The Undebunkable Video: Eliminate The Impossible

reply to post by vipertech0596

And again, where does it say American citizens would be killed?? You still haven't found that part. Oh, wait, it wasn't there.

You asked me this, and I showed you the exact part that you requested. Would you like me to show you it again since you must have missed this post?

sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees [color=limegreen](real or simulated)

concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage

reply to post by TupacShakur


Cuban refugees are not American citizens. You might also want to read the sections about faking the funerals and issuing new identities.

reply to post by vipertech0596

Cuban refugees are not American citizens.

Yeah, f*** Cubans, they're scum! Americans are better than them! Nice mentality!

concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage

Are our Naval vessels maintained entirely by Cubans as well?

Cuban refugees are not American citizens. You might also want to read the sections about faking the funerals and issuing new identities.

But even if not a single American was killed or even injured, our government would still be staging an event, lying to the American people in order to gain support for a war. Millions of taxpayer dollars would be spent, soldiers would die, and Cubans would die in a war that was started over a lie. But hey, nobody got hurt, so why not just fabricate reality entirely like in George Orwell's 1984? Nobody would get hurt, so why doesn't the government just lie about everything?

reply to post by TupacShakur


And again, you fail to read the entire document. Where were those handy facepalm photos SOMEONE was spamming threads with a couple weeks ago................

Not to mention...you STILL dont appear to understand that the General who proposed the plan itself, basically got canned from his job. (Gee, I guess JFK was a little testy about the idea of maybe killing some Cuban citizens)

reply to post by vipertech0596

And again, you fail to read the entire document.

So are you going to address this? You asked me on more than one occasion to point out where it says Americans would be killed, and I did that both times. Here, let's look at it again:

concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage

Do you agree that this would involve killing Americans? Changing the subject doesn't make you any less wrong.

Where were those handy facepalm photos SOMEONE was spamming threads with a couple weeks ago................

I still use those in posts, only when I encounter extreme ignorance like what was seen with ex-member ImmortalGemini in nearly every post of his. But why did you bring this up?

Not to mention...you STILL dont appear to understand that the General who proposed the plan itself, basically got canned from his job.

I fully understand that. But you still don't appear to understand that members of our government planned to kill or fake the killings of Americans, blame it on Cuba, and start a war over a colossal lie. Planning to start a war over a false flag attack is an accurate comparison to suggesting that 9/11 was a false flag attack used to start a war.

(Gee, I guess JFK was a little testy about the idea of maybe killing some Cuban citizens)

Good for him. I respect him for that and am proud that he was our president at the time.

There's another part of my last post that you failed to address but that's probably because I was late to edit it. Even if nobody got hurt, the government would still be lying to us in order to fight a war. Members of our government were so disgustingly evil that they actually planned to kill or fake the killings of Americans in order to go to war. If we can't find a reason, we MAKE a reason.

I hope we can at least both agree that the government lying to start a war is extremely messed up.

That's what humanity looks like when it's not wearing make-up, and luckily JFK said "No way" and fired the corrupt bastards that planned it.

reply to post by TupacShakur


And you still do not comprehend that no American citizens were going to be killed....even if they did blow up a ship.....back to the FAKE funerals for FAKED identities. How difficult is that to understand?

Ah yes, lying to the public to start a war.....and? Its been part of history since time began......and normally why I get skittish when there is a Democrat in the Oval Office.....for some reason....seems to happen quite a bit then.....

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Dude you don't seem to understand the severity of Operation Northwoods. We planned to kill our own citizens and stage attacks that Cubans committed in order to justify a war. How is that not a big deal? How can you be so apathetic about our own government planning something so sinister and evil against Americans?

Really? Kill AMERICAN citizens? Show me in the document that AMERICANS were going to be killed for real.

Yes, you sure said the word fake about 50 times, but you must have missed this:

sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees [color=limegreen](real or simulated)

concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage

But forget about that, let's say everything would be faked. Even the attack of the US ship would be faked, it would be remote controlled and nobody would be aboard during the attack.

Cubans are AMERICANS now? I must have missed that in geography, social studies and history class.

With everything being faked, not a single American citizen would be killed or even injured. But our government still would have faked an attack in order to start a war, and you don't see that as messed up? Millions if not billions of taxpayer dollars spent unjustifiably killing Cubans is chill? You think since nobody got killed, it's OK that the government lies to the public, and fabricates reality in order to gain support for a war? Americans might not have died during the false flag attack, but they would have died in the war that follows the lie that our government would have perpetrated.

I can't believe you dude.....you're the one who should "think!"

And it doesn't matter that the majority of the hi-jackers were from Saudi Arabia, because Osama was the scapegoat and since he was supposedly the head-goon who planned the attack we invaded Afghanistan to get payback.

Once again, people dream up ideas from mundane to down crazy all the time. So someone thought up this Operation: Northwoods idea. You really believe that it was our entire govt that planned it? Or just one or two loonies that were a few french fires short of a Happy Meal? All of a sudden one or two authors = the entire govt? I dont understand the math behind that.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by IrishWristwatch

 

You are new, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks. I'll do the same for you.

I am well aware of what war does to people, I've spent all of my adult life either in war zones, training for war, or dealing with the after effects of war.

It is remarkable how many people are unaware of such, but I didn't automatically ascribe this to you, even without knowing your background.

What I am referring to is the moronic statements that the US Government has ever planned to kill American citizens as a ruse in order to enter a war.

If it's even meaningful or useful to make a distinction like this, and to me it isn't, you still have the matter of blowing up a ship. What ship? Even dry-docked ships have security. The shock value would be proportional to the number of deaths and, since the ultimate purpose of a false flag is to induce shock to elicit the desired response, the aim of minimizing casualties would be a competing constraint at odds with the core purpose. A competing constraint, I must add, which must not only be postulated but also attributed to the very people who would be initiating war under false pretense.

Fine, assume individuals in positions of high authority and responsibility who consider starting war by attacking themselves have sufficient moral compass to try to limit the casualties to an intended mark of zero, perhaps by virtue of judicious choice of a vessel with a very small crew and by having rescue units coincidentally nearby. Still, sinking a real ship runs the very high risk of some number of deaths even in the most contained and controlled scenario, a risk that had to be known to the planners and considered acceptable.

Even if there is the unresolved potential for a single death, your position of "...where does it say American citizens would be killed?? You still haven't found that part..." is rendered untenable and seems to be borne of belligerence for argument's sake. Not that I don't understand and succumb to the same also, but stop and think about it for a moment. These are people whose occupation is war and everyday decision-making can involve equivocation between less deaths and more deaths as opposed to some death / no death.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that I told you absolutely nothing above that you didn't already know. What I suspect is the 'fog of war' on forums can sometimes result in lapses of acuity, and otherwise intelligent and well informed people find themselves on the specious side of an argument simply because it's contrary to that of someone they customarily disagree. Operation Northwoods was a heinous piece of ****, and it is beyond any rational defense given the level at which it was hatched and the very highest level at which it was quashed. There's nothing defensible there, period. It's my humble opinion that you're one step beyond splitting hairs for the sake of contrarianism; you're just plain wrong.

reply to post by vipertech0596

And you still do not comprehend that no American citizens were going to be killed....even if they did blow up a ship.....back to the FAKE funerals for FAKED identities. How difficult is that to understand?

Dude the fake identities are not referring to the blown up ship. The mock funerals and aliases that you are referring to aren't about the "Remember the Maine"-esque incident, they refer to sinking a ship in the harbor.

I will type it out exactly as it is in the document:

(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10))

That's what you're referring to.

What I am referring to is this:

A "Remember The Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba

.

Blowing up is not the same thing as sinking.

However you're right here in that blowing up a ship would result in it's sinking, so I guess I was may have misinterpreted the document. I read the sinking of the ship with mock-victims as a seperate event from the blowing up of a ship like the USS MAINE, mainly due to the fact that immediately after that when it mentions a drone vessel being blown up, it specifically says "unmanned" immediately after drone and with the US ship it doesn't mention that it's unmanned.

I think you're right here though, I misinterpreted what I read. Sorry.

But, like I said in my last post, and the posts before that:

Even if nobody got hurt, the government would still be lying to us in order to fight a war. Members of our government were so disgustingly evil that they actually planned to kill or fake the killings of Americans in order to go to war. If we can't find a reason, we MAKE a reason.

You're response:

]Ah yes, lying to the public to start a war.....and? Its been part of history since time began......and normally why I get skittish when there is a Democrat in the Oval Office.....for some reason....seems to happen quite a bit then.....

So basically, governments always screw us and manipulate us in order to get us to pay for whatever lie-based wars they want, so you don't care. Nice apathetic attitude, you're a true patriot.

reply to post by GenRadek

Cubans are AMERICANS now? I must have missed that in geography, social studies and history class.

No, but the people aboard a "U.S. ship" sure as hell would be American. However I believe I misread the document since following that statement it clearly points out that the drone blown up in Cuban waters would be unmanned while it doesn't say that for the U.S. ship that would be blown up, but above that it mentions mock-aliases/funerals for a sunken ship, and clearly blowing a ship up would sink it.

So yeah I was wrong.

Once again, people dream up ideas from mundane to down crazy all the time. So someone thought up this Operation: Northwoods idea. You really believe that it was our entire govt that planned it? Or just one or two loonies that were a few french fires short of a Happy Meal? All of a sudden one or two authors = the entire govt? I dont understand the math behind that.

Members of the government, high-ranking military officials, I should have been more specific. Clearly it wasn't the entire government since JFK pulled the plug on Northwoods, but members of the government thought it up.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Really? Kill AMERICAN citizens? Show me in the document that AMERICANS were going to be killed for real.

I believe that has been shown to you now, from verbatim quoting of the document. Blowing up a US ship at sail must be assumed with high confidence to cause death. This, too, is beyond picayune and seems to represent a willful refusal to face common sense facts.

Once again, people dream up ideas from mundane to down crazy all the time. So someone thought up this Operation: Northwoods idea.

Yeah, the someone was operating under the auspices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From Wikipedia:

The main proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba (TS)", a top secret collection of draft memoranda written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS).

So we're not talking about Raelians here, or even some obscure hawkish private think tank, we're talking about the highest level of authority in the US military. Best and brightest?

You really believe that it was our entire govt that planned it?

Strawman, and a grasping one at that.

Or just one or two loonies that were a few french fires short of a Happy Meal?

This elevates the grasping a notch.

All of a sudden one or two authors = the entire govt?

And up it goes another notch.

I dont understand the math behind that.

No one could. Those are inane non sequiturs.

reply to post by IrishWristwatch

If it's even meaningful or useful to make a distinction like this, and to me it isn't, you still have the matter of blowing up a ship. What ship? Even dry-docked ships have security. The shock value would be proportional to the number of deaths and, since the ultimate purpose of a false flag is to induce shock to elicit the desired response, the aim of minimizing casualties would be a competing constraint at odds with the core purpose. A competing constraint, I must add, which must not only be postulated but also attributed to the very people who would be initiating war under false pretense.

Fine, assume individuals in positions of high authority and responsibility who consider starting war by attacking themselves have sufficient moral compass to try to limit the casualties to an intended mark of zero, perhaps by virtue of judicious choice of a vessel with a very small crew and by having rescue units coincidentally nearby. Still, sinking a real ship runs the very high risk of some number of deaths even in the most contained and controlled scenario, a risk that had to be known to the planners and considered acceptable.

Even if there is the unresolved potential for a single death, your position of "...where does it say American citizens would be killed?? You still haven't found that part..." is rendered untenable and seems to be borne of belligerence for argument's sake. Not that I don't understand and succumb to the same also, but stop and think about it for a moment. These are people whose occupation is war and everyday decision-making can involve equivocation between less deaths and more deaths as opposed to some death / no death.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that I told you absolutely nothing above that you didn't already know. What I suspect is the 'fog of war' on forums can sometimes result in lapses of acuity, and otherwise intelligent and well informed people find themselves on the specious side of an argument simply because it's contrary to that of someone they customarily disagree. Operation Northwoods was a heinous piece of ****, and it is beyond any rational defense given the level at which it was hatched and the very highest level at which it was quashed. There's nothing defensible there, period. It's my humble opinion that you're one step beyond splitting hairs for the sake of contrarianism; you're just plain wrong.

Post of the century...

'nuff said.

reply to post by IrishWristwatch

It's my humble opinion that you're one step beyond splitting hairs for the sake of contrarianism; you're just plain wrong.

Riiiiiiight......after many, many years of the US government NOT taking direct military action for fear of hurting innocent civilians.......those same people plan an operation to kill US citizens. Or did you miss out on US history from 1972-2001? You can have your opinion...no matter how wrong it may be.

Evel Kinevel....wait, scratch that he wrecked one too many times.......Robbie Kinevel couldnt make the jumps in logic that people on here make.......

"hey...this moron general created this plan where some Cubans might get whacked so we could invade Cuba back in the early 60s and got canned for it....therefore, the US PLANNED 9/11 to start a war on terrorism"

Originally posted by vipertech0596

Riiiiiiight......after many, many years of the US government NOT taking direct military action for fear of hurting innocent civilians.......those same people plan an operation to kill US citizens. Or did you miss out on US history from 1972-2001?

Did you miss history from 2002 to the present? Perhaps you'd like to tally the number of innocent civilians killed by the US during that time. Why do I think you believe the answer is none? I could be wrong about that.

Evel Kinevel....

Learn to spell.

"hey...this moron general created this plan where some Cubans might get whacked so we could invade Cuba back in the early 60s and got canned for it....therefore, the US PLANNED 9/11 to start a war on terrorism"

Did I say anything remotely resembling that, or even imply it? No, I did not.

Turns out you didn't deserve benefit of the doubt, after all. You're just as clueless as your writing makes you appear to be.

Originally posted by Darkwing01

Post of the century...

'nuff said.

Thank you very much. People whose opinion I couldn't respect less disagree with you.

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch

Originally posted by vipertech0596

Riiiiiiight......after many, many years of the US government NOT taking direct military action for fear of hurting innocent civilians.......those same people plan an operation to kill US citizens. Or did you miss out on US history from 1972-2001?

Did you miss history from 2002 to the present? Perhaps you'd like to tally the number of innocent civilians killed by the US during that time. Why do I think you believe the answer is none? I could be wrong about that.

Oh so this is the first time civilians got caught up in a war zone and got killed? No way!! How about that! All this time I thought that only soldiers got killed in war! Never innocent civilians!!

Originally posted by GenRadekOh so this is the first time civilians got caught up in a war zone and got killed? No way!!

How about that! All this time I thought that only soldiers got killed in war! Never innocent civilians!!

Sorry to be so pedantic. Look at what I'm responding to... someone who has this notion that the US avoided military action from 1972-2001 and then lectures me on history. Aside from the fact that the Vietnam War is officially cited as ending in 1975, during this period there was

Grenada
Beirut
Libya
Panama
Iraq
Somalia ("peacekeeping")
Haiti
Yugoslavia

Now I grant you, there is a distinction between innocent civilians in the US and other countries. I think the distinction in most Americans' minds is that civilians in other countries are subhumans undeserving of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. However, the point here is the statement I responded to was ambiguous in its use of the phrase "innocent civilians" and, when taken literally, is false. Nevertheless, it got a lot uglier after 9/11 so I opted to point out that which was even more obvious.

Operation Northwoods clearly made an attempt to avoid US civilian casualties in almost all of the scenarios. But not all. Covert terrorist actions proposed within US borders could not be guaranteed to result in zero casualties. I'd contend that the faked scenarios were constructed as a more palatable (but perhaps less desirable) alternative knowing that higher-ups may not be so indifferent as the authors, who were willing to propose scenarios which might result in the death of US citizens. Military personnel are not civilians, neither are they universally innocent, but they are citizens.

Nice tap-dancing around the very simple issue that the Operation Northwoods document implies the possible deaths of US citizens. This is yet another obvious example of a lame effort to deflect and distract from the strained parsing of the document in an attempt to put a literally insane positive spin on it.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by IrishWristwatch

 

It's my humble opinion that you're one step beyond splitting hairs for the sake of contrarianism; you're just plain wrong.

Riiiiiiight......after many, many years of the US government NOT taking direct military action for fear of hurting innocent civilians.......those same people plan an operation to kill US citizens. Or did you miss out on US history from 1972-2001? You can have your opinion...no matter how wrong it may be.

Evel Kinevel....wait, scratch that he wrecked one too many times.......Robbie Kinevel couldnt make the jumps in logic that people on here make.......

"hey...this moron general created this plan where some Cubans might get whacked so we could invade Cuba back in the early 60s and got canned for it....therefore, the US PLANNED 9/11 to start a war on terrorism"

You should have put DIRECT in caps instead of 'not' no matter.
No leaps of logic by Irish, just precedent by documentation aka false flag in writing, in other words Irish has his head screwed on proper. BTW that document does mention possible collateral damage on the 'mainland' somewhere in the form of protests in some shade or another, aka people getting hurt.

reply to post by IrishWristwatch

1971
Bolivia — After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed.

Haiti — "Papa Doc" Duvalier dies, leaving his 19-year old son "Baby Doc" Duvalier the dictator of Haiti. His son continues his bloody reign with full knowledge of the CIA.

1972 The Case-Zablocki Act — Congress passes an act requiring congressional review of executive agreements. In theory, this should make CIA operations more accountable. In fact, it is only marginally effective.

Cambodia — Congress votes to cut off CIA funds for its secret war in Cambodia.

Watergate Break-in — President Nixon sends in a team of burglars to wiretap Democratic offices at Watergate. The team members have extensive CIA histories, including James McCord, E. Howard Hunt and five of the Cuban burglars. They work for the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP), which does dirty work like disrupting Democratic campaigns and laundering Nixon’s illegal campaign contributions. CREEP’s activities are funded and organized by another CIA front, the Mullen Company.

1973
Chile — The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America’s first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.

CIA begins internal investigations — William Colby, the Deputy Director for Operations, orders all CIA personnel to report any and all illegal activities they know about. This information is later reported to Congress.

Watergate Scandal — The CIA’s main collaborating newspaper in America, The Washington Post, reports Nixon’s crimes long before any other newspaper takes up the subject. The two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, make almost no mention of the CIA’s many fingerprints all over the scandal. It is later revealed that Woodward was a Naval intelligence briefer to the White House, and knows many important intelligence figures, including General Alexander Haig. His main source, "Deep Throat," is probably one of those.

CIA Director Helms Fired — President Nixon fires CIA Director Richard Helms for failing to help cover up the Watergate scandal. Helms and Nixon have always disliked each other. The new CIA director is William Colby, who is relatively more open to CIA reform.

1974 CHAOS exposed — Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh publishes a story about Operation CHAOS, the domestic surveillance and infiltration of anti-war and civil rights groups in the U.S. The story sparks national outrage.

Angleton fired — Congress holds hearings on the illegal domestic spying efforts of James Jesus Angleton, the CIA’s chief of counterintelligence. His efforts included mail-opening campaigns and secret surveillance of war protesters. The hearings result in his dismissal from the CIA.

House clears CIA in Watergate — The House of Representatives clears the CIA of any complicity in Nixon’s Watergate break-in.

The Hughes Ryan Act — Congress passes an amendment requiring the president to report nonintelligence CIA operations to the relevant congressional committees in a timely fashion.

1975 Australia — The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use of this archaic and never-used law stuns the nation.

Angola — Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. Contrary to Kissinger’s assertions, Angola is a country of little strategic importance and not seriously threatened by communism. The CIA backs the brutal leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976, but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again. This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans.

"The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" — Victor Marchetti and John Marks publish this whistle-blowing history of CIA crimes and abuses. Marchetti has spent 14 years in the CIA, eventually becoming an executive assistant to the Deputy Director of Intelligence. Marks has spent five years as an intelligence official in the State Department.

"Inside the Company" — Philip Agee publishes a diary of his life inside the CIA. Agee has worked in covert operations in Latin America during the 60s, and details the crimes in which he took part.

Congress investigates CIA wrong-doing — Public outrage compels Congress to hold hearings on CIA crimes. Senator Frank Church heads the Senate investigation ("The Church Committee"), and Representative Otis Pike heads the House investigation. (Despite a 98 percent incumbency reelection rate, both Church and Pike are defeated in the next elections.) The investigations lead to a number of reforms intended to increase the CIA’s accountability to Congress, including the creation of a standing Senate committee on intelligence. However, the reforms prove ineffective, as the Iran/Contra scandal will show. It turns out the CIA can control, deal with or sidestep Congress with ease.

The Rockefeller Commission — In an attempt to reduce the damage done by the Church Committee, President Ford creates the "Rockefeller Commission" to whitewash CIA history and propose toothless reforms. The commission’s namesake, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, is himself a major CIA figure. Five of the commission’s eight members are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a CIA-dominated organization.

1979
Iran — The CIA fails to predict the fall of the Shah of Iran, a longtime CIA puppet, and the rise of Muslim fundamentalists who are furious at the CIA’s backing of SAVAK, the Shah’s bloodthirsty secret police. In revenge, the Muslims take 52 Americans hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

Afghanistan — The Soviets invade Afghanistan. The CIA immediately begins supplying arms to any faction willing to fight the occupying Soviets. Such indiscriminate arming means that when the Soviets leave Afghanistan, civil war will erupt. Also, fanatical Muslim extremists now possess state-of-the-art weaponry. One of these is Sheik Abdel Rahman, who will become involved in the World Trade Center bombing in New York.

El Salvador — An idealistic group of young military officers, repulsed by the massacre of the poor, overthrows the right-wing government. However, the U.S. compels the inexperienced officers to include many of the old guard in key positions in their new government. Soon, things are back to "normal" — the military government is repressing and killing poor civilian protesters. Many of the young military and civilian reformers, finding themselves powerless, resign in disgust.

Nicaragua — Anastasios Samoza II, the CIA-backed dictator, falls. The Marxist Sandinistas take over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. Remnants of the Guard will become the Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista government throughout the 1980s.

1980
El Salvador — The Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter "Christian to Christian" to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses. Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D’Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting against the military government. The CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the government with overwhelming military and intelligence superiority. CIA-trained death squads roam the countryside, committing atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.

1981
Iran/Contra Begins — The CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vows that the Sandinistas will be "pressured" until "they say ‘uncle.’" The CIA’s Freedom Fighter’s Manual disbursed to the Contras includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery, blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assassination.

1983
Honduras — The CIA gives Honduran military officers the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual – 1983, which teaches how to torture people. Honduras’ notorious "Battalion 316" then uses these techniques, with the CIA’s full knowledge, on thousands of leftist dissidents. At least 184 are murdered.

1984
The Boland Amendment — The last of a series of Boland Amendments is passed. These amendments have reduced CIA aid to the Contras; the last one cuts it off completely. However, CIA Director William Casey is already prepared to "hand off" the operation to Colonel Oliver North, who illegally continues supplying the Contras through the CIA’s informal, secret, and self-financing network. This includes "humanitarian aid" donated by Adolph Coors and William Simon, and military aid funded by Iranian arms sales.

1986
Eugene Hasenfus — Nicaragua shoots down a C-123 transport plane carrying military supplies to the Contras. The lone survivor, Eugene Hasenfus, turns out to be a CIA employee, as are the two dead pilots. The airplane belongs to Southern Air Transport, a CIA front. The incident makes a mockery of President Reagan’s claims that the CIA is not illegally arming the Contras.

Iran/Contra Scandal — Although the details have long been known, the Iran/Contra scandal finally captures the media’s attention in 1986. Congress holds hearings, and several key figures (like Oliver North) lie under oath to protect the intelligence community. CIA Director William Casey dies of brain cancer before Congress can question him. All reforms enacted by Congress after the scandal are purely cosmetic.

Haiti — Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that "Baby Doc" Duvalier will remain "President for Life" only if he has a short one. The U.S., which hates instability in a puppet country, flies the despotic Duvalier to the South of France for a comfortable retirement. The CIA then rigs the upcoming elections in favor of another right-wing military strongman. However, violence keeps the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture and assassination.

1989
Panama — The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA’s payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with the CIA’s knowledge since 1972. By the late 80s, Noriega’s growing independence and intransigence have angered Washington… so out he goes.

1990
Haiti — Competing against 10 comparatively wealthy candidates, leftist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide captures 68 percent of the vote. After only eight months in power, however, the CIA-backed military deposes him. More military dictators brutalize the country, as thousands of Haitian refugees escape the turmoil in barely seaworthy boats. As popular opinion calls for Aristide’s return, the CIA begins a disinformation campaign painting the courageous priest as mentally unstable.

1991
The Gulf War — The U.S. liberates Kuwait from Iraq. But Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, is another creature of the CIA. With U.S. encouragement, Hussein invaded Iran in 1980. During this costly eight-year war, the CIA built up Hussein’s forces with sophisticated arms, intelligence, training and financial backing. This cemented Hussein’s power at home, allowing him to crush the many internal rebellions that erupted from time to time, sometimes with poison gas. It also gave him all the military might he needed to conduct further adventurism — in Kuwait, for example.

The Fall of the Soviet Union — The CIA fails to predict this most important event of the Cold War. This suggests that it has been so busy undermining governments that it hasn’t been doing its primary job: gathering and analyzing information. The fall of the Soviet Union also robs the CIA of its reason for existence: fighting communism. This leads some to accuse the CIA of intentionally failing to predict the downfall of the Soviet Union. Curiously, the intelligence community’s budget is not significantly reduced after the demise of communism.

1992
Economic Espionage — In the years following the end of the Cold War, the CIA is increasingly used for economic espionage. This involves stealing the technological secrets of competing foreign companies and giving them to American ones. Given the CIA’s clear preference for dirty tricks over mere information gathering, the possibility of serious criminal behavior is very great indeed.

1993
Haiti — The chaos in Haiti grows so bad that President Clinton has no choice but to remove the Haitian military dictator, Raoul Cedras, on threat of U.S. invasion. The U.S. occupiers do not arrest Haiti’s military leaders for crimes against humanity, but instead ensure their safety and rich retirements. Aristide is returned to power only after being forced to accept an agenda favorable to the country’s ruling class.

www.huppi.com...

reply to post by TupacShakur


This topic is finished for a long time ago. The US might even be charged for it in a court of law,and that was in the CNN news in 2007!!!!!!!!!!!

Everybody knows it was an inside job. But thanks for the info slow poke