CONS: Project Northwoods. America's plan to attack America., page 7
posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:18 PM
wp: Nayirah
But Frieda Construe-Nag and Myra Ancog Cooke, two real maternity nurses who were actually in that ward, would say they had never seen Nayirah there and that the baby-dumping had never happened.
Coerced nurses? What the hell you talking about? I shouldn't question your knowledge? I question the very basics of your reading comprehension. Try again:
"Nurse Nayirah" was a creation of Hill & Knowlton for promoting the 1991 Gulf War.
jsobeckySeems to me that the US gov't would have wanted to maximize casualties for optimum effect.
Hardly. Northwoods called for unmanned drones to explode, while the WTC was attacked early and the Pentagon hit in the least populated wing (Still, they somwhow managed to lose documents necessary to track 2.3 trillion dollars there - maybe someone should've made a backup...(not that I think noone did)).
[edit on 11-1-2006 by Lumos]
posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 07:04 PM
The no-holds-barred pre-emptive strike and damm the torpedoes New America?
posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 08:32 PM
Ah... but the US government didn't time the event. They were just ready for it. The terrorists planned and executed it. The government was just standing by ready to capitalize on it whenever it happened. As it was, they totalled the buildings for optimum effect.
OK. Of course they did not time the event, and how did they capitalize on it? (and don't say we went to war in Iraq, be more creative). They totaled the buildings, huh? Do a little more research and realize that those towers came down based on the jet fuel that flowed down the elevator shafts and that destroyed the fireproofing in the columns and destroyed theinfrastructure of the building. check out the National Geo sight for a good timeline. Back to Northwoods...
posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 08:44 PM
OK. Of course they did not time the event, and how did they capitalize on it? (and don't say we went to war in Iraq, be more creative).
I like how you ask me a question and then tell me how not to answer it! That goes over real well with me!
Besides, I already answered your question in a post on the previous page.
They capitalized on it by allowing it to happen, pre-planting explosives in WTC1, 2 and 7 to bring them down and then using the whole catastrophic event as a justification for the war on terror and ultimately the war in Iraq.
You want me to read National Geographic to see how the buildings came down? Please!
posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:34 PM
I just want to make a few points about it as regards me and my beliefs, if you'll allow the slightly off-topic post.
The truth is i have to have faith in my country...
I also have to have faith in my country. And I do. I have great faith in this country and the standards and morals upon which it was built. I have unending faith in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I am a patriot and I would die for my country.
The people and our rights are the heart of this country. The government is only there by our request and at our service to secure our rights. That's their job...
That, too, is how I feel.
It also worries me how so many appear to have no problem with our government just conceiving such a plan. The excuse that it was not executed upon is not the problem I have with the issue. They were planning on lying to us...
I have no clue whether Northwoods is somehow connected to 911...but I am more doubtful now, than was previously the case. Is that to be unexpected? Is that an extreme position? Given the uncomfortable similarity between the Northwood plan and 911, I'd say not being suspicious would be extreme.
American patriotism and holding government accountable are one in the same. It is why so many sacrificed their lives...to obtain our free society. Since then, it has only ever been ours to lose.
Belief in one's god and belief in one's country are not the same. You may have faith in one, but must remain vigilent with the other. It has been the premise of our nation from the very beginning.
We have traveled much further down the rabbit hole than I ever realized.
[edit on 11-1-2006 by loam]
posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:59 PM
It is not that I have no problem with corruption in politics, it is the fact that one day you realize how it actually works and realize that if you can never attain the office of president, then go to you local government, and run for a commision post, or if you have kids, become the president of the PTA and try make a difference.
From a moral standpoint it appals me that any government would work in the way that is suggested in the Northwoods document, but in reality, which the world is based, bad people do bad things. Guess what folks, most politicians have an agenda, and this is no different than any time in history. It is a rarity to see a politican doing anything for the good of the public.
I am not even going to start with the 'planted explosives' in the WTC buildings. and what is wrong with National Geographic, is it not Peole or Us weekly so it is not a good read or credible or are they a PNAC/GOP mouthpiece?
posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:47 PM
Here is the problem I have with that view...
It is a speech of acceptance...it is a speech of defeat. If you do not object, what is left that stands in the way of how government behaves?
We are not free, if we are lied to by government. It removes your constitutionally protected right to meaningful participation in our democracy. If government can deceitfully attack the very information you use to base an opinion...YOU HAVE NO OPINION THAT IS YOURS. It is the government's.
That is not freedom. That is the first stepping stone to tyranny.
posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 03:18 AM
Does anyone think Bush has the strong moral character of JFK?
I personally think Bush has a stronger moral character that JFK did.
posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 03:48 AM
If you do not object, what is left that stands in the way of how government behaves?
What is left is the only thing that was ever there to begin with--the people. The most important governmental thing any normal citizen ever gets to do is VOTE. If we do our very best to elect representatives who are honest and have high moral values then we have done our best to insure good behavior by the resulting government. Our representatives, be they school board members, city councelmen, state governors, senators, or the president reflect our joint desires. If we don't take the time to find out what our prospective representatives might do, or how they might act in certain situations then we have no one to blame but ourselves. If our consesus opinion is that all politicians are dishonest and work only for themselves we should be ashamed since we elected those people. If you think good men and women are being rejected at the polls then help them--volunteer your time and talents to help good men and women get elected. However, if you don't vote and don't get involved in politics then you have very little complaint coming.
posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:31 AM
If you look closely enough at the history of U.S. wars, you may well find as I have that scenarios like Operation Northwoods are the rule, not the exception. And this is by no means a phenomenon unique to the U.S.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the Reichstag Fire are commonly cited examples of this sort of thing, and have been mentioned here. Another classic example courtesy of the Third Reich was the pretext used to invade Poland in 1939.
But getting back to the U.S. specifically, if you look back at least to the Spanish-American War – and even earlier – you will find that every war the U.S. has gotten involved in has featured similar forms of “provocation”.
In fact, it can be reasonably argued that such incidents even led to the first U.S. war.
It is arguable as to how many such “pretext” incidents have been deliberately staged, opportunistic or genuine, but the fingerprints of a Hidden Hand can be found on virtually every one of them.
“Remember the Maine!” was the battle-cry for the Spanish-American war, but it is still unclear to this day, over a century later, what actually sunk the USS Maine. And to date, the least probable cause was an attack by Spain.
But that ultimately doesn't matter, does it?
The pattern of staged pretexts for war is so prevalent that -- as far as I can tell -- for over a century the U.S. hasn't entered a single war without one.
In that context, an Operation Northwoods (part of the Cuba Project) is shocking not because it was planned, but because it wasn't carried out.
The Cuba Project was a failure and ultimately abandoned, which is why Castro remains in power to this day. There are other such projects which have failed elsewhere, but they quickly fade from memory.
My point is this: there have been so many wars started this way that when a new pretext for war surfaces, it is reasonable to presume that it was deliberately planned unless conclusively proven otherwise.
That is not “innocent until proven guilty”, but this isn't a court of law, either. Also, the “accused” aren't citizens, but governments, and those who would rule their governments rather than be ruled by them should never trust them.
I invite anyone who is doubtful (a reasonable position, I might add) of my thesis regarding staged pretexts and U.S. wars to present an example of a war the U.S. has engaged in within the past century that can be conclusively demonstrated not to have involved a planned pretext.
As an example of how difficult meeting my challenge can be, I offer WWII. Legitimate, significant, troubling and unresolved questions remain more than six decades later regarding the circumstances surrounding the impetus for the U.S. entry into the war.
The very phrase “Pearl Harbor” is now a synonym for such a pretext, and was indeed the very event which motivated an otherwise reluctant America to embrace a war it did not want.
People have used that same phrase to describe 9-11.
The northwood project. reminds me of Project for a New American Century especially the "Rebuilding America's Defenses Report"
[edit on 13-1-2006 by shyataroo]
posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:14 PM
This reminds me of Project for a New American Century especially the "Rebuilding America's Defenses Report"
What does rebuilding America's defenses Report reminds you of?
There are many countries currently increasing their defensive and offensive military weaponry, should the U.S. do any less?
posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:19 PM
The US is already #1 in that aspect. I think taxpayer's are going to be asking, "How damn much do you need?" in the near future.
posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:28 PM
Look for the next "Two out ot Three Amigos Conspiracy Show" tonight. We're going to cover this topoc and then ensure it's promoted well in all the typical podcast directories. I'd like to encourage all our podcasting members to add your own research and observations to develop a compelling podthread.
posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:34 PM
I think taxpayer's are going to be asking, "How damn much do you need?" in the near future.
Pffft! They should be asking that right now!
Less relevant, but:
We spend more on our military than all other nations on Earth combined. It's like 51% to 49% or so as of the last figure I saw, with the US alone representing 51% of all military spending on Earth.
The amounts of money corporations make from this kind of spending is insane.
And they make even more when there's a good excuse for a lot of spending, like, oh, say... WAR.
But how do you get war when there's no threat?
Invent a threat.
posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:54 PM
No threat huh? i guess you are living in a world where everyone loves everyone else and everyone in the world wakes up with flowers and letters from everyone else in the world wishing them good fortune, peace and harmony.
I can see it now, Islamic radicals giving up their old ways and instead giving flowers and embracing all westerners they see...
Or China allowing Taiwan to declare itself independent by signing a Taiwanese constitution...
Or every country in the world finding a new free energy device hence all conflicts over resources end.... etc, etc.
Tell me which world are you living in so that I might go there please.....
BTW, tell us bs, did the U.S. go alone to fight in Afghanistan?.....
I think anyone can see the obvious bias in that site....
posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:03 PM
There would be no immediate threats that people would actually want to face if not for 9/11, which apparently opened up the whole Mid-East in general for war campaigns. Without 9/11, we would not be at war right now, and even if you think al Qaeda was solely responsible, who do you think set that organization up and gave it form? North Korea?
Well, figure up a ratio of US troops to others, and then divide up the Afghani civilian casualties similarly. I'm pretty confident the number would still be much higher than 3000 or etc.
[edit on 13-1-2006 by bsbray11]
posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:04 PM
Look for the next "Two out ot Three Amigos Conspiracy Show" tonight. We're going to cover this topoc and then ensure it's promoted well in all the typical podcast directories.
All Right!!!! I was hoping someone would take this to podville
I'm warming up my mic and getting ready to respond. This will be even more fun discussing live then having to keep typing my responses.
posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 06:00 PM
Considering we already spend 22 times as much as the next 5 ( I think) countries combined on millitary... no I think we spend enough.
A line frequently quoted from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts” (page 50). The full quote is as follows: "Further, 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." Some opponents of the Bush administration have used this quote as evidence for their belief that the US Government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. See the article 9/11 conspiracy theories for further information on this topic. Many critics also claim that the PNAC believed this "new Pearl Harbor" would justify war on Iraq.
Look for the next "Two out ot Three Amigos Conspiracy Show" tonight. ...
All right! I'll be there!
CONS: Project Northwoods. America's plan to attack America., page 7
posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 06:18 PM
wp: Nayirah
But Frieda Construe-Nag and Myra Ancog Cooke, two real maternity nurses who were actually in that ward, would say they had never seen Nayirah there and that the baby-dumping had never happened.
Coerced nurses? What the hell you talking about? I shouldn't question your knowledge? I question the very basics of your reading comprehension. Try again:
"Nurse Nayirah" was a creation of Hill & Knowlton for promoting the 1991 Gulf War.
jsobeckySeems to me that the US gov't would have wanted to maximize casualties for optimum effect.
Hardly. Northwoods called for unmanned drones to explode, while the WTC was attacked early and the Pentagon hit in the least populated wing (Still, they somwhow managed to lose documents necessary to track 2.3 trillion dollars there - maybe someone should've made a backup...(not that I think noone did)).
[edit on 11-1-2006 by Lumos]
posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 07:04 PM
The no-holds-barred pre-emptive strike and damm the torpedoes New America?
posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 08:32 PM
Ah... but the US government didn't time the event. They were just ready for it. The terrorists planned and executed it. The government was just standing by ready to capitalize on it whenever it happened. As it was, they totalled the buildings for optimum effect.
OK. Of course they did not time the event, and how did they capitalize on it? (and don't say we went to war in Iraq, be more creative). They totaled the buildings, huh? Do a little more research and realize that those towers came down based on the jet fuel that flowed down the elevator shafts and that destroyed the fireproofing in the columns and destroyed theinfrastructure of the building. check out the National Geo sight for a good timeline. Back to Northwoods...
posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 08:44 PM
OK. Of course they did not time the event, and how did they capitalize on it? (and don't say we went to war in Iraq, be more creative).
I like how you ask me a question and then tell me how not to answer it! That goes over real well with me!
Besides, I already answered your question in a post on the previous page.
They capitalized on it by allowing it to happen, pre-planting explosives in WTC1, 2 and 7 to bring them down and then using the whole catastrophic event as a justification for the war on terror and ultimately the war in Iraq.
You want me to read National Geographic to see how the buildings came down? Please!
posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:34 PM
I just want to make a few points about it as regards me and my beliefs, if you'll allow the slightly off-topic post.
The truth is i have to have faith in my country...
I also have to have faith in my country. And I do. I have great faith in this country and the standards and morals upon which it was built. I have unending faith in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I am a patriot and I would die for my country.
The people and our rights are the heart of this country. The government is only there by our request and at our service to secure our rights. That's their job...
That, too, is how I feel.
It also worries me how so many appear to have no problem with our government just conceiving such a plan. The excuse that it was not executed upon is not the problem I have with the issue. They were planning on lying to us...
I have no clue whether Northwoods is somehow connected to 911...but I am more doubtful now, than was previously the case. Is that to be unexpected? Is that an extreme position? Given the uncomfortable similarity between the Northwood plan and 911, I'd say not being suspicious would be extreme.
American patriotism and holding government accountable are one in the same. It is why so many sacrificed their lives...to obtain our free society. Since then, it has only ever been ours to lose.
Belief in one's god and belief in one's country are not the same. You may have faith in one, but must remain vigilent with the other. It has been the premise of our nation from the very beginning.
We have traveled much further down the rabbit hole than I ever realized.
[edit on 11-1-2006 by loam]
posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:59 PM
It is not that I have no problem with corruption in politics, it is the fact that one day you realize how it actually works and realize that if you can never attain the office of president, then go to you local government, and run for a commision post, or if you have kids, become the president of the PTA and try make a difference.
From a moral standpoint it appals me that any government would work in the way that is suggested in the Northwoods document, but in reality, which the world is based, bad people do bad things. Guess what folks, most politicians have an agenda, and this is no different than any time in history. It is a rarity to see a politican doing anything for the good of the public.
I am not even going to start with the 'planted explosives' in the WTC buildings. and what is wrong with National Geographic, is it not Peole or Us weekly so it is not a good read or credible or are they a PNAC/GOP mouthpiece?
posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:47 PM
Here is the problem I have with that view...
It is a speech of acceptance...it is a speech of defeat. If you do not object, what is left that stands in the way of how government behaves?
We are not free, if we are lied to by government. It removes your constitutionally protected right to meaningful participation in our democracy. If government can deceitfully attack the very information you use to base an opinion...YOU HAVE NO OPINION THAT IS YOURS. It is the government's.
That is not freedom. That is the first stepping stone to tyranny.
posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 03:18 AM
Does anyone think Bush has the strong moral character of JFK?
I personally think Bush has a stronger moral character that JFK did.
posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 03:48 AM
If you do not object, what is left that stands in the way of how government behaves?
What is left is the only thing that was ever there to begin with--the people. The most important governmental thing any normal citizen ever gets to do is VOTE. If we do our very best to elect representatives who are honest and have high moral values then we have done our best to insure good behavior by the resulting government. Our representatives, be they school board members, city councelmen, state governors, senators, or the president reflect our joint desires. If we don't take the time to find out what our prospective representatives might do, or how they might act in certain situations then we have no one to blame but ourselves. If our consesus opinion is that all politicians are dishonest and work only for themselves we should be ashamed since we elected those people. If you think good men and women are being rejected at the polls then help them--volunteer your time and talents to help good men and women get elected. However, if you don't vote and don't get involved in politics then you have very little complaint coming.
posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:31 AM
If you look closely enough at the history of U.S. wars, you may well find as I have that scenarios like Operation Northwoods are the rule, not the exception. And this is by no means a phenomenon unique to the U.S.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident a
nd the Reichstag Fire are commonly cited examples of this sort of thing, and have been mentioned here. Another classic example courtesy of the Third Reich was the pretext used to invade Poland in 1939.
But getting back to the U.S. specifically, if you look back at least to the Spanish-American War – and even earlier – you will find that every war the U.S. has gotten involved in has featured similar forms of “provocation”.
In fact, it can be reasonably argued that such incidents even led to the first U.S. war.
It is arguable as to how many such “pretext” incidents have been deliberately staged, opportunistic or genuine, but the fingerprints of a Hidden Hand can be found on virtually every one of them.
“Remember the Maine!” was the battle-cry for the Spanish-American war, but it is still unclear to this day, over a century later, what actually sunk the USS Maine. And to date, the least probable cause was an attack by Spain.
But that ultimately doesn't matter, does it?
The pattern of staged pretexts for war is so prevalent that -- as far as I can tell -- for over a century the U.S. hasn't entered a single war without one.
In that context, an Operation Northwoods (part of the Cuba Project) is shocking not because it was planned, but because it wasn't carried out.
The Cuba Project was a failure and ultimately abandoned, which is why Castro remains in power to this day. There are other such projects which have failed elsewhere, but they quickly fade from memory.
My point is this: there have been so many wars started this way that when a new pretext for war surfaces, it is reasonable to presume that it was deliberately planned unless conclusively proven otherwise.
That is not “innocent until proven guilty”, but this isn't a court of law, either. Also, the “accused” aren't citizens, but governments, and those who would rule their governments rather than be ruled by them should never trust them.
I invite anyone who is doubtful (a reasonable position, I might add) of my thesis regarding staged pretexts and U.S. wars to present an example of a war the U.S. has engaged in within the past century that can be conclusively demonstrated not to have involved a planned pretext.
As an example of how difficult meeting my challenge can be, I offer WWII. Legitimate, significant, troubling and unresolved questions remain more than six decades later regarding the circumstances surrounding the impetus for the U.S. entry into the war.
The very phrase “Pearl Harbor” is now a synonym for such a pretext, and was indeed the very event which motivated an otherwise reluctant America to embrace a war it did not want.
People have used that same phrase to describe 9-11.
The northwood project. reminds me of Project for a New American Century especially the "Rebuilding America's Defenses Report"
[edit on 13-1-2006 by shyataroo]
posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:14 PM
This reminds me of Project for a New American Century especially the "Rebuilding America's Defenses Report"
What does rebuilding America's defenses Report reminds you of?
There are many countries currently increasing their defensive and offensive military weaponry, should the U.S. do any less?
posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:19 PM
The US is already #1 in that aspect. I think taxpayer's are going to be asking, "How damn much do you need?" in the near future.
posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:28 PM
Look for the next "Two out ot Three Amigos Conspiracy Show" tonight. We're going to cover this topoc and then ensure it's promoted well in all the typical podcast directories. I'd like to encourage all our podcasting members to add your own research and observations to develop a compelling podthread.
posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:34 PM
I think taxpayer's are going to be asking, "How damn much do you need?" in the near future.
Pffft! They should be asking that right now!
Less relevant, but:
We spend more on our military than all other nations on Earth combined. It's like 51% to 49% or so as of the last figure I saw, with the US alone representing 51% of all military spending on Earth.
The amounts of money corporations make from this kind of spending is insane.
And they make even more when there's a good excuse for a lot of spending, like, oh, say... WAR.
But how do you get war when there's no threat?
Invent a threat.
posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:54 PM
No threat huh? i guess you are living in a world where everyone loves everyone else and everyone in the world wakes up with flowers and letters from everyone else in the world wishing them good fortune, peace and harmony.
I can see it now, Islamic radicals giving up their old ways and instead giving flowers and embracing all westerners they see...
Or China allowing Taiwan to declare itself independent by signing a Taiwanese constitution...
Or every country in the world finding a new free energy device hence all conflicts over resources end.... etc, etc.
Tell me which world are you living in so that I might go there please.....
BTW, tell us bs, did the U.S. go alone to fight in Afghanistan?.....
I think anyone can see the obvious bias in that site....
posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:03 PM
There would be no immediate threats that people would actually want to face if not for 9/11, which apparently opened up the whole Mid-East in general for war campaigns. Without 9/11, we would not be at war right now, and even if you think al Qaeda was solely responsible, who do you think set that organization up and gave it form? North Korea?
Well, figure up a ratio of US troops to others, and then divide up the Afghani civilian casualties similarly. I'm pretty confident the number would still be much higher than 3000 or etc.
[edit on 13-1-2006 by bsbray11]
posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:04 PM
Look for the next "Two out ot Three Amigos Conspiracy Show" tonight. We're going to cover this topoc and then ensure it's promoted well in all the typical podcast directories.
All Right!!!! I was hoping someone would take this to podville
I'm warming up my mic and getting ready to respond. This will be even more fun discussing live then having to keep typing my responses.
posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 06:00 PM
Considering we already spend 22 times as much as the next 5 ( I think) countries combined on millitary... no I think we spend enough.
A line frequently quoted from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts” (page 50). The full quote is as follows: "Further, 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." Some opponents of the Bush administration have used this quote as evidence for their belief that the US Government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. See the article 9/11 conspiracy theories for further information on this topic. Many critics also claim that the PNAC believed this "new Pearl Harbor" would justify war on Iraq.
Look for the next "Two out ot Three Amigos Conspiracy Show" tonight. ...
All right! I'll be there!