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.

 

How many of yous have actually read OPERATION NORTHWOODS...............

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Has anyone here read the original copy of Operation Northwoods, instead of just reading about it on some news site or blog?

www.gwu.edu...

there it is.... Please read it all the was through.

And then please tell me where in this document it calls for the harming/ killing of US citizens.

There are so many false truther reports online about how it would instigate riots in major US cities and start killing their own citizens. I am all for the truth in general, but it seems to me people are over exaggerating what was actually in this document. And this is huge.

Too many articles out there are claiming that this document calls for the killing of US citizens, which is totally different than the military staging a few attacks which would not put any of the US citizens in danger.

And another thing to consider is that this was a document written by a few men, not the whole government, and not even the CIA, but by a General in the Joint Cheif of Staff.

And it was immediately dismissed.

And it was declassified in 1997

www.maryferrell.org...

and readily available online in the beginning of 2001 before the 9-11 attacks.


Why was it declassified if it was such an important and serious plan, and if the government was planning a similar attack in the near future, 9-11?

And why do "truthers" exaggerate and lie about the content of this document?




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
copying from that file is pretty hard, so gimme a second see if my image works.. be right back

I'm back..



In this paragraph, you can see it says, "..which place the United States in a position of suffering justifiable grievances."

In other words, despite the fact it mentions U.S. military, it does not imply U.S. military casualties here, it implies, any U.S. casualty.
edit on 10-1-2011 by Myendica because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Wow, that first link what I read sounded like what they did on 9/11 so Bush could go to war. It's so sad that these files are declassified and yet sound like the very things that are going on now, and we are still told rubbish lies about the real events. Not that the government would actually ever turn around and admit that they flew planes into the towers, and blew them up inside so the towers would drop. Oh, well, the truth is out there and will be exposed one of these days, even if it's years down the line.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


But again, where does it say anything about US citizens being involved?

They talk about blowing up a passenger airplane and blaming it on Cuba, but not before removing the people off of the airplane.... they talk about false attacks against the US military, like carefully staging attacks on US military bases........ absolutely nothing about the killing of US citizens....

Most of the articles online state that riots and deadly attacks would be imposed in Washington DC and Miami.... can anyone point this out to me in this document?
edit on 10-1-2011 by RustyShakleford92 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-1-2011 by RustyShakleford92 because: typo

edit on 10-1-2011 by RustyShakleford92 because: ds



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


the suffering could be any thing really, it doesn't necessarily have to be death to citizens. For example they could create a boycott or an embargo on something, or take something away. Yes it could mean death but they keep it vague.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedite
reply to post by Myendica
 


the suffering could be any thing really, it doesn't necessarily have to be death to citizens. For example they could create a boycott or an embargo on something, or take something away. Yes it could mean death but they keep it vague.


and when there is vagueness, there is some slimy worm sqeezing through every avenue. so thank you



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


Ok, I understand you two think it's vague and open to interpretation, but do you not think it's wrong to be reporting that this document called for terror attacks against US citizens like most of the posts on this forum suggest, along with many websites.

Isn't that misinformation?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by RustyShakleford92
 


The plan put to paper here, is extremely similar, if not identical, not only to the events of 9/11, but the following years and events in society.

D.C. Sniper.
more school shootings
Plane crash at the I.R.S. office
gunman at the museum
and the most recent assasinations.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


I am not disagreeing with that at all, but again, is it not MISINFORMATION in the way that when this topic is presented, it almost always includes the government attacking it's citizens and instigating deadly riots?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Whether or not the document specifically mentions killing Americans, there is no denying that there were plans to stage attacks on a base, and then capture the fake attackers, and use it to justify a war where American lives would be lost.

No matter how you slice it, they were planning to kill their own people for a war based on a lie. I see no difference.

And seeing as how the US government was this despicable 50 years ago, one could only imagine what atrocities they were capable of committing in 2001.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
This is the first thread I could find on ATS regarding Operation Northwoods.. Was wriiten in 03, by someone who probably doesnt come around anymore... back when threads used to be great content.. or Threads..

great read..

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by BobbinHood
 


If people want to present this document and other arguments when making claims against the US government or whatever, I feel they should do better research, because when someone like myself investigates deeply and takes time to read everything, they will realize when misinformation is presented..... It actually hurts a theorists case when he uses BS info like this. I can't believe how widespread this rumor is... who can I trust now when I just caught you (not you personally) in a lie? Know what I'm saying?
edit on 10-1-2011 by RustyShakleford92 because: ty



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by RustyShakleford92
 

Do you really think that attacks, bombings, hijacking, riots, and sinking of US vessels would not result in the deaths of citizens? Very wishful thinking. Does it have to be written down. How else would Americans be incited? An interesting note in the Wikipedia description lists Operation Dirty Trick, which describes the crash of a rocket with John Glenn and blaming Cuba. I suppose John Glenn would have walked out unscathed. Wake up!
Northwoods



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by RustyShakleford92
 


I agree with you, people should make sure what they are saying is accurate when they are referencing it.


However, I don't think the document is any less relevant.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
The first post after the OP nailed it.

And so you are sticking up for the government lying to the American people, sinking a warship that cost taxpayer dollars, to justify war support for Cuba. What happens in war? Well I think we learn that in elementary school...

Is this another provocateur thread like the gun/constitution one or are you really asking that question?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Zomar
 


I am not sticking up for anyone here, I never even stated my beliefs. I just want to know why the document, which is very important in a "theorists" (for lack of better word) case against other events they claim could be a flase flag event is almost ALWAYS misrepresented. It always says that there were going to be riots in DC and Miami and random killings of US citizens!!!!!!!

If you really want people to follow, "theroists" DON'T have to make up any information at all, because this is still a shocking revelation. The fact that they embelish this document making it far worse than it is hurts their arguments and credibility!!!!!



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Like the second poster said, it's right there. The United States is the citizenry of the United States. We the People are the United States. It's just a bunch of land without the people. If it harms the United States, it harms because it harms the people.

Operation Northwoods seems to be pretty undeniable to me... Some have mentioned a connection between JFK's assassination and his disapproval of Northwoods (I don't know if there is a connection or if he even knew about Northwoods), and of course there is the Cuban Missile Crisis, which started during the same year as Operation Northwoods (1962 if I recall correctly). Regardless if whether you think the language indicates harm to the American people, it is clearly a well-formulated and supported plan to create a "false flag" attack on the USA in order to precipitate military/political action which otherwise would not be acceptable/supported by the public.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by RustyShakleford92
 


wow ,just wow. what does it take?intellectual arguments about earthquakes wile the house is falling apart. perhaps the roof to fall on you? oj would love you. not that i have any proof he did it..lol ,on another note,good perspective all you have to do now is spin around 180 degrees.
edit on 11-1-2011 by bumpufirst because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
It's no surprise the project was rejected for the time. It did call on civilians being killed. That would not be "collateral damage" which is a laugh anyway, it would have been an act of war. "Sinking a boatload of Cubans, (real or simulated) "terrorist attacks in Miami", (real or simulated is not stated), but woundings are.

Blowing up ships= tax dollars
damaging bases= tax dollars, probably allowable though. False flag most certainly, actual casualties, most certainly. Who wrote it? a movie buff for sure.
edit on 5-2-2011 by smurfy because: Add text.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by RustyShakleford92
reply to post by Myendica
 


But again, where does it say anything about US citizens being involved?

They talk about blowing up a passenger airplane and blaming it on Cuba, but not before removing the people off of the airplane.... they talk about false attacks against the US military, like carefully staging attacks on US military bases........ absolutely nothing about the killing of US citizens....

Most of the articles online state that riots and deadly attacks would be imposed in Washington DC and Miami.... can anyone point this out to me in this document?
edit on 10-1-2011 by RustyShakleford92 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-1-2011 by RustyShakleford92 because: typo

edit on 10-1-2011 by RustyShakleford92 because: ds


Miami is there and mentions woundings...non specifically, ie; it does not say real or imaginary, not that it matters.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join