62 replies to this topic

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Rafterman, on 22 February 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

But you also have to admit that the reality of Northwoods vs its place in Conspira-lore are two very separate and different things.  Northwoods, as proposed, was a psyops program with no violence targeted to American Citizens.  Targeting Cuban dissidents and refugees was one proposal and we can certainly argue the morality of that, but the myth that Northwoods was any type of attack on American Citizens is, just that, a myth that frankly grew legs as some wild justification for 9/11 being a false flag operation.  "See, they've done it before!"

Yes, exactly. The whole point of operation Northwoods was that it wasn't for real. So it isn't a persuasive precedent for 9.11, which was many orders of magnitude different.

[Hilander]

If the government is going to pay a think tank to think they had better get to thinking and come up with all kinds of scenarios no matter how ridiculous or lose their job.

[Little Fish]

Rafterman, on 22 February 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

But you also have to admit that the reality of Northwoods vs its place in Conspira-lore are two very separate and different things.  Northwoods, as proposed, was a psyops program with no violence targeted to American Citizens.

in your opinion.

"we could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo bay and blame it on Cuba"
"we could develop a communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington"
"a few plastic bombs"
"lobbing mortars into the base"

sure, all that could have been done with absolutely guaranteed no harm to anyone.

[Q24]

redhen, on 22 February 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

Many people use Operation Northwoods as proof that Western governments are very interested in killing their own people. I've countered that private think tanks and government defense analysts are paid to sit around all day and dream up all kinds of threatening scenarios.

For me, in my early days of 9/11 research, the Northwoods document was the straw that broke the camel’s back.  I had possession of sufficient motive and indication that a false flag appeared to have taken place, but something held me back (a mental block which seems entirely foolish to me now):  “No U.S. government would deceive the public, commit thousands to death and send America to unnecessary war on such a false pretext... they are the ‘good guys’ after all... they just wouldn’t.”  It was the Northwoods document in particular which broke me free of that delusion, and thus takes its place in my avatar and signature block.  That is the value of the Northwoods document – it proves there are people in the system who would do just that, which I once had difficulty accepting.  Since which, there has been no looking back, and extended research has only proven the 9/11 false flag beyond any doubt in my mind.

redhen, on 22 February 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

Needless to say, like Operation Northwoods, both these plans sat on the shelves for years collecting dust.

Northwoods was shelved only due to the intervention of JFK, the final hurdle.

Needless to say, he was not president on 9/11.

Bush was.

JFK/Bush... big difference, you understand?

Little Fish, on 22 February 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

I'm sure you know that general Lemnitzer was sacked by jfk for proposing northwoods, but did you know he went on from there to head nato and oversee operation gladio?

Can I just point out that, despite some media using the term, “sacked” is completely the wrong word.  Before Northwoods, Lemnitzer was a four-star General, and after Northwoods, Lemnitzer was a four-star General.  It was simply a post rotation from ‘Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’ to ‘Supreme Allied Commander of NATO’, a position formerly held by the renowned Dwight Eisenhower – not a bad way to get ‘sacked’ huh?  Sure, word has it, this was a decision by JFK to put some distance between himself and Lemnitzer whom he did not see eye-to-eye with, but there was no official reprimand or demotion.  Which goes to show the type of plotting that is acceptable within the U.S. system.

Babe Ruth, on 22 February 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

Northwoods did not prove that governments are willing to kill their own, but of course that may be implied.

I’d point out the same as Little Fish – a number of the actions called for posed high-risk to U.S. civilians.  There was also a plan to publish fake U.S. casualty lists in newspapers (the fakery not to save lives, but for simplicity of the operation) – so to all intent and purpose the public would believe that civilians had been killed (which in a way is even worse – grief and deception to contend with).  And more than this, what some people do not consider, is that the intended result of the operation was to start a war in which many thousands would potentially die.  To argue that the Northwood document authors were not prepared to commit their own to death is a nonsense.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Q24, on 22 February 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

For me, in my early days of 9/11 research, the Northwoods document was the straw that broke the camel’s back.  I had possession of sufficient motive and indication that a false flag appeared to have taken place, but something held me back (a mental block which seems entirely foolish to me now):  “No U.S. government would deceive the public, commit thousands to death and send America to unnecessary war on such a false pretext... they are the ‘good guys’ after all... they just wouldn’t.”  It was the Northwoods document in particular which broke me free of that delusion, and thus takes its place in my avatar and signature block.  That is the value of the Northwoods document – it proves there are people in the system who would do just that, which I once had difficulty accepting.  

except it wasn't because they weren't going to, because it would all be faked. You do see that there's a difference there, don't you?

[Little Fish]

Lord Vetinari, on 23 February 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

except it wasn't because they weren't going to, because it would all be faked. You do see that there's a difference there, don't you?

what makes you believe that?

http://www.unexplain...15#entry4674586

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Little Fish, on 23 February 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

what makes you believe that?

http://www.unexplain...15#entry4674586

Because that was the plan, to fake attacks by "Cubans" and so arouse fear and Suspicion against them. The key work being "fake", since that'd be so much mroe cost-effective than actually doing it, even if the CIA and the Military really did have no ethics at all about putting their own people at risk.

[Babe Ruth]

Q

Thanks very much for that fine detail on faked US casualty lists.  To be honest, I have read only bits and pieces of the Northwoods documents, and was not aware of that detail.

If that tactic--false casualty lists--was proposed way back then, it seems logical that the same tactic could be planned and executed regarding the events of 11 September or even Newtown.  IMO that is certainly the case with the "passengers" onboard the "hijacked airliners", and as time goes on 2 months later, it is appearing to be quite possible at Newtown.

[Little Fish]

Lord Vetinari, on 23 February 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

Because that was the plan, to fake attacks by "Cubans" and so arouse fear and Suspicion against them. The key work being "fake", since that'd be so much mroe cost-effective than actually doing it, even if the CIA and the Military really did have no ethics at all about putting their own people at risk.

are you saying that
"we could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo bay and blame it on Cuba"
actually means "we could pretend to blow up a US ship"

and
"we could develop a communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington"
actually means that "we could develop a pretend terror campaign in US cities"

and "a few plastic bombs"
actually means "we could pretend to plant bombs"

and
"lobbing mortars into the base"
actually means "we could pretend to lob mortars into the base"
?

and what about the hundreds of Gladio murders sanctioned by nato and the western establishment, were they pretend?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Babe Ruth, on 23 February 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

Q

Thanks very much for that fine detail on faked US casualty lists. To be honest, I have read only bits and pieces of the Northwoods documents, and was not aware of that detail.

If that tactic--false casualty lists--was proposed way back then, it seems logical that the same tactic could be planned and executed regarding the events of 11 September or even Newtown. IMO that is certainly the case with the "passengers" onboard the "hijacked airliners", and as time goes on 2 months later, it is appearing to be quite possible at Newtown.

What is this? I haven't been following those particular Conspiracies, but now people are trying to suggest that not all of the kids were actually shot? If so, this is definitely a contender for worst taste conspiracy theory of all time. Even more so than all the 9.11 ones, since those at least do see themselves as trying to right a wrong, wheras the only possible grounds for concocting Conspiracy theories concerning this would be paranoia about "taking away America's Guns ™".

[Little Fish]

Lord Vetinari, on 23 February 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

What is this? I haven't been following those particular Conspiracies, but now people are trying to suggest that not all of the kids were actually shot? If so, this is definitely a contender for worst taste conspiracy theory of all time. Even more so than all the 9.11 ones, since those at least do see themselves as trying to right a wrong, wheras the only possible grounds for concocting Conspiracy theories concerning this would be paranoia about "taking away America's Guns ™".

so when someone suggests that some killings may have been faked, you get all indignant.
and when someone shows you actual documented plans to kill people, you get all indignant and assert (without evidence) that those plans were to be fake killings. hilarious.
the anti-truthers seem to have a unshakable religious belief in government benevolence.

[Babe Ruth]

Yes Lord, indignity is a cruel fate, alas!

As for me, I simply take some sort of desperate solace in the chance that IF Newtown were staged, THEN it is possible that nobody was actually killed, by Bushmaster or other means.

The point is that such IS POSSIBLE.  And as we approach the 3 month anniversary of the event, more and more facts trickle out that do not particularly support the story.  So, maybe nobody actually died.  I take some measure of peace in that possibility.

[Rafterman]

Babe Ruth, on 22 February 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

Isn't it interesting that while Lemnitzer was sacked by JFK and went on to command NATO and such, it was JFK who was assassinated for not being a 'team player' and for having angered at least one of the Dulles brothers?

Who got the proverbial last laugh?

I love it when you guys try and prove an unproven theory with an unproven theory.  Funny, last JFK thread around here blamed George Bush.

[Rafterman]

Little Fish, on 22 February 2013 - 09:40 PM, said:

in your opinion.

"we could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo bay and blame it on Cuba"
"we could develop a communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington"
"a few plastic bombs"
"lobbing mortars into the base"

sure, all that could have been done with absolutely guaranteed no harm to anyone.

All of which could be done without harm to US citizens.  In fact, if you read the other proposals, great care was taken NOT to endanger US life.  It's clear than any violence would be against Cuban dissidents, not US citizens - again, we can argue the morality of that, but there was a clear line that was not to be crossed.

And, again, plan rejected.

[Rafterman]

Q24, on 22 February 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

Needless to say, he was not president on 9/11.

Bush was.

And there it is folks.  The REAL reason behind all of this and why 95% of the 9/11 stuff has died down since 2009.