|
Post by turbonium on Mar 22, 2007 1:44:18 GMT -4
Another issue brought up earlier.... The second operation can also be read as a) blow up a non-drone ship, or b) blow up a drone ship. This reading is more likely to be accurate, as the word "unmanned" is a parenthetical clarification of the word "drone." Explain, please, turbonium, why, if friendly casualties are acceptable, the drone can be blown up "anywhere in the Cuban waters," but the non-drone has to be blown up in Guantanamo Bay. Because the drone can obviously be sent off anywhere they desire without involvement of a crew - no orders need to be given. Because they can load the drone with explosives and set them off "..in the vicinity of Havana.." with nobody onboard to detect the explosives, and no US servicemen around to witness the event. The only witnesses would be Cubans who see the spectacular explosions, blasting apart what (looks like) a manned US ship. A manned ship at anchor would provide the ideal conditions for a false flag Cuban attack. Mock MiG's, etc (as suggested elsewhere) firing live ammunition at the stationary ship. (Secretly planted explosives are unconvincing - no fake enemy witnessed - and has a high risk of being noticed/detected by crew) I contend that, your attempted twisting and hair-splitting notwithstanding, this option implicitly assumes that the crew would have been evacuated from the non-drone ship before it was blown up. The bottom line: a drone ship with no one aboard can go "anywhere in the Cuban waters," but a non-drone ship with no one aboard can only ride at anchor in Guantanamo Bay. Have you even thought your idea through? I really doubt it. What would be the point in having an entire crew aware of the false flag operation? Because if you have them evacuate the ship secretly, they would then know it was a fake op when mock-victims are then listed as the dead crewmen. A US ship at anchor in Guantanamo Bay during this time (1960's) would have to be manned. I mean, this isn't a ship stationed in exactly friendly waters, with locals eager for your arrival on shore leave! According to you, the US secretly blows up an anchored, now unmanned (previously evacuated) ship in Gitmo Bay. Blame is placed on Cuba for blowing up the ship. So then what? Do they create mock-victims who "died" on the ship? If so, then why would it have been manned to begin with? Why go to all the trouble and risk of having to secretly evacuate a crew? It's much more sensible that the ship would be a drone (unmanned) vessel all along.But an unmanned ship is only specified for the second option, isn't it? This operation suggested staging a "Remember the Maine" incident. The Maine was moored when 254 American crewmen died onboard. As I mentioned, they in fact propose blowing up a drone ship or a non-drone ship. That's exactly what I've been telling you. A drone (unmanned) ship or a non-drone (manned) ship. The two options are quite clear.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 22, 2007 1:58:03 GMT -4
Another plan above. It proposes using mock "MiG's" to stage "attacks on surface shipping". Obviously, "surface shipping" means to ship by truck or boat, as opposed to air. What do you suppose a result of this act would be? US casualties? Unless they really meant "unmanned" or "drone" surface shipping, I'd say people would die. But the only "drones" they specify are US military planes.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 22, 2007 2:12:19 GMT -4
What's the point of discussing something that never happened? Are you trying to prove that it somehow validates one of your other bogus "theories"? (Which, btw, don't even qualify as hypotheses, since there's no real explanation of anything involved, just denial.) Well, you know, the US government has had plans on what to do if Canada invades, too, but Canada hasn't invaded.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 22, 2007 2:14:59 GMT -4
the US government has had plans on what to do if Canada invades, too, but Canada hasn't invaded. Not lately, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 22, 2007 3:12:42 GMT -4
What's the point of discussing something that never happened? Are you trying to prove that it somehow validates one of your other bogus "theories"? (Which, btw, don't even qualify as hypotheses, since there's no real explanation of anything involved, just denial.) Well, you know, the US government has had plans on what to do if Canada invades, too, but Canada hasn't invaded. Because a constant claim made by GCT's is that our government, or at least powerful elements within our government, would never plan to harm and/or murder it's own innocent citizens. Not now, not in the past. This plan was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff - the top military figures in the US, and the most powerful government officials in the country except for the President and Sec. of Defence. Only one or two people stopped this plan from becoming a reality. But what if those two people had agreed to it? What if those two people were "removed" from the picture? The one thing Northwoods proves is that such twisted suggestions can come from the highest levels, and are taken seriously into consideration by those in a position to implement them.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Mar 22, 2007 11:39:30 GMT -4
Because the drone can obviously be sent off anywhere they desire without involvement of a crew - no orders need to be given.
Orders need to be given to convert the ship for drone operation. Further, any such drone would need at least a skeleton crew aboard until shortly before it steamed toward Havana, for maintenance and navigation in restricted waters. They would obviously know what was going on.
Because they can load the drone with explosives and set them off "..in the vicinity of Havana.." with nobody onboard to detect the explosives
How is this not a problem in your "blow up a real ship in Guantanamo Bay" scenario? Further, two small bombs (one as a back-up) concealed in crates in the hold of an ammunition ship would never be detected by the crew. And manufacturing two or three five-inch shells with small time bombs in place of their propellant charges would have been relatively simple. Such shells could easily have been placed in the shell racks of a destroyer's magazine, and the crew would never have noticed them.
and no US servicemen around to witness the event. The only witnesses would be Cubans who see the spectacular explosions, blasting apart what (looks like) a manned US ship.
How is it that US personnel would realize something was fishy, but the Cubans wouldn't?
A manned ship at anchor would provide the ideal conditions for a false flag Cuban attack. Mock MiG's, etc (as suggested elsewhere) firing live ammunition at the stationary ship.
Fake MiGs are not mentioned in this scenario. You have merely added them in an attempt to paper over one of the huge holes in your theory. First, the scenario calls for "blow[ing] up" a ship, not "attacking" a ship. This clearly implies explosives or other sabotage, rather than firing weapons or dropping bombs. This particular point serves as irrefutable evidence of your obvious need to twist the wording of the memo in order to make it mean what you wish it to mean. Second, who were the pilots who were going to fly this mission?? Orders to menace (but not attack) a civilian airliner, near-miss a merchant ship, or broadcast a fake message stating that one has been shot down are one thing. Orders to attack and destroy a US Navy ship anchored at a US Navy base are quite another. Carrying out such orders clearly would have constituted treason. What were "they" going to do--start asking for volunteers? What about the many pilots who would undoubtedly decline to participate? How were they going to be kept quiet? And if "they" just order eight pilots to participate, how do "they" know that one or more of them won't blow the whistle?
(Secretly planted explosives are unconvincing - no fake enemy witnessed - and has a high risk of being noticed/detected by crew)
Wishful thinking. See above. Also, you have previously insinuated that the USS Maine's destruction was a "false-flag" operation. If so, how were "secretly planted explosives" unconvincing in that case?? Have you even thought your idea through? I really doubt it.
I'll leave it to the readers of this to judge which of us has or has not thought things through.
What would be the point in having an entire crew aware of the false flag operation?
The point would be not killing them. Further, your "fake MiGs" would require that a large number of personnel be involved. Even if the target were an ammunition ship, many aircraft would be required in order to have a good chance of destroying it--I'd estimate eight at a bare minimum, and that's assuming nothing goes wrong, and no one makes a half-hearted bombing run or deliberately misses due to a sudden attack of conscience. Those eight aircraft not only have to be repainted with Cuban markings--they also have to be serviced, fueled, and armed before the attack. Even if you had ground crew double up on readying the aircraft (a rather dubious idea), that's still roughly 50 people who will know they readied aircraft with Cuban markings right before the "Cuban" attack on Guantanamo. Except now they can blow the whistle on a treasonous conspiracy, rather than just a false-flag operation.
Because if you have them evacuate the ship secretly, they would then know it was a fake op when mock-victims are then listed as the dead crewmen.
The "Conduct funerals for mock victims" scenario has the same problem--why is it acceptable in that case? Further, you have previously claimed that US military personnel have been ordered to lie or keep quiet about a purported missile attack on the Pentagon--why couldn't they just be sworn to secrecy? As I've pointed out, they only have to keep quiet for a few months in this scenario.
A US ship at anchor in Guantanamo Bay during this time (1960's) would have to be manned. I mean, this isn't a ship stationed in exactly friendly waters, with locals eager for your arrival on shore leave! [emphasis original]
If the crew were evacuated by small boats pulling up on the side away from any Cuban observers shortly before dawn, and the explosion occurred 20 minutes later, the crew's absence would be very unlikely to be noticed.
According to you, the US secretly blows up an anchored, now unmanned (previously evacuated) ship in Gitmo Bay. Blame is placed on Cuba for blowing up the ship. So then what? Do they create mock-victims who "died" on the ship? If so, then why would it have been manned to begin with?
There is no mention of a drone ship in the sabotage/large fires/mock victims scenario. Please explain what the difference in intent is between the two scenarios.
Why go to all the trouble and risk of having to secretly evacuate a crew? It's much more sensible that the ship would be a drone (unmanned) vessel all along. [emphasis original]
Wishful thinking. As I mentioned above, a drone would need at least a skeleton crew to maneuver in restricted waters, and for maintenance. Further, you yourself stated that the absence of a crew would be likely to arouse suspicion. And you greatly exaggerate the trouble and risk of evacuation, particularly when compared with the trouble and risk of refitting a ship for drone operations
But an unmanned ship is only specified for the second option, isn't it?
This operation suggested staging a "Remember the Maine" incident. The Maine was moored when 254 American crewmen died onboard.
If real friendly casualties are an option, why is there no scenario that calls for shooting down a real airliner, as opposed to a drone?
That's exactly what I've been telling you. A drone (unmanned) ship or a non-drone (manned) ship. The two options are quite clear.
Yes, but your contention that the non-drone must necessarily have a crew aboard when it is blown up has been shown to be wholly unsupportable.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Mar 22, 2007 13:30:55 GMT -4
What do you suppose a result of this act would be? US casualties?
The first and third options call for no US casualties. If US casualties are acceptable, why isn't attacking or shooting down an airliner listed as an option? Out of the many scenarios listed, you have merely cherry-picked a few which might be construed as possibly allowing for US casualties. You ignore the fact that most of the scenarios unambiguously call for no casualties. You claim that these few scenarios each have a casualties/no casualties option, and that this is the only possible reading of each. The problem is, in each of these scenarios, no great stretch of the imagination is required to figure out how they could be accomplished with a very high probability of no casualties (evacuate crew ahead of time from blown-up ship, near-miss bomb attack on surface shipping, coast guard cutter takes refugees off refugee boat before sinking it, etc.)
Unless they really meant "unmanned" or "drone" surface shipping, I'd say people would die. But the only "drones" they specify are US military planes.
Again, a near-miss bomb attack would most likely result in no casualties.
Two points make it particularly clear that "no friendly casualties" is an implicit subtext of the memo. First, all of the scenarios that you claim have options for real casualties involve ships or boats. None of the staged incidents involving aircraft calls for the actual destruction of or attack on such. They either involve drones, or completely fake incidents. Again I pose the question: if real casualties are acceptable, why are there no such options in any of the aircraft scenarios? I contend that it is because the lack of friendly casualties is assumed throughout. Again, in each of the incidents involving ships, friendly casualties could be avoided by evacuation or a near-miss. But an aircraft in flight cannot be safely evacuated. [edited to add: And any attack on an aircraft, even one intended to miss, is a risky proposition, due to their fragile nature.]
Second, the wording of the fake assassination attempt scenario: "even to the extent of wounding." This clearly implies that the normal and expected outcome would be no injuries.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Mar 22, 2007 13:52:21 GMT -4
Because a constant claim made by GCT's is that our government, or at least powerful elements within our government, would never plan to harm and/or murder it's own innocent citizens. Not now, not in the past.
Please show examples where anyone has claimed this. If it's a "constant claim," you should have no difficulty finding several examples from previous posts here, on baut, or on jref. Otherwise, please concede that your claim is a straw man.
This plan was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff - the top military figures in the US, and the most powerful government officials in the country except for the President and Sec. of Defence.
They were requested to provide suggestions, as the executive summary shows. Only one or two people stopped this plan from becoming a reality. But what if those two people had agreed to it? What if those two people were "removed" from the picture?
You are implying that JFK and McNamara put the brakes on some sort of runaway operation, however, the summary also makes clear that the decision to attack or not to attack Cuba will be a political one.
The one thing Northwoods proves is that such twisted suggestions can come from the highest levels, and are taken seriously into consideration by those in a position to implement them.
No. You continue to insist that the only possible reading of the memo is that it contains options for deliberately causing friendly casualties. As has been demonstrated, other readings are possible. Your claim is clearly extraordinary. You have not provided anything close to extraordinary proof of that claim.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 22, 2007 16:47:24 GMT -4
the US government has had plans on what to do if Canada invades, too, but Canada hasn't invaded. Not lately, anyway. True. Not since 1812. Still, I don't think Turbonium understands this concept. There are people whose job it is to come up with total BS scenarios just in case, though often enough, there isn't a case where it would get used. It's called "being prepared for any eventuality." And in case there's any confusion, Turbonium, I'm perfectly cognizant that the government plans these things. The issue is, do they follow through? Have they ever?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 22, 2007 17:21:13 GMT -4
Isn't this the same group that often complains that there was no set plan in place for dealing with hijacked airliners being run into buildings?
Which do they want, plans for every possibility or no plans?
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Mar 22, 2007 17:29:12 GMT -4
Not lately, anyway. True. Not since 1812. I'll gladly run across the Peace Bridge with a paintball gun if anybody wants to test these plans out
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 22, 2007 20:03:11 GMT -4
I'll gladly run across the Peace Bridge with a paintball gun if anybody wants to test these plans out You know, I think I'd pay to see that.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 22, 2007 20:17:42 GMT -4
I'll gladly run across the Peace Bridge with a paintball gun if anybody wants to test these plans out Have you ever seen the scene in the remake of Ocean's 11 where they talk about the previous attempts to rob Las Vegas casinos, and the one guy actually made it through the front doors before being gunned down? Well, that's how I imagine your attempt to run across the Peace Bridge with a paint gun would pan out. ;D You would be more successful crossing into Canada though, since I don't think our border guards are armed.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 22, 2007 23:35:22 GMT -4
Yeah the Mounties would look at you funny, then ask for your passport.
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Mar 23, 2007 11:17:42 GMT -4
Yeah the Mounties would look at you funny, then ask for your passport. "Business or plea- hey, he's running away, eh! Is he allowed to do that?!"
|
|