The top of page nine, Real or simulated killing of refugee's.

Murder is murder. Regardless of the political goal.

included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage.

Maybe they don't say kill US citizens, but killing humans and US citizens for political gains, what's the difference for those murderers? And blowing up a US ship include death of US citizens...

[edit on 10-11-2006 by Vitchilo]

You must have missed the parts about staging terrorist attacks at Guantanomo Bay.
Or the sinking of a US ship at Guantanomo Bay.
Or..."We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

You don't think any of those events would have caused the deaths of US citizens?

And while we're at it what about Pearl Harbor? The US government didn't seem to concerned about allowing the Japanese to kill many US citizens then.

You should take a look at history, government is well known for killing it's own ppl if it suits their agenda. Ths US is no different.

However, there is no precedent of killing US citizens here. It calls to murder (real or not) Cubans or Cubans refugees.

Some 9/11 researchers (ie. Webster Tarpley) specifically say US citizens. The people in the twin towers were not citizens or refugees of a country the US is at war with.

The document never states killing Americans.

Martin Luther King, Ruby Ridge, Waco are examples of the US government killing its own people, Operation Northwoods is not.

Conduct funerals for mock-victims.

Why bother with mock victims if you can have the real thing?

I’d like to ask everyone to read the documents themselves, not someone’s interpretations of the documents.

Nowhere does it state that it's a priority not to kill Americans, yet they detail sinking their own ships and launching mortar blasts into their own military bases, killing OR faking killing refugees, faking killing students in plane crashes, etc.

To me, the fact that they don't mention trying to avoid killing American citizens as a priority just shows how little they actually cared. And I'm pretty sure you wouldn't blow up and sink a massive ship without some casualties, or mortar your own base without some casualties.

Even when they hit the Pentagon's least-populated, least-important, just-finished-being-renovated wing, avoiding hundreds more deaths and much more serious destruction, they still killed some people.


Or, I guess if terrorists did it, they just went out of their way to be softer on us and save key officials' lives.

[edit on 10-11-2006 by bsbray11]

See this is what you are missing, the gov is not out to kill it's own citizens per say, but just like any good military plan they always allow for a loss of their own troops. They try to minimize that loss, but that loss is inevitable for their plan to succeed. In the case of civilians it is called collateral damage, 'unfortunate but inevitable and regrettably unavoidable'...

You have to learn to think the way 'they' do...

I have still yet to see one shred of evidence that links Operation Northwoods to 9/11.

Mock Victims, Fake Funerals, Unmanned planes has nothing resembling attacking civillians in skyscrappers, military buildings and on planes.

Sorry, but I don't buy anything linking Northwoods to 9/11.

Northwoods makes no mention of any reluctance to cause citizen casualties, and in fact, speaks to the beneficial results those casualties might produce. Whether the plan was to print false casualty lists, or produce real casualties - we don't know.

The document does, at one point, discuss the wounding of Cuban refugees as a possible extreme method to generate publicity - that point would seem to bolster your claim that no killings were planned. After all, why make a big deal about wounding someone, if killing folks is an option on the table?

Then again, the paper does mention terrorism campaigns in Miami, the blowing up of ammunition and other acts of arson/vandalism which could very easily produce casualties.

I think that in your eagerness to cut the legs out from under the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, you're really going out on a limb...

Sorry..pun intended.

I do see your point though - the 9/11 conspiracy theorists may be too eager to hold up Northwoods as the cornerstone of their thesis that the government will kill to advance policy. There is no specific language that indicates there were plans to kill US citizens.

There is, however, quite a lot of language that suggests real violence against real people is an option - even asylum seekers. That's a dirty trick...

"Come here, we'll protect you." *Knife in the back
"Oh my God, some evil Communist just killed this poor innocent refugee!"

That's despicable...

Really though, Northwoods is just one example of an alarming trend. Other examples might be UBL himself, or the Contras, or the Scorpions, or the Columbian paramilitary death squads, or any of the other cases where the US has shown that it is willing and able to do terrible things to advance foreign policy.

If anything, 9/11 may be a sort of evolution of the old game, where instead of conducting operations overseas, the operations take place on our own shores.

People can argue as much as they want that Northwoods has nothing that indicates 9-11 was an inside job. But it does show intent to stage mock terrorist attacks, which is what I and others think 9-11 was.
The killing of US citizens really has nothing to do with it, Northwoods neither advocates nor dismisses the killing of civilians, and I bet the 9-11 plans didn't either, other than how they could minimize collateral damage.

The problem we have here is people who want to take every little piece of the 9-11 puzzle, and try to dismiss its importance by taking it away from the big picture.

Nit-picking stuff that still doesn't explain how 3 buildings all fell vertically straight down, with no resistance from intact floors, whilst hurling steel hundreds of feet and turning concrete, desks, chairs, computers, telephones, people, into a fine dust.
You can nit -pick everything away but you will still be left trying to explain the physical laws that Liary Silverspoons buildings seemed to defy that day.

Check out the latitudes of some of our home grown, North Woods, and then check them against the latitude of Katyn, Poland. Using the onion paradigm, sure there are a bunch of fools who think it's just an academic exercise. But down deep, you gotta see the real plan, a Katyn Forest massacre. All of these cutsie plans seem to have one and only one goal, that of decapitating our civilian Gov't, and possibly the intellectuals who could pick up the pieces, after the curtain goes up.
My previous posts speculated on the little military jet on the tail of Flight 93, as being the new version of the Jap mini sub sneaking into Pearl Harbor that the U.S. Ward sunk on Dec. 7th, 1941. Here it would have finished off 9-11 with an Anthrax attack on D.C. that also would have decapitated our Civilian Gov't. Atta's rhine princess real estate lady's husband in Latana, Fl. was just a distraction to link him with the Bio Warfare attack. How could flight students get fully militarized Anthrax?? Maybe now you see the need to quelch intellectuals, in a Northwoods camp, just like Stalin did to the Poles.

False flag provocateur actions are nothing new (look at the SS attack on a German radio station before the invasion of Poland for example). The significance of Northwoods is not that it was blueprint for 9/11 (which is where, I think, you're coming from) but that it shows such activities were considered by the US military to further strateic aims. There were no doubt many other times it was considered - just this time they were apparently serious / stupid enough to write it down.

Originally posted by doctorfungi
I have still yet to see one shred of evidence that links Operation Northwoods to 9/11.

It proves that a "9/11 conspiracy" (ie causing a terrorist attack and blaming it on a foriegn entity) WAS thought up by our military.

If they're crashing plans and using bombs for sabotague, that'll result in killing people though.

REmember, with terrorism, the powerless are acting to influence the powerful, with northwoods, the powerful were trying to manipulate events. THey weren't thinking about killing people, they were thinking about making it look like there were communist saboteurs in the US. SO that might explain why there is less talk about 'killing thousands' and the focus is on the acts of sabotague themselves, irresepective of their casualty rates.

Bomb an american factory and make it look like the commies did it, that'd throw people into war. You didn't need to have lots of casualities, people'd recognize that they've been attacked, and will respond. Today, I suppose, people need to directly see the personal deaths of thousands of people, and sit around thinking about it, before they can consider there to be a threat.

Originally posted by carpoolerMaybe now you see the need to quelch intellectuals, in a Northwoods camp, just like Stalin did to the Poles

Whgat are you talking about?
Northwoods had nothing to do with getting rid of the intellectuals in the US nor with getting rid of the civilian government. THe military thought it up and PRESENTED IT FOR APPROVAL to the civilian government, not even directly to kennedy, it got quashed at the lower levels (bobby k. i beleive, but may be wrong about that). The only people back in those days looking to 'eliminate the intellectual class' were the communists, ala the great leap forward, or the sla bombing universities and trying to kill university presidents. Not hte military. The upper class intellectuals were still part of the system for them.

Northwoods was "nothing more" than carrying out attacks under the false flag of cuban communist agents, in order to justify an invasion of cuba. Which, of course, is despicable.

Heck, JFK was willing to go nuclear over cuba, and started a blockade, an act of war, against cuba too, and he got us involved in Vietnam, so maybe he would've gone for it under other circumstances.

Theres plenty of precedent for america killing its citizens for war purposes.

Just look at the manhattan project when people in hospitals were injected with uranium without their knowledge to test the dangers of the atomic bomb.

Do you really think the government gives a toss who it has to use?