PDA

View Full Version : US Government planned terror attacks on Cuba for...


Evanescence
06-04-2007, 08:52 PM
justification for war against Cuba in the 1960's....

This recently came out. Looks like 9/11 conspiracy theories might not be too far off...

Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba

By David Ruppe
N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War

The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof & that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."

The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere only 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.

"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.

Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military not democratic control over the island nation after the invasion.

"That's what we're supposed to be freeing them from," Bamford says. "The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing."

'Over the Edge'

The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.

Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.

The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the same time, however, there real were concerns in American society about their military overstepping its bounds.

There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election.

And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a "considerable danger" in the "education and propaganda activities of military personnel" had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn't get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford.

"Although no one in Congress could have known at the time," he writes, "Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge."

Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan "pretext" operations at least through 1963.

One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war.

"There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn't for lack of trying," he says.

After 40 Years

Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK's release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public's access to government records related to the assassination.

The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.

Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.

"The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

Source URL: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

mat1583
06-04-2007, 09:08 PM
I posted about Northwoods a while back in another one of your conspiracy threads: http://www.thirdday.com/boards/showthread.php?t=90285&page=3&highlight=northwoods

I was pretty much ignored since I posted the source from Wiki...oh well, looks like I was right after all.

-washboard

Evanescence
06-04-2007, 09:11 PM
I remember that!!!! But, I thought that was another report about something else....

I'd like to know more about it...and how accurate it is....

Gandalf
06-06-2007, 04:06 PM
People in the military make all sorts of plans that no President would ever authorize. There are probably plans in the books for how to invade Mexico or assassinate Chavez or any number of other things. There are strategists who do nothing but imagine what would happen in various hypothetical situations. If France invaded Luxembourg, we'd probably have a plan on the books for possible responses. Our military planners probably have plans that would cover the basic strategies required for invading Switzerland. It's not likely to ever happen, and the existence of a plan doesn't mean that any top government official ever intends to use it, just that the military would be prepared for just about anything they can imagine.

Such a plan (attacks against citizens) is certainly unethical and immoral. If it existed, it would have been wrong to ever consider doing it. But the existence of a military "plan" doesn't necessarily signify any intent on anyone's part to see it carried out. The possibility of the Joint Chiefs being involved is a bit more troubling, but still ... neither McNamara nor Kennedy apparently approved of them. There's no telling whether the plans were presented as something the Joint Chiefs actually wanted done, or if they were just told to submit all contingency plans, or what... Either way, it didn't happen, fortunately.

jabob
06-06-2007, 04:11 PM
Easy there Gandalf; you'll get in trouble for not believing the absolute worse about the government - especially the military. That kind of calm, logical response will not be allowed to stand.

Pouye
06-06-2007, 06:30 PM
Easy there Gandalf; you'll get in trouble for not believing the absolute worse about the government - especially the military. That kind of calm, logical response will not be allowed to stand.

Yeah!

Actually, I was going to say the same thing, but as usual, Gandalf's response covers what I was thinking, too.

Rock

Evanescence
06-06-2007, 06:56 PM
Easy there Gandalf; you'll get in trouble for not believing the absolute worse about the government - especially the military. That kind of calm, logical response will not be allowed to stand.

Oh, it can stand. But when the general population....oh, about 50% or more don't trust our own Govt and a staggering 33% believe our Govt may have known and/or perpetrated 9/11.....why that sounds like logical thinking to me. History has proven itself...and reliably repeats itself, so when a country or group of countries become powerful and even a superpower, telling people what to do, muscling their way about, LOGICAL thinking would spell corruption and sinister motives.

All else is just niave excuse making. Even a wet behind the ears kid would know that much, or....:D :D :D

cheewiee
06-06-2007, 06:59 PM
Oh, it can stand. But when the general population....oh, about 50% or more don't trust our own Govt and a staggering 33% believe our Govt may have known and/or perpetrated 9/11.....why that sounds like logical thinking to me. History has proven itself...and reliably repeats itself, so when a country or group of countries become powerful and even a superpower, telling people what to do, muscling their way about, LOGICAL thinking would spell corruption and sinister motives.

All else is just niave excuse making. Even a wet behind the ears kid would know that much, or....:D :D :D

Do you have a source on that 33%?

Jason
06-06-2007, 07:05 PM
Do you have a source on that 33%?

Ditto. The only people I've heard about that believe that are conspiracy nuts. And I've never actually met one in the flesh.

Evanescence
06-06-2007, 07:59 PM
It was in our local newspaper when the guy who wrote the book came to speak. I also heard it had soemthing to do with the AP. Keep in mind, exactly how I worded that.....and thats how thenumbers supposedly go. 33% of Americans believe the Govt KNEW about it before hand or planned it. There's two different things there....but its all in one.

I'll check...

Evanescence
06-06-2007, 08:04 PM
A simple Google search yielded this:

I'm not impressed with polls where only 1000 people are involved, but anyway...

By THOMAS HARGROVE
Scripps Howard News Service

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Suspicions that the 9/11 attacks were "an inside job" _ the common phrase used by conspiracy theorists on the Internet _ quickly have become nearly as popular as decades-old conspiracy theories that the federal government was responsible for President John F. Kennedy's assassination and that it has covered up proof of space aliens.

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

Valpo
06-06-2007, 08:16 PM
"The masses are asses."
Alexander Hamilton

jabob
06-06-2007, 08:41 PM
A 2004 National Science Foundation poll showed that 33% of Americans believe that extraterrestrial beings have visited earth at some time in the past. Maybe the aliens caused 9/11.

cheewiee
06-06-2007, 08:55 PM
A simple Google search yielded this:

I'm not impressed with polls where only 1000 people are involved, but anyway...

By THOMAS HARGROVE
Scripps Howard News Service

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Suspicions that the 9/11 attacks were "an inside job" _ the common phrase used by conspiracy theorists on the Internet _ quickly have become nearly as popular as decades-old conspiracy theories that the federal government was responsible for President John F. Kennedy's assassination and that it has covered up proof of space aliens.

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

After reading your post I saw the Scripps News thing... I find it dubious, not only for the small sampling, but the article did not state the actual verbage from the question...

Evanescence
06-06-2007, 09:25 PM
I'd have to see more numbers of the poll and over all people in the poll to be impressed...1000 people ain't squat. But I will say that in the past 6 months I personally have mentioned the conspiracy theories on 911...just a brief mentioning and almost every person...even staunch conservatives said that it wouldnt surprise them.

People are fed up, disgusted and tired of the double talk and manipulation of our Govt.

Aliens? There's more evidence of UFOs and ETs than any other theory out there. Only a fool would think we're alone, but thats for another topic...:D

cheewiee
06-06-2007, 09:44 PM
I'd have to see more numbers of the poll and over all people in the poll to be impressed...1000 people ain't squat. But I will say that in the past 6 months I personally have mentioned the conspiracy theories on 911...just a brief mentioning and almost every person...even staunch conservatives said that it wouldnt surprise them.

People are fed up, disgusted and tired of the double talk and manipulation of our Govt.

Aliens? There's more evidence of UFOs and ETs than any other theory out there. Only a fool would think we're alone, but thats for another topic...:D

But this isn't new...

People believe that our Government killed Kennedy, They beleive that Roseivelt knew about Pearl Harbor, they believe Edwin Stanton (Secretary of War) was the mastermind of Conspiracy theories...

Evanescence
06-06-2007, 09:47 PM
But this isn't new...

People believe that our Government killed Kennedy, They beleive that Roseivelt knew about Pearl Harbor, they believe Edwin Stanton (Secretary of War) was the mastermind of Conspiracy theories...

Yeah, and most of it is UN-provable. Only in the end will we know the truth. I for one believe that history is VERY inaccurate...on all levels. Someday we'll know the truth...then it won't matter anymore....:cool:

cheewiee
06-06-2007, 09:53 PM
Yeah, and most of it is UN-provable. Only in the end will we know the truth. I for one believe that history is VERY inaccurate...on all levels. Someday we'll know the truth...then it won't matter anymore....:cool:

what's the saying... History is always written by the winners....

jabob
06-06-2007, 10:20 PM
...even staunch conservatives said that it wouldnt surprise them.

Staunch Conservative here; if I found out the current administration caused 9/11 I would be more than surprised.

Evanescence
06-07-2007, 09:24 PM
Staunch Conservative here; if I found out the current administration caused 9/11 I would be more than surprised.

Thats the problem...people think about this country in 2 ways...Liberal and Conservative. This is what THEY want...division. People refusing to cross "party lines" and stand up for whats right....people refusing to believe that a politcian...or administration or officials deep within our Govt, are corrupt. The politics stops people from focusing on the facts....the american people and our rights.

Secondly, these conspiracy theorists get it all wrong when they attack the President and/or his administration surmising he did this and that. If it was an inside job, it could ahve been perpetrated by a small group of people in any division of Govt. Bush just followed thru with the plan, not knowing what had happened. There's a bunch of ways to look at it and blaming Bush without direct proof makes it MORE unbelievable and political.

However, we always have to ask ourselves how much we trust our Govt. I say not at all...therefore I am open to all possibilities....even absurd ones. For 1000 yrs the RCC ruled the world and people backed them. Germans REFUSED to believe the atrocties that the Nazi's were being accused of....but weren't so proud when the films and testimonies surfaced.

We must always keep a careful eye out for evil...it always creeps in where we least expect it. :cool:

cheewiee
06-08-2007, 08:06 AM
Thats the problem...people think about this country in 2 ways...Liberal and Conservative. This is what THEY want...division. People refusing to cross "party lines" and stand up for whats right....people refusing to believe that a politcian...or administration or officials deep within our Govt, are corrupt. The politics stops people from focusing on the facts....the american people and our rights.

Secondly, these conspiracy theorists get it all wrong when they attack the President and/or his administration surmising he did this and that. If it was an inside job, it could ahve been perpetrated by a small group of people in any division of Govt. Bush just followed thru with the plan, not knowing what had happened. There's a bunch of ways to look at it and blaming Bush without direct proof makes it MORE unbelievable and political.

However, we always have to ask ourselves how much we trust our Govt. I say not at all...therefore I am open to all possibilities....even absurd ones. For 1000 yrs the RCC ruled the world and people backed them. Germans REFUSED to believe the atrocties that the Nazi's were being accused of....but weren't so proud when the films and testimonies surfaced.

We must always keep a careful eye out for evil...it always creeps in where we least expect it. :cool:


Ya know John, while we don't agree on much, I agree with alot of what you said. I would clarify though that the division in this country isn't so much Lib/Conservative... Its Dem/Republican. The division is Party not idology, the reason I know this, is because Clinton and Bush have been two of the more moderate presidents in history, and the opposition party has done nothing but revile and besmirch them.

jabob
06-08-2007, 08:13 AM
Hey, I only brought up the staunch conservative here because you did. I just did not want the idea that noone would be surprised left out there. No doubt we must be vigilant in watching our government. However, let us not forget that the change comes at the ballot box.

jabob
06-08-2007, 08:16 AM
The division is Party not idology, the reason I know this, is because Clinton and Bush have been two of the more moderate presidents in history, and the opposition party has done nothing but revile and besmirch them.

I think you are right that the leaders are divided by party; but I do not think that is necessarily the case in the general populous (at least those who vote). If so, Kerry would be our president right now. BTW: I cannot call Clinton a moderate.

cheewiee
06-08-2007, 11:44 AM
I think you are right that the leaders are divided by party; but I do not think that is necessarily the case in the general populous (at least those who vote). If so, Kerry would be our president right now. BTW: I cannot call Clinton a moderate.

Why, because he supports gay rights and abortion?

The guy worked for welfare reform (That republicans wanted), his economic policies favored big business (Hence Enron, Tyco, and all of those other wonderful scandels happened), and he was a NeoCon when it came to foreign policy, hence the nation building attemps in Eastern Europe and Africa during his administration.

Martyred
06-08-2007, 03:12 PM
I don't trust our government, plain and simple

RevZeek
06-08-2007, 03:51 PM
...and remember friends, you can't spell crap without AP.

The word that stuck out the most to me was "reportedly."

I'm with Gandalf on this one.

jabob
06-08-2007, 05:32 PM
Why, because he supports gay rights and abortion?

The guy worked for welfare reform (That republicans wanted), his economic policies favored big business (Hence Enron, Tyco, and all of those other wonderful scandels happened), and he was a NeoCon when it came to foreign policy, hence the nation building attemps in Eastern Europe and Africa during his administration.

I said nothing about gay rights or abortion. I'll clarify my position this way; Bill Clinton did indeed support more moderate policies when it was politically expedient. His liberalism comes in the classic form of seemingly wanting everyone dependant on a large, federal government. I think the NeoCon tag is closet racism.

cheewiee
06-08-2007, 07:41 PM
I said nothing about gay rights or abortion. I'll clarify my position this way; Bill Clinton did indeed support more moderate policies when it was politically expedient. His liberalism comes in the classic form of seemingly wanting everyone dependant on a large, federal government. I think the NeoCon tag is closet racism.

Do you even know what classical liberalisim is? I would almost guarantee that if you knew what the definition you would be a liberal in the classic form of the word...


Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism[2]) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill,[3] and others.

jabob
06-08-2007, 09:01 PM
Do you even know what classical liberalisim is? I would almost guarantee that if you knew what the definition you would be a liberal in the classic form of the word...

I am a "liberal" under that definition. But let's face it; in the current climate and language of our culture that is not the definition understood by most. The idea is that Clinton exhibited classic -as in typical - current liberal idealologies. So in the current times, I am a conservative even though I hold the views of the people you mentioned in high regard.

TLJ
06-08-2007, 09:34 PM
Thats the problem...people think about this country in 2 ways...Liberal and Conservative. This is what THEY want...division. People refusing to cross "party lines" and stand up for whats right....people refusing to believe that a politcian...or administration or officials deep within our Govt, are corrupt. The politics stops people from focusing on the facts....the american people and our rights.

Secondly, these conspiracy theorists get it all wrong when they attack the President and/or his administration surmising he did this and that. If it was an inside job, it could ahve been perpetrated by a small group of people in any division of Govt. Bush just followed thru with the plan, not knowing what had happened. There's a bunch of ways to look at it and blaming Bush without direct proof makes it MORE unbelievable and political.

However, we always have to ask ourselves how much we trust our Govt. I say not at all...therefore I am open to all possibilities....even absurd ones. For 1000 yrs the RCC ruled the world and people backed them. Germans REFUSED to believe the atrocties that the Nazi's were being accused of....but weren't so proud when the films and testimonies surfaced.

We must always keep a careful eye out for evil...it always creeps in where we least expect it. :cool:

I'm not supporting that the article has any merit, but with regard to your comments about trusting the government, one need only to recall the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study, in which poor black men were allowed to suffer for decades, long after penicillin became available, for the purpose of government research.

bvc
06-09-2007, 07:14 PM
After reading your post I saw the Scripps News thing... I find it dubious, not only for the small sampling, but the article did not state the actual verbage from the question...That's standard. Actually 1000 is higher than standard. Not naming names, because I worked there for 3 years and can't, but one of the most respected polling firms only gets 500 respondents after Presidential speeches or big news items, and those 500 are from east to west coast in chosen demographic locations ;) . It's takes all of 15 minutes and we're done. Knowing this, it's a hoot to hear smucks on the radio spout out the results as if it means anything.

However, people that think some of the conspiracy theories have no foundation, don't even know the foundation so it's natural and easy for them to dismiss....they can just keep on believing those Rockefeller Published books that were crammed down their throats from child hood.

Evanescence
06-09-2007, 10:43 PM
I'm not supporting that the article has any merit, but with regard to your comments about trusting the government, one need only to recall the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study, in which poor black men were allowed to suffer for decades, long after penicillin became available, for the purpose of government research.

Back now guys...I was away at work....

This is very disturing and interesting.....thanks for posting this. Its also not surprising...

Imagine how many other things like this ALSO happened and/or are happening? How about that recent movie about what happened in Africa...with the pharmacuetical companies tricking whole villages into being their guinea pigs, using vaccines as bait? It starred that actress, Rachel Weiise....

Thats a true story...

BTW- The original article is accurate and common knowledge...