First off, terrorists are always terrorists when it suits them. So I don’t quite get your point here. Are you implying that it is okay to be a terrorist nation when it suits us? Or that because we don’t support terrorism when it doesn’t suit us, that fact somehow inoculates us against the accusation of supporting terrorism when it suits us?
Anyway, I submit that supplying financial, military, or diplomatic support for terrorism implicates our nation in such activities as well. In this case, it is merely terrorism by proxy; a policy we abhor when promoted by our enemies, but are at pains to justify when exercised in our name. And I call that hypocrisy. Basically, we’re just paying some else to do our dirty work for us, so that we can plausibly deny our involvement afterwards; but as long as we’re paying for it, turning a blind eye to it, covertly supporting it, defending it in the international community, and so forth, then I say we share the responsibility for it.
Well, in the case of supporting the contras, the main “higher up” was our democratically-elected president, Ronald Reagan. He was never legally charged for his open support of contra terrorist activities, and is considered by many as one of the greatest American presidents, even to this day. The second higher-up, Ollie-baby, was subjected to some sort of Congressional hearing; I can’t remember if he did any time, but last I heard he was a popular conservative radio commentator. On the right, he is respected as a true American hero.
Regarding the OP: one wonders what sort of mischief these fellows have been up to that we don’t know about, and what sorts of policies they might have successfully implemented of which we are unaware. Creepy thought.
I’ll put aside the assassination of exiles for them moment - don’t know if it happened, but I’ll concede it’s certainly possible.
I’ll also put aside the “self-attacks,” as you acknowledge the U.S. hasn’t done that.
But when has the U.S. sunk refugee boats or hijacked planes?
My point was, this is nothing new, but it doesn’t mean the US is, in and of itself, a terrorist nation.
However, support of terrorism is wrong.
I don’t think it’s a conspiracy theory thread so much as one against covert operations. At least, covert operations without the consent and planning of Congress. (Or whoever is supposed to oversee this sort of thing).
We overthrew the government of Guatemala just for the sake of the United Fruit Company. Not because the guy was a threat to the people, or whatever. Because he was a threat to a US corporation that had ties to the Eisenhower administration.
Nonsense. A theory at the very least begins with “I think” or “One could be led to believe.” One Cell asks a few questions. Ones that could undoubtedly lead some to wild conspiracy theories. But I have yet to see where he is suggesting any. But I’d say you did a fine job on that man of straw you created.
Better for who? Better how? Who made you the grand arbiter of “the known real problems of the world?” We’re starting to get a little off topic here. So if you wish to open a new thread to discuss this subject further, I’ll gladly discuss it there.
As always, nice catch Sua. I apologize for the poor choice of words. Please replace the word those with the word similar and I’ll stand by my earlier statement.
I couldn’t find one single scrap of a semanteme in the OP that could possibly imply that to anyone who wasn’t actively trying to find that interpretation for his or her own reasons.
Again, the reference to 9/11 is where exactly?
Like matt_mcl said, unless you’re actively looking for such an interpretation, I don’t see how you made the connection based on the posts here alone. One Cell asks a few questions which are definitely worth asking in light of the linked article, and he is immediately dismissed by some as a conspiracy loon. How about actually asking those questions of the leaders of the US? Or is it still unpatriotic to ask such questions in the US?
Well, exactly what “current events” are we talking about? The article’s not about, say, the U.S. in the past propping up corrupt dictators in order to defeat what were perceived as greater evils, with a comment about “the implications in terms of current events”. That could be seen as a comment on the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The article’s not about the old South African “Bantustans”, with a comment about “the implications in terms of current events”. That could be seen as a comment on Israeli peace proposals.
The article is about a proposal by American military officers to carry out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in order to justify a foreign war of aggression. Just to open a thread on the subject of that quite disturbing report is not at all unpatriotic or the mark of a conspiracy loon. But, if you try to tie it in to “current events” I don’t really see how you can avoid it being taken as bringing up the September 11 attacks. What other “current events” could “Operation Northwoods” possibly be germane to?
Examples of US-sponsored terrorism abound. We even have the School of the Americas that teaches terrorist tactics. For those who need a cite for this, from the New York Times, September 22, 1996:
Sometimes what I consider obvious, others do not see at all. It’s a matter of perception and mine is not always correct. I connected the dots to draw my conclusions about the OP and the article that it links to. Therefore, I may very well be wrong. But since there were only two dots, I just went ahead and drew a straight line.
The fact that MEBuckner , Moderator Extraordinaire, also finds the connection to September 11th unavoidable, carries a lot of weight in my book.
I guess we’ll have to wait for One Cell to get back to us on exactly what “current events” he was referring to in the OP.
I did.
You seriously want me to open a thread so you can support the noble cause of conspiracy theories? No, I’ll concede, conspiracy theories have definetly gotten a bum rap. :rolleyes:
I have no idea what else it could be germane to. But I didn’t read One Cell’s post as anything more than “this is the kind of crap that can go on when you’re not paying attention. What else can they be up to now?”
And somehow, that must mean he’s alluding to the events of September 11. Maybe he was alluding to those events, maybe not. But he certainly didn’t post anything that struck me as being a direct connection to it.
Do you honestly feel that the US government is incapable today of doing something seedy? Or must another 40 years pass before it’s accepted?
Well, thankfully now I know how to categorize any decisions/opinions based on that authority.
Boy, you just like to draw those lines between any ol’ two points you find, huh?
No, I wasn’t expecting you to open any threads to discuss conspiracy theories. I was trying to maintain the OP’s topic in my responses.
Yes, it’s awful that the military would suggest such a thing way back then. Thankfully we here in the U.S. are not under a military dictatorship. We have civilian authorities who are elected, who don’t make decisions based solely on military goals. Sure I’m curious whether there are any such proposals being floated around today, but that information is considered classified because of National Security.
So how are we supposed to learn about such things besides waiting for them to be disclosed? Espionage? Leaks? Or just conjecture?
Do you really want all of our strategic and tactical plans transparent to any jackass who wants to see them on a real-time basis?
You have to have a certain degree of faith in your government. You also have to keep a watchful eye over it lest it stop representing you and start subjugating you. That is what the Freedom of Information Act is all about. If you are not happy with it contact your representatives and propose new legislation.
You know, what really struck me about the article referred to in the OP is the difference in attitude apparent among the Joint Chiefs in 1960 or so, compared with the attitude of this group during WWII.
I was surprised to learn while studying links in a thread about the dropping of the bomb that many of the military leaders of the time were against it – especially against dropping it on a civilian population. Eisenhower, for example, stated in an interview during his presidency that “We didn’t have to hit them [the Japanese] with that awful thing.” A lot of the reports I studied referred to the fact that dropping the bomb on a civilian population was experienced as abhorrent by many military leaders in the US, and offended especially their deeply ingrained moral compunction against killing “defenseless civilians.”
Fast forward 15 years, and suddenly the same organization, presumably now occupied by a younger generation, seems to have no qualms whatsoever against planning such Strangelovian operations as bombing their own defenseless civilians. By the time you get to my generation (1970s), the military and government in general are viewed by a large section of the public with deep mistrust.
If we leave aside the possibility that this discrepancy is merely a matter of differences in the way news is reported today, as opposed to during WWII and its immediate aftermath, it makes me wonder, really, exactly how traumatic the war and the decision to drop the bomb might actually have been. I mean, these are the men charged with the protection of the State, and somehow between WWII and Vietnam they went from defenders of the nation to craven, power-hungry, amoral killers. What happened?
Maybe we’re paying an kind of secret, emotional price for our involvement in WWII.
Here are some current events that we are aware of. How about the Enron debacle (with active participation of the US cabinet members) and other current events such as the Venezuela coup, and the events in the middle east and central asia where politics of oil and big money are involved.
Covert operations and shadow government days of Iran-Contra are back with full consent of the US population and the media due to the aftermath of September 11. It seems the government of Rumsfeld, Cheney, GW and big business have “somehow” managed to obtain carte-blanche to do whatever they want in total secrecy and without scrutiny under the name of “national security”. Doesn’t that in itself scare you in light of the link in the OP?
I’ve actually seen a copy of the document referred to in the book.
The boss in one of my work-study jobs in college also was a professor for the class on U.S. foreign policy post WWII. He recived a copy of the document on Northwoods through the FOI act (although, I don’t recall if the professor discovered it on his own) that he was going to use as for a handout in his class. Since I was actually making copies of his original copy, I asked if I could keep one, and he said sure. This was back in late 1997 or early 1998. The document had been recently declassified at the time.
Unfortunately, in my post-graduation bohemian lifestyle, I seemed to have lost my copy of the document in one of the many changes I’ve made to my residence. Everything mentioned in the article was in the document, but there were some relatively harmless and even amusing ideas in the document as well.
Probably the most amusing was a plan to get a picture of Castro sitting in hottub, and doctoring the photo to show two naked women with him as they drink some bottle of hard liquor and a caption that says “This is all mine, not yours.” or something similar to imply to the Cuban populace that Castro is living the high life while the populace is struggling to get buy.
There was also the “generate a lot of counterfeit cuban currency and airdrop it into the country so that inflation skyrockets and the economy completely collapses” plan.
And then there was the boring stuff such as creating a radio jammer to not only jam cuban military transmissions, but to actually overload there equipment and fry it.
