How do Truthers explain the cooperation/coordination needed within the US govt...

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by RedStapler

You basically posted: LOOK GUYS, I KNOW MATH, I AM SO SMART.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Quote:

Speaking of that, there is not a single false flag operation in history that involved a mass murder of the committers' own people.

None that we know of at least. We do know that serious proposals for such were considered (Operation Northwoods) so as a concept it's hardly unthinkable. ...

It feels strange that it needs pointing out, and that no one has pointed out so far, that "Operation Northwoods" did NOT propose "a mass murder of the committers' own people" at all - it did not propose a single killing of a US citizen! It proposed the possible killing of Cubans, and attacking US vessels - but without US citizens aboard.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Can you back up your claim about the CIA running Islamic extremists in Iran, in 1953?

The 1953 Coup in Iran by Ervand Abrahamian, Science & Society, Vol. 65, No. 2, Summer 2001.

Quote:

That may have been the first time you heard about it, but it's been public knowledge since at least 1981.

I'm sure sanitized versions of events were public knowledge long before the relevant documents were released. I'm surprised 3 people have already pointed out how this has supposedly been public knowledge for so long yet none of those 3 seem aware of the specifics that made this particular operation relevant to the thread in the first place, namely the use by the CIA of proxy Islamic extremists to engage in terrorist attacks.

[BStrong]

I posted this in the Y451 thread, but it's applicable here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=658

Let me take this opportunity to make an observation and throw some actual evidence into the mix - not that you'll do any better addressing it than you did with the non-answer I snipped.

Other than a throw-away comment about cops and firemen being paid to plant evidence, you (as well as every-other 9/11 truth nutter) have simply referred to the human beings that are required to participate in your fantasy construct as "they."

When one believes the John Wick series of movies are documentaries and there's a criminal mastermind around every corner it's easy to come to the "they" conclusion as the catch all for their little evil deed fantasies.

Reality is considerably different. There is a name for average folks that believe they can purchase murder on any corner - Defendant:

https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/lo...fa936b3ca.html

A Rapid City man who was convicted for seeking help to murder his late wife's doctor has been sentenced to prison.

William Thoman, 63, was sentenced Friday by Judge Jeff Connolly to 15 years in prison with 10 years suspended and nearly a year of credit for time served, said defense lawyer Ellery Grey.

This one hits a little close to home. One defendant, who was convicted, was a friends father:

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-liu-8

In June 1992, appellant met with Hiroshi Hirashima, an old friend and business partner. Appellant told Hirashima that Wei had cheated him out of $80,000. Appellant asked Hirashima if he knew anyone who could help him get his money back. Assuming that appellant wanted someone to "rough up" Wei, Hirashima told appellant that he might know of someone who could do that. After his meeting with appellant, Hirashima approached Frank Amo, who at that time was living with Hirashima's daughter Donna at Hirashima's house. Amo had previously collected money for Hirashima. Hirashima told Amo that he had a possible new collection job for him. Amo agreed to meet appellant.

Appellant took Amo and Hirashima out for dinner and told them that Wei had "ripped [him] off" and cheated him out of "millions" in the gambling business. Appellant wanted Amo to kidnap Wei, his wife and "possibly his children," extort them, and then kill them. It appeared to Amo that Hirashima already knew of the plan, and was participating with appellant in presenting it to Amo. Both appellant and Hirashima suggested that "it would be best if a White guy did the job" in order to divert attention from themselves. Hirashima said that he would have to "put . . . away" or kill anyone who learned about the plan. Amo was shocked and frightened. He agreed to help appellant and Hirashima because he "didn't want to end up dead on the beach at that point." They agreed to meet again to discuss details of the plan.

The tough talking boyfriend of his daughter went right to the feds after he got his 10K. My friend explained his father's behavior as being "in his head, he was a gangster." Unfortunately for him, but fortunately for the intended victims, he was not. Liu beat the rap, Hirashima ended up in Folsom.

I can go on and on. Google "convicted of solicitation to commit murder." if you need further evidence.

I can already hear the great conspiracy investigator's complaint - "those are common criminals not GOV.FED.CORP.CONTRACTOR.PMC trained killers!

We've got some actual evidence from that side of the street to look at as well.

The My Lai massacre is well known and well documented, but what isn't generally known is that an Army Warrant officer landed his helicopter in between the troops involved and victims to put a stop to the killing, and several enlisted and noin-coms either refused to participate or tried to stop the murders. They also acted as witnesses and reported what they saw, The Army dragged it's feet and tried and hoped it would go away - it didn't - and whether one agrees with the judicial outcome or not the truth was known about the incident.

Far less well known is this - The Tiger Force recon platoon in the 101st ABN.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Force

Tiger Force was the name of a long-range reconnaissance patrol unit[1] of the 1st Battalion (Airborne), 327th Infantry, 1st Brigade (Separate), 101st Airborne Division, which fought in the Vietnam War from May to November 1967.[2] The unit gained notoriety after investigations during the course of the war and decades afterwards revealed extensive war crimes against civilians, which numbered into the hundreds.[3]...

Sallah found that between 1971 and 1975, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command had investigated the Tiger Force unit for alleged war crimes committed between May and November 1967.[8] The documents included sworn statements from many Tiger Force veterans, which detailed war crimes allegedly committed by Tiger Force members during the Song Ve Valley and Operation Wheeler military campaigns. The statements, from both individuals who allegedly participated in the war crimes and those that did not, described war crimes such as the following:


the routine torture and execution of prisoners[9]

the routine practice of intentionally killing unarmed Vietnamese villagers including men, women, children, and elderly people[10]

the routine practice of cutting off and collecting the ears of victims[11]

the practice of wearing necklaces composed of human ears[12]

the practice of cutting off and collecting the scalps of victims[13]

incidents where soldiers would plant weapons on murdered Vietnamese villagers[14]

an incident where a young mother was drugged, raped, and then executed[15]

an incident where a soldier killed a baby and cut off his or her head after the baby's mother was killed[16]

The investigators concluded that many of the war crimes indeed took place.[17] This included the murder of former-ARVN personnel, the murder of two blind brothers, the crippled and old and the routine murder of women and children.[3] Despite this, the Army decided not to pursue any prosecutions.[18]...

After studying the documents, Sallah and fellow reporter, Mitch Weiss, located and interviewed dozens of veterans who served in Tiger Force during the period in question as well as the CID investigators who later carried out the Army's inquiry. The reporters also traveled to Vietnam and tracked down numerous residents of Song Ve Valley who identified themselves as witnesses. Sallah and Weiss reported that the war crimes were corroborated by both veterans[20] and Song Ve Valley residents.[21] The reporters also managed to track down dozens of additional investigative records not included in the National Archives.

There's more to read for interested parties, but the facts are that in this case, the criminal acts committed took place over a specific period of time and while the acts were encouraged by lower level officers and NCO's and the Army didn't start a serious inquiry until 4 years after the crimes were committed individual service members in that unit had reported the crimes to the CoC at the time - some people turned a blind eye to those reorts but the EM's and non-coms didn't.

Another example from Vietnam, Robert Rheault:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rheault

Robert Bradley Rheault /roʊ/ (October 31, 1925 – October 16, 2013) was an American colonel in the U.S. Army Special Forces who served as commander of the First Special Forces Group in Okinawa, and the Fifth Special Forces Group in Vietnam from May to July 1969.

Rheault was best known for his role as a co-conspirator and commander of the unit responsible for the 20 June 1969 execution of South Vietnam double agent Thai Khac Chuyen, who compromised intelligence agents involved in Project GAMMA operating in Vietnam and Cambodia.[1]

...

All U.S. Army Special Forces in 1969 operated under the control of 5th Special Forces Group, headquartered at Nha Trang on the southeast coast of South Vietnam. There was a close relationship with the CIA that complicated the chain of command and philosophy of rules of engagement.[6]

Colonel Rheault took command of the 5th in May 1969 and his unit was charged with seeking out leaks in a CIA-directed espionage ring as part of Project GAMMA. Rheault, along with six of his Special Forces officers and a sergeant were arrested by the U.S. military under the orders of General Creighton Abrams and threatened with charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, arising from the alleged extrajudicial killing of Thai Khac Chuyen, a Vietnamese double agent for the Americans and the North Vietnamese.[1][7]

The investigation and court-martial, held by the U.S. Army in Vietnam, rapidly became engulfed in a firestorm of media publicity. Most of the American public and the Special Forces believed that Colonel Rheault and all involved had been made scapegoats for a matter that reflected poorly upon the Army.[8] The view that there was no wrongdoing by the soldiers was probably best stated by Rheault's 11-year-old son, Robert, Jr. who upon learning of his father's arrest said, "What is all the fuss about? I thought that was what dad was in Vietnam for ... to kill Viet Cong".[3]

My point here with this case is that contrary to the popular fiction version of reality where "they" can get away with anything everywhere from a single murder in Dallas to 9/11, the commanding officer of the 5th Special Forces Group can't get away clean with killing an enemy operative in the middle of a war, in the war zone.

That's reality.

I can hear more complaints from folks with an MCU worldview - "That's old, that doesn't have anything to do with the here and now!"

Unfortunately for that rooting section, we've got recent examples. I bet mosr CTists are aware of part of this story:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre


The Nisour Square Massacre occurred on September 16, 2007 where employees of Blackwater Security Consulting (now Academi), a private military company contracted by the US government to provide security services in Iraq, shot at Iraqi civilians, killing 17 and injuring 20 in Nisour Square, Baghdad, while escorting a U.S. embassy convoy.[1][2][3] The killings outraged Iraqis and strained relations between Iraq and the United States.[4] In 2014, four Blackwater employees were tried[5] and convicted in U.S. federal court; one of murder, and the other three of manslaughter and firearms charges.[6]

The CTists are happy, "Now that's what we're talking about!"

Except this part of the story might not make them happy:

On September 27, 2007, the New York Times reported that during the chaotic incident at Nisour Square, one member of the Blackwater security team continued to fire on civilians, despite urgent cease-fire calls from colleagues. It is unclear whether the team-member mistook the civilians for insurgents. The incident was allegedly resolved only after another Blackwater contractor pointed his weapon at the man still firing and ordered him to stop.[33]

Ooops...

How about this favorites of our fearless leader and Fox news, Clint Lorance

Clint Allen Lorance[1] (born December 13, 1984) is a former Army officer previously commissioned as a first lieutenant in the U.S. Army who in August 2013 was found guilty on two counts of second-degree murder for ordering soldiers in his platoon to open fire at three men on a motorcycle in southern Afghanistan in July 2012.[2] He was confined in the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas until he was fully pardoned and ordered released by President Donald Trump, on November 15, 2019.[3][4]

At his trial in August 2013, nine members of his platoon testified against him.[5] Lorance never testified in the court hearings, though he did take responsibility for his men's actions. Lorance claimed three men on a motorcycle were speeding towards the platoon and ignoring commands to stop. Reports from his Platoon members state the motorcycle was 200 yards away and could not have reached their position easily[5]

Guy was in-country 3 days. His EM's and NCO's new he was bad news on day 1. As soon as the murders went down multiple members of his platoon went right to the CoC and reported the incident and stood as witnesses against him. I'm proud of those kids. They absolutely did the right thing.

That's the reality that all this "they" ******** has to overcome. There is no vast pool of professional sociopaths and psychopaths just waiting for a call from the head office to murder innocents. There is no cadre of technical experts that fall into those categories that would wire an occupied civilian building with explosives and not realize what was going on, or conveniently forget what they had done after the building comes down.

What there is are a demographic of amateurs that believe belief in and promotion of conspiracy theories raises their social standing.

They're wrong both ways.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by BStrong

<snip>

Good luck getting him to admit that is the reality instead of his "they can get away with everything" belief.

There is ALWAYS somebody who will turn state's evidence either for money or conscience.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

I'm sure sanitized versions of events were public knowledge long before the relevant documents were released. I'm surprised 3 people have already pointed out how this has supposedly been public knowledge for so long yet none of those 3 seem aware of the specifics that made this particular operation relevant to the thread in the first place, namely the use by the CIA of proxy Islamic extremists to engage in terrorist attacks.

Did it ever occur to you that Americans didn't care and still don't care about what the CIA did in Iran in the 1950's?

When the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979 held the world's attention the Revolutionary Guard laid out the CIA and MI6's deeds to the public, or did you forget that part?

[The mighty CIA seemed to be caught unaware that the Iranians were going to seize the embassy, but CTists probably have an angle in that one too]

In 1991 Oliver Stone's JFK Donald Sutherland's character, Mr.X rattles off a list of KNOWN CIA OPERATIONS which include Iran

That somehow you were unaware of the CIA's actions in Iran says more about you're ceaselessness than the CIA's effectiveness in the secrecy department.

It has been 19 years since 2001. Back then, those who read the news saw stories of military installations nation closing off public access because of a terrorist threat. The State Department issued a travel warning for the Middle East citing chatter about an upcoming Al Qaeda plot to hijack planes. And a Lebanese newspaper ran an interview with a financial supporter who said flat out that an attack inside the US was coming.

You didn't need to be Jame Bond to head off the attacks, you just needed to be Mary Tyler Moore with a backbone.

There are at least three books and one very good miniseries detailing the CIA/FBI failures leading to 911. Alec Station's Michael Scheuer wrote his book: Imperial Hubris where he laid out his version of events in 2004. In that same year Richard A. Clarke published his book, Against All Enemies and gave his version.

The information has been sitting on bookshelves for 16+ years.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

My position is that just because the nuttier MIHOP's require a ludicrously large conspiracy doesn't mean that MIHOP's in general do so.



Not sure what that would add but I've posted there as requested.

Thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

None that we know of at least. We do know that serious proposals for such were considered (Operation Northwoods) so as a concept it's hardly unthinkable.

Are you proposing Operation Northwoods as an example of a proposal of a mass killing of own citizens?

Let's review the proposals made in Operation Northwoods, shall we?

1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies.

Neither harassment nor deceptive actions are mass murder. So, nothing in point 1/9.

2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.

a) Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):

(1) start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.

(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base.

(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.

(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).

(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.

(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).

(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.

(8) capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.

(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.

(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napthalene.

(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. ...

Do any of these consider own casualties?

(11) (continued): ... Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).

Doesn't seem to be the intention.

b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.

c. Commence large scale United States military operations.

Nothing in point 2/9, then.

3. 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.

b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

Judging by the context set by point 2.a.11 and point 3.b, I'd say that the blowing up of a ship in point 3.a above does not carry the idea of killing any crew. More on the contrary, it seems to avoid any casualties of own people. So, nothing in point 3/9.

4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.

The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.

These plans are against Cubans, not U.S. people. Nothing in point 4/9.

5. A "Cuban-based, Castro-supported" filibuster could be simulated against a neighboring Caribbean nation (in the vein of the 14th of June invasion of the Dominican Republic). We know that Castro is backing subversive efforts clandestinely against Haiti, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Nicaragua at present and possible others. These efforts can be magnified and additional ones contrived for exposure. For example, advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. "Cuban" B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could make cane-burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with "Cuban" messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and "Cuban" shipments of arm which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach.

Nothing in this point against USA citizens either, so 5/9 is ruled out.

6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.

The plan for point 6/9 is flying a plane, not killing anyone.

7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.

Clearly nothing in point 7/9 either.

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

I've highlighted the keywords. Point 8/9 does not involve any friendly casualties either.

9. It Is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.

a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent Intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.

b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.

c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.

It's all about making sure the pilot returns safely.


I count 9 points out of 9 that don't involve killing any of their own people in Operation Northwoods, therefore it's a bad example. And as has been pointed out by many people, most recently by Axxman, it's a plan so stupid that only a president like the current one would have accepted.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

There are also several terrorist attacks on one's own people for which the probability of them being false flag operations are high (Operation Gladio and the Years of Lead in Italy, as well as terrorist attacks in Belgium during the same period) though I suppose those wouldn't exactly qualify for mass murder.

Yeah, and there's also claims that the Spanish 3/11 attacks were devised and executed by PSOE (the party that won the elections three days later). And that the Boston bombings were staged by the U.S. government as well. And so on. Rumours don't count.

Hardly unthinkable? Seriously? I have a hard time accepting that someone in such a position would agree to do that, with only one possible exception who didn't have any power back then.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

There is not a single false flag operation in history that required informing half the world beforehand and, indeed, if this claim were true then covert operations in general would be simply impossible.

Most ideas for covert operations are indeed “simply impossible.” That’s why stuff like Northwoods was left on the drawing board.

The most successful covert operations, especially if we’re talking about something that has never been leaked by anyone and so is not publicly available information:

1) Have a clear aim and target
2) Have a small number of people even aware of the operation’s existence, with fewer still knowing the full details
3) Align with the strategic goals of whomever is carrying out the operation
4) Afford plausible (emphasis) deniability for the government or agency carrying out the operation
5) Are limited in scope and scale
6) Have little, if any violence

You get the idea.

I’d like to know how 9/11 satisfies any of the above as a “false-flag” covert operation by some clique in the US government.

By the way, the CIA is notorious for its many, many FAILED covert operations. Axxman talked about Operation Mongoose, but just read the book Legacy of Ashes and you begin to realize that in terms of covert operations, the CIA has from the very beginning has had covers blown, agents killed, and in some places - more often than not - “recruited“ tons of people who were actually double agents loyal to the CIA’s adversaries! In the case of Cuba, a defector came over to the US and revealed (and provided proof) that EVERY one of the CIA’s Cuban spies whom had been recruited and cultivate for decades was a double, loyal to Castro.

James J. Angleton was the notoriously paranoid, hardline anti-Communist head of counterintelligence for the CIA for decades. He often suspected even fellow CIA officers of being spies, yet his paranoia for the longest time did not extend to his close friend Kim Philby of MI6/Cambridge Spy Ring fame. And speaking of spies in the CIA: you might have heard of Alrdich Ames. Guess where he worked? Counter-intelligence. One of the guys whose job was to prevent spying by the Soviets, was in fact a spy for the Soviets. And he wasn’t the only one, though he wreaked the most havoc.

And nowadays, across government? Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, all of the people who leak things embarrassing or worse for US national security and intelligence folks to WikiLeaks or to any media outlet (happens a lot)....

The idea of any covert involvement of the US government in 9/11, of all things, is simultaneously absurd, laughable, and offensive. We would have heard about it by now, 100%. And the operation would have been aborted because it would have leaked, so the 9/11 attacks wouldn’t have even happened. But obviously they did, so...

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

Are you proposing Operation Northwoods as an example of a proposal of a mass killing of own citizens?

Let's review the proposals made in Operation Northwoods, shall we?

Ok fine, the plan was to kill Cuban political refugees living in the US and not actual US citizens.

Quote:

Yeah, and there's also claims that the Spanish 3/11 attacks were devised and executed by PSOE (the party that won the elections three days later). And that the Boston bombings were staged by the U.S. government as well. And so on. Rumours don't count.

Parliamentery inquiries, court investigations and several newspaper expositions linking the NATO stay-behind-networks to far-right terrorist attacks, up to and including the Europian parliament adopting a resolution condemning the manipulation of European politics by these stay-behind-armies is hardly just "rumours" though.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Allen773

The idea of any covert involvement of the US government in 9/11, of all things, is simultaneously absurd, laughable, and offensive. We would have heard about it by now, 100%. And the operation would have been aborted because it would have leaked, so the 9/11 attacks wouldn’t have even happened. But obviously they did, so...

And that is your opinion, which is strongly contradicted by the historical knowledge available to us. Indeed, I have by now already pointed out two examples of covert operations that only came to light decades after the fact - the CryptoAG operation which had dozens of people involved and Operation Gladio which had hundreds of people involved. So the notion that any covert operation would almost immediately be leaked has no basis in fact. Basically your argument boils down to claiming that covert operations are generally impossible because "muh leaks" therefor the notion that covert involvement in this particular instance is "absurd, laughable, and offensive." If covert operations are impossible then one wonders why the CIA even still exists.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

And that is your opinion, which is strongly contradicted by the historical knowledge available to us. Indeed, I have by now already pointed out two examples of covert operations that only came to light decades after the fact - the CryptoAG operation which had dozens of people involved and Operation Gladio which had hundreds of people involved. So the notion that any covert operation would almost immediately be leaked has no basis in fact. Basically your argument boils down to claiming that covert operations are generally impossible because "muh leaks" therefor the notion that covert involvement in this particular instance is "absurd, laughable, and offensive." If covert operations are impossible then one wonders why the CIA even still exists.

Ok, I’ll bite. I’m willing to examine evidence of covert US government involvement in 9/11; even the smallest amount will do. Let’s see it. Provide something circumstantial or even merely suspicious pertaining to possible covert US government involvement in 9/11, and I’ll be happy to discuss it with you and anyone else.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Allen773

Ok, I’ll bite. I’m willing to examine evidence of covert US government involvement in 9/11; even the smallest amount will do. Let’s see it. Provide something circumstantial or even merely suspicious pertaining to possible covert US government involvement in 9/11, and I’ll be happy to discuss it with you and anyone else.

You're the one who claimed that there is no covert involvement by the US government (or at least claimed the notion is absurd). The burden of proof is on the claimant, not upon others to disprove your claims. If you have evidence for the lack of covert involvement by the US then you should present it, otherwise it is just that, an unsupported claim - aka an opinion. And remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

You're the one who claimed that there is no covert involvement by the US government (or at least claimed the notion is absurd). The burden of proof is on the claimant, not upon others to disprove your claims. If you have evidence for the lack of covert involvement by the US then you should present it, otherwise it is just that, an unsupported claim - aka an opinion. And remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I don’t have to prove a negative (and I can’t). And your last sentence is an irrelevant non-sequitur.

Here’s how this works:

Person A: “There was covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks.”
Person B: “Where’s the evidence for that claim?”

Ball is in Person A’s court. It’s on Person A to demonstrate the evidence supporting his or her claim.

Here’s what Person B has to provide evidence for:










Absolutely nothing.

I’m Person B.

Now, I’ll politely ask again: Let’s see the evidence.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

And that is your opinion, which is strongly contradicted by the historical knowledge available to us. Indeed, I have by now already pointed out two examples of covert operations that only came to light decades after the fact - the CryptoAG operation which had dozens of people involved and Operation Gladio which had hundreds of people involved. .

Crypto AG wasn't a direct action operation. Also, it's the CIA's job to do that kind of stuff so good for them.

Operation Gladio was a NATO operation which never took place because the Soviet's sucked at actual war. Since it was a NATO operation it is safe to assume the Russians knew about it, and US Special Forces knew about it, and that means front-line US soldiers knew about it, which means it was about as secret as President Trump's spray tan.

Neither of which resemble 911 either as it went down or how Truthers think it went down.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

I'm implying no such thing. I'm claiming that if, say, 9/11 was a covert operation to get some Jihadi's to crash planes into buildings this does not require informing anyone except the couple of people psy-opping those Jihadi's into doing so. Who is it, exactly, that you think needs to be informed about this?

The US manipulated Bin Laden into ordering multiple airstrikes on US soil? Wow.

[Allen773]

I for one think Osama bin Laden would have found the notion that he was actually a tool of the CIA or whomever else in the US government deeply offensive.

At least let give the jihadists the “credit” for being responsible for uncountable numbers of terrorist attacks large and small!

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Allen773

I don’t have to prove a negative (and I can’t).

If you understand that you can't prove your claim, then why make it? Does making claims while being unable to prove them sound more like CTism or skepticism to you? Perhaps the following will help:

CTist: "There was covert US government involvement in 9/11"
Pseudo-skeptic: "There was no covert US government involvement in 9/11"
Skeptic: "We don't know whether there was covert US government involvement in 9/11"

Quote:

Here’s how this works:

Person A: “There was covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks.”
Person B: “Where’s the evidence for that claim?”

Ball is in Person A’s court. It’s on Person A to demonstrate the evidence supporting his or her claim.

Except that only happened in your imagination, as neither I nor anyone else in this thread claimed there was covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Here's how this actually works:

Person A: "There was no covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks."

Person B: "Where's the evidence for that claim?"

You are Person A. Here's what Person B has to provide evidence for: Absolutely nothing.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Ok fine, the plan was to kill Cuban political refugees living in the US and not actual US citizens.

So my point stands, that there's no precedent because people in power care about their own people in general. In my opinion that's a strong argument towards tilting your estimations of probabilities.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

The 1953 Coup in Iran by Ervand Abrahamian, Science & Society, Vol. 65, No. 2, Summer 2001.

Skimmed the pdf. Can't find any mention of the CIA running Islamic extremists to engage in terrorist attacks. There is a reference to 'links' with the religious wing of the National Front, but nothing solid, conclusive, or even evidenced.
Happy to be wrong if you can post the relevant parts of this book.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

I'm sure sanitized versions of events were public knowledge long before the relevant documents were released. I'm surprised 3 people have already pointed out how this has supposedly been public knowledge for so long yet none of those 3 seem aware of the specifics that made this particular operation relevant to the thread in the first place, namely the use by the CIA of proxy Islamic extremists to engage in terrorist attacks.

That's not the point, and you know it.
You claimed that we only learned of this operation 'decades' later, when the secret documents were released.
This is simply not true. We may not have had the full picture, but we certainly knew the general picture.
According to CT-ists, this could not happen, as everyone would remain silent forever.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Ok fine, the plan was to kill Cuban political refugees living in the US and not actual US citizens.

Can you highlight the bit where it says "kill" Cuban refugees? The nearest I can see is "even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized"; one of the most striking things I recall about reading the Northwoods document is that, whatever conspiracy theorists like to claim, it very clearly didn't advocate killing anyone.

Dave

[bknight]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Can you highlight the bit where it says "kill" Cuban refugees? The nearest I can see is "even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized"; one of the most striking things I recall about reading the Northwoods document is that, whatever conspiracy theorists like to claim, it very clearly didn't advocate killing anyone.

Dave

Why are we discussing a plan that was proposed, but NEVER implemented. We don't know what MIGHT have been done all just proposals. Furthermore we don't know if it would have succeeded in the false flag of initiation of an invasion of Cuba. Pure speculation on a plan that was never implemented.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by bknight

Why are we discussing a plan that was proposed, but NEVER implemented. We don't know what MIGHT have been done all just proposals. Furthermore we don't know if it would have succeeded in the false flag of initiation of an invasion of Cuba. Pure speculation on a plan that was never implemented.

Because conspiracy theorists feel that a plan that was never implemented and never called for the killing of anyone is proof positive that it's more or less routine for the US government to consider killing thousands of its own citizens. It's worth pointing out that their reasoning is not just missing the element of the plan actually having been carried out, but also missing even the thing they like to pretend the plan called for in the first place. Not only is there nothing there, there isn't even a there for something to be.

Dave

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

So my point stands, that there's no precedent because people in power care about their own people in general.

The victims of the Gladio operations would disagree. And appealing to a childish fantasy of people in power caring so much about their own people in general that they'd never harm them hardly constitutes a convincing argument.

Quote:

In my opinion that's a strong argument towards tilting your estimations of probabilities.

Even if there was no known precedent then your conclusion still wouldn't follow because, again, just because there would be no known precedent doesn't mean there is no precedent.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Skimmed the pdf. Can't find any mention of the CIA running Islamic extremists to engage in terrorist attacks. There is a reference to 'links' with the religious wing of the National Front, but nothing solid, conclusive, or even evidenced.
Happy to be wrong if you can post the relevant parts of this book.

It's not a book, it's a paper. You can read it in full from the cached version here.

Originally Posted by Abrahamian

The CIA also had a young operative in Teheran named Richard Cottam. A Fulbright fellow and later professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh, Cottam collected information not only on the Tudeh which he generously shared with the British Embassy but also on Baqai's Toilers Party and the far right Arya (Aryan) Party and SUMKA (National Socialist Workers Party of Iran) (FO 248/ Persia 1952/1517). These two mini-parties outdid each other in mimicking the Nazis, especially in denouncing Jews and communists. Their leaders had been interned with Zahedi during World War II. Cottam also wrote articles that were planted in the subsidized newspapers. One such piece claimed Fatemi was a convicted embezzler, a well-known homosexual, and a convert to Christianity as well as Bahaism. This would have earned him at least three death sentences in the eyes of fundamentalists. Not surprisingly, the Fedayyan-e Islam tried to assassinate him (FO 371/Persia 1953/104566). The CIA was also interested in finding in Mossadeq some form of Jewish ancestry (Gasiorowski, 1987, 284).

The CIA had at least four important local agents: Colonel Abbas Farzanegan; Ehsam Lankarani, and the so-called Boscoe Brothers.Colonel Farzanegan, a desk officer, had just returned from Washington where he had received a crash course on covert operations. Commissioned to the General Staff, Farzanegan knew most field officers in Teheran. Lankarani was a Tudeh activist with a drug problem. Although not in the party leadership, he came from a prominent religious family and enjoyed the reputation of being a daredevil revolutionary. In other words, he was the perfect agent provocateur. The Boscoes, named by Wilber simply as Keyvani and Jalali, were most probably Farrukh Keyvani and Ali Jalali. The former was a reporter for Ettelaat and a stringer for the Daily Telegraph (Bozorgmehr, 1993, 188, 190, 209). The latter was the editor & publisher of the journal Iran Parastan. These two had connections to the Taj Sports Club as well as to weight lifters, lutis (thugs), and chaqukeshan (knife wielders) associated with traditional zurkhanehs (houses of strength). They funneled CIA funds not only into their own papers but also into Keyhan, Mellat-e Iran, Mellat-e Ma, Aram, Setareh-e Islam, and Asiay-e Javanan. Roosevelt mentions that the CIA had prompted the Boscoes to attack a Tudeh rally on the day Harriman arrived in Teheran in July 1951. What he does not mention is that the attack resulted in heavy casualties and was instigated through the local Nazis.

That's one assassination attempt by Fedayyan-e Islam (an Islamic terrorist group) and one attack on a communist rally by a neo-nazi terrorist group. Fedayyan-e Islam primarily belonged to the British though:

Originally Posted by Abrahamian

Fourth, the British had contacts in less visible but equally vital positions. These included some chiefs of the Bakhtiyari, Boir Ahmadi, Zolfoghari, Khamseh, Moqaddam, and Arab tribes (the Bakhtiyaris alone could mobilize over 10,000 armed men). These contacts also included the editors of at least three vociferous newspapers Dad (Justice), Atesh (Fire), and Farman (Order) and the three Rashidian brothers who imported British goods and financed the National Will Party (the British embassy praised them as loyal and true friends who kept a keen eye for a business chance) (FO 371/Persia 1955/ 114811). The Rashidians themselves had useful contacts in the bazaar: with Shaban Jafari, nicknamed Shaban Bimokh (Brainless), the most dangerous gang leader; with guild elders among butchers, bakers, confectioners, and sugar loaf makers; and with middle- ranking clerics associated with the conservative Mojahedin-e Islam and the terroristic Fedayyan-e Islam (FO 248/Persia 1952/38572). Woodhouse estimates that the Rashidians funneled every month at least 10,000 pounds sterling to these clerics, politicians, and newspaper editors.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Here's how this actually works:

Person A: "There was no covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks."

Person B: "Where's the evidence for that claim?"

You are Person A. Here's what Person B has to provide evidence for: Absolutely nothing.

You've got the cart before the horse here. Person A, in your example, didn't make the claim ex-nihilo. It's in response to a claim. It's the rejection of the statement that there was involvement, usually made sans evidence. It's just shorthand for the more specific "your claim is rejected"

There is no Easter Bunny is a rejection of a claim of an Easter Bunny. While it's not precisely worded, people are inherently imprecise. Removing it from the context of a larger conversation, which is what you have done, is dishonest. Nobody is standing on street corners preaching the official version of the 911 attacks. Your version of the conversation is disingenuous.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Can you highlight the bit where it says "kill" Cuban refugees? The nearest I can see is "even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized"; one of the most striking things I recall about reading the Northwoods document is that, whatever conspiracy theorists like to claim, it very clearly didn't advocate killing anyone.

Dave

Yes, because plastic explosives can be placed to such precision to only wound people yet not kill them. Sinking boatloads of Cuban refugees also seems quite likely to kill them.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Yes, because plastic explosives can be placed to such precision to only wound people yet not kill them. Sinking boatloads of Cuban refugees also seems quite likely to kill them.

What you've highlighted, then, is that the bit where Northwoods talks about killing people is inside your own head.

Dave

ETA: BTW, nice job conflating two separate parts of the proposal - it's fairly clear when reading without an agenda that the wounding would take place as a result of faking unsuccessful assassination attempts, and that the plastic explosives are a suggested separate thread to the operation. Did you think nobody was clever enough to spot what you did?

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Leftus

You've got the cart before the horse here. Person A, in your example, didn't make the claim ex-nihilo. It's in response to a claim. It's the rejection of the statement that there was involvement, usually made sans evidence. It's just shorthand for the more specific "your claim is rejected"

There is no Easter Bunny is a rejection of a claim of an Easter Bunny. While it's not precisely worded, people are inherently imprecise. Removing it from the context of a larger conversation, which is what you have done, is dishonest. Nobody is standing on street corners preaching the official version of the 911 attacks. Your version of the conversation is disingenuous.

If you believe my version of the conversation to be disingenuous then you are free to quote me or anyone else in this thread making the claim that there was covert US involvement in 9/11.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

What you've highlighted, then, is that the bit where Northwoods talks about killing people is inside your own head.

Dave

By your logic, even if the document had literally stated "we will shoot a bunch of people in the head" you could still claim it doesn't talk about killing people because it doesn't literally use the term "kill" in the statement. You know as well as I do that the obvious result of the act of using plastic explosives to "wound" people as well as sinking boatloads of refugees would be killing them. You're grasping at straws.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

By your logic, even if the document had literally stated "we will shoot a bunch of people in the head" you could still claim it doesn't talk about killing people because it doesn't literally use the term "kill" in the statement.

No, I think anyone would agree that shooting people in the head is highly likely to kill them. However;

Originally Posted by caveman1917

You know as well as I do that the obvious result of the act of using plastic explosives to "wound" people[...]

Reading Northwoods for comprehension, it's perfectly clear that no such thing is suggested; that's entirely your own conflation, as I pointed out above.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

as well as sinking boatloads of refugees

"(real or simulated)". Did you miss that?

And, of course, it's perfectly straightforward to sink a boat without killing anyone on board; you simply have the rescue vessel take everyone off, sink the boat, then say, "We picked this boatload of people out of the sea after the Cubans sank their boat." Or, with a ship, you say, "Everyone get into the lifeboats," bring along a few spares just to make sure there's enough space, then sink it.

I would comment that your inability to understand how things can be done without killing people says more about your own imagination than the proclivities of any government.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

You're grasping at straws.

You're projecting.

Dave

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

If you understand that you can't prove your claim, then why make it? Does making claims while being unable to prove them sound more like CTism or skepticism to you? Perhaps the following will help:

CTist: "There was covert US government involvement in 9/11"
Pseudo-skeptic: "There was no covert US government involvement in 9/11"
Skeptic: "We don't know whether there was covert US government involvement in 9/11"



Except that only happened in your imagination, as neither I nor anyone else in this thread claimed there was covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Here's how this actually works:

Person A: "There was no covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks."

Person B: "Where's the evidence for that claim?"

You are Person A. Here's what Person B has to provide evidence for: Absolutely nothing.

Nope.

There was covert US government involvement in 9/11 = claim. That’s what can theoretically be supported with evidence. But one has to provide the evidence to do that.

The negative — that there was NO covert US government involvement in 9/11 — is not possible to prove or disprove, because you can’t prove a negative.

Here’s a quick example:

Person A: Aliens control our minds from deep outer space.
Person B: Yeah, I don’t think so.
Person A: Prove that they DON’T!

See the problem with Person A? The only claims that we need evidence for are claims that are falsifiable (there was covert US government involvement in 9/11), not claims that are not falsifiable (there was no covert US government involvement in 9/11).

No one can prove a “no”, “not”, logically, but the good news is no one has to. Prosecutors aren’t trying to convince juries that the accused are innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. I hope you can see the absurdity of having to prove absence of evidence.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Here's how this actually works:

Person A: "There was no covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks."

Person B: "Where's the evidence for that claim?"

Actually, it more commonly works like:

Person A: "Items A, B and C are evidence of covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks."

Person B: "No, they aren't, because of reasons 1, 2 and 3."

Person A: "How can you claim there was no evidence of covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks?"

Person B: "I'm not making that claim, I'm pointing out that you haven't provided any."

Person A: "So you're absolutely sure there was no covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, even though I've provided you with evidence. That proves you're not a proper skeptic."

At this point Person B goes away to watch some paint dry because it's not so much of a waste of time.

Dave

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

No, I think anyone would agree that shooting people in the head is highly likely to kill them.

Not at all, it's possible to shoot people in the head in exactly the right way so that it doesn't actually kill them but merely wounds them. I would comment that your inability to understand how things can be done without killing people says more about your own imagination than the proclivities of any government. Like I said, your argument can be used regarding any statement short of literally using the term "kill".

Quote:

And, of course, it's perfectly straightforward to sink a boat without killing anyone on board; you simply have the rescue vessel take everyone off, sink the boat, then say, "We picked this boatload of people out of the sea after the Cubans sank their boat." Or, with a ship, you say, "Everyone get into the lifeboats," bring along a few spares just to make sure there's enough space, then sink it.

Where does it say anything about a rescue vessel or putting a few spare lifeboats on a ship? You're doing exactly what you're accusing me of, starting with a preferred conclusion and then adding your own ideas to a document to make it reach that conclusion. You might also note how your additions to the document contradict other parts of it, since your additions assume the refugees themselves to be in on the plan as well, but then why would another part of the document call for actually wounding some?

I'll grant you that the published document is ambiguous enough to be interpreted in multiple ways, though.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

If you believe my version of the conversation to be disingenuous then you are free to quote me or anyone else in this thread making the claim that there was covert US involvement in 9/11.

Did you miss the Title of the thread? Hell, it's part of the first sentence of the OP. I'm going to move from just general dishonesty to intentional.

How do Truthers explain the cooperation/coordination needed within the US govt...

....for an “inside job?” of 9/11?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

I'll grant you that the published document is ambiguous enough to be interpreted in multiple ways, though.

Will you further grant that one perfectly reasonable interpretation is that the operation is intended to be conducted with the intention of causing no deaths among US citizens or the expatriate Cuban community?

Dave

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Allen773

Nope.

There was covert US government involvement in 9/11 = claim. That’s what can theoretically be supported with evidence. But one has to provide the evidence to do that.

The negative — that there was NO covert US government involvement in 9/11 — is not possible to prove or disprove, because you can’t prove a negative.

What a mumbled mess that passes for logic.

1. Of course you can prove a negative, we do this all the time.

2. Your claim that the statement "there was no covert involvement" can not be disproven contradicts your claim that its negation ("there was covert involvement") can theoretically be proven. After all, any proof that there was covert involvement would necessarily also constitute disproof that there was no covert involvement.

3. Even if it were impossible to prove a claim, that's still no reason to consider the claim true. "It's impossible to prove this claim therefor I'm believing it" - seriously, think that one through for a second.

Quote:

Here’s a quick example:

Person A: Aliens control our minds from deep outer space.
Person B: Yeah, I don’t think so.
Person A: Prove that they DON’T!

See the problem with Person A? The only claims that we need evidence for are claims that are falsifiable (there was covert US government involvement in 9/11), not claims that are not logically falsifiable (there was no covert US government involvement in 9/11).

You're ticking off every pseudo-skepticism box. Making claims that you can't support, claiming that "you can't prove a negative", simple reasoning errors ("there was no covert involvement" is falsified by any theoretical proof of involvement, and is hence logically falsifiable), and persistently switching the burden of proof for your claims. You're following the same reasoning patterns and errors as the CTists do, you just merely happen to be arguing for claims that are opposite to theirs.

Skepticism is not simply claiming the opposite of whatever a CTist is claiming, it is the refusal to accept a claim to be true without having convincing evidence for its truth. That's why the claim that there was covert involvement is to be rejected. The claim that there was no covert involvement is however also to be rejected for exactly the same reason.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by caveman1917

What a mumbled mess that passes for logic.

I agree, your posts need serious work.

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Leftus

Did you miss the Title of the thread? Hell, it's part of the first sentence of the OP. I'm going to move from just general dishonesty to intentional.

How do Truthers explain the cooperation/coordination needed within the US govt...

....for an “inside job?” of 9/11?

And I gave an example of one such theory claiming that 9/11 was an "inside job" and showed that it required no such large scale cooperation/coordination, thereby refuting the claim in the OP.

[Dave Rogers]

Oh, and by the way:

Originally Posted by caveman1917

Where does it say anything about a rescue vessel or putting a few spare lifeboats on a ship? You're doing exactly what you're accusing me of, starting with a preferred conclusion and then adding your own ideas to a document to make it reach that conclusion.

No, in fact, I'm not. You're committing the fallacy of argument from incredulity, by claiming that it's impossible to sink a ship without killing some of the people on board. I'm pointing out that it is in fact relatively straightforward to do so, therefore you cannot conclude that sinking a ship implies killing people. I don't need to conclude that Northwoods specifically excludes deaths; you're the one making the affirmative claim (that Northwoods is evidence that the US government is prepared to kill its own citizens in false flag attacks), so all I need to do is point out that your evidence doesn't support the claim.

Originally Posted by caveman1917

You might also note how your additions to the document contradict other parts of it, since your additions assume the refugees themselves to be in on the plan as well, but then why would another part of the document call for actually wounding some?

I'm not assuming any such thing. There are many examples of ships being sunk after the crews and passengers were taken off without loss of life and without the crews and passengers being in on the sinking. And, again, I'm not asserting any such intention on the part of the planners, just pointing out that your limitation of options to those you choose to consider is unnecessary.

The refugees needn't be in on the plan, and the people being wounded in fake assassination attempts needn't not be in on it. And, of course, it's perfectly clear thatt some parts of the document contradict other parts; it's a series of suggestions of possible things that could be tried, and makes it clear that it hasn't reached the stage of a fully worked out plan of action. Which, of course, it never did.

Dave

[caveman1917]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Will you further grant that one perfectly reasonable interpretation is that the operation is intended to be conducted with the intention of causing no deaths among US citizens or the expatriate Cuban community?

Sure, just like another perfectly reasonable interpretation is that the operation was to be conducted without regard as to the life or death of the refugees in question, and yet another is that the operation was intending to cause a few deaths to have maximum effect.