ABC News: U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba

[sclone]

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.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

If you read this, but can still blindly discard even the most remote possibility that the government had any involvement in 911, then you're the kook.

EDIT: PS I know this article is really old.

[FreeTheCricket]

Give it up, loser. Find something else to talk about.

[Multiple Miggs]

N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001
I heard Michael Jordan might be making a comeback with the Wizards.

[sclone]

I heard Michael Jordan might be making a comeback with the Wizards.

I'm assuming your point is that because an historically significant article was written five years ago, it's irrelevant?

[Madness]

Well..... if that story was really that credible it wouldn't be a forgotten little item not even on CNN.com that you had to dig up.

[sclone]

Well..... if that story was really that credible it wouldn't be a forgotten little item not even on CNN.com that you had to dig up.

You can download the entire unclassified document from a university web site here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

Is that still not credible?

And since when did sensationalist media coverage justify a news item's importance?

[Madness]

You convently left out that it was in some book written by someone in the article you posted. I don't lend any credibility to someone trying to sell a book. Never have, never will.

So they had drawn up some plans. That's what the military does. I'm sure they've drawn up plans on what happens if little green men from Mars show up one day.

[Coffee Diva]

Is that still not credible?

The problem isn't the item's credibility. The problem is that you're trying to use something from 45 years ago as "evidence" that the Bush Administration is somehow complicit in 9/11.

It doesn't work.

1) The government, especially the military, is always drawing up goofy plans. Somewhere, right now, people in the Pentagon are hard at work on plans to invade Canada. Others are working on ways to assassinate the prime minister of Iceland. Others are plotting how to respond to an alien invasion from outer space. None of these plans will ever be used; they'll be thrown into a big "just-in-case" database, and then in a year or so they'll be pulled out and rewritten all over again, just in case.

(If you actually read the ABC article you linked, you'll note that the entire civilian leadership of the Kennedy Administration dismissed the entire Operation Northwoods plan out of hand, and the military tried to clamp down on it for decades because the ideas were so goddamn stupid that they were embarrassed by them.)

2) Everyone involved in producing the Operation Northwoods plans is either retired or dead. The federal government of 2006 is not the federal government of 1962. Hell, the federal government of January 20, 2001 wasn't even the same one that was running things on January 19, 2001. You can't make blame Bush for anything that happened during the Kennedy years.

If you want to make the argument that human beings are capable of really dumbass ideas, and that our government is actually made up of human beings, fair enough. But that's about it.

[sclone]

You convently left out that it was in some book written by someone in the article you posted. I don't lend any credibility to someone trying to sell a book. Never have, never will.

How does the fact that an author is involved change anything? These were documents that were declassified by the JFK Assassination Records Review Board. There is no argument of their existence.

So add to the list:

1) Because an article is old, it's irrelevant.
2) Because a topic doesn't get heavy traffic in the joke that is the mainstream media, it's irrelevant.
3) Because a book was written about a topic, it's no longer a valid discussion point.

[sclone]

The problem isn't the item's credibility. The problem is that you're trying to use something from 45 years ago as "evidence" that the Bush Administration is somehow complicit in 9/11.

Actually, no I'm not. If you actually read my footnote, you'd realize that I was only making the point that giving thought to these issues doesn't make you a kook.

And these weren't just pesky ideas dreamed up by military teams that do nothing but think up irrelevant fantasies. It was proposed by Lyman Louis Lemnitzer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[Madness]

How does the fact that an author is involved change anything? These were documents that were declassified by the JFK Assassination Records Review Board. There is no argument of their existence.

So add to the list:

1) Because an article is old, it's irrelevant.
2) Because a topic doesn't get heavy traffic in the joke that is the mainstream media, it's irrelevant.
3) Because a book was written about a topic, it's no longer a valid discussion point.

Yes, an author saying something while trying to sell a book does effect his credibility. People are always writing bullshit in their little books to try and make themselves seem more important or to take a situation and scandalize it more so that people will buy the book. After the second link, it is credible but I still wouldn't believe someone peddling their wares right away.

It also doesn't help your cause when you post an article that's almost 5 years old. It comes across like you're really reaching. Especially here where certain posters try to drag up any little tidbit of info to try and fuel their conspiracy theories about 9-11. You're not the person I'm thinking of when I write that though.

You also ignored my second paragraph. They were plans. It's what the military does. Should I believe the government might try a 9-11 conspiracy because 50 years ago they tried to estamate what civilian losses would be like if we fired the first shot of the nuclear holocaust in the Cold War? They've also tried to figure out how to train dolphins for underwater warfare.

[The Lurker]

The problem isn't the item's credibility. The problem is that you're trying to use something from 45 years ago as "evidence" that the Bush Administration is somehow complicit in 9/11.

It doesn't work.

1) The government, especially the military, is always drawing up goofy plans. Somewhere, right now, people in the Pentagon are hard at work on plans to invade Canada. Others are working on ways to assassinate the prime minister of Iceland. Others are plotting how to respond to an alien invasion from outer space. None of these plans will ever be used; they'll be thrown into a big "just-in-case" database, and then in a year or so they'll be pulled out and rewritten all over again, just in case.

(If you actually read the ABC article you linked, you'll note that the entire civilian leadership of the Kennedy Administration dismissed the entire Operation Northwoods plan out of hand, and the military tried to clamp down on it for decades because the ideas were so goddamn stupid that they were embarrassed by them.)

2) Everyone involved in producing the Operation Northwoods plans is either retired or dead. The federal government of 2006 is not the federal government of 1962. Hell, the federal government of January 20, 2001 wasn't even the same one that was running things on January 19, 2001. You can't make blame Bush for anything that happened during the Kennedy years.

If you want to make the argument that human beings are capable of really dumbass ideas, and that our government is actually made up of human beings, fair enough. But that's about it.


And boom goes the dynamite.

When are you people going to stop with the "Bush had a hand in 9/11 so he could invade Iraq" bullshit? You are comparing apples to oranges. This entire thread is useless.

[TimTA95]

Sure Bush probably didn't have a direct hand with 9/11 but its very possible that he let it happen so he can get us into this fucking mess.

[abudabit]

Sure Bush probably didn't have a direct hand with 9/11 but its very possible that he let it happen so he can get us into this fucking mess.

It's also possible that he and Clinton exchanged ass sex to comemorate the transition of the office, but possible doesn't = likely.

[The Lurker]

It's also possible that he and Clinton exchanged ass sex to comemorate the transition of the office, but possible doesn't = likely.

Ha! That actually made me laugh. Good job. :clap:

[MJMANDALAY]

I was excited for a minute when I saw this thread. I was thinking of all the cigars and classic cars I could get my hands on if we took over Cuba. Oh well...............

[YourAmishDaddy]

At this point, people have their minds made up. The futility in trying to change those minds in either case is pretty much overwhelming.

[Fruit Monkey]

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.


uh uh uh what ? oh i get it now just the most devasting ones remained my ass! and after 9-11 happend my ass i say b s these would came out long ago had they been even close to true

[LiddyRules]

I'm a conspiracy theorist. I believe the government had clues about 9/11 but let it go for their own nefarious purposes. Even if you don't, you have to admit that 9/11 was and still is the greatest thing to happen to Bush in all of his presidency. I believe the same for Pearl Harbor. I believe the same for the Maine.

I don't think the government planned it. I don't think there were explosives. I don't think there were fake planes.

Also remember the 1960s was a FAR different time. I'm not saying the government still doesn't do covert shit but if they do, for the most part it's overseas. A full-scale operation like the one required for a 9/11 type attack is not something easily hideable.

[The Lurker]

I'm a conspiracy theorist. I believe the government had clues about 9/11 but let it go for their own nefarious purposes. Even if you don't, you have to admit that 9/11 was and still is the greatest thing to happen to Bush in all of his presidency.

I too think that CERTAIN PEOPLE in the various intelligence agencies had a pretty idea that something would happen. I don't think Bush knew, and I don't think those who did know had a concrete date in mind. I think various people heard "chatter", as it has been called, and formulated an idea of what would go down, and were utterly ignored by BOTH the Clinton admin and Bush's.

I don't think anybody in the US government did anything sinister in any of this.

[B54]

The government always comes up with various plans, but treat it just as a bill, just because it was introduced, does not mean it will become law. I do not believe George Bush was behind the attacks and knew about them, but it was known an attack like this was possible sometime in the future. In 2000, FEMA had a scenerio where the WTC Towers were attacked and the front picture even had them in crosshairs. I do not believe you can hold the government responsible, but it is unlikely someone did not know that there was a chance it could happen.

[mrhan73]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

If you read this, but can still blindly discard even the most remote possibility that the government had any involvement in 911, then you're the kook.

EDIT: PS I know this article is really old.
It's the first thing you see in the documentary "Loosechange911"
Kennedy was pissed when he read the Northwoods report and shitcanned the general who came up with this shit.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change&pl=true

[mrhan73]

http://emperors-clothes.com/images/north-8.htm

Northwoods documents

[HockeyHelmet]

The difference between then and now is back then most people probably thought they could get away with it, and besides it got canned so it means squat. And I am sure the guy who got canned wasn't the only person holding a position in office that thought it would work, probably part of the reason for JKF being shot.

I just love when people try to be different and try to stir up shit.

Did we bomb pearl harbor with our own planes with a certain nation's slanty eyed flag painted on it?

A lot of us, especially from NY lost friends and family from this, the LAST thing we want is to hear goofy shit about how our Goverment was ivolved.

[Diceman Cometh]

At this point, people have their minds made up. The futility in trying to change those minds in either case is pretty much overwhelming.


Not true. Some people have open minds and are willing to listen.

I personally did not know about this document, and, after reading it, I am absolutely amazed by it. This does not automatically mean that the government orchestrated 9-11 (a notion I have never seriously entertained until maybe now), but it's still extremely disturbing, and thought-provoking, to say the least. The fact that you people can't admit as much really baffles me.

Thanks sclone.

[mrhan73]

A lot of us, especially from NY lost friends and family from this, the LAST thing we want is to hear goofy shit about how our Goverment was ivolved.[/QUOTE]----------------------------------------------------------
I guess to people it would be goofy,but there's still alot of questions that need to be answered.Cell phones working at that altitude? The stock shit with the airlines going on before the attacks.Nine of the sixteen so called hijackers being found alive by the B.B.C.WTC 7and the four different stories about why it fell or "pulled".My theory is someone high up knew and let or assisted in these attacks to get the American people you and i to back up this bullshit war in Iraq it's about oil and money not about freedom if it was about freedom the first Bush would have finished the job.It's going to be one world sooner than you think no more countries just one world ,one goverment.

[sclone]

I was excited for a minute when I saw this thread. I was thinking of all the cigars and classic cars I could get my hands on if we took over Cuba. Oh well...............

Sorry I wasted your time. Incidentally, is that a picture of your own bicep in a mirror?

[LiddyRules]

A lot of us, especially from NY lost friends and family from this, the LAST thing we want is to hear goofy shit about how our Goverment was ivolved. This statement pisses me off. I'm from NY too. If the Government was involved, I'd want to hear about it. If there are unanswered questions, I'd want them answered. There are questions I haven't thought of and I want to hear them asked SO I think about it. I don't want "Well people died so don't question what happened b/c it would make people sad." That's such a mindnumbingly bad statement.

How is that any different from saying "People died in Iraq. Don't question the war or if the government knows what it's doing." or "People died in Vietnam. Criticizing the government'll make them feel bad so don't do it."

[sclone]

This statement pisses me off. I'm from NY too. If the Government was involved, I'd want to hear about it. If there are unanswered questions, I'd want them answered. There are questions I haven't thought of and I want to hear them asked SO I think about it. I don't want "Well people died so don't question what happened b/c it would make people sad." That's such a mindnumbingly bad statement.

How is that any different from saying "People died in Iraq. Don't question the war or if the government knows what it's doing." or "People died in Vietnam. Criticizing the government'll make them feel bad so don't do it."

Agree 100%.

[DoughBoy]

This statement pisses me off. I'm from NY too. If the Government was involved, I'd want to hear about it. If there are unanswered questions, I'd want them answered. There are questions I haven't thought of and I want to hear them asked SO I think about it. I don't want "Well people died so don't question what happened b/c it would make people sad." That's such a mindnumbingly bad statement.

How is that any different from saying "People died in Iraq. Don't question the war or if the government knows what it's doing." or "People died in Vietnam. Criticizing the government'll make them feel bad so don't do it."

Because the majority of the time, the stories that you're being told are from those with just as big of an agenda as the people they're telling stories about.

Partisian politics is for suckers. Taking a rational step backwards to look at the whole picture and judge what is really true... not just what your party tells you to think, is the best thing in the world.

[LiddyRules]

Because the majority of the time, the stories that you're being told are from those with just as big of an agenda as the people they're telling stories about.

Partisian politics is for suckers. Taking a rational step backwards to look at the whole picture and judge what is really true... not just what your party tells you to think, is the best thing in the world. Exactly. As I said, I'm not necessarily going to just jump on the latest conspiracy theory but that doesn't mean I don't want to hear it. I'm not taking anyone for their word be it George Bush or Lyndon LaRouche. But I want to hear the different theories and make my own conclusions based on facts and my own common sense. I'm not saying I'm right. I don't think explosives were in the Towers. But I'd rather hear someone pose that than never think of it that way at all.

I mentioned earlier in the thread I think people knew about the attack but kind of let it go for their own political purposes. Not that they gave them the ok but they kind of sat on it. And I don't think it was Bush himself who said, "let's sleep in." I don't know if this is fact. I don't know if it is truth. And, most importantly, I'm not making any sort of moral or ethical judgment on if they did it or not. I believe the game of politics is played by rules beyond good and evil. Anyway, all I have for this is a theory and I recognize it as such.

I know everyone has an agenda, even I have an agenda so even my 'objective' thoughts might be biased. But I'd rather the bias come from myself than to just take anyone, no matter the side, no matter the label, as truth.

[mrhan73]

This statement pisses me off. I'm from NY too. If the Government was involved, I'd want to hear about it. If there are unanswered questions, I'd want them answered. There are questions I haven't thought of and I want to hear them asked SO I think about it. I don't want "Well people died so don't question what happened b/c it would make people sad." That's such a mindnumbingly bad statement.

How is that any different from saying "People died in Iraq. Don't question the war or if the government knows what it's doing." or "People died in Vietnam. Criticizing the government'll make them feel bad so don't do it."
Thank you sir, well put.:clap:

[FreeTheCricket]

this bullshit war in Iraq it's about oil and money

Is it really? Then explain to me why I am paying $2.50 a gallon when we are supposedly waging a war for "oil".

Stop repeating what the news tells you.

[tattered]

Is it really? Then explain to me why I am paying $2.50 a gallon when we are supposedly waging a war for "oil".

Stop repeating what the news tells you.

record breaking oil company profits.........

[sclone]

Is it really? Then explain to me why I am paying $2.50 a gallon when we are supposedly waging a war for "oil".

Stop repeating what the news tells you.

Take a step back there, fella'. You actually think that the oil benefit would be for you and not for the oil industry? Wake up.

[YourAmishDaddy]

Partisian politics is for suckers. Taking a rational step backwards to look at the whole picture and judge what is really true... not just what your party tells you to think, is the best thing in the world.

Absolutely. Too many people play the partisan game. In 2008 depending on who wins the entire thing will shift again. The people pro this and anti that will switch. We've been so predictably conditioned to think based on a letter behind a name.

[LiddyRules]

To add to Yad's comments. Yes, the thing will switch. I'm sure if a Democrat wins you'll even see The Daily Show making jokes on him. I know, shocking. But the most important thing to remember. Things might shift, laws might be passed, troops might be brought home, but NOTHING WILL CHANGE. That's why the only thing you can hope to do is come up with conclusions on your own.

I know it might sound like a really cliche thing but it's the truth. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. True power doesn't lie in politcs and to think it does is silly. The plans for this nation, the schemes of this world are too important to risk or base on 4 year cycles. Thinking it does just doesn't make sense.

[Three Hole Puncher]

I won't waste five minutes of my time on this 9/11 conspiracy theory crap. I've got more respect for the dead than to piss on their graves by entertaining the rantings of a pack of tinfoil-hat-wearing imbeciles. I, for one, refuse to respond to their cries for attention.

What does interest me is the psychological motivation that drives these characters. What is it? I'm sure they kid themselves, or maybe even convinced themselves, that they're engaged in some sort of David vs. Goliath struggle to the expose the nefarious guv'mint conspiracy of evil. They fancy themselves modern-day Woodward and Bernsteins, armed with "The Truth", struggling to bring down the evil illuminati. The few, the enlightened, the righteous, the beleaguered on all sides.

However, HERE is the ugly truth.

You're not, stupid. You're nothing of the sort.

What you are is foolish, unqualified, uninformed, misinformed, unimportant, and more than anything, you're probably lonely... very lonely.

You're not a benevolant champion of the truth. You're just a douche. Same as you were on Sept. 10th, 2001.

[YourAmishDaddy]

Sure, we're in danger... Danger danger everywhere. With wide open borders and people flowing here everyday. To this day no one can explain to me why if there's such a threat 5 fucking years later not only are people with no loyalty to this country allowed to freely enter and leave illegally. We're not even talking as a nation of tossing them out, we're just deciding on how much of our money we'll piss away on them. Only 19 people ruined our day on 9-11, and thousands of NON MEXICAN illegals still pile in here everyday.

I'd believe more in this whole thing if everything since 9-11 hadn't be a systematic fucking of the American people, the Constitution, and what freedom left in this country. How thousands of illegals can roam around protesting and none of them get locked up, but 83 year old white grandmothers get hassled in an airport, or our email gets monitored, or our phone calls get monitored.

It's fairly simple, if we didn;t have open borders and illegals flying across the border day after day there would be no premise to do all this stuff. So get past 9-11, or even 9-10. On 9-12 not one thing was done to actually fix anything. More big goverment, more intrusive legislation, and a shitload of government defense contracts happened though. And no one was fired.

I'd be inclined to believe everything government told me, if government hadn't lied so many times in the past.

[LiddyRules]

I won't waste five minutes of my time on this 9/11 conspiracy theory crap. I've got more respect for the dead than to piss on their graves by entertaining the rantings of a pack of tinfoil-hat-wearing imbeciles. Again, I really don't get this. Not every conspiracy theorist believes in tin-foil hats. Some of them make legitimately good points. Let me ask you this Kitner, the people who don't think JFK was killed by Oswald. Are they all kooks? Why is this any different? And please answer to me how is it pissing on the graves of the dead to try to figure out exactly what happened? And why is trying to uncover things such a fucking threat to you. Yes, a lot of them are wrong but you can't fault them for wanting to figure it out.

You're just a douche. Same as you were on Sept. 10th, 2001. As are most Americans.

Originally I thought you were yelling at us for trying to understand the motivations of the terrorists but I caught myself before going on a huge rant.

[YourAmishDaddy]

Well, Anyone asking a question about 9-11 is a nut, haven't you heard? But all the stuff about mobile missiles, the mushroom cloud, WMD, Saddam and Osama hooking up and all the other shit that never panned out is gospel. Call them threats or conspiracies or whatever semantical thing. The fact remains whatever bullshit the government cooks up people flock to it ike it's truth. Someone says something contrary to public opinion and they're looney.

They said the same shit about Paul Revere.

[LiddyRules]

Well, Anyone asking a question about 9-11 is a nut, haven't you heard? But all the stuff about mobile missiles, the mushroom cloud, WMD, Saddam and Osama hooking up and all the other shit that never panned out is gospel. Call them threats or conspiracies or whatever semantical thing. The fact remains whatever bullshit the government cooks up people flock to it ike it's truth. Someone says something contrary to public opinion and they're looney.

They said the same shit about Paul Revere. I'm not asking you, we seem to be on a similar wavelength (Max Headroom joke not intended). I'm asking Kitner. I'm asking Hockey. I want them to explain their points.

[sclone]

You're not a benevolant champion of the truth. You're just a douche. Same as you were on Sept. 10th, 2001.

I started this thread, so I'll assume you're aiming this at me. And since you obviously don't like wasting your time actually reading threads, I'll assume you didn't even read the first post, or the linked article. Because if you had, you'd realize that there hasn't been one post point toward "tin-foil hat" conspiracy theories. I think questioning and investigating motives is important, not disrespectful.

I don't think anyone here is claiming the US gov't played a direct role in 9/11, but this article sure makes it clear the extents that at least some extremists in the US gov't are willing to think up.

[Three Hole Puncher]

Again, I really don't get this. Not every conspiracy theorist believes in tin-foil hats. Some of them make legitimately good points. Let me ask you this Kitner, the people who don't think JFK was killed by Oswald. Are they all kooks? Why is this any different? And please answer to me how is it pissing on the graves of the dead to try to figure out exactly what happened? And why is trying to uncover things such a fucking threat to you. Yes, a lot of them are wrong but you can't fault them for wanting to figure it out.

As are most Americans.

Originally I thought you were yelling at us for trying to understand the motivations of the terrorists but I caught myself before going on a huge rant.

You're not trying to figure out what really happened. You can stop that nonsense right now. You're trying to make yourself feel vital, important, special... all of those things that Mommy and Daddy never made you feel.

Your motivation is a self-serving need for attention and validation. We already have, for the most part, figured out what happened on 9/11. Your refusal to face the facts doesn't make you a rebel, a crusader, a patriot. It doesn't make you anything but a douche.

Nothing you do is a "threat" to me. Please stop flattering yourself. All of your ranting and posturing amounts to one big game of self-indulgent mental masturbation. You threaten nothing but your own dignity.

I've read quite a bit regarding alternative JFK assassination theories/scenarios. Some have put forward some quite compelling arguments that deserve further consideration. However, the alternative to Lee Harvey Oswald as lone gunman does not involve clandestine mass murder, the utter destruction of skyscrapers, kamikazee jet airliners, etc... In other words, the JFK CT scenarios dwell in the land of the sane and rational. A place you should visit someday. Who knows? You might like it.

[LiddyRules]

You're not trying to figure out what really happened. You can stop that nonsense right now. You're trying to make yourself feel vital, important, special... all of those things that Mommy and Daddy never made you feel.

Your motivation is a self-serving need for attention and validation. I'm not trying to make myself feel special or important. I'm not going on a truth hunt. I don't see how I'm seeking attention if I'm keeping my interests and thoughts to myself. I'm not trying to be a rebel or a journalist or a patriot or a crusader. I have questions, I wonder them. I'm not standing on a soapbox screaming about my doubts.

And when did I try to threaten you? I really want to know.

And why isn't it rational to wonder if the government had knowledge? Because that's the thing I want to know about. I said before and I'm saying again, I'm not saying the government caused it or arranged it. Not everytime someone poses a conspiracy theory it involves Aliens and outlandish things. Some of the most common conspiracy theories are very much grounded in reality.

[Diceman Cometh]

You're not trying to figure out what really happened. You can stop that nonsense right now. You're trying to make yourself feel vital, important, special... all of those things that Mommy and Daddy never made you feel.

I am (or at least used to be) one of the biggest neo-cons / flag-wavers you can think of, and I would have never entertained a serious thought about something like this.

But that document was admittedly very interesting, and a bit alarming to me. So stop trying to convince yourself that only maniacs, weirdos, and attention-seekers can, at the very least, find something like this interesting and provocative.

Your personal attacks on people on this thread is one of the biggest problems in this country. Very little genuine debate, all too much venom.

[Diceman Cometh]

Well well well, I feel like an ass.

I was just watching a 9/11 conspiracy documentary which just so happened to mention this document, and the narrator mentioned in passing that not only did McNamara reject this proposal, but President Kennedy even fired the official for even suggesting something this stupid.

I then took another look at the article that was linked in the first post, then realized that that bit of information was in the article all along. I guess that teaches you the dangers of skimming.

Sclone, surely you must agree that you are bound to have at least a few kooks in the Pentagon/Defense Dept. who are gonna make ridiculous proposals. That doesn't mean the decision-makers are gonna take every proposal seriously, or that the authorship of such insane plans should be placed on the entire administration, simply by association.

[BIV]

*revises Cuba plan to target conspiracy theorists*

[LiddyRules]

It's like I said in the 9/11 Conspiracy Thread Diceman, there are people out there who are shocked when they learn the government lies, does something bad, covers something up, does covert shit, or hides something. For some reason, some people are able to come to terms with that (myself included, politics, esp. global, have rules and ethics (or none if the case may be) all of its own) and other people once they learn that the government did something mildly bad, their entire world comes spinning off its axis and their entire world view is shattered. These are the people who think Noam Chomsky is brilliant. Corporations own the media outlets Noamy? Really?

And to these people, the fact that the government might have thought of dark, evil things means that not only do they think about them but they act on them and they have no restraint. They don't realize that the government can do really scumbaggy things but that doesn't mean that everything they do is like that or that every bad thing in the world is beause the government is secretly behind it.

They know what battles to pick, they now what to arrange a conspiracy with and they know which Latin American dictator to remove. They're not just going mad with power bombing here, setting up secret-ops there. I know the government is not innocent, but it's not always the guilty party.

[abudabit]

I just don't understand why the title is "US Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba" when it was the military who squashed the idea. There were certain nutty elements in there who thought it was a good idea, as the idea got passed around it was rejected. This is a non-story to me. There are always going to be fringes. There are people who work for the welfare office who are full blown communists, it doesn't mean the welfare office wants communism. Most likely this story is true, it is just being presented as if it were about to happen instead of the reality that it was rejected as soon as they took it out of thier inner circle.

And that is the reality of this and any other big conspiracy theory - to implement any medium sized operation like this, you need to take it out of your inner circle. An assasination - could be done by a few people (or even one). A large terrorist attack followed by coordinated coverup, frameup, and initiation of war with a country - takes a lot more than a few conspirators. That is the only reason I could possibly buy the Kennedy 2nd gunman thing, although it seems more likely to be hogwash. It wouldn't take a major conspiracy to assasinate a president driving around in a convertable at 5 mph.