"The National Security State and the Assassination of JFK": The US would do a false-flag attack. It has, often.

The US would never .... Oh, yes it would. It has.

The Joint Chiefs Propose a Plan for State-Sponsored Terrorism

In 1962, the Pentagon was still pushing for a war with Cuba, and was even drawing up contingency plans for an invasion of Cuba. One such plan, named Operation Northwoods, was recently declassified. On March 13, 1962, Chairman of the Joint Chief General Lemnitzer delivered this plan to McNamara, marked "top secret" and signed by the nation's highest military commanders.[27]

Operation Northwoods, also named "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," was endorsed by the entire Joint Chiefs, which recommended the operation go into planning stages, and recommended that the Joint Chiefs assume responsibility "for both overt and covert military operations" of the plan.[28] The purpose of the plan was to orchestrate pretexts for a US military intervention in Cuba, and the Joint Chiefs recommended that throughout the operations, the US military will be in an 'exercise' mode in order to allow for a "rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies."[29]

Among the recommended provocations and pretexts to justify a war, the Joint Chiefs suggested that, "a series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around [the US military base at] Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces," including starting rumours, landing "friendly Cubans in uniform" outside of the base to "stage attack on base" in Cuban uniform, capturing friendly "saboteurs inside the base," and have friendly Cubans "start riots near the base main gate."[30] Further recommendations were to "blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires," as well as burning aircraft on the base, or sabotage a ship in the harbor, or to even, "sink [a] ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims."[31]

One startling recommendation was that, "We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," or that, "we could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters," and blame Cuba, and that, "casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."[32] However, the most disturbing aspect of Operation Northwoods was the recommendation that:

"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."[33]

The general even suggested bombing other Latin American countries such as Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Nicaragua and blaming it on Cuba. They even suggested that a "US military drone aircraft" could be destroyed by a US military plane that, "properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban" aircraft.[34] The Joint Chiefs further suggested, "hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba." Startlingly, the plan also recommended concocting a scenario in which an American plane, possibly consisting of "a group of college students," would be flown over Cuba and blown up, to be blamed on Cuba.[35]

So there you have it, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff put out recommendations for hijacking US aircraft, staging "false flag" attacks, which are covert military operations in which they attack selected targets under the "flag" of another nation/entity in order to blame that particular entity for the attack, such as the recommendations for attacking Guantamo Bay by "friendly Cubans" and conducting a "terror campaign" within the United States, itself.

Three days after Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Lemnitzer presented this plan to McNamara, he was summoned by President Kennedy to the Oval Office for a discussion of Cuba strategy alongside other National Security figures. Many of the figures suggested a military invasion of Cuba, and Lemnitzer jumped at the opportunity to recommend Operation Northwoods, yet spared the specific operational plans of "blowing up people on the streets of Miami and the nation's capital and blaming it on Castro." However, "Kennedy was not amused" and he told the general that, "we were not discussing the use of U.S. military force."[36]

Yet, over the next month, the Joint Chiefs and in particular, Lemnitzer, continued to press both McNamara and Kennedy for a military invasion of Cuba, and "after a National Security Council meeting in June, the president took the general aside and told him he wanted to send him to Europe to become NATO's new supreme allied commander." Kennedy thus replaced Lemnitzer with Max Taylor.[37]

via The National Security State and the Assassination of JFK.

Note that all of the Top Brass wanted to do this. Only the President stood in the way. Do you think all Presidents have been willing to stand in the way?

Johnson said yes to the Gulf of Tonkin or at least went along after-the-fact. He said yes to the USS Liberty or at least went along after-the-fact. What else did he say yes too or at least went along with after-the-fact?

George W. Bush said yes to 9/11. He said yes to the Yellowcake Forgery. He said yes to all sorts of things.

The list is very long of Presidents going along with or even instigating false-flag and fake attacks and deliberately putting the US in harms way to provoke the American people to rise up against other people who would otherwise never have become America's "enemy." I've documented much of it on this site.

If you believe all the recent "thwarted" terrorist attacks that have been used as excuses to take away your freedom to move about without being cavity searched, then you are extremely ignorant and/or stupid.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.