Talk:Operation Northwoods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Birds
Cuba Portal
Operation Northwoods is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within the scope of Wikiproject Cuba.
Cuba To-do:

Contents

[edit] Change in wording

"The plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state sponsored acts (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil" Does anyone else agree that "false flag actions" should be reworded to false flag terror attacks, or something more telling than just "actions"?

--- Nope. 'Telling' is less relevent in an encyclopedic context than 'NPOV', and the plain facts are damning enough already. -Toptomcat 01:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I enjoyed

reading about Operation Northwoods. I can hardly wait 20-30 years for the current batch of clandestine government bungling to be released. If what we're now seeing are the plans that were approved, imagine what was discussed that never made it to the light of day.

The FOIA wasn't enacted until 1996, whereas Operation Northwoods dates to 1962. I expect that anyone in government currently planning crimes would take this into account, and take appropriate measures to destroy or obfuscate the evidence. Perhaps not, though; I get the idea from reading the Operation Northwoods documents that ones proposing criminal activity don't see it as wrong or immoral. In any case, since Operation Northwoods was never specifically enacted, I don't see how this can be interpreted as a case of "bungling," unless you feel the bungle was leaving a paper trail documenting the proposed crime.

"Such as hijacked planes is incorrect, liberal, and a clear distinction of wiki's stand. In the reports it suggests things such as, starting rumors, capturing and questioning facility employees, sinking an unmanned vessel, in no way does it suggest plane hijacking. This statement uses the words "such as" which is in itself vague. I feel this is a blantant liberal move to try and correlate the acts of 9/11 and Op Northwoods. Which are obviously totally unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.169.115 (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 11th Attacks

I think at the very least, there should be a mention on this page of the newly popular conspiracy theory about the relation to 9/11 and the operation Northwoods documents. It seems like any attempt to mention anything like that is instantly squashed. It needs to be said, it needs to be related, even if its just mentioning that its a popular theory, we need all sides of the thoughts.

I haven't heard of any conspiracy theory directly linking Operation Northwood to 9/11. Providing precedent is not the same as the two being directly related. The article stands for itself - there is no need to mention the obvious : if the US military was able to plan terrorism against itself without consequence, then there is little reason to assume such planning has not been repeated. However, if there is an entry for 9/11 conspiracy theories, a mention of Operation Northwoods could make sense there. Perhaps you can find some credible sources talking about Operation Northwoods and its relation to 9/11 conspiracy theories - I think then you could include it here.--Paraphelion 19:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
To extend what Paraphelion said, it only shows that the US military was able to plan terrorism against itself without consequence. It does not show that the US military would have been able to successfully carry it off. Benhocking 16:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

its mentioned at the very beginning of the Loose Change_(video) 2nd edition, probably as "evidence" that the government would be willing to fake terrorism against the united states to gain support for some activity, in this case 09/11/2001 attacks. --Ozzie The Owl 02:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Bush did WTC, lol Bush. See my userpage for more details =)
--PEAR 08:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the references to 9/11. They are immaterial to this article. There are in fact many, much more accurate films and books about 9/11 which mention Operation Northwoods. For example, Crossing the Rubicon, Truth and Lies of 9/11, Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime, etc. But this is not relevant to the article at all. It would be relevant to mention Operation Northwoods in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but 9/11 does not belong in an article on Operation Northwoods. Just because some people have quite correctly argued that the Operation Northwoods plan is a historical precedent for the conspiracy that facilitated 9/11, does not make this relevant to the article. I should also mention that the 'conspiracy theory' films and sources mentioned are ALL disinformation sources that put out theories for which there is no real evidence, and much evidence to the contrary. This flashily-produced and catchy disinformation is intended to distract from real scholarship and the real evidence that 9/11 was deliberately facilitated. For real evidence, get Paul Thompson's "Complete 9/11 Timeline," Michael Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon," and Ruppert's film "Truth and Lies of 9/11."

CelestialDog 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

note: I left the link to 9/11 'conspiracy theories' in the 'See Also' section. the link belongs there, but not in the main text of the article, and certainly not at the beginning of the article!

CelestialDog 23:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Glenn?

One of the noted details is the suggestion of -

Using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba.

I've seen this repeated a few times - I don't have Bamford's book to check if it's in there - but it's the only one of the claims here not in the declassified PDF linked to at GWU. Does anyone know the source for this claim? Shimgray 21:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removed for now Rich Farmbrough 11:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

If we aren't checking all the sources, outright removal is hasty, if not irresponsible. Fearwig 05:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this related to "Operation DIRTY TRICK: a. Objective: The objective is to provide irrevocable proof that, should the MERCURY manned orbit flight fail, the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba." [1] - one of the "Possible Actions to Provoke, Harrass, or Disrupt Cuba " [2] Rwendland 20:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


I personally agree that there are a lot of problems with the official 9/11 story and can even see the demonstrated ability of the government to plan such insidious attacks against its own people HOWEVER - i agree that this page can stand on its own without that link. No need to denegrate facts with speculation.

[edit] Reference to FOIA request?

There are claims that the document was a hoax. This article claims it was released through a FOIA request. Please provide the FOIA documentation, if it exists, as http://www.foia.cia.gov/ says no. Interestingly, not even the GWU archive finds the document via a search on Northwoods, although it's on their server.

--Vinsci 16:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The CIA site, as I understand these things, would only cover FOIA-requested information released by the CIA; if it was obtained through another department it might well not be there. (As I undersatand things, it wasn't a CIA document - the internal stamps all refer to JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) classification, or DoD directives.)
God only knows who originally requested it, although the NSA at GWU may well have copies of the documentation if it was done by them. They seem to aim to serve as a repository, however, so probably not. Shimgray 17:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think Bamford alludes to having made the request in Body of Secrets, though Elliston's book cites it first, according to this wiki entry. Is it possible that multiple people requested it? If NSA did it, they should be happy to provide references. --Paraphelion 23:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why only ABC?

Why do you suppose ABC ran this headline-grabbing article but no major news outlets picked it up?

I did quick searches for "Operation Northwoods" in the archived news Web pages and found no mention on the following:

CNN; Associated Press; New York Times

And the list of prominent news organizations featured when Googling "Operation Northwoods" seems to stop with the ABC article. The only other Website I recognized in the first few dozen links was Wikipedia (and I suppose answer.com, which just copies the Wikipedia article).

Any thoughts on why other mainstream news sources wouldn't pick up on this? Are US military plans to fake an attack on Americans not newsworthy? Did news sources find the story unreliable? If so, why not investigate and expose Bamford as a falsifier of stories? Doesn't the document seem relevant in the context of the false pretexts for war in Iraq?

I think you just answered your own question with that last one. -Rummy

[edit] Title 10

Can anyone clarify what "Title 10 US code 141(c)" or possibly "Title 10 US code 141(o)" is? Rich Farmbrough 11:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Title 10 Code 141 seems to be about military procurement, but I don't know about the (c). Some googling suggests that it may be a (6), though... not that that seems to help. hmm. Ask WP:RD? Shimgray 13:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted section/"Body Of Secrets"

The section was based on a misreading of the Northwoods documents. It correctly noted that the JCS had specifically approved paragraph 8 of an identified document. However, it went on to incorrectly identify paragraph 8 as dealing with a proposal to shoot down a drone plane, falsely claim the plane was carrying vacationing college students, and blame the attack on Cuba. That proposal was found in paragraph 8 of the "annex" to the "appendix" of the document (referred to in places as the "enclosure.") Paragraph 8 of the document itself, captioned "RECOMMENDATIONS," called only for the JCS to transmit the "enclosure" to the Secretary of Defense and the "Cuba Project," as the approved JCS reply to the request that produced the Northwoods proposal. If there is any doubt regarding the point, it is explained in paragraph 2 of the Northwoods transmittal letter. Military bureaucracy often approaches opacity, and this is a fair example of the practice. Judge Magney 17:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC) Yep, well spotted. Rich Farmbrough 12:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The terms used in the document are not used by Americans.

The vocabulary used in the document uses a European term for Vacation, this coupled with the fact it is used in "off on a Holiday" seems more British, than American here is the quoted text from the document:

"...create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday .."

Wikipedia's own page referencing the word "Holiday" says:

"In most of the rest of the English speaking world (including Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom) a holiday is also a period spent away from home or business in travel or recreation (e.g. "I'm going on holiday to Majorca next week"), the American equivalent being "vacation"."

How can people continue to use it as a source, when it is unlikely that a British term, that is not used by Americans in the same context would be used in a document that is allegedly wrote by an arm of the U.S Government in support of terrorism? This doesn't raise any red flags to anyone?

The problem is that - had it been written in British English - it'd be "university students off on a holiday"; the term "college students", especially in the 1960s, simply wouldn't have been used outside specialist contexts (one might speak of "college students" in the context of a particular Oxbridge college, or at a polytechnic, but in casual usage the term "university students" or "students" would have been used). So whilst it's an odd construction, it doesn't really show it to be clearly not sourced from America, so much as a weird construction whoever wrote it. Shimgray | talk | 23:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually from Britain, and the term College is as likely to be used as University. although comparing it with language used in the 1960's, it was first published in May, 2001 in the book "Body of Secrets" I have never seen the word "Holiday" used in this context in the United States in fact when I first came to the U.S people thought I meant Holiday, in the sense of a public holiday, other than vacation. I do not see the term "college" being more relevent than a word that is not used in America, being used by the Government? when college is a term used in general discussion in different countries.

  • Weird. My experience has been that "college students" is used in the specific case ("college students at Balliol" or "college students at [a particular FE college]") - using it as the general case instead of "students" or "university students" really, really seems wrong to my (Scottish) eye - especially four decades ago. Will ask around - could just be that I have an odd usage.
  • But, at least in my opinion, it doesn't suggest it's "not american" in origin; it does suggest that whoever wrote that section had an odd command of the language. It could be the officer in question deliberately affected British styles of speech, or that he was brought up somewhere where the regional usage was archaic. Additionally, it's a draft document - note DRAFT all over the tops of those pages - which would be more likely to still have personal stylistic quirks than the final "government" version. There's other weird uses of language in there to the contemporary reader - a page later we have "fakir aircraft", presumably instead of "faker" (an aircraft simulating a hostile), and the unusual spelling "Charley" not "Charlie". We also have the correct "disburse" rather than the usual "disperse", which surprised me a bit.
  • Indeed, it's not implausible he learned the language before WWI, and phrases do change over time - some poking of IMDB finds a 1948 US film called Summer Holiday, which suggests the term was commonly understood then. (also Holiday in Havana 1949, Holiday for Lovers 1959, & a whole range more using it in the British sense)
  • Anyway, I seem to be running on a bit. My point is basically that the term seems to have been in more common use back then - and this aside, it's a draft document, and as such the stylistic quirks of one person are likely to show up much more than you'd normally expect in "a Pentagon memo". Shimgray | talk | 01:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


Give me a break. One word does not prove or even necessarily suggest a hoax. I lived with some Brits for a couple of years in Japan, and I ended up saying "I reckon" instead of "I think" (I had only heard "reckon" in cowboy movies before that), as well as things like "bloody hell." "Holiday" proves nothing, but it might suggest that as an elite American, the document's writer might have spent time in the British Isles or some other part of the English-speaking world besides the US. Not unusual.


Let us then take it as a fact, that the word "Holiday" was in wide circulation in that era, I have never seen it in literature or heard it spoken as such but let us assume it is a fact. Are we then to assume a document, that basically shakes the foundation of the United States Government, e.g the wilful murder of United States citizens in order to deceive the Populus into outright warfare against Cuba was not only de-classified in entirety but was also filed and kept although it was in "Draft" form -- only to be later discovered by an author to be placed in his book? No other source exists, correct? other that the copy that is referenced in the National Archives, which for all practical purposes could have been smuggled into the archives, inside Sandy Bergers pants! At least the Majestic Twelve documents are referenced as a possible "hoax" in wikipedia, it's suspect to say the _very_ least.

  • It is very hard to determine if a particular word was in use in an era; either you need contemporary dictionaries, which may just be prescriptive, or rely on people's memories, which can be confused by more current usage, or you need to spend hours reading... hmm, I have some electronic copies of novels from the period, searching them might work. [pokes] There's mention in conversation of taking "a holiday from reality", Pohl/Kornbluth, both Americans, The Space Merchants (1953), which was one of the first half-dozen I looked at. It's worth a bit of a study in its own right, this, but my dissertation is four thousand words under par and due on Monday...
  • Anyway, cutting to the chase - do I think this document is a hoax? No. Why? No governmental body has, that I ever heard of, disputed it's provenance. We all heard of (at least in passing) the Berger case you allude to, which exploded loudly and publicly - there hasn't been a peep contradicting this, or attempting to spin about it.
  • The existence of some plan of this kind was rumoured for many years, and understandably dismissed as nonsense. Bamford somehow got reasonably sure it existed whilst researching a book, published details, and about the same time the National Security Archive (a branch of George Washington University, not the National Archives) got hold of a copy under the Freedom of Information Act. I am unsure of the exact order there, though. The reason it's a draft only is because the plan was rejected - a draft of the proposal was sent to McNamara for him to approve, to his credit he disapproved, and nothing more was done about it. It would only have gone beyond a draft state had it been approved at a higher level - draft documents, especially highly sensitive ones, go to senior levels every day. Shimgray | talk | 13:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Last I checked there are only 30 days in November, even in 1962.
I've trimmed the date from that passage; it originally got dumped in here from Fidel Castro. I assume transcription errors... Shimgray | talk | 14:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's look at the quote. It called for the government to "...create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday..."

  • Usually, when the term holiday is used to refer to a vacation, it is used without a before the word holiday. If it was referring to a vacation it would say "college students off on holiday"
  • This seems to denote that the event would occur on an actual holiday, such as Christmas, Thanksgiving, or Easter. Easter seems most likely, giving the fake destination of the plane (College student on spring break), although, choosing Thanksgiving would be more strategic choice because it is a uniquely American holiday. Christmas would also be a strategic choice because it would portray the Cubans as Godless (this is a side not, not part of the point I am making).
  • The point is that having the attack occur in such close proximity to a holiday, such as the ones motioned, would catch the public off guard. People's emotions would rapidly shift from celebratory to angry. They would want retribution against Cuba for "killing" the students and destroying the sanctity of the holiday in question.

[edit] Contingency

In what way is this plan a contingency plan? What is the event that is being planned for that is not likely to happen, as defined by the wiki entry for contingency, assuming we are not talking about the philosophical or logical definition, which will hold even less water? The introduction to Operation Northwoods states the objective of the document as :

"a request.. ..for brief but precise description of pretexts which would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba".

So lets examine which part of this objective might be a contingency:

  • 1. the request
there was a request made, the request itself is surely not a contingency
  • 2. the event that US would require military intervention in Cuba
one year prior to this document, the US military did covertly act against Cuba (see Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion), so this is surely not a contingency
  • 3. the event that the US would need justification for US military intervention in Cuba
seems to be the best, albeit weak, case - that one might somehow construe a need for justification for a military intervention is "unlikely". How many Americans would say that their demand for justification when their military does anything is a mere contingency? This seems even more unlikely when one considers that the prior US military action against Cuba was committed covertly.

--Paraphelion 09:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The military always has contingency plans set up. These are like "what if" plans. In other words, if under certain circumstances and certain events happen, then you have a contingency plan ready. I also added the part a few radical, because I have talked to many cuban exiles and they have never even heard of this plan. This was a really radical contingency plan and which is why it obviously was never executed.--Antispammer 19:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
You have essentially said nothing. Obviously the military has contingency plans, there is no evidence that this is one of them. This is a radical plan, in that it involves terrorism against the people it is sworn to protect, but radical does not mean contingency. In fact, it could be said that the methods were so radical that it was not merely for a contingency. Your anecdocal conversations with whatever cubans that may or may not exist outside of your mind is meaningless. To the surprise of absoutely no one, you have not named the event for which this plan is a mere contingency. --Paraphelion 23:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems your ignorance of history has empowered your anger. Perhaps I shall take you along a stroll of what was happening in 1962... but ofcourse you would never take my word for it. *Sigh* I'll come back with some stupid citations but just remember, you are wrong.--Antispammer 00:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
As for the radical part I suggest you leave this, as it is radical even you agree, and it was proposed by 2 people.--Antispammer 00:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Here, you said you wanted a citation. I'll let you pick whichever one you want from here--Antispammer 00:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I read over your statement again Your anecdocal conversations with whatever cubans that may or may not exist outside of your mind is meaningless. and this really struck me as offensive. I think you need to take a chill pill and relax. If you think that these 2 guys were not radical for wanting to use terror tactics, then you are out of your mind.--Antispammer 01:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, all you have to say is essentially meaningless. You comment on my perceived anger and resort to adhominem attack. A google search is not a citation. The chair of the joint cheifs cannot be considered radical for one radical plan. Perhaps your perception of an unrelaxed enviornment is a result of having provided no actual proof. I will be requesting arbitration.--Paraphelion 03:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You can pick any of those sources that will tell you that it is a contingency plan. Secondly, the joint cheifs signed it, he did not author it. If you think all I have to say is essentially meaningless then you should not be in Wikipedia. Read |Wikipedia is not a soapbox to spread hateful propaganda--Antispammer 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should pick a source. I looked at a few and they are opinion articles. Nothing you have said is meaningful because you have provided only ad hominem attack, links to google searchs, anecdotes about your claimed conversations with people, and obvious information such as that the military has contingency plans. Perhaps that is a smokescreen for your not answering simple questions, such as "What is the event for which this plan is a contingency?" I never said the chair of the joint cheifs authored it.--Paraphelion 03:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Well obviously that is not even relevant. But I can see that you have already over-analysed me... all I brought was my sincerity and truth and you threw it out the window. Ofcourse, you will have to give me some time to research this question, but before you go ahead and vote me for arbitration I suggest you leave my edits as this is an encyclopedia not an outlet for intellectual subtle hate-speech...Do you realize that anyone in the world can read this and misinterpret this and think that the U.S. wants to terrorize its own people? I can see that the more I type the more you will reanalyse my statements and highlight everything I have said as anecdotal. *sigh* Give me some time to research what events might have been... Wait a minute... that would be me doing ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Well, I can see that perhaps this is the long standing question for you as you will never give in to my analysis. Perhaps, I encourage to you read about Cuban history more rigorously. As far as my edits are concerned I ask you nicely to leave them as I don't want some one that has No knowledge of Cuban-American relations to get inflamed by this. In fact I myself personally am already pissed off because this radical and largely unheard of contigency plan is already link to state terrorism. Ok look, take a deep breath I can tell you don't like my opinion....but seriously I have a friend that after September 11th was full of outrage. He did not understand what was going on and he started reading the crap that Alex Jones and Michael Ruppert say. Look just give me some time to figure out what unlikely events would lead to considering this proposal in 1962. I will email you what I find out, but please take into consideration that this is an online encylopedia, not the rest of the internet where can you write "United States is evil blah blah blah". Having said that, I did not come in here to ad hominem attack you but I was really angry at this kind of subtle interpretation for this kind of document.--Antispammer 07:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly where do you find anything I've said to be about hate. You are the one using POV terms such as radical and contingency. I have no idea who Alex Jones or Michael Ruppert are. Since you say you are pissed off, perhaps it is you who is hateful. I don't think I've over analyzed you becuase you have provided little of any actual meaning to analyze, and this last reply of yours is still largely anecdotal evidence. I find it bizzare that you are worried that a single document will give people the impression that as a whole, the US government wants to terrorize its own people. It is quite bizzare that you use terms such as 'pissed off' and 'outrage' to describe the feelings of you and your friends, yet somehow interpret my questioning of POV adjectives as hateful. Do note that I have not referred to my feelings, what conversations I may have or may have not have with people nor how 9/11 may have personally affected me, as none of this has anything to do with an encyclopedic article. If the only evidence you can conceive of providing is what you consider to be original research, perhaps there is a reason that is so, and perhaps you should question your own impartiality. Given your numerous citations of anecdotal evidence, insulting authors that I have never heard of and have not come up in our conversation, and appeals to sentimentality, it would appear that it is you who are getting up on a soapbox. Perhaps you are simply a US patriot who is disturbed at the fact that in 1962, the highest ranking military officer signed off on a plan to commit terrorism against the people he was sworn to protect, and you have difficulty reconsiling this with your extreme patriotism, all of which would be perfectly understandable, as you have little or no way of knowing how many other plans such as these have been proposed and signed since that time and the implications that could have. There's my one time over analysis of you, take it or leave it. Additionally, I think you are beginning to reveal your agenda when you say "As far as my edits are concerned I ask you nicely to leave them as I don't want some one that has No knowledge of Cuban-American relations to get inflamed by this." --Paraphelion 07:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Deny Deny Deny. Do you realize that in this case I do not care about impartiality? Do you realize I do not care if the whole world comes and see's your quick interpretation of my agenda? Do you realize why I am hateful on this issue? Do you realize that anyone can read this crap and misinterpret this article to form a conclusion such as the United States makes evil little plans to do evil things? Do you realize that I can see right through you? Do you realize that I can't stand people who make judgements about the United States Department of Defense, and do not understand anything about war? Do you realize what was going on in 1962? Clearly you don't and I am not going to sit here behind my computer and educate you about all the things that were going on in 1962. I hope you can open up a book and learn your history, before you make judgements about the rationale of the United States DoD.--Antispammer 08:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I over-reacted....--Antispammer 09:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Look I took a deep breath. Perhaps you are simply a US patriot who is disturbed at the fact that in 1962, the highest ranking military officer signed off on a plan to commit terrorism against the people he was sworn to protect. It's not about that...there a thousands of contingency plans that are made. This is just one contingency plan that was clearly radical and clearly someone found it and was outraged by it and decided to release it to the public.--Antispammer 09:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a moment to stand back from the conversation, I appreciate it. I'm not asking just because it is relevant to our conversation - but do you know how many other contingency plans the US military has that involve terrorism against its own people? You say contingency plans do not bother you, and I understand that, they do not bother me either, but this one I hope is an exception, it doesn't bother you that the US military was open to committing terrorism against its own people, especially in the light of a war on terror today? I like to think this plan was an exception, or at least not typical under other JSOS. Another thing I think one should consider is that - shouldn't some things be off limits in a contingency plan? It's one thing to plan for bad scenarios, it's quite another when those plans specifically targeting public opinion, that is tantamount to specifically targeting the US constitution. For instance, do you think there are US military contingency plans which involve assassinating the president? - and if no, don't you think that's a good thing? - that some things, no matter what the circumstances, the US military should not be planning it, because it should never ever have the authority to do so, unless the country was depredated to a point where the argument is moot - and if so, then I think that shows a fundamental lack of faith in the US way of life, a way of life that isn't supposed to be treated as a luxury that the military can disregard whenever the military or a few politicians say so. How can you be sure that these plans are made for the ultimate benefit of the people when they target the people they are sworn to protect - the people who pay the bill for the time spent on making these plans. Just as we should not pay our own military to plan the assassination of our own elected officials, we should not pay them to plan terrorist actions against ourselves for the purposes of changing our own opinion. If the military wants to do something and public opinion gets in the way, then they should not be doing it. But, back to the main question - do you know of other US military plans that target US citizens by terror or other force? Some circumstantial evidence - this document does seem to indicate the authors expect that other people in the government are making up similar plans, and the document does not treat as novel the concept of targeting its own citizens by terror, or using terrorism at all. Also, I think the plan was radical, but the authors not proven as such yet.--Paraphelion 17:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

--Paraphelion 17:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I respect your questions. Before I punch the living crap out of my monitor, for you coming up with some wild allegations and give you a knee-jerk reaction response; I am going to take some time off so that I can come back with a more eloquent answer.--Antispammer 02:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what wild allegations you are talking about - perhaps you misread, even if slightly? - please take the time to reread what I wrote. I was saying that I hope that this Operation Northwoods is not common - that the JSOS does not routinely come up with plans, even contingency plans, which involve terrorism against its own citizens. The part about the president is an example of what I was hoping you would agree on should never be planned, to illustrate that there should indeed be limits on what the military plans.--Paraphelion 02:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to your wild allegations that Cuban-Americans are in any way responsible for 9/11. Please re-direct your ignorance and hatred to OBL.--Antispammer 10:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You may want to reread, I have no idea what you are talking about.--Paraphelion 13:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Am I mistaken, or is this all WP:NOR? I hope this isn't being approached as potential material for the article (or a potential rationale for removal of material). Fearwig 05:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LoL

Thanks for trying to incite hate amongst the U.S. and giving ammunition for people that will never understand this document a reason to hate this country.--Antispammer 11:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Antispammer, are you interested in the truth of the matter, or protecting the "image" of the country? It seems more like the latter than the former... I for one am outraged that the military whose sole job it is, is to protect the American people EVER seriously considered a "contingency" plan like this at any time in the past. This is more about covering their asses to do whatever they want, than actually being concerned with the protection of their charges: the American people. There could not possibly be any justification for this "contingency" plan, in any reality, at any time, that would be convincing. It is a dark spot in our military history, and I hope to god these things aren't occuring anymore. Ed Sanville 15:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide factual information, or its closest aproximation. However, I must hereby accuse the facts of a POV bias. Due to its obvious anti-American slant, I move that all factual information be removed from Wikipedia. Fearwig 05:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to disclosure by surviving officials

The article should make note of the public comments of the surviving officials of that period. I don't think anyone has admitted being aware of Northwoods, including McNamara. Mirror Vax 03:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Conspiracy theories?

Some people seem to believe Operation Northwoods is a hoax, some believe it really existed, and the whole subject is about nefarious dealings by the government. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me (in the neutral sense of the term... some conspiracies are real!). Plus Northwoods is also cited by 9/11 conspiracy believers as is mentioned in the article. Other than from the reverter, any objections to adding this page to Category: Conspiracy theories?

Mjk2357 20:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Northwoods certainly resembles a conspiracy theory. But it isn't one. That's what makes it interesting. Mirror Vax 00:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Would fit better in a conspiracies category.--Paraphelion 03:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Are we sure this thing is real? There seems to be some debate that's why I wanted to put it in the "theories" category. Mjk2357 12:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am, I consider the National Security Archive a reliable source.--Paraphelion 03:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    Its conspiracy fact.
I (facetiously) suggest the first moon landing (and all subsequent moon landings) be moved to Category:Conspiracy Theories, as many individuals deny the legitimacy of space travel. Oh, don't forget heliocentrism. Really though, would it be surprising that conspiracy theorists might use any legitimate conspiracy (or similar event or document) as a basis of their arguments, no matter how illegitimate those individual arguments might be? Guilt by association is not a rational policy. Fearwig 05:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I apologize

Sorry for getting angry before

[edit] Category: Articles with unsourced statements

Speaking of unsourced statements, what is the specific basis of this categorization? Fearwig 05:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I placed a request for citation on the "bomb Jamaica etc to incite the UK into supporting an invasion of Cuba". I couldn't find anything on it, and I've never heard of it. Hence it comes under cats with unsourced statements --Zleitzen 05:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
According to excerpts in [3] (search for "Jamaica") it's in James Bamford's "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency" Rwendland 20:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
That book should be cited, then, rather than a 9/11 conspiracy article. This is exactly the sort of trash this article, never mind the encyclopedia, does not need. 141.153.90.177 20:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be good if someone checked the book (Chapter Four) - I don't have a copy. But 90% of that extlink does purport to simply be excerpts from Chapter Four, and is given as a source elsewhere in the article. Rwendland 22:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point; I didn't notice that it already appeared in the article. Big oversight. 141.153.90.177 22:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

There seems to be an issue about whether work by James Bamford should be included in this article. Given that the primary sources are all available on this subject - is it really neccessary to refer to secondary sources such as Bamford. Also I haven't a clue why 9/11 keeps getting dragged into this page. Could anyone clarify on either point?--Zleitzen 01:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia actually prefers secondary sources to primary sources. See WP:RS.
  • Some people want to say the operation northwoods supports the idea that 9/11 was an "inside job" by the US government. Tom Harrison Talk 02:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Tom. I understand the WP:RS premise but in these rare cases the secondary source only obscures the subject matter and article - isn't Bamford merely a pundit speculating from the hip on what is actually readily available to us and can be proved or disproved anyway? Perhaps a re structuring is in order to clearly differentiate between the primary documents and one guy's interpretation. As for this 9/11 business, bah and humbug, surely those people cannot be serious sources for this article by the very nature of their claim. btw I've also been discussing restructuring ideas on the Cuban Project page with relation to this page.--Zleitzen 10:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
So far as conspiracies go, they are ubiquitous. Everyone is in agreement that the 9/11 attacks were the result of a conspiracy. But those who are genuinely knowledgeable and care about the truth reject fallacious conspiracy theories, such as the U.S. government's lying, self-serving, a-historical, a-factual, and provably false official fairy tale conspiracy theory concerning the 9/11 attacks.
More than four times the amount of non-combatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes killed from 3,500,000 to over 4,300,000 of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. Communist governments have murdered over 110 million of their own subjects since 1917. And Germany murdered some 16 million of it own subjects in the past century. (The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel's website at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ .)
All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely responsible for promoting and causing or even the wars committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is directly responsible for committing against its own citizens--certainly not in amount of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people's very own government.
Needless to say, all of these government mass-slaughters were conspiracies--massive conspiracies, at that. 209.208.77.73 17:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Readers, and myself, want to know about a series of verifiable policy proposals made between the years of 1961-63 by the United States government, concerning foreign policy towards Cuba. Anything beyond that is irrelevant to this article. This has nothing to do with "conspiracy theories", Rudolph Rummel, Turkish regimes or any of the above comments I'm afraid - interesting though they are.--Zleitzen 19:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
If you believe that your current comments are true, then begin by following your own advice, instead of being the hypocrite that you currently are. I merely responded to your irrational remarks disparaging those who rightly are critical of the U.S. government's provable falsehoods regarding the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks. If you're going to dish out such comments, then don't get your panties in a twist when those whom you attacked respond. Obviously you like dishing out attacks, but you become upset when one whom you attacked responds. You want to eat your cake and have it, too, as they say. 209.208.77.73 23:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't give a crap about who supposedly orchestrated 9/11 - it may as well have been Dick Cheney as far as I care. My concerns are Cuban politics, the Northwoods project and Cuba-US relations. That is my interest here - That is the focus of this article - That is what should be discussed within the article. --Zleitzen 01:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, your present comments here are not true, as can be seen from your comments in your above 10:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC) post. Unless of course you've changed your mind since then. Regardless of the state of your current position, I merely responded to your attack. As I said before, if you believe that your current comments are true, then begin by following your own advice, instead of being the hypocrite that you currently are. I merely responded to your irrational remarks disparaging those who rightly are critical of the U.S. government's provable falsehoods regarding the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks. If you're going to dish out such comments, then don't get your panties in a twist when those whom you attacked respond. Obviously you like dishing out attacks, but you become upset when one whom you attacked responds. You want to eat your cake and have it, too, as they say. 209.208.77.73 03:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't "dished out any attacks" - I believe that they are all coming from your corner. Please discuss this article and the subject matter of this article, taking your talk on 9/11 to the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. I haven't "changed my mind" on any point either, linking the verifiable Northwoods to speculative theories on 9/11 degrades the importance of this within the timeline of Cuban history. Which has consequences to the view of Cuban - US relations both at the time and in the subsequent years. If you want to figure more credible speculative theories about the potential upshot of Northwoods - you'll find them in the Caribbean sea rather than Manhattan. But that's beside the point as well.--Zleitzen 14:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
You have a persistent problem with not being able to tell the truth. In your above 01:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC) post you wrote, "I don't give a crap about who supposedly orchestrated 9/11 ..." Yet obviously that's not true given your comments in this present post of yours and in your above 10:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC) post. From that latter-said post of yours: "As for this 9/11 business, bah and humbug, surely those people cannot be serious sources for this article by the very nature of their claim." That is hardly a statement of neutrality on the matter, and is indeed a statement that you do "give a crap about who supposedly orchestrated 9/11."
Furthermore, that quoted statement from your 10:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC) post is an attack on those who present evidence and proof that the 9/11 attacks were staged by the U.S. government, for as you assert "surely those people cannot be serious sources for this article by the very nature of their claim." Contrary to your claim, surely those people can be serious sources.
As well, in the present post of yours, you declare that evidence that the 9/11 attacks were staged by the U.S. government is speculative. While as within any field there is some speculation on particular matters, there is nothing speculative about much of the evidence or the conclusion that the U.S. government staged the 9/11 attacks from beginning to end. The case for this is as solid and iron-clad as can be made for any event in history.
So once again, as I said previously, if you believe that your current comments are true, then begin by following your own advice, instead of being the hypocrite that you currently are. I merely responded to your irrational remarks disparaging those who rightly are critical of the U.S. government's provable falsehoods regarding the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks. If you're going to dish out such comments, then don't get your panties in a twist when those whom you attacked respond. Obviously you like dishing out attacks, but you become upset when one whom you attacked responds. You want to eat your cake and have it, too, as they say. 209.208.77.138 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does it mean?

I don't know where NPOV leaves off and preferring life over murder picks up, but there is something to be said for the goverment institutions and personnel who could cook something like this up.

[edit] Please Stop the Incorrect and Illiterate Editing

Hi. What is the problem with using blockquote? El_C 09:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not merely using the blockquote tag, El C. The way you and Zleitzen are using it is incorrect and illiterate: with quotation marks added to the displayed quotations. That's not how displayed quotations are properly done. As I told Zleitzen, please read a properly-typeset book in English with examples of displayed quotations.
As well, I would say that the colon is to be preferred over the blockquote tags in Wikipedia for displayed quotations, as in the Opera browser the text is formatted too small within the displayed quotation on Wikipedia when the blockquote tag is used (although not with other websites when the blockquote tag is used). The blockquote tag in Wikipedia looks fine in Firefox, though.
Furthermore, I am the person who has contributed by far the most to the Operation Northwoods article. This includes the entire "Related Operation Mongoose proposals" section, most of the introduction, all of the information on how the Operation Northwoods document was declassified, and virutally all of the references (e.g., mainstream media articles, Brig. Gen. William Craig's memo, the Assassination Records Review Board press-release, etc.; of which required a great deal of research on my part). With my recent edits (from February 8, 2007 onward), particularly in greatly improving the formatting of the references, I should have thought that it would be obvious that I have a great deal of skill, literacy and competence. Hence, I find it quite ironic and off-putting to see others come up behind me and change my perfectly well-formatted parts with incorrect and illiterate edits.--209.208.77.167 10:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You write "I am the person who has contributed by far the most to the Operation Northwoods article". Please see the WP:OWN. Quotations framing the quote is a matter of taste, leave them out if you prefer. What you do in your part the world is no more right or wrong here. There are no hard and fast rule for exact formatting of block quotes in English. I believe that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style asks editors not to add them within blockquotes, but I added them simply in habit - having been writing academic texts and so on in my native language since before Kennedy fought his first primary. The blockquote html is recommended and used throughout wikipedia, and adding them is entirely justified. The rest of your comments are so unnecessary and uncivil as to not warrant further comment or reading.--Zleitzen 10:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing I said was uncivil, Zleitzen. For you to make that counterfactual charge against me is itself less than kind. Perhaps you were offended by my use of the word "illiterate" to describe the incorrect edit you made, but I used that word in the sense of lacking knowledge on the issue at hand, not to attempt to deminish your worth as a human being. Nor did I mention my overwhelming contributions to the Operation Northwoods article in order to suggest that I owned the article. I made mention of it in order to demonstrate that I have skill and competency as regards editing Wikipedia articles, and that I have made very valuable contributions to the Operation Northwoods article. Hence, that my considerations on said matters should not be taken lightly. For you to imply that I was suggesting via mentioning aforementioned details that I somehow "owned" the article is an erroneous conclusion on your part.
Nor is it at all proper typesetting to use quotation marks around displayed quotation, unless the quotation marks are part of what is being quoted. To do otherwise is simply a classic example of improper typesetting. Neither is it merely a stylistic typesetting mistake to break this rule, as the displayed quotation means different things depending on whether it is surrounded by quotation marks or not. If the displayed quotation is surrounded by quotation marks, then it's a quote of a quote, i.e., it means the same thing as double quotation marks (" '...' ") appearing in the body of a regular paragraph.
That is likely wherein lies your confussion on the matter, as you have likely seen quotation marks used around displayed quotations even in examples of proper typesetting, but if said examples were indeed properly typeset then the reason the quotation marks appeared was because they were part of the text being quoted. To illustrate the difference, below is how a displayed quotation of Jesus from Matthew 5:46,47 in the New King James Version (NKJV) would properly appear (assuming the below was on a page wherein the text ran over three lines, which is the usual style for displayed quotations, although this is something that really is a stylistic choice, as the meaning doesn't change if one violates this rule of thumb):
"For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."
Since Jesus wasn't writing directly in Matthew, but instead verbally spoke, the words of his in the NKJV appear in quotation marks. Hence, the above is proper typesetting.
Whereas below is how a displayed quotation of Paul writing in 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 (NKJV) would properly appear:
However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
As here, Paul is writing 1 Corinthians himself, and hence his words are not in quotation marks in the NKJV source text.--209.208.77.167 13:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

El C, italics for quotations (displayed or otherwise) in the manner that you just used them is flat-out wrong typesetting. The only reason one should use italics in a quote is if they appear in the original, or if there is something within the quote that one desires to highlight (in which case, if one adds italics one must detail which part of the italics did or did not appear in the original; to do otherwise not only is a classic example of bad typesetting, it is also regarded as a dishonest method of quoting).

What is it with the yen some people have to come up after me and mess up what I had perfectly correct to begin with?--209.208.77.167 13:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, then. El_C 13:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Citation Needed" Tag Within Citations?

This is one that's so rich it's fit for framing.

It would appear that no one doing the recent edits on this article has ever cracked open a book that contained footnotes, endnotes, or in-line citations. Beetstra gets the principle blame for making these obnoxious and nonsensical edits, but surely there ought to be others around these parts besides me who know what the word "citation" means and what it consists of.

Below are the *full citations* (which have been in the article for over a year, included there by me) which Beetstra bizarrely added the "citation needed" tag to:

  • Jim Wolf, "Pentagon Planned 1960s Cuban 'Terror Campaign',"[citation needed] Reuters, November 18, 1997.

Which linked to the text of the article contained here: http://groups.google.com/group/aus.tv.x-files/browse_thread/thread/389c6945e535d5c8/

  • Mike Feinsilber, "At a tense time, plots abounded to humiliate Castro,"[citation needed] Associated Press (AP), November 18, 1997; also available here[citation needed].

Which linked to the text of the article contained here: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ae09ebd1e17a7c67 and here: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gathering.rainbow/msg/cec8ff17d8b26ef2

  • Ron Kampeas, "Memo: U.S. Mulled Fake Cuba Pretext,"[citation needed] Associated Press (AP), April 25, 2001.

Which linked to the text of the article contained here: http://groups.google.com/group/flora.mai-not/browse_thread/thread/14905a31d5fc0c70/

Now, even with Beetstra's already obnoxious deletions of the hyperlinks to the articles (whereby people can easily read the entirety of the articles for themselves), the text itself in the above cases stands as full citations. Hence the true bizarreness of adding "citation needed" tags to lines of text which are themselves full and complete citations. Obviously this person doesn't know what a citation is, or is just being intentionally obnoxious.

Let's see, the name of the publishing organization, the name of the author(s), the date of publication, and the title of the article, is given in all the above cases. Yep, full citations, one and all--even without any hyperlinks.

Thus, the impression given by these edits is that the person making them has never read a scholarly book that contained citations, as that is what citations consist of in said books.

Now on to the deletion of the hyperlinks. Beetstra's claim for why he deleted the hyperlinks to the full text of the above articles is "Cleanup usegroups per WP:A/WP:EL/WP:NOT using AWB". Argument by acronym is no substitute for coherent speech. Merely linking via acronyms doesn't do anything to demonstrate anything. Beetstra doesn't even attempt to demonstrate how his illiterate edits are justified by said acronyms and the pages they link to. That's the logical fallacy known as non sequitur, as it doesn't follow. Even a vandal can link to a plethora of Wikipedia acronymic hyperlinks, but that in itself doesn't uphold his case.

In my reading of the mentions of usenet via those hyperlinks, it is said that links to usenet (which I suppose would principly mean Google's archive) is normally to be avoided (although it mentions no policy of prohibition), but the reason for that caution appears to be to avoid citations of posts along the lines of "My friend's cousin's nephew's boyfriend's daughter's lawer heard ..."

But such concerns are not applicable in this case, because there can be no legitimate doubt that the text of the articles is what the news organizations actually published, as can be verified from actual library research (such as at a university library), or LexisNexis, etc.

Hence, from my reading of Wikipedia's caution (and *not* prohibition) on usenet links, such general advice is to avoid matters which are unverifiable, of which absolutely *does not* apply in the above cases, as all of the above linked-to news article texts are verifiable.

I suppose a last line of argument may be that these are articles under copyright. But if any articles fall under the "fair use" legal exception then it is certainly these articles. The Operation Northwoods matter consists of egregious crimes and no less than treason by the highest military officials in the U.S. In legal terms, it's conspiracy to commit a crime. Even if the planned crime is not committed (only because, in this case, the executive branch didn't approve it), the act of planning and intending to carry it out is itself a crime. For such military officials, these are hanging crimes. The penalty for such U.S. military officials planning to murder their own U.S. Navy and U.S. civilians is death. Certainly such mainstream major media news articles concerning these matters are important to the informed public discourse of the U.S. citizenry.209.208.77.199 08:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly - can I get a "hell yeah" for such lucid and well-put arguing? --Kizor 11:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awww Hell Yeah!!!

!

[edit] Manned Ship

The article claims that one of the plans was to destroy a manned ship, presumably referring to plan 3a in the document, but the document doesn't specify that the ship would be manned, and I think it's unreasonable to assume it would be, since all the other plans are designed to only make it look like U.S. citizens have been killed. The writer seems to have taken plan 3b, which explicitly states that the ship would be a drone, as evidence that the ship was meant to be manned, but that ignores the fact that the drone would be "anywhere in the Cuban waters", thus requiring that it could be piloted without a crew, while plan 3b is just "in Guantanamo Bay", so it could be parked and unmanned without being a drone. I think more evidence this is the correct interpretation can be found in 2a10 and 2a11, where the fact that the ships would be unmanned is clearly taken for granted (why would you need mock-victims if there were actual victims?). In my opinion, it strains credulity to say that this document is evidence of a plan to actually kill U.S. citizens as a pretext for military action, and is, at best, jumping to a conclusion unfounded by the evidence. 71.116.89.88 00:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no one's said anything, I'll go ahead and remove the parenthetical note 71.116.89.88 09:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In the Northwoods document the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff do indeed propose to murder U.S. Navy members to be blamed on the Cuban government:

3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:

a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.

b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

As the above super-paragraph 3 states, "A 'Remember the Maine' incident could be arranged in several forms," and then goes on to list two of those forms. The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff list the lethal plan in sub-paragraph 3a before they list the non-lethal alternative of sub-paragraph 3b.

The statement of sub-paragraph 3a that "We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba" has to be considered independently from sub-paragraph 3b, since these are separate alternate plans of staging "A 'Remember the Maine' incident." If the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff actually had meant for sub-paragraph 3a to be non-lethal then they would have specified it as such. The only reason they bother listing it by itself while listing an explicitely non-lethal alternative plan is because (as they state) it is one form of staging "A 'Remember the Maine' incident."

Also note the concerns of being discovered which the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff detail in the non-lethal plan of sub-paragraph 3b. They don't bother with such concerns in the plan of sub-paragraph 3a because with real deaths one doesn't have to fabricate phoney casualty-identities, front-families, and funereals.

But the above analysis concerning the reality of U.S. Navy-member deaths is absolutely confirmed by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in a previous section on the same page of the Northwoods document. Below is super-paragraph 2:

2. 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.

a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):

...

(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napthalene.

(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).

Remember, this comes before the previously-analyzed super-paragraph 3. They are simply listing in short form here what they go on to give a bit more detail to later.

Herein number 10 of sub-paragraph 2a corresponds to sub-paragraph 3a. And number 11 of sub-paragraph 2a corresponds to what is detailed in sub-paragraph 3b. Yet the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff explicitely state in number 11 of sub-paragraph 2a that this may be in lieu of number 10 of sub-paragraph 2a, i.e., that sub-paragraph 3b may be in lieu sub-paragraph 3a.

Moreover, number 11 of sub-paragraph 2a explicitely states in a single sentence to "Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10))." That is, in the same sentence the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff explicitely state that conducting funerals for mock-victims is a separate and alternate plan to number 10 of sub-paragraph 2a, of which corresponds to sub-paragraph 3a, i.e., that conducting funerals for mock-victims wont be required for the former plan of sabotaging a ship.

So yes, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff most certainly do indeed propose to murder U.S. Navy members to be blamed on the Cuban government in the Northwoods document. But one has to consider the prime method they give for this, and not be thrown off by the alternate non-lethal method which follows it, of which the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff explicitely state the plan of conducting funerals for mock-victims is in lieu of the previously-listed plan of sabotaging a ship.--209.208.77.191 21:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


I'm still not convinced, This document could be read to imply that sailors would be killed. But I don't see the lack of an explicit statement that no sailors would be killed as proof positive that this plan was intended to be lethal. As I noted above, the allegedly lethal plan was limited to a ship in the harbor, and the other plan is much broader geographically. To help illustrate what I'm talking about, let me point out that 2a6 ("Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage)") doesn't specify the plan is non-lethal, because it obviously is non-lethal; it's talking about planes on the ground. I think the situation is similar for the ship in the harbor, it's conceivable that a ship would have few or no people on board when it is docked. I honestly think there's enough ambiguity for it to be read either way, and if it is read to be lethal, it's somewhat conspicuous as being the only plan that calls for the death of U.S. Citizens. All others only involve simulated deaths. If the parenthetical note is removed, the article still states all the facts, and the document is linked to. It seems to me like the note is trying to claim one reading - that the plan was intended to lethal - is absolutely the correct one, when there are other reasonable interpretations in which the plan is non-lethal. I think it would be best to remove it and let the reader draw their own conclusions based on the content of the document. 71.116.89.88 21:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 11th Attacks

Following up on the aug-sep 2006 discussion on links to 9/11 conspiracy theories I added a paragraph supported with citations of Northwoods in the literature, with online references. May also merit expansion in the main text with more detail. mukerjee (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of September 11th attacks is above. No need to start a new one.

I am (again) removing the references to 9/11. They are immaterial to this article. There are in fact many, much more accurate films and books about 9/11 which mention Operation Northwoods. For example, Crossing the Rubicon, Truth and Lies of 9/11, Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime, etc. But this is not relevant to the article at all. It would be relevant to mention Operation Northwoods in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but 9/11 does not belong in an article on Operation Northwoods. Just because some people have quite correctly argued that the Operation Northwoods plan is a historical precedent for the conspiracy that facilitated 9/11, does not make this relevant to the article. I should also mention that the 'conspiracy theory' films and sources mentioned are ALL disinformation sources that put out theories for which there is no real evidence, and much evidence to the contrary. This flashily-produced and catchy disinformation is intended to distract from real scholarship and the real evidence that 9/11 was deliberately facilitated. For real evidence, get Paul Thompson's "Complete 9/11 Timeline," Michael Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon," and Ruppert's film "Truth and Lies of 9/11."

note: I left the link to 9/11 'conspiracy theories' in the 'See Also' section. the link belongs there, but not in the main text of the article, and certainly not at the beginning of the article!

CelestialDog 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the above is not really an argument about the appropiateness of the 911 section. To me, the relevant parts are: "They are immaterial to this article. There are in fact many, much more accurate films and books about 9/11 which mention Operation Northwoods. For example, Crossing the Rubicon, Truth and Lies of 9/11, Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime, etc. But this is not relevant to the article at all. It would be relevant to mention Operation Northwoods in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but 9/11 does not belong in an article on Operation Northwoods. Just because some people have quite correctly argued that the Operation Northwoods plan is a historical precedent for the conspiracy that facilitated 9/11, does not make this relevant to the article."
To me this is not convincing, as it would argue that the article on Tyrannosaurus rex should not mention Jurassic Park or that Shakespeare's plays shouldn't mention that the plays are performed in a modern context. Surely if X is notably cited by Y then the article on X can include a brief mention of Y. Debivort 05:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure an article about Shakespeare should tell you all about Shakespeare, including its adaptations for modern audiences, but that does not mean an article about Operation Northwoods should tell you, in the main text of the article, about all the people who have mentioned and cited it. This is equivalent to saying that an article about Shakespeare should tell you, in the main text of the article, about all the people who have quoted Shakespeare. And actually, no, an article about the T-Rex should not mention Jurassic Park in the main text of the article. Sure it could be mentioned in a 'see also' or 'pop culture' section at the end, but it should not be mentioned in the main body of the article itself. The article is about the T-Rex, not about movies involving dinosaurs. Your own example illustrates the point.

The part about disinformation was just an ancillary point and a caution to sincere 9/11 researchers.

CelestialDog 00:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The criterion you are ignoring is notability. If T-Rex appears in JP notably, i.e. with a reliable source noting this, then it very much should be included. Likewise, if the use of Op Northwoods by 911 conspiracy theorists is notably and sourcable it should be included. Debivort 00:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There's enough notability to merit mention in the 'see also' section at the end, but that's all. That's where notability applies in this particular case, not in the main body of the article, and certainly not in the introductory section. The relevance of Operation Northwoods does not depend on 9/11, and including a reference to 9/11 in the introduction unavoidably implies that the relevance of Operation Northwoods *is* dependent upon 9/11. I would suggest the possibility of including a link to an article about covert operations in the beginning of the article, but the reference to 9/11 belongs at the end.

Consider that most people who come to read this article probably heard about it through the disinformation film 'Loose Change.' No need to remind them where they heard about it. It only serves to bolster skepticism and lead readers to ignore the implications of Operation Northwoods. Why? Because it makes 9/11 researchers seem predictable when people who heard about Operation Northwoods through sincere 9/11 researchers, or through 9/11 disinformation, arrive at this article to see that, seemingly, it has been invoked so many times by 9/11 researchers that this is mentioned in the first paragraph of the article about Operation Northwoods. This makes it seem that the 9/11 conspiracy case relies heavily on a single covert operation that happened 40+ years ago, while the fact is that, no, Operation Northwoods has not been cited often enough by 9/11 researchers to merit a mention in the introduction to the article. The main film citing it was a flashy disinformation film that gave very incomplete evidence and a heap of fake, easily-debunked evidence to distract from genuine proof and damage the credibility of sincere 9/11 researchers. There are many, many huge areas of evidence that together prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiracy at the top levels of the Cheney (yes, Cheney) Administration facilitated 9/11. **That does not mean that every article about anything that fits into this larger case, whether mentioned in a film or not, should mention 9/11 in its introductory paragraph**. Both 9/11 and Operation Northwoods are examples of covert operations that are very similar in means and motive, but the 9/11 case does not depend on Operation Northwoods, and the relevance of Operation Northwoods does not depend upon 9/11.

Note that my main point in the second paragraph is in asterisks.

CelestialDog 19:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"the 9/11 Truth Movement often use Operation Northwoods as an example of the US government's willingness to stage terrorist attacks". This sentence makes no sense. Given the fact that Operation Northwoods never got off the ground, isn't this an example of the US government's unwillingness to stage terrorist attacks? 12.10.248.51 (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "with one paragraph approved"

The first paragraph of the "Origins" section ends:

[the document was presented to mcnamara] "with one paragraph approved."

Approval before presentation seems to be incoherent - is it vandalism, or are there some other facts occluded by unclear writing? mukerjee (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The bit about USS Maine

The bit about the reminiscense of a plan to blow up an american ship to USS Maine should be taken out. It is a subjective comparison since there is no decisive evidence to what exactly happened to USS Maine. The event might have been manipulated into stirring public support for war, but it was not proven and no evidence exists that it was an act of domestic government terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.235.155 (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

operation northwoods is a subset of all the known instances where the US government has committed or thought about comitting false flag attacks. Given the fact that Hitler and many other "bad" people have used false flag attacks for nefarious purposes throughout history. It is a good topic for a educated public to be aware of(for the sake of humanity). People trying to learn about the history of false-flag attacks are well served by a dictionary that links together some of the best info on flase flag attacks. When I look at my old "World Book" encyclopedias this seems to be a common methodology used in the "see also" section.

Why the paranoia with providing info about false-flag attacks? is it inconceivable that this dangerous activity will ever occur again in any country? If we truly believe in the phrase "never again" when talking about the holocaust then isn't this one of the issues we should be vigilant about making people aware of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.192.46 (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (including hijacking planes)

I suggest removing the line from the introduction within parentheses because it is clearly an attempt to link Operation Northwoods to 11/09. I'm not outwardly against this comparison, but it does not belong in an introduction within a supposedly neutral piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neverwas (talk • contribs) 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

since there was no mention of the hijack recommendations elsewhere in the article, i moved and expanded the info to "Content" and took it out of the introduction. Problem solved? -- Mblaxill (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Solved, I tried removing it once without saying anything and it was back within an hour. How Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neverwas (talk • contribs) 00:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We need another Northwoods page

The Northwoods (capitalized) is a very common term used to describe the upper Midwest of the United States (upper parts of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan).VatoFirme (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ultramarine Edit war??

Ultramarine. I'm not sure what your agenda is but please stop removing accurate elements of this article. The document is a proposal for false flag operations and the document actually use the words terror campaign. So it's appropriate to describe Operation Northwoods as a proposal to stage acts of real or simulated terrorism. With respect I will continue to assume good faith. thanks 84.68.47.125 (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Where? Give a quote please. The targets included military ones. Not usually seen as terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I second 84.68.47.125: I have noticed this too. Chendy (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
One of the possible plans discussed a terror campaign against Cuban refugees. Other points mentioned purely military targets. Terrorism usually is used for civilian, not military target. So it is wrong to describe the whole proposal as aimed at terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It was a plan with varied proposals. I've added the mention of military targets as well. I hope this is acceptable. :) 84.68.47.125 (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Made it clearer.Ultramarine (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simulated or real

See this edit [4]. Why is this important information removed. Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

One: please don't patronise with WP:3RR warnings. You will only get a similar warning yourself.
Two: "involving different simulated or real false flag actions" - simply doesn't make sense,and that's why it was removed. There is NOTHING wrong with the current description. So why waste time messing with it? You seem to be hypnotised on some irrational crusade. 90.241.44.21 (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously we should point out that it was not all real actions. Most were in fact simulated.Ultramarine (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I added the real or simuated already, but you obviosuly reverted ( again ) without realising 90.241.44.21 (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Also some of the proposals regarding terrorism against Cuban refugees involved simulated actions.Ultramarine (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Give it a rest Ultramarine please. Chendy (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes Ultramarine, please give it a rest. 90.241.44.21 (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly what is the objection against clarifying that some of the actions were simualated and involved Cuban refugees?Ultramarine (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You are being ridiculous Ultramarine, and it is no longer possible to assume good faith. Apostle12 (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)