Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: amish
Originally posted by: noto12ious
oh, ha ha. amish cries about "cherry picking" yet does it to make his argument.
I guess you conveniently forgot to mention these little tidbits:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanmo Bay and blame Cuba.
And the shipmen on that ship? What? no mention of faking deaths on this point? notice how the "faking deaths" only starts at point b? :laugh:
oint;:laugh: nice try again. does it state what type of ship or whether or not that ship is currently manned or operational? i don't see anything that states that it would or would not be. you are assuming that it would be to have the document meet your criteria. unfortunately since the document does not state the condition of the ship i had left it out, not to prove a point, but to ensure that i wasn't using that unfairly. it would be easy to say, "it would be an empty ship." unfortunately you don't seem to care and would rather use it to try and prove your point.
ah, so now you defend your cherry picking by saying the ship might not have been manned? :laugh: given the fact that other points in this document went into great detail about using "drones" or other non fatal deception, it is strikingly absent for this point. given this fact, there is a good possibility the US would have attacked a fully opertional ship with crewmen on board.
good enough for me. the US was willing to kill / wound innocent refugees on its own soil (who cares what boundary they're in, but go ahead and defend that LOL), use numerous explosions and cause damage to its own infrastructure while risking their own countrymen's lives to create these lies. not to mention sending our good men to needlessly die in a bullshit phony war.
i guess that is where we differ. i'm a person of fact not assumptions. we could go on at length how the document implies that it would not harm US citizens since it goes into clear detail in multiple cases. i really like how you use "possibility" as fact.
so lets go to killing refugees, because, again, i think you are missing the point. you stated the the US gov. was willing to kill US citizens, something i refute. the possible killing of refugees is something i didn't refute.
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.
but but but i thought the attacks would be fake and with drones only and no bodily harm to anybody! :roll:
once again i never stated that. unfortunately you are arguing with me on the wrong point. in a previous post Red Squirrel stated, " the US goverment may be a bunch of crooks, but do you really think they want to kill their own people?" to which your reply was, "unfortunately, they do. plans kept secret for four decades." you had linked in an ABC news story. i stated that Operation Northwoods does not specifically state that it was designed to harm US citizens. which by reading the document is true. it does not specifically state that it would harm US citizens. it does state however that it would injure or kill refugees in the waters between US and Cuba. it doesn't specifically state the action would take place in international waters, however the vast majority between US and Cuba is international water.
defending the killing of innocent refugees because of imaginary boundaries... classic. I'd like to see you continue defending that one LOL. As stated above, they also wanted to destroy a possibly fully manned vessel, along with multiple bombings across the United States that would certainly injure / kill nearby Americans along with the refugee targets. I don't think you have the balls to deny that possibility. Either way you spin it, that's terrorism on US soil. Treason.
again you are missing the point. i'm not defending it, i'm countering your statement that the US would kill US citizens. i simply stated the facts. the document states that it would kill refugees or simulate that end.
now, on to the bombings. the bombs were to be plastic bombs. i fail to see how they would
certainly injure/kill nearby americans. especially when the document states, "carefully chosen spots." if we imply, something you seem to do liberally, the current theme of the document; the carefully placed bombs would not aim to kill or injure.
so if using plastic bombs is terrorism lock me up for treason and hang me. i've made many 2 liter bombs when i was a kid.
no matter how hard you try to spin it, northwoods is 100% proof of a conspiracy + false flag operation by the united states government. next!
i never tried to state otherwise. it is an obvious false flag op. conspiracy i could argue against. a conspiracy is, "agreement between persons to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement; or a plot to overthrow a government." i see neither since there is not plot to overthrow the government, nor is there an agreement to break any laws. the document is a brain storming session that never comes to fruition.
why not give the full definition of conspiracy instead of cherry picking once again?
conspiracy:
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.
well gee, looks like a false flag, phony/ bullshit plan to wage a phony war and kill innocent people in the process falls under many of those definitions. :laugh:
funny, i don't believe i was cherrypicking. i must have gotten under your skin for you to keep trying to pin that on me. my source was wiki on the definition of
conspiracy. so my statement holds true. lets look at yours.
the first one doesn't work because you cannot define a word by using the same word you are trying to define. the second one doesn't work because it is to objective. who is to say what is evil and what is not. now you are going to come back and state, 'of course its evil!' is it evil to want to remove a threat to national security that is only 90 miles away? the third is basically the same as the second point. the fourth point is my favorite. in the entire document i don't see anywhere where it states an agreement to conduct the exercise. the fifth is irrelevant.
oh look,
another interesting conspiracy! thanks wiki!
The U.S. Department of Defense report even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States:
"The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. Navy base at] Guantanamo."[13]
gee, that's not treason or conspiratorial. :laugh:
so i got bored and decided to double check the reference for that statement since it is not included in the Operation Northwood document that was declassified. i'm guessing you didn't because you wouldn't have quoted it otherwise.
the
reference is a book that tries to tie 9/11 to Operation Northwoods, shocking i know.
the book states, "The report even suggested secretly paying someone in the Castro
government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for
consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate
commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. naval base at]
Guantanamo." The act suggested -- bribing a foreign nation to launch
a violent attack on an American military installation -- was treason."
however, the Operation Northwoods report does not state this at all. it seems that this was just another 9/11 conspiracy douchebag that skews the truth in order to make his/her statements work, and to possible sell more books.
overall it was a good try, but your lack of research and follow-through failed you.
who said this was in reference to operation northwoods? not me. you need to read. bolded above since you clearly missed it.
and actually, this "douchebag" was once of the few who initially reported on the damning northwoods documents, along with other treasonous plans under operation mongoose. hilarious how you hate his guts.
bribing another country to attack your own? tsk tsk tsk. :laugh:
edit: see sig for more proof of us conspiracies.
[/quote]
yet again you are missing the point. no, you never did say that it was in reference to operation northwoods. however you stated that it was an additional conspiracy. i refuted this fact and proved it wrong. the "conspiracy" shows up in a book. that book specifically references Operation Northwood as the source. unfortunately Operation Northwood never states this "conspiracy." therefore, this is not an additional conspiracy. it is just another runaround by people that don't do their homework.
so, tsk tsk tsk, do your homework. :laugh:
ps. i don't hate that author. unfortunately he lost all credibility to me when he didn't correctly reference his "source".
edit: darn quoting mistakes