posted on April 15, 2002 04:45:34 PM new By David Ruppe
In the early 1960s, America's top militaryleaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocentpeople and commit acts of terrorismin U.S. cities to create public support for awar 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.
America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
posted on April 15, 2002 05:28:13 PM new
Well, Kennedy was killed shortly after Operation Northwoods was brought to his attention and he pooh-poohed the idea of waging "war" on our own citizens to overthrow Castro.
According to some I've seen on various message boards just talking like this is treason. Not supposed to question our ever so ethical government ya know.
posted on April 16, 2002 07:55:58 AM new
Partly, yes. There's a great deal of this type of thing still unknown, or rather, unverifiable. These documents have been circulating for a while now. It's nice to see ABC news giving it some airtime, so that even Pat could find it.
Does it make anyone wonder about the recent presidential decree which effectively nullified a lot of the utility of the the 1974 act of congress requiring disclosure mechanisms?
posted on April 16, 2002 08:53:51 AM new
I assumed that was to cover various nefarious undertakings that would embarass certain Republican politicos of the 80s (such as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, ect.). Links to death squads in Central America, Iran-Contra, and other operations.
For instance, if the Republicans intend to try for some of the Hispanic vote besides old Cubans, the thought of some of those guys supporting the death squads, let's say in El Salvador, might sit poorly with those who came to the US to escape them.
krs, didn't you post a link to another site about Operation Northwoods a while back?
Unbelievable and appalling that the top brass would even consider killing their own men. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on April 16, 2002 09:03:11 AM new
I think that most normal people look at actions like this and say "No way." Because they think there is no way I could do any of these things and sleep at night. Just as people project their feelings and motivations to pets they project their qualities to other people and assume they are the same inside in their emotions and fears. Sad to say that is not always so. There are ranges of behavior that can never be experienced or understood by others who are sane.
Greed and hate will produce extreme behaviors but these are even worse. They were motivated by fear.
posted on April 16, 2002 09:45:29 AM new
Yeah snowy, I've posted about this and otherthings of the type that have been discovered. The reception was uniformly, umm, cool to them and I was usually attacked as stringently as was possible within the confines of the CGs and the limitations of the attacker. I got tired of it.
You're right, gravid - people seem unable to accept what's beyond their experience or ken, and want things to believe in. The government, or a particular administration can give a person a sense of security similar to that obtained through a religious belief even when there's little substantial reason to support their faith. Once such a believing
mode is instilled it threatens a person's security to be confronted with anything that varies from their perception.
Many times I posted information without much comment just so that the thing might be considered without persuasion. Lots of the time I wouldn't know it to be true, but thought it worth exploring.
I got promoted yesterday. I'm now the happy recipient of 120 mg per day of Morphine Sulphate SR. straight, to be supplemented as needed with Hydromorphone 4mg at will. I'm not sure that it's progress but I came home and stubbed my toe so badly that I tore off half of the nail on my big toe and needed it. I'm going to call my primary care guy 'The Prophet' from now on.
posted on April 16, 2002 10:55:56 AM new
Be careful driving and such for a couple weeks. I recently switched to fentanyl and had a lot of naps for a couple weeks. I would sleep real easy if I just closed my eyes.
posted on April 16, 2002 12:09:41 PM new
Notice he did say happy.
That is quite a dose there fella guy.
Really sorry you need that much.
Still house hunting?
posted on April 16, 2002 12:14:21 PM new
I don't know about this new morphine yet, but the hydromorphone would usually have the opposite effect. In fact, we've been running up to Oregon/Washington and I drive all the way up and back without sleeping. We've got it to the point now that we leave friday night, get there before light on saturday, do the running around we need to do, and be on the way back by noon, getting home by nine. When I get drowsy I just pop a couple of those and I'm good for another 2 - 300 miles. It's not what I expected and not what it says on the bottle, but I've always been different.
posted on April 16, 2002 12:16:18 PM newDoes it make anyone wonder about the recent presidential decree which effectively nullified a lot of the utility of the the 1974 act of congress requiring disclosure mechanisms?
Yes.
The freedom of information act was decimated . I've wondered if that particualr thing was the reason that Bush HAD to get into the Whitehouse. Had to stop the papers of his father and Regan from getting scrutinized. Funny how quickly he did that after he got into office. I've read people say that it really benefits Clinton and Democrats too so we shouldn't complain....excuse me? If Clinton had wanted protection I imagine he could have done the same thing while he was president.I can't quite figure out how the President can sign something like that anyway..where are the checks and balances here? Something that makes all Bushs own papers secret should not be something he has any part of signing.
Being a child of the 60's I have an inherent mistrust of the government.
posted on April 16, 2002 12:27:24 PM new
Right, and helps Clinton? That's laughable considering the scrutiny he was under for the entire duration of his terms. There couldn't be much left to hide.
But daddy bush had his hands in a lot of very questionable pies it seems, and the litany extends back to his father as well. Documentation might put him and a son or two in jail.
The CIA is and has been involved in the sleaziest actions of this country both abroad and at home. What does a director of the CIA do and what qualifies him for the job?
Look at the number of CIA people who are in this administration. Why is that? They've been biding their time at the head of industies and are brought back to play a part in......what?
posted on April 16, 2002 03:12:27 PM new
"WE WANT INFORMATION! INFORMATION!! INFORMATION!!!"
"Who are you?"
"THE NEW NUMBER 2."
"Who is number 1?"
"YOU ARE NUMBER 6!"
"I AM NOT A NUMBER, I AM A FREE MAN!!!!"
"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
I could almost see this type of informitive information coming from some of these posters here. Why don't ya all just call this "CONSPIRICY ADMINISTRATION 101", and give us all credits for attending this junk. Oh yeah, I forget: YOU are right, and WE are wrong."
posted on April 16, 2002 03:49:07 PM new
There is always that possibility you know, that we are right and you are wrong.Of course the other is possible too, you could be right and we could be wrong. Here's the difference in our thinking ~ I'm open to either possibility, you are not.
posted on April 16, 2002 06:50:58 PM new
I'm not a prisioner, snowy: I think as freely as everyone else in here. It just so happens my point of view is very different from others that constantly post here. While I was away, I still observed what went on in here, and I know what is going to be comming no matter what I happen to post. As too all of these "conspericies", it amazes me how in one set certain people will defend Bill Clinton, saying he did nothing wrong (or even the untouchable JFK, for that matter), but every Republican president, and every "religious" group do all things wrong. That we Christians are considered "intolerant", even though Christianity allows people to leave it's faith, unlike Muslums. That we are bigots because we oppose homosexuality, even though it's not the people we oppose (I have seen many homosexuals come to Christ, and come back to hetrosexuality), it's the sin. Conservitives are bashed on a constant basis in here, as well as on many other chat boards, and just as often we deserve it as not. But, when it comes to a liberal agenda, and it's time to provide the information needed on it to show how wrong it is, conservitives get bashed as "hate-mongers" and the like. I see untold amounts of threads in here espouting the horrid effects of conservitivism, of tax-breaks, and of Christianity: yet, when these points are defended, "people" attack with 1/2 truths, and anything else they can to try to discredit us. I guess you could say this is my comming back party to myself: AW seems to have the best way to sell my items on the net, in an auction atmosphere, so I will use them again. And, as I have the time, I will defend my views and beliefs on this board: I will engage anyone needed. And, before some of the other posters say "some Christian you are" for things I may say in here, all I can say is:
My Lord and Savior, when He went into the temple, used a whip to drive the money changers out. He had a rightous anger, and He told them exactly why He did what He did. My "whip" will have to be my words used here. I will confront no one out of hate; only out of the Love that Jesus has shown me. I may never have stated this clearly before, but I will now: I will defend my beliefs, and I will not back down.
And krs, I am sorry to hear you are in such pain. I had once offered to pray for you, and if you want, the offer still stands.
I guess my free time is up for now, gotta do Daddy things. Later, all.
posted on April 16, 2002 07:19:47 PM new
This thread is not about religion it is about politics, dirty politics. It is also about suppositions and what ifs.
I for one hope you do stay and defend your ideas. I have yet to see anyone that feels they are on "the other side" [whatever that is..in the end we are all on the same side]actually defend with facts. Just supposition...same as most of the rest of us.
posted on April 16, 2002 09:17:08 PM new"My Lord and Savior, when He went into the temple, used a whip to drive the money changers out. He had a rightous anger, and He told them exactly why He did what He did. My "whip" will have to be my words used here"
Where were you during Enron's collapse then, when your brethren needed you?
You're just another troll, ddcliffe - seen one, seen 'em all.
posted on April 16, 2002 10:24:07 PM new
Too bad I don't fit in your neat category boxes bayingbowsers. I finally read it right. I thought it was bayingbrowsers.
I didn't like Clinton anymore than I do Bush.
I think the whole game is rigged.
I like Christianity too. It is just professed christians I can't stand.
There is a reason that the people at AW have practical advise on how to make your auctions work, and dealing with all the side issues of the craft. They look past surface appearances at how things work. You could assemble a bunch of big CEO's and they would never get past the Harvard Business School models and make it work because they don't have anyone to lay off and no divisions to sell off.
If you like their model of how things work in the small business world ask yourself why they have a different model of the political world than you get by reading newspapers or listening to your preacher.
Most of us are old hands that have had years of experience in the trenches seeing what happens at the grass roots level - dealing with bureaucracy, city hall and the military, and we found out that mostly the people are fine but the systems have major suction issues.
This passive aggressive thing of offering to pray for people is just to remind us that you are particularly suited to doing that due to your righteousness. You can go ahead and pray for anyone you want without their permission and without blowing a trumpet in the town square to announce it.
My relatives all Love to offer that service to me being as they are so much closer to Him to pass on the message...
posted on April 16, 2002 10:36:41 PM new
Well said Gravid. I was wondering about having to ask if you could pray for someone myself. Seems self serving to me. I "pray" for people all the time and I never have to ask their permission.
As my 85 year old mother says..."Christianity is a wonderful thing...too bad no one practices it."
posted on April 16, 2002 11:11:40 PM new
Actually, I believe Ghandi was talking about Western civilization.Apparently he didn't think we were too civilized.Good call.
posted on April 17, 2002 04:08:14 AM new
I never claimed it was about religion, rawbunzel: snowy made an implied statement, and I responded to her as to why I wasn't a "prisioner".
According to everyone here, pretty well most every conservitive is a dirty politician: they are the bane of our country. Though I tend to agree that politics are not totally straight and narrow, try living in an oppressed country sometime, and see how you like thier political system.
No krs, I'm not a troll: unlike yourself, who has always seemed to enjoy posting half facts and innunendos and presupposing them to be total truths. Trying to make your opinion hard fact is what has always bothered me about you: but, I have never expected you to change.
And btw, I was there for my brethern during the Eneron troubles, unlike some people. Where were you? Oh yes, espouting your normal drivle on the subject.
gravid, you may include myself in your "most of us" statement: I know what it is like to be in the trenches. Do not try to patronize me in your normal way. And it's too bad you can't stand we "professed Christians": at least I have the courage to admit Who it is I follow. The church of self seems to be very popular around here. And no, I do not blindly follow a "preacher" or the "common news" as you have implied either. As to asking to pray for someone, it is much different to pray for someone in a general way: I was asking about a specific thing for krs. Knowing where he stands in the grand scheme of things, he has the right to deny it.
Too bad she didn't seem to understand it, rawbunzel. Being a sinful human, I know that by His grace I can be like Him, but my own fallen nature prevents me from always being like Him: my own sin seperates me from God: but His Son brings me back. And as for Ghandi: he once claimed to be a "Christian and a Jew and a Muslum" all at once: that is an impossible statement. Ergo, his statement on the Western civilization does not hold much water with me.
posted on April 17, 2002 04:46:35 AM new
ddcliffe,
We know that you can't spell, and now you demonstrate that you can't read either.
You say: "who has always seemed to enjoy posting half facts and innunendos and presupposing them to be total truths. Trying to make your opinion hard fact is what has always bothered me about you" even though I have just said: "Many times I posted information without much comment just so that the thing might be considered without persuasion. Lots of the time I wouldn't know it to be true, but thought it worth exploring".
Having been reviled many times for not expressing an opinion on articles which I've posted I wonder how it is that you have concluded that I "try to make my opinion hard fact" as you claim that I do.
Does it seem to you to be an unreasonable conclusion for a reasonable person to make given the inconsistencies of your statements and the scrambled order of your thoughts that you are someone who does not know what he is talking about?
If it does seem unreasonable for a person to decide that then you have shown that it actually is quite reasonable to do so. If, however, you do not find that such a thing is unreasonable, as most people would not, I wonder that you could have come this far in life without the sense to know when to shut up. I'm quite sure that given enough time you might find scriptural support for the essential wisdom of keeping one's own counsel and that a person's humility before God and all he encounters is a requirement of a life well spent in faith.
You instead show yourself to be a vile and bitter person given to self aggrandizement and belligerence in every encounter - not in any way resembling your Christ and not at all an example for others to see in their pursuit of light through faith. It would not surprise me to learn that you have been banished from any congregation which you have sought to join, and that would go far in explaining why you are here.
