Keep in mind that this Cuba plan did not go forward. The plan is really complicated. The Wikpedia piece notes that Kennedy rejected the idea (maybe because it was stupid) and basically fired Lemnitzer from the Joint Chiefs. Kennedy pursued the much easier Bay of Pigs approach and that didn't work out very well. He then turned his attention to Viet Nam...yikes! At least that is what Wikpedia says.
What top sientist say about 9/11
by jimbo 64 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Bstndance
Mt Holyoake College
Never heard of Mt. Holyoake College. HAHAHA... maybe Mt. Holyoke.
The article isn't very reliable if they can't even spell the names of their sources right. Also, we should ask: 1) who are these top scientists/professors? 2) what makes them top scientists? in the eyes of the reporter? 3) 75 really isn't a large number considering the number of scientists and professors out there. I'm sure Harvard alone has about 75 professors that could qualify at top scientists.
Gotta love the media.
-
Jourles
Not a great example? I can't see how much closer you can get! Did it occur to you that having 3000 or so people die as "collateral damage for the war on terror" might be acceptable to the government?(they obviously didn't care too much about civilian casualties in Iraq when they first started bombing)
As far as those involved speaking out later - as long as they were handpicked as ones who would do anything for the US government under penalty of death, why not? I'm pretty sure there a bunch of hardcore elements out there that would do anything to keep such an operation hush hush. If you're involved in plans to kill your own citizens, do you really think your conscience is going to bother you about it?
Let me just leave you with this from taken that memorandum:
3. This plan, incorporating projects selected from the attached suggestions, or from other sources, should be developed to focus all efforts on a specific ultimate objective which would provide adequate justification for US military intervention. Such a plan would enable a logical build-up of incidents to be combined with other seemingly unrelated events to camouflage the ultimate objective and create the necessary impression of Cuban rashness and irresponsibility on a large scale, directed at other countries as well as the United States. The plan would also properly integrate and time phase the courses of action to be pursued. The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.
This memorandum reminds me of how the WTS cuts & pastes old articles into newer books and magazines. Just substitute Iraq for Cuba in the above paragraph and what do you have? An almost identical reason for going to war in the first place.
Just in case you missed them Seeker, did you by chance read the two other threads concerning the cell phone usage on flight 93? I would like to read your comments on how the passengers were able to make such calls.
-
Jourles
The Wikpedia piece notes that Kennedy rejected the idea (maybe because it was stupid) and basically fired Lemnitzer from the Joint Chiefs.
True. Kennedy was smart enough to reject it. But with what we know about this administration and president, is a similar plan of action not beyond them? Starting from the beginning, how many different consecutive reasons were come up with to invade Iraq? If 9/11 never happened, would we have any reason - not afflilated with 9/11 - to be in Iraq now? Probably not. But it wouldn't surprise me for them to come up with some other excuse to invade.
-
BizzyBee
Did it occur to you that having 3000 or so people die as "collateral damage for the war on terror" might be acceptable to the government?(they obviously didn't care too much about civilian casualties in Iraq when they first started bombing)
Agreed! Obviously, tons of questions unanswered on both sides, but to suggest that a point on the side of 'no conspiracy' is that 'the US government would be too squeemish about killing 3,000 of its own people - does not fly.
-
BizzyBee
But with what we know about this administration and president, is a similar plan of action not beyond them?
Here's what we know in George W. Bush's own words:
President Bush: I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.
Ques: Will you testify before the [911]commission?
President Bush: This commission? You know, testify? I mean, I’d be glad to visit with them.
-
badboy
THIS PROFESSOR(STEVE JONES) ALSO believes that Jesus Christ preached among the Mayans about AD 600!
-
rassillon
What is a "sientist", anyway?
About the only governments I know of who would be willing to murder 3000 of it's own people would be Iran, "Former Iraq", "Former Afganistan".
The US.....uh, no. I know a lot of people let their hate of Bush convince them that this administration is capable of some really horrible and STUPID things.
I don't agree with all of what Bush does but I don't for one minute think his administration would be capable of doing something as heinous as suggested. And if you want to bring up Dick Cheny shooting his friend, well he was a lawyer so it doesn't count. ;)
-r
-
What-A-Coincidence
rasillon - it's not about hate. it's about facts.
-
BizzyBee
About the only governments I know of who would be willing to murder 3000 of it's own people would be Iran, "Former Iraq", "Former Afganistan".
U.S. military deaths in the Iraq war stand at 2,700 as of today. And climbing.