Joint Chiefs planned US Terror
August 19, 2002 9:07 AM   Subscribe

Joint Chiefs planned US Terror back in the 60s to build popular opinion against Cuba. Why is it so hard to believe that this type of 'strategic planning' isn't still commonplace? -via camworld
posted by tellmenow (22 comments total)
Given the craziness about Communism at the time, it wouldn't surprise me at all. Thinking back to the Reagan era and all the "wonderful" things that went on during his reign (word used deliberately), I think that we're still capable of doing something like that.

What really hurts me the most is that we portray ourselves as such a wonderful country to the rest of the world. This kind of stuff is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind, I'm sure.
posted by Beansidhe at 9:17 AM on August 19, 2002

aside: i find it sort of hilarious that they refer to Bamford's work as a "new book" even though it came out in the spring of 2001.
posted by zoopraxiscope at 9:20 AM on August 19, 2002

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Oh, well...that's original.
posted by Kikkoman at 9:56 AM on August 19, 2002

We've mentioned Operation Northwoods before, on various occasions. National Security Archive download. The Waco Holocaust Museum curator thinks this stuff is counterfeit.
posted by sheauga at 9:59 AM on August 19, 2002

This conspiracy stuff has been appearing more and more over the last few weeks. The only thing that really sucks is I am afraid that the coming anniversary of 9-11, will cause the flags will begin waiving again and people will once again forget to notice what this country is really doing in the name of homeland security and ending terrorism. What a great time it will be for the not-so-supported president to launch a not-so-supported war against Iraq.

posted by bmxGirl at 10:02 AM on August 19, 2002

Over at MetaTalk, folks are complaining about Newsfilter and New York Times posts and we get an ABC News late-to-the-party story? Ahem... C'mon, tellmenow, put a little work into it: between me & sheauga, you've got a veritable Google calvacade to either prop up or kick the chair out from under this weakest one link. It doesn't hurt to a little research.
posted by y2karl at 10:28 AM on August 19, 2002

karl, not sure what you mean? Should I have included a bunch of additional links? I was more curious about how quickly people have been blowing off any 'conspiracy theories'. This seemed like a great example of why not to discount theories on their face. The article was linked in a discussion, but never discussed. Sorry, I'm new, so happy to behave better, just not clear what I did wrong.
posted by tellmenow at 10:36 AM on August 19, 2002


I could not agree more.
posted by Hilfy at 10:55 AM on August 19, 2002

tellmenow: y2karl is trolling. One article is fine and its been going on here since day one.
posted by skallas at 2:30 PM on August 19, 2002

I think the current regime wouldn't even blink at setting up false "terrorist" attacks to keep the people wary and submissive to their increasing control and erosion of basic rights.

Just wait - see if Bush's approval rating slides significantly, and whether or not a "terrorist" attack follows shortly thereafter.

It would be *so* hideously easy for them to fake something, and frame up an easy scapegoat.

I don't trust 'em any further than I can spit 'em.

If someone like me thinks this way, just imagine what a heyday the militia crowd are having. Egads, it's getting ugly.
posted by beth at 2:45 PM on August 19, 2002

Everybody complaining about ABC News being late on this story, or calling it Bamford's "new" book, check out the URL real careful like. It was originally posted in May of 2001. I first noticed it around October of last year(2001).
posted by ehintz at 3:10 PM on August 19, 2002

Don't dismiss the Founding Fathers as a bunch of do-gooders. Remember, Machiavelli's writings have been around for a long time.
G. Washington was one of the world's premier spymasters for his time, many of whose agents were women, and only one of whom (Nathan Hale, recruited on a off day) was ever caught. (No mention of the current suspicion that Ben Franklin was a serial killer, which is still in the "rumor" stage.)
Subsequent US Presidents have also been highly regarded for their schemes and villainy: Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, F. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Bush the Elder. All of whom were more than willing to break eggs to make omelets.
posted by kablam at 3:51 PM on August 19, 2002

Frankiln as a serial killer? whom was his deity, Robespierre?(Chuckles in a tweed coat with a patch kinda half-smile)
Schemes? hell my 11 year old has schemes. Washington may have reported what he saw, but as spymaster? naw, a european, like Fouche, someone like that is criteria for a spymaster.
a 'pretext' to attack cuba is easy and old news. what would be good readin is some of those cold war russia war scenerios.
posted by clavdivs at 4:09 PM on August 19, 2002

Of course, the fact that hardly any of these crazy proposals were ever approved or executed indicates ...
posted by dhartung at 6:04 PM on August 19, 2002

Yes, the US has planned terrorism in the past. And yes, the coverage of these plans and actual attacks are steeped in conspiracy, but that doesn't make them untrue, just obtuse. What is so shocking about this story is that the acts of terror were to occure to Americans. It's not so shocking when we terrorise somebody else
posted by elwoodwiles at 6:23 PM on August 19, 2002

spell check on Opera erases my posts
posted by elwoodwiles at 6:26 PM on August 19, 2002

kablam, Upton Sinclair wrote a book about FDR just for you: "Presidential Agent."( You might also like "A World to Win.")
posted by sheauga at 7:51 PM on August 19, 2002

dhartung: who says they weren't? Certainly a few countries in Central America know all about execution (pun intended). What I'm astonished by is the fact that these things come to light 30-40 years after they happened, but god forbid anyone say that 9/11 might have been a conspiracy. We all laugh and make tin foil hat jokes. We have done such heinous things in this country's history, justified for myriad reasons, why is it so hard hard now to believe that we have experienced a coup, whose primary purpose was an Afghani oil pipeline? In the face of the changes that Bush/Ashcroft are imposing on this country, many which seem unrelated to battling terrorism, it seems very plausible to me that an event was planned and executed which created the political environment that allowed Bush & Team to operate with impunity.
posted by tellmenow at 8:30 PM on August 19, 2002

What a great time it will be for the not-so-supported president to launch a not-so-supported war against Iraq.
--- bmxGirl

Yep, I agree. Assuming he can tear himself away from the rigors of golf and vacation in time.
posted by dejah420 at 8:53 PM on August 19, 2002

The conspiracy theories are coming out because the memories of 9.11 are starting to fade and the "bash America" crowd is getting upset that people still support destroying terror networks.

I'm sure America did this stuff, and I'm sure we'll hear about the calculations of Tricky Dick, Don't Recall Ron, Gulf War George, Zippergate Bill and Enron George for some time to come.

But I don't know how that has anything to do with killing terrorists.

My flag is still up.
posted by owillis at 12:32 AM on August 20, 2002

spell check on Opera erases my posts

elwood, report this as a bug in metatalk.

tellmenow: Say something that doesn't make me laugh, and I'll listen. At the moment, elections remain scheduled for November.
posted by dhartung at 5:50 AM on August 20, 2002

At the moment? At the moment? What sinister consipiracies do you know about that we don't? C'mon, dhartung, spill the beans ...
posted by sheauga at 10:00 AM on August 20, 2002

« Older WarFlying   |   Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments