Similarity? Operation Northwoods,1962 & past terrorist attacks in US as probable government inside j

Sorry if the similarity has already been made.

Operation Northwoods:
In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented Kennedy with Operation Northwoods, which would have had the US government inflicting terrorist attacks upon US citizens, and blaming it on its enemies, to justify wars and political assassinations. (This was 40 years before 9-11!). Kennedy rejected Operation Northwoods

www.whatreallyhappened.com...
emperors-clothes.com...

Recent terrorist attacks in the US:
The WTC/Pentagon attacks may not have been accomplished by Islamic terrorists, but may have been part of an operation, similar to Operation Northwoods, to justify a war under the watchful eye of a group that camouflages itself as the leaders of the free world.

www.rense.com...
www.assassinationscience.com...



[edit on 12-11-2004 by evilution]

That does not describe anything except to buy a damn book.

This is advertising which I believe is against the T&C of ATS.

Is there something else besides the promotion of these books you can use to back your theory? Its a great topic if you can back it up....

Edit...typo

[edit on 11/6/04 by HarmoniusOne]

HarmoniusOne & evecasino,

Promoting books?
Right. And I've already made million$ from my original post


Can u both prove that my original post was an attempt to promote books?

Nevertheless, to clarify for the both of you (I 'ope), I edited my original post...Incredible

Those who don't reveal the truth with suspicious minds, end up as part of the "Amateur Hour"


[edit on 6-11-2004 by evilution]

well, I donno about selling books or whatever, but this seems very much like a conspiricy theory, which are typicly not true, but can be some time, but may I ask,

Why abolish the CIA, that is a Republican ideal (weaken central Gov) BUT under this administration the inteligence abilities of the central Gov. have increased dues to the homeland security buget additionsand creation of the new department, and the patriot act. It seems if anything the 9-11 thing increased spending costs, and department sizes of all security and intelegence agencies. so...If the US was carrying out a similar 'Operation Northwoods' Why would they increase funding?

As well you cited only the pentagon attacks, so let's say you are correct, why attack the pentagon, we would already go to war b/c the world trade center plane attacks, why would we have the need to potentialy expose this hidden plan, waste whatever it was we used, and kill more of us for a goal (to have reason to go to war) we have already accoplished?

The world trade attacks were performed by forein people under the guidance of Mr. Bin Ladin, so unless we are tied to him, they can be discounted as factualy terrorist. PS we are not tied to him, look at his latest tape, he is planning to bankrupt us, and destroy us, if this were just a US ploy, why was he still active during Clinton, who didn't want war?

It seems the theory here or in a book, or where ever it is from has too many whys and holes, and backfires w/o any possible explanations, that is unless you can answer all the above...

[edit on 6/11/2004 by dusty1031]

dusty1031,

First of all, I apologize for posting JFK's plan to abolish the CIA. It is irrelevant part of my original post. By the way, I didn't cite only the pentagon attacks. WTC = World Trade Center.

Yes. I agree that 9-11 thing increased spending costs. A great part of the war on terror is paid for with taxpayer money ("We the People of the United States" money). Therefore, the government business is a relatively stable source of cash flow & so a company can find profits in a terror war. It is a megabillion dollar business and with big money at stake greed prevails and morality is easily compromised.

Eisenhower Warned: Beware of the Military-Industrial Complex. He said this when Military spending by 1960 had grown to more than half the federal budget, and as a result it played a profound role in the national economy and the academic community. He also remarked: '...we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence...by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist...we must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together...'

Please read
www.cdi.org...
You'll note that, with the end of the Cold War, arms makers feared a significant reduction in their business, lower defense budgets and fewer contracts. Employees in occupations connected with the military were threatened with a loss of jobs.

The 911 thing & the Saddam threat was a good enough reason to convince the Congress and the public of the new dangers that confront us around the world and press for additional spending for defense. So who are some of the profiteers? Please read:
www.nytimes.com...
home.earthlink.net...
dawn.com...



[edit on 6-11-2004 by evilution]

BUT, good sir (or ma'am) you see, your theory only holds true if those inflicting the attacks were on our pay role and part of the opperation, if not then the attacks were an act of external terror, and not part of your opporation, hence punishable by war.

Secondly, why would, once the WTCs were destroyed by airplane would we set into action a plan to hurt the pentagon, we already have our reason for war and terror, why did we need more?

Sorry didn't see the WTC, I knew what it meant, just must have glanced over it.

I understand that arms dealers knew they would loose jobs and money, BUT any war time economy will spawn a larger economy, (GDP is partly made up of gov. spendings, such as on weapons, soldiars, etc.) So why not be at constant war, our GDP (and more so the GNP) would soar. It just isn't plausible, The tapes osama, and the hijackers would all have to be fake or a ploy to make this true (that is that they are part of this oporation)

Lastly, If we just wanted war, why didn't we move when our embacy was bombed, or during somolia, or while korea was developing, or side w/ afgan during Afgan vs Russia. IF we just wanted war, there has been opportunity, we did not need 911 to provoke a war.

Here dusty1031,

Read this, called "Northwoods to 9/11...Was 9/11 the resurfacing of Operation Northwoods?"
www.davidcogswell.com...

Hope it answers some of your questions.

Glad to have found that someone here had already mentionedNorthwoods & 9/11 here @ ATS:

Originally posted by koji_K
www.gwu.edu...

this is the official northwoods memo, obtained by the national security archives at gwu.

among other things, it details a plan to fake a commercial airliner crash, making it look like it was shot down by cubans but 'switching' planes at the last minute. i've read in some sources that this is a theory as to what happened with the plane that hit the pentagon. not sure if i believe that, but hey... they planned it in the 60s... who knows where it got to now?

read the document above. i guarantee it will make you think.
-koji K.

www.abovetopsecret.com...






[edit on 4-12-2004 by evilution]

The edit function is not available for the above post, so...continued from above:

fromFAKE TERROR - THE ROAD TO WAR AND DICTATORSHIP

It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times; creating the enemies you need. Governments routinely rely on hoaxes to sell their agendas to an otherwise reluctant public. The Romans accepted the Emperors and the Germans accepted Hitler not because they wanted to, but because the carefully crafted illusions of threat appeared to leave no other choice.

Our government too uses hoaxes to create the illusion that We The People have no choice but the direction the government wishes us to go in.

[edit on 7-12-2004 by evilution]

Originally posted by dusty1031
well, I donno about selling books or whatever, but this seems very much like a conspiricy theory, which are typicly not true, but can be some time, but may I ask,

Why abolish the CIA, that is a Republican ideal (weaken central Gov) BUT under this administration the inteligence abilities of the central Gov. have increased dues to the homeland security buget additionsand creation of the new department, and the patriot act. It seems if anything the 9-11 thing increased spending costs, and department sizes of all security and intelegence agencies. so...If the US was carrying out a similar 'Operation Northwoods' Why would they increase funding?

The CIA is never gonna be abolished, its infra structure will be changed to be more easilly dispatched.The only problem with the CIA is its bureaucracy, that is what they want to abolish to a great degree to be more effective.The Patriot act gives the president more power then before, the democrats in the government have really nothing much to say about anything that goes on.The funding is increased because they are on a secret waragenda that needs all resources for the that cause.

As well you cited only the pentagon attacks, so let's say you are correct, why attack the pentagon, we would already go to war b/c the world trade center plane attacks, why would we have the need to potentialy expose this hidden plan, waste whatever it was we used, and kill more of us for a goal (to have reason to go to war) we have already accoplished?

They probably wanted the people to believe this was an attack on the civilians,economy and militairy.The 4th plane was to believe to have to hit a political target to make it an all-out war on america.
They wanted maximum psycological result/effect.
A bit over the top to say atleast but it says everything abouty the mentality of these wolves in sheeps clothing.

The world trade attacks were performed by forein people under the guidance of Mr. Bin Ladin, so unless we are tied to him, they can be discounted as factualy terrorist. PS we are not tied to him, look at his latest tape, he is planning to bankrupt us, and destroy us, if this were just a US ploy, why was he still active during Clinton, who didn't want war?

How do you know they were under control of bin laden??
How do you know bin ladens videotapes are real???
How do you know bin laden wasnt captured by the americans before the 9-11 attacks and is being forced by the americans to make these false statements???
I personally dont believe this bin laden crap,its all propaganda.

It seems the theory here or in a book, or where ever it is from has too many whys and holes, and backfires w/o any possible explanations, that is unless you can answer all the above...

[edit on 6/11/2004 by dusty1031]

Again...continued from above:

First, a reminder...is a remainder:

fromFAKE TERROR - THE ROAD TO WAR AND DICTATORSHIP

It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times; creating the enemies you need. Governments routinely rely on hoaxes to sell their agendas to an otherwise reluctant public. The Romans accepted the Emperors and the Germans accepted Hitler not because they wanted to, but because the carefully crafted illusions of threat appeared to leave no other choice.

President Lyndon Johnson wanted a war in Vietnam. He wanted it to help his friends who owned defense companies to do a little business.
- Does this look familiar? Just substitute Johnson's name with an obvious one, and the word "Vietnam" with you know what.

And now, from The Washington Times:

Operative alleges CIA retaliation over WMD

The Washington Post said the operative remains under cover, but alleges that in 2001 a co-worker warned him "that CIA management planned to 'get him' for his role in reporting intelligence contrary to official CIA dogma."

The suit claims the unidentified ex agent was urged to fake reports supporting the White House position & in line with President George W Bush's contention that Iraq had illegal chemical or biological weapons, which threatened US and international security.

Once again, from the top (Oil, err, sorry...music please?)
SING IT:

...government uses hoaxes to create the illusion that We The People have no choice but the direction the government wishes us to go in. from: FAKE TERROR - THE ROAD TO WAR AND DICTATORSHIP

[edit on 9-12-2004 by evilution]

Hey Calif Arnold? Something's still Rotten in the States of the United?

Bush - Just As Long As I'm The Dictator - Video
"...that�s OK. If it were a dictatorship, we could tackle alot of issues...just as long as I'm the dictator"

From: Free Press International - 12.11.2004
Bush Wants To Create A 'New World Order' With Pre-Emptive Strikes
On December 2, 2004 while President Bush was in Canada, he challenged international leaders to create a 'new world order' through pre-emptive strikes against what he calls, 'enemies of democracy'.


The Washington Post (WP) wrote, "President Bush yesterday challenged international leaders to create a new world order, declaring pre-September 11 multilateralism outmoded and asserting that freedom from terrorism will come only through pre-emptive action against enemies of democracy".

The title of the WP story is, "Bush Calls For New World Order; Strikes Against Enemies of Democracy".

Did you hear the television networks report on Bush's call for a new world order with pre-emptive strikes? Didn't think so.

Now...what issues does he want to tackle? Hmmm...

A Defeat for an Empire

By, Robert Jensen
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Wednesday 08 December 2004

(snip)

The fact that the Bush administration says we are fighting for freedom and democracy (having long ago abandoned fictions about weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties) does not make it so.

(snip)

In Iraq, the Bush administration invaded not to liberate but to extend and deepen U.S. domination. When Bush said, "We have no territorial ambitions; we don't seek an empire," on Nov. 11, 2002, he told a half-truth.

The United States doesn't want to absorb Iraq or take direct possession of its oil. That's not the way of empire today; it's about control over the flow of oil and oil profits, not ownership.

In a world that runs on oil, the nation that controls the flow of oil has great strategic power. U.S. policy-makers want leverage over the economies of competitors - Western Europe, Japan and China - that are more dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

The Bush administration has invested money and lives in making Iraq a platform from which the United States can project power.


That requires not the liberation of Iraq but its subordination.

But most Iraqis don't want to be subordinated, which is why the United States in some sense lost the war on the day it invaded. One lesson of contemporary history is that occupying armies generate resistance that, inevitably, prevails over imperial power.

When we admit defeat and pull out - not if, but when - the fate of Iraqis will depend in part on whether the United States makes good on legal and moral obligations to pay reparations and allows international institutions to aid in creating a truly sovereign Iraq.

We shouldn't expect politicians to do either without pressure. An anti-empire movement - the joining of anti-war forces with the movement to reject corporate globalization - must create that pressure.

Before 9/11

Enter the Afghanistan connection. From: The Enron-Cheney-Taliban Connection? By Ron Callari, Albion Monitor. Posted February 28, 2002.

Where the "Great Game" in Afghanistan was once about czars and commissars seeking access to the warm water ports of the Persian Gulf, today it is about laying oil and gas pipelines via the untapped petroleum reserves of Central Asia, a region previously dominated by the former Soviet Union, with strong influence from Iran and Pakistan. Studies have placed the total worth of oil and gas reserves in the Central Asian republics at between $3 and $6 trillion.

Who has access to that vast sea of oil? Right now the only existing export routes from the Caspian Basin lead through Russia. U.S. oil companies have longed dreamed of their own pipeline routes that will give them control of the oil and gas resources of the Caspian Sea. Likewise, the U.S. government also wants to dominate Central Asian oil in order to reduce dependency on resources from the Persian/Arabian Gulf, which it cannot control. Thus the U.S. is poised to challenge Russian hegemony in a new version of the "Great Game."

There was one gotcha: It looked like the trans-Afghan section of the pipeline might never be built. Afghanistan was controlled by religious extremists who didn't want to cooperate.

The Taliban had demanded that the U.S. should also reconstruct Afghanistan's infrastructure and that the pipeline be open for local consumption. Instead, the U.S. wanted a closed pipeline pumping gas for export only and was not interested in helping to rebuild the country.

In turn, the U.S. threatened the Taliban during the negotiations. The directive of "we'll either carpet you in gold or carpet you in bombs" was bantered about in the press to underscore the emerging willfulness of the U.S.

But sometime in late August 2001, apparently the whole deal went sour.

So how do you get rid of an uncooperative Afghan controlling regime?
Well, after September 2001, the rest as you know is history...

And so,
Meet the "wanna be" leader of the 'New World Oiler'
"...just a one finger victory salute"


Everybody!
HAIL TO THE OILER! - HAIL TO THE OILER!
HELL FOR THE OILER! - HELL FOR THE OILER...!
Astalavista, Booby !!


[edit on 12-12-2004 by evilution]

It was a good read. It got good about half way through. This is a great proposal that someone had to push a country into war. This sounds like a think tank or war inciting act.

The people who thought this are speaking of creating the appearance of death, and mayhem.
In this memo, it states that they would switch the plane of "students', and no Americans would be killed. I did not read where "Actual Americans" would be killed, it was just implied. I am not condoning these acts, but I see no comparison to 9/11.

Where are the passengers of Flight 11, 93, 175, 77? Where are the firefighters and police and secrataries that died? Our gov't was trying to incite by not killing Americans then, why start now?

Compare this to the Cole bombing maybe or insurgant attacks, but no 9/11 comparos with this.

Published on Sunday, December 26, 2004 by the Toronto Star
History Will Show U.S. Lusted after Oil

by Linda McQuaig

Decades from now, historians will likely calmly discuss the war currently raging in Iraq, and identify oil as one of the key factors that led to it.

They will point to the growing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, the importance of oil in the rising competition between the U.S. and China, and the huge untapped store of oil lying unprotected under the Iraqi sand. It will all probably seem fairly obvious.

Just don't expect to hear this sort of discussion now, however, when it might actually make a difference.

In fact, a year-and-a-half into the U.S. occupation of Iraq, with the carnage over there spiralling ever more out of control, don't expect media discussions of Iraq to stray much beyond the issue of "fighting terrorism."

Indeed, while ordinary people around the world apparently suspect Washington was motivated by oil, not terrorism, there continues to be a strange unwillingness in the mainstream media to probe such a possibility.

Perhaps it simply sounds too crass.

It implies that those at the very top of the U.S. government willingly sacrificed countless lives to further a cause that has nothing to do with liberty or democracy.

This sort of allegation certainly doesn't fit with the respectful, even deferential approach generally taken in the U.S. media towards George W. Bush, just chosen Time magazine's Man of the Year.

Raising the oil factor also perhaps sounds unsophisticated. Some commentators, like syndicated columnist Gwynne Dyer, scoff at the notion of an oil motive, suggesting it's not necessary to invade countries to get their oil: "You just write them a cheque."

Click Here: But buying oil isn't the goal; getting control of it is.

Dyer's cheque-book solution wouldn't have solved much back in 1973, when the Arab oil embargo temporarily left the U.S. unable to satisfy its voracious appetite for oil.

That created a deep sense of vulnerability � a rare experience for the world's most powerful country. Preventing the U.S. from ever being vulnerable like that again has been a key objective of American strategic planners ever since.

The 1973 embargo sparked a new hawkishness in Washington. An article in the March, 1975, issue of Harper's, titled "Seizing Arab Oil," unabashedly outlined plans for a U.S. invasion to seize key Middle East oilfields and prevent Arab countries from having such control over the modern world's most vital commodity.

The author, writing under a pseudonym, wasn't just any old right-wing blowhard; it turned out to be Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

But seizing Arab oilfields was too risky as long as the Soviet Union existed. The Soviet collapse in 1991 opened up new possibilities. See: Pipeline of Greed

Kissinger's old idea was taken up with new interest by a small group of right-wing Republicans who, in the late 1990s, formed the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). In a 1998 letter, the PNAC urged President Bill Clinton to overthrow Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, whose potential control over "a significant portion of the world's oil" was considered a "hazard."

One could dismiss the PNAC as just another group of right-wing blowhards � except that the group included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, who became key figures in the Bush administration and principal architects of the Iraq war.

Is it really such a stretch to imagine that, only a few years after forming the PNAC, oil was still on their minds?

"The plan to take over Iraq is a revival of an old plan that first appeared in 1975. It was the Kissinger plan," James Akins, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under Kissinger, told me in an interview in Washington in 2003.

Dyer insists that the Iraq invasion wasn't about oil, but about extending U.S. power. But these goals go hand in glove.

Gaining control over oil is crucial to extending U.S. power, and will be even more so in the coming years as the world's easily-accessible oil reserves are depleted, creating ever fiercer competition for what remains.

All this will make controlling the Middle East that much more crucial. Or, as Cheney put it in a speech to the London Institute of Petroleum in 1999, when he was CEO of oil giant Halliburton: "The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Now that he's vice-president, Cheney no longer talks about the Middle East as "the prize." He talks about it as the place terrorism must be confronted.

Call me unsophisticated, but it seems to me that politicians often try to disguise what they're really up to,, and we have to wait decades for historians to point out the obvious.

Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator

� 2004 Toronto

[edit on 29-12-2004 by evilution]