Covert missions in Iran

[gollum]

Rest assured, we'll get um!...I don't see any attacks right now, do you gollum?

Plot, plot , plotters plotting all the time. Sleep, sleep, sleepers just itching to be woken up.

466091[/snapback]

...yeah, right. I think we are taking that into consideration, gollum, but if you'd like to pass that along, to the White House.......be my guest.

466097[/snapback]

Here is an example of what an American Government are capable of. An eye opener you might agree.

Now that was 40 odd years ago, just think what could they do now?

When U.S. Joint Chiefs Planned

Terror Attacks on America

by Edward Spannaus

According to documents that were intended to have been destroyed almost 40 years ago, top levels of the U.S. military proposed carrying out acts of terrorism against the United States in the early 1960s, in order to drag the United States into a war against Cuba.

These documents take on added significance in light of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, which were clearly intended, among other things, to drag the United States into a "Clash of Civilizations" war in the Middle East. As Lyndon LaRouche has stressed, the Sept. 11 attacks could not have been carried out without complicity from rogue elements in military/security circles inside the United States.

Operation Northwoods

The first comprehensive published account of the 1962 documents, is contained in James Bamford's book on the National Security Agency, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, released in late Spring of this year. Bamford concluded that the Joint Chiefs of Staff "proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba."

Bamford's account is based on documents which were ordered declassified by the Assassination Records Review Board, and subsequently released by the National Archives within the past few years. EIR has obtained the relevant documents and has independently reviewed them, and we can confirm that there is no exaggeration in Bamford's description of these documents as containing proposals for U.S. military agencies to carry out terrorist actions against the United States and attacks on U.S. military facilities.

The time period in question, Winter-Spring of 1962, is bounded by the CIA's failed Bay of Pigs invasion of April 1961—an operation which had been set into motion under the previous Eisenhower Administration—and the Cuba Missile Crisis of October 1962.

The terrorism plan was called "Operation Northwoods," and it was drawn up after President John F. Kennedy had shifted responsibility for dealing with Cuba, in late 1961, from the CIA to the Department of Defense (DOD), in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs. The overall Pentagon project was known as "Operation Mongoose," and was the responsibility of Edward Lansdale (a CIA man who was Deputy Director of the Pentagon's Office of Special Operations at the time), and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JSC), Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer, a holdover from the Eisenhower Administration.

The military planners led by Lemnitzer wanted to launch a full-scale invasion of Cuba to overthrow Castro—and perhaps, as well, they were anxious to show that they could succeed where the CIA had failed. Lemnitzer and others were also extremely distrustful of the new administration—especially after the Bay of Pigs, in which there were allegations that President Kennedy had refused to provide air support at the last minute (although it has since been documented that this was not Kennedy's decision). The top military brass were accusing the Kennedy Administration of "going soft" on Castro, and their plans for a "pretext" operation to justify an attack on Cuba must be seen in this light.

Pretexts for Military Invasion

The planning culminated in a series of memoranda and recommendations which were addressed in their final form by Lemnitzer to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, on March 13, 1962—although it is not certain McNamara ever received them. (Last April, the Baltimore Sun quoted McNamara saying, "I never heard of it. I can't believe the Chiefs were talking about or engaged in what I would call CIA-type operations.")

Lemnitzer's covering memorandum states that the Joint Chiefs of Staff "have considered" an attached memorandum, which is a "description of pretexts which would provide justification for military intervention in Cuba." He says that he assumed "that a single agency will be given primary responsibility for developing military and para-military aspects of the basis plan," and he recommends that this responsibility be assigned to the Joint Chiefs.

The attached memorandum, entitled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba," says that it is assumed that a political decision for a U.S. military intervention "will result from a period of heightened U.S.-Cuban tensions which place the United States in the position of suffering justifiable grievances." World opinion and the United Nations "should be favorably affected by developing the image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere."

The proposed pretext actions should take place within the next few months, while it is still likely that the Soviet Union would not intervene, the memorandum declares, noting that there is "as of yet no bilateral mutual support agreement binding the U.S.S.R. to the defense of Cuba," that Cuba is not yet a member of the Warsaw Pact, and that the Soviets have not yet established major bases in Cuba.

What then follows, is a series of proposals for actions which would be used to provide the justification for U.S. military intervention.

`Blow Up A Ship ...'

The first proposal is for "a series of well-coordinated incidents" to take place in and around the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; these were to include having friendly Cubans dress in Cuban military uniforms to start riots at the base, blow up ammunition inside the base, to start fires, to burn aircraft on the air base, to sabotage a ship in the harbor, and to sink a ship near the harbor entrance.

That was just the start. The next proposal elaborated: "A 'Remember the Maine' incident could be arranged.... We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," or blow up a drone ship in Cuban waters. The memorandum coldly predicted: "Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

The memorandum continues:

"We could develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on the lives of Cuban refugees in the United States...."

"Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrests of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents also would be helpful...."

Among other actions proposed were to use fake Soviet MiG aircraft to harass civil aircraft, to attack surface shipping, and to destroy U.S. military drone aircraft. "Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft" were also suggested, and then—the most elaborated plan of all—to simulate the shooting down of a chartered civil airliner in Cuban airspace.

President Kennedy rejected the plan, and Lemnitzer directed that all the pertinent documents be destroyed. Nevertheless, some of the documents did survive, although hidden by heavy classification for decades.

To the astute reader, the potential parallels with recent events should be chilling.

[Babs]

Morph...Your facts are no better than mine.

you dont work with facts in my opinion, your a bitter twisted individual who enjoys inciting war and racism from my observation.

466098[/snapback]

When you are losing the argument you resort to personal attacks.

[warden]

Here is an example of what an American Government are capable of. An eye opener you might agree.

Now that was 40 odd years ago, just think what could they do now?

Lets look back..why?

We know what Governments are capable of ,think about the future,or if people keep looking back you will find it imposible to go forward without doubts

[Babs]

Morph...Your facts are no better than mine.

you dont work with facts in my opinion, your a bitter twisted individual who enjoys inciting war and racism from my observation.

466098[/snapback]

When you are losing the argument you resort to personal attacks.

466238[/snapback]

I must caution you, morph, the moderators don't allow personal attacks

[zephyr]

Zephyr:

but would Iranians be open to the overthrow of the current theocracy in place?

464508[/snapback]

I don't know, but one thing is sure, the right solutions to Iran's problems are neither military nor dictatable from outside.

465907[/snapback]

What would you propose?

466007[/snapback]

To whom, dear?

466031[/snapback]

To the world.

The last time I checked you were part of the 'axix of evil'. You know... terror...terrorism?...aren't there terrorists in your state?

466057[/snapback]

Me, being part of an axis of evil? oh dear! I've always been told what a sweet, gentle boy I am

There might be terrorists here, but I really don't know them personally, besides, as it turns out, there are terrorists everywhere these days, and Iran happens to be located on this planet.

You want me to propose to the whole world, Babs? To make a more peacefull world, one thing I can propose to common guys like you and I is the famous 'make love, not war' thing!

[zephyr]

Lets the population of the country elect the kind of goverment they want, and dont mess whit their internal affairs because you think you have a higher moral ground.

466012[/snapback]

I could be completely wrong on this, and hope zephyr corrects me if I am.

But my understanding is that under the current system, it doesn't matter much who is elected. Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is appointed for life, and he also elects half of the Guardian Council. This and the other hardliners in parliament block many of President Mohammad Khatami's initiatives, making the public loose faith in the system(including the president).

466046[/snapback]

Yes, it matters quite a bit who's elected, that's why the anti-democratic forces in Iran like to interfere in the elections.

As for the rest of your post, you're not far off. I'd just like to add that even what you call the 'hardliners' are not a homogeneous force and there are fundamental differences between those constituting them. In any case, even if Iran is not considered a democracy, it's also not a one man show state many people think it is( like Iraq was under Saddam). I think the best thing the world can do is to trust the Iranian people and stop messing around blindly in what can very fast become an extremely uncomfortable situation for everyone. ( Can't believe I just made a proposal to the whole world, as Babs instructed me to do).

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[Babs]

Zephyr:

but would Iranians be open to the overthrow of the current theocracy in place?

464508[/snapback]

I don't know, but one thing is sure, the right solutions to Iran's problems are neither military nor dictatable from outside.

465907[/snapback]

What would you propose?

466007[/snapback]

To whom, dear?

466031[/snapback]

To the world.

The last time I checked you were part of the 'axix of evil'. You know... terror...terrorism?...aren't there terrorists in your state?

466057[/snapback]

Me, being part of an axis of evil? oh dear! I've always been told what a sweet, gentle boy I am

There might be terrorists here, but I really don't know them personally, besides, as it turns out, there are terrorists everywhere these days, and Iran happens to be located on this planet.

You want me to propose to the whole world, Babs? To make a more peacefull world, one thing I can propose to common guys like you and I is the famous 'make love, not war' thing!

466964[/snapback]

Oh, okay.... because zep is a nice guy we should all pick up our marbles and go home. I don't think so...I think you are nice too, but I was hoping for more of an answer. I was hoping the common people would be able to overthrow it's government with some help.There are alot of innocent people there and people that want democracy that don't roll with the current government. I think the US can get the job done in a military way with as little casualties as possible with the help from Iran's people.

Trust you?...like to, but since 911 that is very hard. What about your nuclear program...should we trust your government to be good?

Edited January 28, 2005 by Babs

[Babs]

I must caution you, morph, the moderators don't allow personal attacks

let the mods do their jobs Babs, i take no notice of racists

467030[/snapback]

When you are losing an argument that is a good exit strategy. Call the person a name and then say I don't take notice of 'a person that I have labeled'. But is is so transparent!

You spout all these anti-american views and then you say you are going to the U.S. You give all this cosmic advice to me_ well, I have some advice for you....

*....if I was going to visit a country that I was 'downing', every time I turned around, I would worry about my safety. You best stop all the anti-american sentiments if you venture here.*

BTW...I am against all the bad guys in all countries, including my own. I am not against innocent people of any country. A few people here when they are losing an argument resort to name calling. It's human nature I suppose, but I really wonder about you, morph... and the fact that you don't display your country. I know 'not displaying' your country is a right of privacy (and a good thing), but in your case....I wonder.

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[Babs]

Where do you come from? I gave advice, not a threat.

I think it is my turn to ignore you....

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[Babs]

What ? ...you are Scottish, English etc...? You just live in UK, right? You are another nationality, I think.

Anyway, I am ignoring you; you just want to fight. You are a negative type. See ya!

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

Edited January 28, 2005 by morpheas

[warden]

MORPHEUS where did you get the RACIST piece from,ive read all the posts and cant find any....the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind

[gollum]

MORPHEUS where did you get the RACIST piece from,ive read all the posts and cant find any....the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind

467325[/snapback]

You know I have thought about bombing Mecca when I see all those muslims kneeling in one place.

One of many posts by Babs that is racist. Granted, this one is a hell of a lot more blaytant(sp) and to the point but she is quite good at cloaking most times.

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[warden]

If you think about some thing no matter how terrible the thought that makes you a racist?

I always thought it is when you act on your thoughts thats when you become a racist

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[gollum]

So by your rational, a man thinks about molesting small children, that does'nt make him a peadophile.

Sorry, but yes he is.

[warden]

I think it would be a good idea to leave it at that

Do you think for one min that the person we are talking about has acted on there thoughts...i dont think so

I must be racist,i have crazy thoughts all day,i some times think of other females and i am married,the list could go on....what does that make me

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[gollum]

Thinking about other women is natural....thinking about killing thousands and thousands of muslims in Mecca is not only racist but extremely warped.

[zephyr]

Zephyr:

but would Iranians be open to the overthrow of the current theocracy in place?

464508[/snapback]

I don't know, but one thing is sure, the right solutions to Iran's problems are neither military nor dictatable from outside.

465907[/snapback]

What would you propose?

466007[/snapback]

To whom, dear?

466031[/snapback]

To the world.

The last time I checked you were part of the 'axix of evil'. You know... terror...terrorism?...aren't there terrorists in your state?

466057[/snapback]

Me, being part of an axis of evil? oh dear! I've always been told what a sweet, gentle boy I am

There might be terrorists here, but I really don't know them personally, besides, as it turns out, there are terrorists everywhere these days, and Iran happens to be located on this planet.

You want me to propose to the whole world, Babs? To make a more peacefull world, one thing I can propose to common guys like you and I is the famous 'make love, not war' thing!

466964[/snapback]

Oh, okay.... because zep is a nice guy we should all pick up our marbles and go home. I don't think so...I think you are nice too, but I was hoping for more of an answer. I was hoping the common people would be able to overthrow it's government with some help.There are alot of innocent people there and people that want democracy that don't roll with the current government. I think the US can get the job done in a military way with as little casualties as possible with the help from Iran's people.

Trust you?...like to, but since 911 that is very hard. What about your nuclear program...should we trust your government to be good?

467207[/snapback]

Why, you're not at home now, Babs? Okay, don't go home if you don't want to!

Thank you Babs, I think you could be nice too if you didn't think about bombing me so much I already gave all the answers I could, but if you have any specific questions, I'm at your entire service. I think you don't really know what overthrowing a government implies in a country as sensitive and huge as Iran, otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it as if it were a walk in the woods. I have already said that any military action against Iran would be a big mistake, and I'm not saying that under the influence of blind nationalism. Such an action would have a totally unpredictable outcome, not only for Iran and the US, but for a lot of other places. It will have extremely negative effects on the progress of democracy in Iran and in the region. I think a lot of people in the West, including the US realize this, and most likely even the British won't ally themselves with such a crazy adventure. So, any military action by the US against Iran is extremely unlikely, and would be a foolish thing to do, and they aren't saying they are seriously considering that. Even the constant rhetoric and military threats against Iran have a negative impact on the democratic process here, and tend to reinforce harder attitudes and extremist views. I'm surprised, as this is contrary to the announced policy of Bush concerning democracy in Iran.

Did you see any Iranians involved in the events of 911? Your government certainly didn't. In fact the people whom the US accuses of being responsible for 911, were originally part of a US plan of 'containment' of Iran, and the US helped (indirectly) the Taliban into power in Afghanistan, because they were Sunni extremists that considered the Iranian Shiits as 'infidels' who had to be dealt with. This was of course music to the ears of many short sighted policy makers in Washington and elsewhere. There was also a story of by-passing Iran with some pipe-line. The policy of containment backfired very bladly and ended up as the 911 disaster and the ensuing wars; heavy price to pay for short sightedness in policy making . In fact these fanatics turned their guns away from Iran and pointed them at the US, something they had always planned to do, and the fact of controlling and using Afghanistan as a base made this task much easier for them.

About the nuclear problem; Iran has the right to have nuclear weapons as long as others have them too. If the Iranian government agreed not to have them, it would be because they were being polite.

If you can't trust a people with 3000 years of history, I really don't know what else to say, as for trusting the government, it's up to you, but my trust for any government on earth is about the same in what concerns their international affairs and foreign policies.

[gollum]

Extremely well put zephyr. Sorry to say this though but have you ever tried to explain to a small child the dangers attached to playing with matches....same goes here.

I, and I'm sure others listen and hear what you are saying....some don't though.