This is somewhat a response to the discussion from the Jesse Ventura thread.Acouple people had brought up why would the united states attack buildings and kill civilians.Well that discussion is over but I thought this might be alittle eye opening and alarming for those not familair with it.
This was proposed to Kennedy in hopes of stirring up a war with Cuba, Kennedy turned it down.
So I guess the CIA employed mind control (check the CIA’s own website on MK-ULTRA documents) to cause al-Qaeda personnel to hijack the planes and fly them into the WTC and Pentagon.
Or, the hijackers were actually CIA personnel that had double-agented their way into al-Qaeda and talked the CIA’s good ol’ boy Osama into the plan. Who might even be a double agent himself. Or mind-controlled double agent.
Mystery solved.
Nice sarcasm Bill, or maybe the gvnmt, or people in control just new about the attacks and let it happen.
hmmmm,is that so out of this world.
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
This is somewhat a response to the discussion from the Jesse Ventura thread.Acouple people had brought up why would the united states attack buildings and kill civilians.Well that discussion is over but I thought this might be alittle eye opening and alarming for those not familair with it.
This was proposed to Kennedy in hopes of stirring up a war with Cuba, Kennedy turned it down.
[/quote]
OK, I read the link. SO, the worst thing they proposed was wounding some Cuban nationals who lived in Miami. Every other idea they listed was for them to fake something. And the purpose of the operation would have been as a pretext to invade Cuba and destroy the nuclear MRBMs that Cuba had. That is a FAR cry from killing 3000 US citizens to start a war with Afghanistan or Iraq for no reason. And, you should also notice that this Operation Northwoods didn’t happen.
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
Nice sarcasm Bill, or maybe the gvnmt, or people in control just new about the attacks and let it happen.
hmmmm,is that so out of this world.[/quote]
Some require a lick of evidence; some don’t.
[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
This is somewhat a response to the discussion from the Jesse Ventura thread.Acouple people had brought up why would the united states attack buildings and kill civilians.Well that discussion is over but I thought this might be alittle eye opening and alarming for those not familair with it.
This was proposed to Kennedy in hopes of stirring up a war with Cuba, Kennedy turned it down.
[/quote]
OK, I read the link. SO, the worst thing they proposed was wounding some Cuban nationals who lived in Miami. Every other idea they listed was for them to fake something. And the purpose of the operation would have been as a pretext to invade Cuba and destroy the nuclear MRBMs that Cuba had. That is a FAR cry from killing 3000 US citizens to start a war with Afghanistan or Iraq for no reason. And, you should also notice that this Operation Northwoods didn’t happen.[/quote]
I suppose everyone will discount this as it was written in a book as a description right.
“Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war”
and it didnt happen because Kennedy didnt approve it, who says Bush wouldnt have.
Notice that the Wikipedia entry, in discussing the contents of the proposed plan, does not have anything like what is seen in that paragraph.
It has a separate section noting that one author claimed the above, with no evidence provided for his claim. It is simply a statement that an author claimed this.
(Previous post hasn’t appeared, so can’t edit)
You don’t notice a disparity between the much more detailed entry on the contents, which seems to have some meticulous care taken, and the paragraph from that book?
How is it that the people that took care to explain the contents in the Wikipedia entry don’t seem to know anything, or don’t find any way to back up, the more radical claims in the book?
Well, just pick the more radical, as it suits better?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
(Previous post hasn’t appeared, so can’t edit)
You don’t notice a disparity between the much more detailed entry on the contents, which seems to have some meticulous care taken, and the paragraph from that book?
How is it that the people that took care to explain the contents in the Wikipedia entry don’t seem to know anything, or don’t find any way to back up, the more radical claims in the book?
Well, just pick the more radical, as it suits better?[/quote]
I see what youre saying.
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
and it didnt happen because Kennedy didnt approve it, who says Bush wouldnt have.[/quote]
One of the biggest criticisms of Bush by his haters is that he was “too religious” or “too Christian”. Doesn’t really jive with murdering 3000 of your own people.
The shortest way of putting it I think is that the mere fact that governments exist and have existed that have done terrible things, does not mean that a given government must be or probably is behind any given case.
Particularly a case for which there is a great deal of evidence that another source was the cause, and no evidence that the government was the cause or had foreknowledge and allowed it.
Bill there is plenty of records that the gvnmt should have or could have known about it in detail.Im happy to list the things I have.
But im not trying to sound like a broken record and keep being like NO! the gvnmt did it, I understand where you guys are coming and im open for discussion.
Should’a, could’a isn’t the same as “did.”
If someone’s point just is that they think the government ought to have been able to figure out beforehand, in time, that the planes were about to be hijacked and flown into these buildings and they have examples that show that this shouldn’t have been hard, I agree that would be reasonable discussion.
But with the “truthers” (I’m not saying you’re one of them) everything gets transformed into “they did know” and “they wanted it and let it happen” and so forth, entirely without a lick of evidence.