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.

 

aLEX jONES LIES ABOUT Operation Northwoods.

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by beard
 


Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Cuba.

The plan stated:

""

The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.

It says so according to Wikipedia..




posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Alex is trying to wake as many people up as possible before it's TOO LATE...unfortunatly he CANNOT PLEASE PERFECTIONISTS who want everything gift wrapped and tied up with red ribbons...Alex is stricking at the foundation pillars that are holding up the beams of the agenda of the NEW WORLD ORDER BAD GUYS..

LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE,don't get caught in minor details...

hey,your doorbell is ringing,,,it's probably the postman delivering your xmas present [all gift wrapped bla bla la etc.....] buildings,,schmildings



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That's until you look at the PNAC documents and take those into account:

From the "Statement of Principles":

1) Increase an already enormous military budget at the expense of domestic social programs
2) Toppling of regimes resistant to our corporate interests
3) Forcing democracy at the barrel of a gun in regions that have no history of the democratic process
4) Replacing the UN’s role of preserving and extending international order


All right, fine. Please explain how the PNAC document makes any sense out of the conspiracy to fake a crash site out in Shanksville in order to fool us, only to turn around and cover up the fake crash site they made in order to fool us. Why not simply crash the real UA93 instead of landing it out in some secret base in Ohio (or wherever those con artists behind that Loose Change mocumentary say it landed).


And all of which wouldn't be possible without:

"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"


And 9/11 was that new Pearl Harbor.


You're taking that quote out of context to create innuendo. All the PNAC document does is outline a plan for a Pax Americana, which has been more or less the official US policy since Truman. The concentration was on documenting the "process of transformation" part, not the "new Pearl Harbor" part.

If innuendo is your bag, then I'm surprised you aren't demanding we arrest Alex Jones. Didn't he "predict" the 9/11 attack was going to happen, before it happened? How would some nobody running an internet radio talk show have ever known such a thing unless he had foreknowledge himself...?

There's a reason why the police stingently investigate supposed psychics who can locate hidden bodies, you know.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by grail
 


well said, grail.

Sometimes Alex makes me cringe. Sometimes he makes connections he can not support with evidence. He yells too much, and he bounces too much in his chair....

Yes, it is easy to find fault. But it is to Alex I owe thanks for turning me on the the NWO and related issues. It has reawakened me from political apathy, and reignited my passion to fight for a better world, in my own small way.

We must always double and tripple check anything Alex says. We must always make the active effort to play devil's advocate, and try to prove things wrong. But the same can be said about ANY source of information.

To test and retest - to try to falsify new theories, just as they do in Science. We must embrace that methodolgy, and treasure it.

So let me just say, "Thanks, Alex", before I bitch about him in the future. I'm sure he could relate to passionate expressions of frustration...I mean, I don't know how many of you listened to him before he got his internet show...I used to watch him on public access cable late at night in Austin, TX, and let me tell you, he has come a LOOOONG way when it comes to entertaining conflicting opinions. He has a severe rage problem, and his tirades once upon a time made Michael Savage seem downright saintly.

But, he has grown. He seems to have accepted and responded well to the fact that to communicate with a broader audience, he needs to tone it down. I commend him for growing and learning. Not a lot of people are willing to do so, but his commitment to the issues has brought him through. And I imagine he will keep getting better and less defensive as awareness expands, and he gets even better at making his point.

Again - Thanks, Alex!



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth

Yes, it is easy to find fault. But it is to Alex I owe thanks for turning me on the the NWO and related issues. It has reawakened me from political apathy, and reignited my passion to fight for a better world, in my own small way.


...and people here actually still argue when I say all this conspiracy rubbish is coming entirely from these damned fool conspiracy web sites instigating false public unrest by getting people all paranoid over shadows.

Thank you. You single handedly proved me right.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Did you purposely ignore the part where I said I thoroughly vet everything I hear from that source?

I can see why you would arrive at that conclusion, but you have not thought through the causal chain (or represented my word with honesty).

This stuff has sources that trace back to serious academics, like Clinton's mentor, Carrol Quigley. See his book, 'Tragedy and Hope', in which he openly discusses the round table groups like the CFR (for whom he was an archivist), COR, Bilderbergs, and others. It's available for free, online.

(intro) www.youtube.com...


(full text) www.scribd.com...

You might also check out the publications of the Club of Rome, which express their open intention of subverting democracy in favor of a global centralized authority. Again, you can read free, online, their book 'The First Global Revolution'. Primer here, with links to sources:

www.wiseupjournal.com...


Or, check out this interview with former senator Norman Dodd, who worked with the Reese committee, which was a senate investigation into the activities on not for profit foundation such as the Carnegie Foundation, which to repeat a theme, openly spoke of dissolving America's national sovereignty in the effort to form a global government...and their effort to use war as a catalyst for said change.

www.youtube.com...

(the report itself) www.scribd.com...

****

Now, this is the tip of the iceberg, but I thought a discriminating customer such as yourself might appreciate reference to primary source historical documents, tied to nationally known credible persons, predating the modern 'conspiracy' (a wretched slur) movement.


Now then. I'll be right here when you're ready to apologize.





peace.



[edit on 27-11-2009 by TrueTruth]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...and people here actually still argue when I say all this conspiracy rubbish is coming entirely from these damned fool conspiracy web sites

That's because you don't know what you're talking about. This will be the third or fourth time I've had to tell you this while you spread your opinionated disinformation around:

No single website contributed to my believing that 9/11 was an inside job. It's called comprehension of science and physics. It's also called countless hours, days, months, and years of tireless research.

It's only "conspiracy rubbish" to you because you ignore the evidence, the witnesses, and the first responders. All of which corroborate each other, and all of which go against what you believe. Since all available video, photographic, forensic, and witness testimony all go against your beliefs, it would appear that you are the one that clings to the official conspiracy rubbish.

Besides, you are a member of and participate in one of these "damned fool conspiracy websites". Hypocrite much?

Give it up, Dave. You're in a no-win situation here.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You rerally are expert at hearing only what you want to hear, Reway. Nowhere have I said I supported the plan.


Hang on a sec - nowhere at all have I said that you DO support the plan! Who is the expert at hearing only what they want to hear?

Let's have a look at what I DID say:


Originally posted by Rewey
Hmmm... I take it that you don't think that Cubans are 'innocent people'?


Now what would that be in response to?


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...but it was designed to NOT get any innocent people killed.


I did NOT say that you supported Northwoods one way or another. I'm just responding to your claim that it was designed to NOT get innocent people killed by pointing out that the text from Northwoods requires sinking a boatload of Cuban refugees, REAL OR SIMULATED.

But NOW you say


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I am pointing out that the plan specifically avoided targetting American civilians... How does this supposedly prove the gov't is heartless enough to deliberately murder thousands of citizens?


No, you were pointing out that innocent people would not be killed. Oh, I get the problem now...

No offense, but that's a very 'American' way of thinking. The Cubans are OK, but if they're American citizens... THEN there'll be trouble.

Is that similar to the various military situations around the world? Bomb a Serbian wedding, an African medical factory or an Iraqi school, and that's OK. But it's only OK if they're not American citizens.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Then, there's the other, OTHER incredibly phony thing- Northwoods was clearly a goal driven event, as everything was meant to advance one purpose-to make Cuba look like they're the aggressors. These 9/11 conspiracy stories on the other hand are the most NON goal driven event operation I've ever heard...


You know as well as I do about the US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq - we've talked about this at length. The MASSIVE carrots being dangled in order to invade Afghanistan alone made it one heck of a 'goal driven event', as you call it...

You're the one who wants to turn a blind eye to the $46 trillion in oil, or 236 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, or 90% of the world's heroin, and say "Nope - no goal-driven events here..."

Rewey



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

That's because you don't know what you're talking about. This will be the third or fourth time I've had to tell you this while you spread your opinionated disinformation around:


Well that's an interesting statement, coming from you. Every third post I see coming from you is in response to someone posting claims of cruise missiles hitting the Pentagon, holograms of aircraft, faked crash sites at Shanksville, etc., which YOU YOURSELF are saying is rubbish. Unless there's some mass ESP inspired psychosis going around, I have to say they're al getting this rubbish from the exact same conspiracy web sites I'm griping about.


Besides, you are a member of and participate in one of these "damned fool conspiracy websites". Hypocrite much?


ATS is not a conspiracy site as much as it's a conspiracy clearing house, where everyone from realists like me to the proponents of far out ideas like lasers from outer space are allowed their say. Actual conspiracy web sites are heavily censored and they kick out anyone who posts anythign contrary to the conspiracies they themselves are pushing. If you don't believe me, go log onto the "Loose Change" discussion board and start discussing all the flaws in their flick, and see how long it takes you to get banned. For me, it was three weeks.


Give it up, Dave. You're in a no-win situation here.


Yeah, right, keep telling yourself that, if it bolsters your battered ego from not getting anywhere with your conspiracy claims. You have to know your accusations of "inside job" have no credibility outside your own conspiracy minded social cliques-

Bill Clinton responds to the 9/11 truthers



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey
I did NOT say that you supported Northwoods one way or another. I'm just responding to your claim that it was designed to NOT get innocent people killed by pointing out that the text from Northwoods requires sinking a boatload of Cuban refugees, REAL OR SIMULATED.


I am strictly going by the mission statement that says the plan was to rely on LIVE witnesses to the Cuban agression they were staging, and the plan only said the boat was going to be SUNK. Nowhere did it say the refugees were to be KILLED. The act of sinking a boat isn't necessarily what kills people, it's the drowning. Secretly murdering a boatload of genuine Cuban refugees in the middle of the Atlantic wouldn't have been beneficial in the least unless the plan was to include rescuing them before they drowned and parading them in front of the press to report how some ship with Cuban navy markings came alongside, shot a few holes in the hull, and sailed away. It HAD to have required live witnesses to ID the attacker, since those are rough waters and refugee boats are disappearing without being shot at even now.

The author doesn't go into details how the operation would have been done so I can't say what they had in mind, but nonetheless I can definitely say that NEITHER DO YOU. The claim these refugees would have been necessarily killed instead of having them become live witnesses to Cuban aggression is coming entirely from you. You ARE seeing what you want to see in the report.

All this is still obfuscating the obvious point that the plan was thrown away and the guy who came up with the idea was sacked. It's clear the idea wasn't able to survive once it left the hawk minded social clique that thought it to be a good idea. It's sort of like how your own claims of "inside job" aren't able to survive once they leave your own conspiracy minded social clique, actually.


You know as well as I do about the US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq - we've talked about this at length. The MASSIVE carrots being dangled in order to invade Afghanistan alone made it one heck of a 'goal driven event', as you call it...


Innuendo of illicit gov't dealings is still nothing but innuendo, and is not proof of anything other than of a predetermined desire to link A to B. I know I've told you that before.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth

Or, check out this interview with former senator Norman Dodd, who worked with the Reese committee, which was a senate investigation into the activities on not for profit foundation such as the Carnegie Foundation, which to repeat a theme, openly spoke of dissolving America's national sovereignty in the effort to form a global government...and their effort to use war as a catalyst for said change.



Good grief, you can't be serious. Of *course* Congress investigated non-profit institutions for un-American activities. During the Red scare *everyone* was being investigated for un-American activities at that time, specifically for activities that usurped national sovereignty in favor of socialism. The Reece Committee report was written in 1954, in the middle of the Red scare, and even two of the committees own members stated the commission showed a hatred of non-profit institutions that "bordered on the pathological". WHO was the lead investigator who was "so sure" that non-profit organizations were part of a Communist plot? Norman Dodd, the very guy you're quoting.

The Reece Committee


You know, I never realized it before, but the similarities between unrealistically paranoid people back in 1954 who are "so sure" there's evidence of international Communist plots out there somewhere, and unrealistically paranoid people who are "so sure" today there's evidence of a 9/11 inside job out there somewhere, are too obvious to ignore. I thank you for posting this, becuase all you wound up doing is proving my original statement that these damned fool conspiracy web sites are deliberately getting people all paranoid over shadows was correct after all.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
go log onto the "Loose Change" discussion board and start discussing all the flaws in their flick, and see how long it takes you to get banned. For me, it was three weeks.

I'm there every day. You must've broken forum rules to get yourself banned because they don't go around banning people just because of a little criticism.



Originally posted by GoodOlDave
the plan was thrown away and the guy who came up with the idea was sacked

There was no one "guy" that came up with the plan. It was approved and signed off by all of the leaders of the military, you know, the Joint Chiefs. It was then taken to the Secretary of the Joint Chiefs where it was also signed off. Then it made it's way to the Secretary of Defense.

All of the leaders of our military signed off on a plan for a false-flag operation back then. Just because the SecDef or the President didn't approve of it, what the hell makes you think our military would never concoct another false-flag operation again with the right president and SecDef in power? You know, like the war-hungry Cheney and Rumsfeld.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I think the major lesson learned from Northwoods was, don't go through the "proper channels" to get something so illegal approved. Just go another illegal route with it. Problem solved.

Because I'm pretty sure we would all agree that Operation Northwoods would be illegal. Something along the lines of mass fraud and potentially murder of foreigners?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Or, just get criminals in power like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Bush. All sympathizers to the cause. And then you can concoct an illegal plan and have it approved and carried out.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I'm there every day. You must've broken forum rules to get yourself banned because they don't go around banning people just because of a little criticism.


The problem with that assumption is that in their YOU ARE BANNED message they *didn't* say I was banned for being rude, or abusive, or insulting people, or any of that. They banned me becuase (in their words) "The argument is now long over" and "everything I'm saying has been debunked many times over" and "Be educated or remain ignorant, it's my choice". When I hear someone say, "Be educated or remain ignorant, it's my choice". it certainly sounds like the rule I broke was, "posting things that threatened their conspiracy claims", to me. What does it sound like to you?

Thus, the reason why I give the ATS moderators full credit, and why I like to come here- they might not agree with what I say, but they understand that censorship sucks, regardless of who's doing the censorship.


All of the leaders of our military signed off on a plan for a false-flag operation back then. Just because the SecDef or the President didn't approve of it, what the hell makes you think our military would never concoct another false-flag operation again with the right president and SecDef in power? You know, like the war-hungry Cheney and Rumsfeld.


..becuase war-hungry Cheney and Rumsfeld are no longer in office, and the first thing fawning lackeys do...and let's face it, the only way such a false flag operation to murder 3000 people could be pulled off is with an army of fawning lackeys... is to side with their new masters against their old masters. This necessarily means that Obama, Biden, Gates, Clinton, etc.,are involved in the coverup, too. Is this really what you're saying?

...or are you one of those "secret international world order bent on taking over the world" people (I.E. Illuminati, Masons, Jewish World Order, etc) and neither the Bush bunch nor the Obama bunch know what's going on?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Exactly how much power and control over all aspects of government, including intelligence agencies and military operations, do you think a president has?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Because I'm pretty sure we would all agree that Operation Northwoods would be illegal. Something along the lines of mass fraud and potentially murder of foreigners?


Yes, of course it's illegal. It's likewise the case that anyone who knowingly cooperates with such an operation are criminals. Namely, whoever they lined up to actually plant those controlled demolitions in the WTC, becuase, let's face it, they'd have to be a bunch of hard core, dumb as a fence post idiots to NOT understand that sneaking in undercover and planting secret controlled demolitions in an occupied building is going to get a lot of people killed, regardless of who told them to do it or why.

This "compartmentalization of information" excuse being used to justify these conspiracy stories only go so far.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Yes, of course it's illegal. It's likewise the case that anyone who knowingly cooperates with such an operation are criminals.


I wonder if any of the Joint Chiefs responsible for the Northwoods document were even reprimanded? Would be easy and quick to find out, wouldn't it?


Namely, whoever they lined up to actually plant those controlled demolitions in the WTC, becuase, let's face it, they'd have to be a bunch of hard core, dumb as a fence post idiots to NOT understand that sneaking in undercover and planting secret controlled demolitions in an occupied building is going to get a lot of people killed, regardless of who told them to do it or why.


I can think of multiple solutions to this problem, which is what someone responsible for doing this would no doubt do. One of the most obvious and elegant solutions to this problem is to get jihadist Muslims to do it, tell them exactly what they are doing, then kill them after they've done it. It's not as if there isn't a precedent for CIA and FBI working with terrorist cells. Look at what happened around the 1993 bombing for example.


This "compartmentalization of information" excuse being used to justify these conspiracy stories only go so far.


Your creativity and ability to work around obstacles only goes so far, apparently.


Btw how much authority and power do you think the president actually has over our military and intelligence agencies?



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Exactly how much power and control over all aspects of government, including intelligence agencies and military operations, do you think a president has?


You should already know the answer to that question. The president can do whatever the other two branches of gov't will allow the president to do.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
sneaking in undercover and planting secret controlled demolitions in an occupied building is going to get a lot of people killed, regardless of who told them to do it or why.

A small team of loyal, hard-core SEALS could have done it for all we know. But we don't know who did plant the explosives or how.

And that's you and every other debunker's problem. You don't understand the who or the how, so you ignore or dismiss the evidence and facts. All available evidence suggests controlled demolition. The witnesses, videos, and physics all prove so. You can't ignore evidence just because you don't understand how it was done.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. But you can't change the facts and evidence just because you don't like what they suggest.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join