Explosive: Pentagon Plan to Provoke Terrorist Attacks!!!

[9215]

Looks like Rummy was reading up on the history of Operation Northwoods. :eyes:

http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd1101.html


The Pentagon Plan to Provoke Terrorist Attacks
by CHRIS FLOYD

This column stands foursquare with the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, when he warns that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. We know, as does the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, that this statement is an incontrovertible fact, a matter of scientific certainty. And how can we and the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, be so sure that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large?

Because these attacks will be instigated at the order of the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense.
This astonishing admission was buried deep in a story which was itself submerged by mounds of gray newsprint and glossy underwear ads in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times. There--in an article by military analyst William Arkin, detailing the vast expansion of the secret armies being massed by the former Nixon bureaucrat now lording it over the Pentagon--came the revelation of Rumsfeld's plan to create "a super-Intelligence Support Activity" that will "bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception."

According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization--the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)"--will carry out secret missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among terrorist groups, provoking them into committing violent acts which would then expose them to "counterattack" by U.S. forces. ...... more....

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Ah, yes...

and they will be timed to happen just before the November elections so that Shrub can declare martial law, tear up the Constitution, and name himself dictator.

[DenverDem]

2. This has been SOP for a long time.

The CIA has been doing stuff like this for decades.

[indepat]

4. When you play with matches, someone is going to get burned

[HereSince1628]

14. Trouble is it forces the publc to question the thinking behind 911

One can only wonder if this was the thinking behind 911, was the occurrence of a terrible act accepted because it was thought that the evil network would be revealled in the process?

It can't be rejected out of hand. When we are so thoroughly and completely lied to, when the bush admin so completely rejects concepts like rule by constitutional authority, ANY and ALL possibilities must be considered when trying to explain BushCo decision making.

[RainDog]

3. This info was also published last year...or was it 2002?

and posted on DU, though I did not bookmark the thread, unfortunately.

but I distinctly remember that Rumsfield's plan to try to get terrorists to attack the U.S. was part of his "strategic thinking."

Just another example of a press which does not ask this administration to be accountable for its many crimes and proposed crimes against Americans.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. 2001 (nt)

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. You never let your enemy pick time and place for battle

[9215]

15. That's another reason I think they did 9/11

The same mentality as that of Operation Northwoods.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. I don't

I don't believe in uber conspiracies.

[DenverDem]

19. So, Oswald acted alone?

Regan and Bush did not orchestrate the September Surprise in 80?

There were no guns for hostages?

Waking up is in order.

[PVnRT]

22. Question

Why does "I don't think that the U.S government is directly responsible for 9/11" synonymous with saying that you think there was no October Surpirse and that Oswald acted alone? Just curious.

[DenverDem]

29. The poster's blanket comment was he doesn't believe in conspiracies.

That should include the ones I mentioned, also. Just checking.

BTW, who ordered the SAC to step down on 9/11?

[PVnRT]

32. You don't know what the poster meant

so you made your own interpretation.

I don't know who ordered the SAC to step down - where exactly is the order telling them to stand down on 9/11? Evidence is always a good thing.

[9215]

35. What did the poster mean?

:eyes:

[PVnRT]

36. I don't know, that's the point

And neither do you.

I get a little sick of the absolutism people like you display - if someone disagrees with you, by God, they're an idiotic Bush supporter! They think Oswald acted alone! Blah blah blah!

[9215]

38. If you don't know what Muddleofheroad's point was then

how do you know Denver dems or anybody elses point is wrong? :eyes:


You are the one using absolutism: "if someone disagrees with you, by God, they're are idiotic Bush supporters"....isn't much wiggle room in that.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[9215]

63. You never made a point based on the substance of a statement

But go ahead tell me what it is.

[PVnRT]

65. I give up

I should have learned long ago that it's pointless to try to get people to avoid such arguments like "you disagree with me, therfore you must be the enemy."

Excuse me, I have to go back to freerepublic now and make my report. :eyes:

[Sterling]

69. I am not sure you were being called a freeper

It is however odd that a Dean supporter would post some of the things you have in this thread.

I say that as a Dean supporter who has many Deanie friends. None of us feel like you do about this kind of stuff.

That being said there is no litmis test for backing Dean so I can accept at your word you really do back Dean and welcome the support. It takes all kinds.

[Sterling]

58. I thought it was pretty clear.

How is it our fault if his post was not clear as to what it's intended message was.

Objectively speaking I think Muddle does not think conspiracies are an explanation of why many events happen.

I say this because I have read his posts for some time now and read the one he just made. I see no reason for him or you to be ashamed of feeling that way.

I also think it is more constructive to discuss the issues rather than
turn the debate personal.

[PVnRT]

66. Tell that to DenverDem

n/t

[Sterling]

68. Why

I gathered from his post he did understand the original post in question.

Some people will not allow themselves to consider the possibility that historical events can and sometimes are a result of conspiracy.

The original poster stated he did not believe in "Uber" conspiracy theories. I am not exactly clear on what that means so I asked for clarification. Without a more concise explanation I would have to agree that the poster was dismissing conspiracy theories out of hand and not based on the merit of any particular theory.

Personally I feel that inhibits one from finding truth and understanding as much or more so than someone with a partisan bias against an individual or a group or even someone who is prone to give credit to a theory prior to ample scrutiny.

[PVnRT]

70. What do you call this?

"My question for you is, what is your agenda here and why do you have a Dean icon on your posts?"

I guess personal attacks are bad unless you agree with them?

[Sterling]

74. Re read my post I think I edited it as you responded.

sorry. Was not trying to be sneaky. Anyway I can understand why someone would be alarmed at hearing a confessed Deaniac reject the idea that the neo cons are capable of conspiracy against fellow Americans to fulfill their PNAC agenda.


Like I said you break the mold on this one.

[DenverDem]

39. The fact that none of the planes were intercepted

despite ample time to do so is rather damning evidence.

The SAC had no problem catching up to Payne Stewart's doomed Lear Jet, and there was no alert that it was hijacked.

[PVnRT]

43. Intercepting planes

is dependant on air traffic controllers getting information to SAC that something is going on. From everything I've read, it seems that they were too busy saying "Hello? What's going on? Hello? Anyone there?" rather than notifying anyone that something weird was going on.

[DenverDem]

44. Manure.

There are plenty of timelines available that disprove that.

Alta vista can help you, there.

[Sterling]

56. cooperativeresearch.org has a great timeline

I politely suggest everyone take a look at it before discussing what happened that day.

[Must_B_Free]

54. Oswald AND David Kelley acted alone

we're supposed to believe that...

Kelley acted alone to sex up the documents, unbeknownst to Tony Blair, thereby causing the whole war and this is why he had to take his life.

[9215]

21. ?

You don't believe the article about P20G?


What about Operation Northwoods?

[PVnRT]

23. What about it?

You seem to be making the assumption that because elements of the U.S. government once came up with a plan like that, they must be doing it now. I don't quite follow that logic.

If BushCo was behind it all, why all the rhetoric about not being nation-builders nor the world's policemen during the 2000 campaign? If they wanted war, why didn't they take a tougher stand and start talking about going after these people? It's not like that is a losing proposition in this country.

[chelaque liberal]

26. "why all the rhetoric about not being nation-builders ?"

Do you seriously think they could have been elected if they let their true agenda be known? That wasn't the traditional Republican Party platform.

They lied, deceived, and betrayed, the Republican Party and the world from the start.

[PVnRT]

27. At that time

Although not as high as it is now, there was very much a belief that Saddam had to go amongst normal Americans. He could've made it a platform of the GOP in 2000 and not lost a single vote.

[Sterling]

60. That is your speculation.

Do you have anything to back it up? I disagree with your theory. I cannot imagine that Americans in 2000 would have backed a premptive invasion without international support.


Even after 9-11 the opposition leading up to the war was considerable.

Without 9-11 none of the PNAC agenda was possible. They said so themselves.

[9215]

30. "elements? I repeat "elements"?

The Sect. of Defense is merely an element of the US government? Pretty damn big element if you ask me.



Your reply is so riddled with non-sequitir syllogisms that answering it would be akin to trying to unscramble an egg.

Break that last paragraph down and state your points.

[PVnRT]

31. Seems pretty clear to me

It stands to reason that if Bush et al planned this, they would've run a non-stop propaganda campaign about Iraq and Middle Eastern terrorists starting during the campaign. Instead, they basically talked about becoming more isolationist. They even kept up that posture until after the planes hit the buildings.

ON EDIT: By the way, Operation Northwoods was put together but a group of extremist right-wing generals, at least one of which was an Eisenhower holdover who hated Kennedy passionately. So, yes, when I say "elements" of the government planned Northwoods, that's exactly what I mean. Especially since people like Kennedy and McNamara knew nothing of it until it had been all but canned.

[9215]

33. No, Bush would not have run a non-stop propoganda campaign against terror

terrorism, blah, blah, blah if he wanted to dupe the American public into believing he was a kindler gentler peaceloving fascist. He talked about becoming isolationist, but never INTENDED to be. He was rabid for war from the get go. Read Susskind's "Price of Loyalty", or just about anything else on the subject written by anyone with half a brain and you can see that Bush was bent on war, and the immense profits of that war BEFORE he entered the Whitehouse. Even the Right-Wing is freaking out at this psychopaths recklessness.

Your attempt at evading what the point I made about the "element" Rumsfeld is juvenile. It is HE that did P2OG; it is he that wanted to do with P20G what Operation Northwoods did for the fascists of that era.

Just another "element".....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Before we go down the semantic squabble route. Kindly state, for the record, that you do or do not see anything untoward about P20G and Northwoods.

[PVnRT]

34. Yes, I do

There are very untoward, and criminal. And you have been very successfully dodging my comments about Northwoods. Keep doing so, it's entertaining.

[9215]

37. I "dodged" your comments?

I have to take off for a few hours but I'll be back.

[9215]

64. Well?

I dodged your comments?

[DenverDem]

40. There was a non stop propaganda campaign, PNAC.

It began in '98.

[PVnRT]

42. Was it being used by Bush in the 2000 campaign?

Well?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PVnRT]

46. So it's personal attacks now

How dare I ask questions. I should just believe everything you tell me. Silly me.

[DenverDem]

47. Hardly personal attacks,

but considering that the line of your argument supports the Republican administration, I am merely wondering why you appear to support Dean's attempt to unseat them. Given your foregoing posts, it is a perfectly understandable question.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. A line of argument that thinks tinfoil solutions are silly

Only indirectly supports an admin position. If 100 people die in a ferry accident and someone here blames shrub, your argument would claim that clarifying facts that * had nothing to do with it was in fact supporting the admin position.

That is flawed "reasoning."

[DenverDem]

50. Tinfoil solves all sticky questions.

The universal answer when no comfortable one exists.

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. Not all problems

Just a lot of the more unique ones that crop up here.

[DenverDem]

53. Questioning the official story of 9/11 is not unique to DU.

It is rather ubiquitous, now.

The really tinfoilly conspiracy theory is the one that claims that middle eastern guys with no id's who trained briefly on private aircraft could pilot jumbo jets with such precision that they could hit skinny skyscrapers at just the right spot so that the buildings that were built to withstand such a collision would fall straight down as if in a controlled demolition.

Now that really defies the laws of physics and reason.

You'd have to be a real tinfoil hat wearing loony to believe that one, oh wait, never mind.

[Sterling]

62. I don't see any facts yet?

Only speculation on the part of the would be debunkers. I am not impressed or moved in my opinion by taunts or appeals to ridicule.

A discussion focusing on facts and not your opinion of the other posters mental states would be more compelling.

I look forward to taking part in one here someday with debunkers. I have been waiting for quite some time however with no luck as of yet.

[PVnRT]

49. Whatever

I've been here since April 2001. I must be a mole that has just evaded the admin and mods for years. Excuse me for expressing my beliefs.

[Paxdora]

55. My very same thoughts!

They are very devious, aren't they? But we are wising up faster than they are....

[Sterling]

61. How could they?

They would have sunk like a rock. How would they have promoted that plan pre 9-11.

It is clear the plan was made well before 9-11 and that it's creators are now in power. Yet they did not publicly promote that plan in the election. Why not? You claim it would sell with the American public even without 9-11?

Why would they hide their plan and then break it out after 9-11? I don't think it was for nice reasons, do you?


Like I said in an earlier post, your speculation that PNAC would have been popular pre 9-11 is very flawed.

[Sterling]

72. Kinda but not promoting the PNAC plan per se

There was a propaganda campaign against Iraq and one intended to raise fear in Americans but the PNAC plan was just another "think tank" to the public before 9-11 and that is how they wanted it. Out in the open but not given any real focus by the media.

[Sterling]

59. I think it is more that we think

Because they once had that plan they MAY try it at some point. In the context of current events it is pretty important to know that plans like this do exist. Not in and of itself a smoking gun but an important peice of the puzzle.

[chelaque liberal]

25. Is it still a conspiracy theory when they document their plans?

Is it tinfoil hat/grassy knoll material when the PNAC documents that they need another Pearl Harbor to get the public to go along with their plans?

Or is it denial?

[Sterling]

57. What is an Uber conspiracy?

If you don't believe that conspiracies happen then you probably are not very objective in your worldview. Some of the most important events in history have been the result of conspiracy.

[rman]

18. right, we want the terrorists to attack us when we tell them to.

-

[DenverDem]

20. We The People do not,

but the cabal who reap all of the political benefits sure do.

[truth2power]

7. The Honorable Donald Rumsfield

should be admitted to an institution for the criminally insane. x(

[grasswire]

8. William Arkin is gold

If he says it, it's true. He's one of the few journos that I fully trust and respect.

[9215]

13. I agree. I've never heard

of him before. Do you recall anything else he has done? I'd like to see his views on other topics.

Thanks

[grasswire]

9. we need to find the original LAT article

anyone got it on hand?

[grasswire]

10. damn

you now have to pay to get the full text.

[Tansy_Gold]

11. give me some details on the original LAT article

I have a lot of stuff in my personal archives, including a lot from the LATimes. Give me some details and I might be able to dredge it up for you.

[soup]

12. love the internet...

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1028-11.htm

[Hubert Flottz]

16. We are his bait!

That's why they are spending such a tiny fraction of our tax dollars on REAL "Homeland Security"! Congress should force Bush to fire the killer!

[berry]

24. this has become a RW talking point that one hears almost daily now

Well, not about the Pentagon, but I can't count the times I've heard the Democrats blamed for all intelligence failures because the Church Commission reined in black ops at the CIA (or tried to).

I don't think this is a winning issue for * and gang, though. It would open the window for the Dem candidate to lay out this whole history of dirty tricks--which most Americans have never heard of. I would LOVE for this to become a campaign issue.

But then, on second thought, a lot of Dems on the intelligence and armed services committees also seem to accept a framework in which covert ops and black ops are normal. I wonder. What percentage of the US population would be outraged if they knew about this? I suppose it would depend on how it is presented, and require a huge paradigm shift. And then I think about how Kucinich is ridiculed on all sides--a peace candidate, how absurd. (A cartoon in the latest New Yorker has a poll of the population of Mars--0% for almost everyone, 97% approval for Kucinich. I was appalled and depressed to see it. Is there no hope for sanity?)

[RainDog]

52. I've also heard people dissing the Church investigation lately

and thought...hmmmm....getting out ahead of the bad news in the propaganda wars to keep anyone from investigating all the black ops from the CIA under Poppy (and Reagan, and now Jr's) regimes.

As Kevin Phillips notes, covert action, illegal arms and money laundering are the through lines in the Bush family line, from George Herbert and Prescott to Poppy to Jr. wannabe.

btw, give IamJack'sSmirkingRevenge a break. He's a decent guy, as far as I could tell from when he was in town, and I can attest that he has no horns or tail, unless he kept them really well hidden, and since there was about five of us in a bathroom for a DU photo op, I doubt he could've gotten away with it. :)

What he seemed to be trying to say is that one black op does not make all black op conjectures equally valid. You all seem to have gotten side tracked after that.

but think of it in this way...every person who has ever died who knew Bush has not been killed by Bush, we can be fairly certain. So when one person dies, you should not automatically assume that person was a hit job.

...not to say that I don't think the Bushies have tacitly agreed to kill others...like Rene Schneider in Chile, for instance.

As far as Rumsfield's thinking and remarks go...he has said so many things which prove he is insane, I wonder if they put him in a padded cell at night.

As far as Bush not intending to invade, etc. etc...well, since PNAC wrote their statement in, what? 96? --I think it's fair to say they had this ready to go, whether they let it happen, made it happen, for just jumped on an opportunity so that they didn't have to create their own lies to invade Iraq...ooops! they DID do that anyway, huh?

whether Bush had any idea of this or not...I don't know. he's such a meat puppet for the fundies, I sort of see Cheney and Wolfowitz playing him like a sucker at a carnival.

[PVnRT]

67. You didn't see my "I LOVE BUSH" button?

n/t

[Sterling]

73. I don't thnk you are a freeper

I just happen to think you find yourself in the uncomfortable position of siding with them on an issue.

I find myself in the same position sometimes as well. In this case however I think you wrong on substance and not just because you happen to be saying the same thing the right wingers are saying.

[chelaque liberal]

28. I'm glad Chris Floyd brought it up again. Maybe now that there is a crack

in the amour people will start to take things like this more seriously. Actually this is old news. Do a google search on P2OG.

[rumguy]

71. Counterpunch is a questionable source - eom

[Sterling]

75. The LA times ran the story a while back.

It was posted here. I lost it when they switched the software. It's reliability is not in question in this discussion only what it means in the big picture.

What do you not like about counterpunch?