Oh yes, Operation Northwoods.

"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"

False flag, false flag! Must be a conspiracy to instal the New World Order...

So what were they suggesting should be done? Have a bunch of guys blow up Havana?

Errr, no.

"(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. Conduct funerals for mock victims (may be lieu of (10))."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf

Where's the murder of thousands of citizens?

Even the victims are "mock"

Pathetic.

If you like some more history, here's the document that asked for the submissions in the first place.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/cuba/mongoose.htm

And just to round it off nicely, the plan was i) rejected out of hand by Kennedy within three days of its submission and ii) Lyman Lemnitzer was quietly shunted out of sight.

Just a rogue operator.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Pericles demands to know, "Where's the murder of thousands of citizens?"

As Pericles well knows that was not my point.

My point was to show that the US Government clearly had a motive to commit acts of terrorism against its own citizens in 1962, (leaving aside that Pericles' list of planned false flag terrorist attacks is far from complete).

That motive was to blame another country for that terrorism in order to justify an invasion of another nation, namely Cuba.

And that is precisely the motive the US Government had to stage 9/11.

Yet Pericles repeats his lie ad infinitum that I have not provided a motive for the US Government itself to have committed 9/11.

Pericles writes:

"Even the victims are 'mock'"

... as if the CIA and the US military could be trusted to honour any undertakings made not to cause the deaths of US citizens in staging these attacks.

Does Pericles imagine that the deaths caused in the planned invasion of Cuba would also have been "mock"?

Pericles wrote, "Move along. Nothing to see here."

No, Pericles, nothing to see except what what the US Joint Chief of Staff intended to be their excuse to launch a war of aggression against a sovereign nation.

Nothing to see here except what may have been used as the pretext for starting World War 3.

---

Note that, how, in a discussion about the conspiracy by the US security state to murder President Kennedy, Pericles would have us believe that he fails to understand the significance of the fact that Kennedy overruled the US Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff's Operation Northwoods plans.

Note how he has not responded to my point (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3330&page=32) about President Kennedy's heroic role in stopping the US joint Chiefs of Staff's plans to launch a nuclear first strike against the USSR.

---

Pericles, why isn't "invisible government" an apt description of a group of people whom, according to President Wilson, struck so much fear into the hearts of US commerce and manufacturing leaders?

Really, daggett?

>>My point was to show that the US Government clearly had a motive to commit acts of terrorism against its own citizens in 1962<<

And Operation Northwoods demonstrates that... how, exactly?

The plan was all "just-pretend". Right down to the mock victims.

And this is weird.

>>That motive was to blame another country for that terrorism in order to justify an invasion of another nation, namely Cuba. And that is precisely the motive the US Government had to stage 9/11.<<

9/11 was staged in order to invade Cuba?

How bizarre.

Didn't work, then.

And you're scraping the barrel here, too.

>>Pericles would have us believe that he fails to understand the significance of the fact that Kennedy overruled the US Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff's Operation Northwoods plans.<<

What was significant about it? Do you imagine that Kennedy went around accepting every loony-tunes plan that the Joint Chiefs of Staff produced?

>>Note how he has not responded to my point about President Kennedy's heroic role in stopping the US joint Chiefs of Staff's plans to launch a nuclear first strike against the USSR.<<

There you go - there's another example. What was "heroic" about it, daggett.

He was the President, for goodness' sake. He was doing his job.

>>Pericles, why isn't "invisible government" an apt description of a group of people whom, according to President Wilson, struck so much fear into the hearts of US commerce and manufacturing leaders?<<

Turn the question around. What is it that makes it particularly "apt"?

It's just rhetoric, about the tendency of big businesses to use standover tactics against small ones.

A little permissible hyperbole from a retiring politician.

Your doctorate, obviously, is in molehill-to-mountain conversion, daggett.

A prerequisite, no doubt, for any self-respecting conspiracy doob.

Daggett: <"... people like PynchMe ("Haha too good") and Christopher find death and apparent suicide and people being frightened to speak the truth as somehow funny...">

Now that's a very naughty statement isn't it when I already explained (and explanation would have been unnecessary to any ordinary person) that the source of amusement was your suggestion that government agents would go through all the elaborate drama of injecting cancer cells into someone (even if it would work, which was unlikely and certainly unproven) to surreptitiously cause their death when any number of simpler and more certain methods were available.

Pericles wrote, "He was the President, for goodness' sake. He was doing his job."

Well, I also would have thought that preventing World War 3 and seeing to it that the US military and spy agencies complied with US law, should have been part of the job description of the President of the United States, but apparently the CIA and the Generals thought differently.

That is why he was murdered on 22 November 1963.

---

That's about all I can find that I consider warrants any response at all on my part in Pericles latest post.

If anyone can show me where any of the rest of Pericles' post in any way answers what I wrote previously, or if they can see anything I may have missed which warrants a response on my part, please let me know.

It's a bit like feeding a cuckoo in the nest with you, daggett. Over time, every other dickybird gets bored, and leaves.

Now, what have we here.

Usual old codswallop.

>>...apparently the CIA and the Generals thought differently. That is why he was murdered on 22 November 1963.<<

That's what I mean about starting at the wrong end.

You first make the assumption that there is a global conspiracy by a secret cabal of the world elites, and then try to force-fit every other known fact into the same framework.

The assumption you have to make in order to write the above is that Kennedy was assassinated by the "CIA and Generals". In support of this theory, you have no actual evidence. Just another assumption. That "seeing to it that the US military and spy agencies complied with US law" was sufficiently offensive to the "CIA and Generals" that they bumped him off.

I'm still not entirely sure where the global conspiracy by a secret cabal of the world elites fits into the above scenario. But I'm sure you will enlighten us, some day.

Actually, thinking about it, I'm none too confident of that last prediction of mine. Scratch it.