in all sorts of dummy corporations, some of them being "foreign aid groups" among others. If Osama needs money to survive or to help his crazy followers he can get that money easily.

Saddam had all his fortune in his palaces, which he believed to be secure, and at the end when he decided to flee, he could only carry a small portion of his fortune with him as he fled and hid in a small room in someone elses house.

[edit on 26-1-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And unlike the plans to invade Canada, Britain, etc., this one was actually in the works to be done. It's presentation was handled rather sloppily, but there were intentions of getting it through and starting the war with Cuba that our government has been after for decades. It wasn't far off from actually going down; only one or two people that actually mattered were holding it back.

From reading this, it sounds like Northwoods was just the latest in a decades long effort to wage war with Cuba. This was actually the beginning of conflict with them, and the checks and balances in our system worked as designed.



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Is it just dumb luck that the same Bin Laden who so foolishly underestimated the US response is still at large even though many of his top commanders have been killed/captured, while at the same time we found Saddam hiding in a hole under a house in very little time?

I'd have to say yes. It took us 5 years to nab Eric Rudolph in our own back yard. And the Afghanistan-Pakistan border is very different that the hills of NC.

Someone dropped dime on Saddam; that and a bit of luck resulted in his capture. Had he left the country as he should have he may still be at large today.




top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join