Government provocations

[StoptheMadness1]

Burning of the Reichstag

In 1933, the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany was firebombed by Hitler's goons, creating a problem. Soon after, the incident was blamed on a mentally ill bystander, who had nothing to do with the fire. This act was later blamed on Hitler's political enemies, and the population reacted with a desire for revenge on those responsible, and also begged for protection. In the midst of the emotional response to the incident, a solution was provided that would ease the fears of the masses; grant the new leader more power. In turn, Hitler was given dictatorial powers to "save" Germany from a new grave (manufactured) threat.

Operation Himmler

Hitler also staged another event in order to justify his "Blitzkrieg" invasion of Poland in 1939, using the same principle. On the night of August 31, 1939, a squad of German soldiers went to the Gleiwitz station and broadcast a message in Polish, urging Poles to attack Germans - the operation was titled "Operation Himmler". The broadcast was intended to appear as if an "anti-German" Polish insurgent was responsible. The Germans had a problem - they needed someone to blame. Knowing this, a prisoner was taken out of jail and shot, dressed up in a Polish uniform, shot dead, and left at the scene. This single dead prisoner was used as the pretext for the bloody battle to begin.

Operation Northwoods

In the 1960's a plan was created by the US military to convince Americans that a military invasion of Cuba was necessary - and bloody measures would be taken, even if it called for the shedding of innocent blood.

This document can be found here, at the national security archive in PDF format - Link

In this now declassified document, detailed plans are laid out regarding how to deceive America into supporting an invasion of Cuba. The plan consists of several nefarious ways of deceiving Americans. The document explains:

"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 Cuban waters."

The document continues, explaining the staged rescue operation...

"The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" the remaining members of the non-existent crew."

"...Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

So far, the plans have appeared at least to be restrained to non-lethal means. The plans go on to talk about committing murder on US soil.

"We could develop a communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

Operation Ajax

In 1953, the CIA conducted covert operations in Iran designed to take down the democratically elected leader of Iran, the Shah, Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh, among other things which didn't bode well with certain western interests, had nationalized the oil fields. With a perceived threat from the Shah, the CIA began putting agents on the ground in Iran. According to the CIA website "The plan comprised propaganda, provocations, demonstrations, and bribery, and employed agents of influence, "false flag" operatives, dissident military leaders, and paid protestors."

One last example is a story carried in the London Independent on December 6, 2004. The headline: "Opposition was to be smeared with terror attack, says official". The article states, "Ukraine's embattled government is ready to stage faked terrorist attacks to destabilise the country and discredit the opposition..." the article continues, quoting the government source from which the information came, saying, "One of the plans was to blow up a pipeline and blame it on opposition supporters."

Other examples:

Gulf of Tonkin incident

USS Maine

USS liberty

Operation Gladio

 

[Gunny]

You forgot:

Operation Destroy America (mid 1960s and ongoing).

An ongoing effort by the left-wingnuts in the US to destroy every moral, value, tradition and or wall that makes us who we are so we can coform better to the rest of the appeasing, ostrich societies in the World.

 

[StoptheMadness1]

Right, so what do you think about the information?

 

[Gunny]

Right, so what do you think about the information?

In a word: KA-KA.

Revisionist, one-sided versions of history.

If you ever read the entire sequence of events and radio conversations during the Gulf of Tonkin incident, there was every reason for both the crews of the Maddox, C. Turner Joy, and those in command to believe they were under attack.

The fact that someone has decided otherwise or that Johnson made up the story to introduce ground combat troops is unsupported by evidence, only speculation.

Until later proven to be the result of a ruptured boiler, EVERYONE believed the Spanish had mined the Maine. No attempt to deceive.

At the height of the Cold War, communist nuclear weapons in our back yard was intolerable. No more reason than that required to justify an invasion of Cuba.

Attempting to draw a comparison to the US Government and Hitler's Third Reich is about as BS as it gets.

 

[Annie]

Right, so what do you think about the information?

Really not sure what you are getting at.

Hitler carried out your examples.

Was Operation Northwoods ever implemented?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Right, so what do you think about the information?

You compared the United States to Nazi Germany. If we were in a bar together, I would have already kicked your ass.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Right, so what do you think about the information?

Are you trying to say that the federal government has put boats in harm's way as a means of getting us into war?

Why that's preposterous. This is revisionist history*, and complete nonsense.

* By revisionist history of course I mean that I didn't learn it in high school government-funded history class, therefore it never happened.

 

[CSM]

Are you trying to say that the federal government has put boats in harm's way as a means of getting us into war?

Why that's preposterous. This is revisionist history*, and complete nonsense.

* By revisionist history of course I mean that I didn't learn it in high school government-funded history class, therefore it never happened.

So you managed to display a bunch of anti-war propaganda...so what. All it proves is that there have been anti-war movements throughout history. All the propaganda you link to has no more factual evidence behind it than the crap they try to produce as "evidence" today.

 

[CSM]

Right, so what do you think about the information?

Pretty good info, though I think trying to link the 1960's US JCS to NAzis is a bit over the top. It should be noted that the plan you cite was NOT implemented. It should also be pointed out that it is taken out of historical context; i.e., no supporting documentation approving or disapproving said plan. Empirical data suggests that the plan was NOT implemented (Cuba and Castro are still there!).

I suppose we should be shocked that the government (specifically the DoD) would draft such a plan at the behest of an outside agency (obviously the CIA) or that individuals within the government could even think that way. But then again, unlike some, I don't have visions of Utopia as an end goal for any nation on this planet.

 

[glockmail]

Right, so what do you think about the information?

It appears that you are merely a student of Howard Zinn. The real version of history is quite different, and much more interesting.

 

[dilloduck]

Are you trying to say that the federal government has put boats in harm's way as a means of getting us into war?

Why that's preposterous. This is revisionist history*, and complete nonsense.

* By revisionist history of course I mean that I didn't learn it in high school government-funded history class, therefore it never happened.

Problem is that all this stuff gets a bit sketchy when you take a look at who was pulling the "governments" strings at the time.

 

[StoptheMadness1]

All I'm doing is pointing out historical facts. Governments throughout history have used terror attacks and various provocations to justify and spark wars. As for the Maine, yes, there is still much debate as to what happened there.

Did anyone look at the "Loss of Liberty" video which I linked to at the bottom of my post? It is the most angering and shocking video I've seen for quite some time. Fighter jet aircraft that were sent to aid the Liberty were actually recalled by the whitehouse. Those who survived the attack were given medals in secret, and told if they talked about the event they would be killed. The documenary is based on interviews with the heroic military men who were on the ship, so the information is hard to dismiss. If you pay attention you will hear one of the crew members say that he thinks that the ship was meant to be sunk, and to provide a justification for war in the middle east.

 

[CSM]

All I'm doing is pointing out historical facts. Governments throughout history have used terror attacks and various provocations to justify and spark wars. As for the Maine, yes, there is still much debate as to what happened there.

Did anyone look at the "Loss of Liberty" video which I linked to at the bottom of my post? It is the most angering and shocking video I've seen for quite some time. Fighter jet aircraft that were sent to aid the Liberty were actually recalled by the whitehouse. Those who survived the attack were given medals in secret, and told if they talked about the event they would be killed. The documenary is based on interviews with the heroic military men who were on the ship, so the information is hard to dismiss. If you pay attention you will hear one of the crew members say that he thinks that the ship was meant to be sunk, and to provide a justification for war in the middle east.

Hmm...there was already a war in the Middle East; so sinking the Liberty would not have provided any more or less justification. I watched the video and (even though it is rather long) and did not get the same impression you did. A very definite case of an attack on an unidentified ship which turned out to be an allied vessel, but certainly NOT a preplanned attempt to provoke US intervention in the '67 war.

I remember the incident very well when it happened as well. Truth be told, US intelligence vessels don't exactly cruise around with a huge US flag flying from the masthead.

 

[StoptheMadness1]

I'm glad you watched the video, CSM.

there was already a war in the Middle East; so sinking the Liberty would not have provided any more or less justification.

Yes, I should have been more specific, it was very likely meant to allow US intervention in the war.

Truth be told, US intelligence vessels don't exactly cruise around with a huge US flag flying from the masthead.

The signal man interviewed stated that he made sure the flag was flying the entire time. According to those on the ship, unmarked Isreali aircraft had apparently done reconissance flights by the ship when the flag was flying. They had no reason to not see that it was an American ship.

In fact, transcripts of Israeli communications revealed that when given orders to attack the Liberty, the Israeli pilots replied that it was an American ship. Upon being given the order several more times they complied.

 

[CSM]

I'm glad you watched the video, CSM.



Yes, I should have been more specific, it was very likely meant to allow US intervention in the war.


The signal man interviewed stated that he made sure the flag was flying the entire time. According to those on the ship, unmarked Isreali aircraft had apparently done reconissance flights by the ship when the flag was flying. They had no reason to not see that it was an American ship.

Not denying that there is still a LOT of controversy over what happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

However, I have seen no credible evidence that the US government deliberately planned on letting Israel sink one of our ships. Also, they tend to ignore the fact that the US was not exactly Israel's prime benefactor in those days (strangely enough it was France!) so cooperation between the US and Israelii governments was minimal at best. In fact, in the day sleading up to the 67 war, both the US and the USSR had sent strong warnings and threats to Israel.

As for the reaction of Johnson and McNamara, I have no doubt they recalled the aircraft. Both were idiots (in my opinion) when it came to military operations and I also suspect they were afraid that the aircraft carried nukes (very possible in that day and age) and that such action would indeed drag the US into a war in the ME. I am not so sure that Johnson was overly worried about "embarassing an allied nation" as has been reported. As I stated previously, the US was not exactly happy with Israel at the time.

 

[Gunny]

Are you trying to say that the federal government has put boats in harm's way as a means of getting us into war?

Why that's preposterous. This is revisionist history*, and complete nonsense.

* By revisionist history of course I mean that I didn't learn it in high school government-funded history class, therefore it never happened.

Your assumption that you are somehow blessed with an education in history that the rest of us are not and that we possess only minimal information reeks with arrogance.

 

[Gunny]

Hmm...there was already a war in the Middle East; so sinking the Liberty would not have provided any more or less justification. I watched the video and (even though it is rather long) and did not get the same impression you did. A very definite case of an attack on an unidentified ship which turned out to be an allied vessel, but certainly NOT a preplanned attempt to provoke US intervention in the '67 war.

I remember the incident very well when it happened as well. Truth be told, US intelligence vessels don't exactly cruise around with a huge US flag flying from the masthead.

You mean they don't have SPY SHIP painted on the side?:scratch:

 

[Gunny]

Not denying that there is still a LOT of controversy over what happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

However, I have seen no credible evidence that the US government deliberately planned on letting Israel sink one of our ships. Also, they tend to ignore the fact that the US was not exactly Israel's prime benefactor in those days (strangely enough it was France!) so cooperation between the US and Israelii governments was minimal at best. In fact, in the day sleading up to the 67 war, both the US and the USSR had sent strong warnings and threats to Israel.

As for the reaction of Johnson and McNamara, I have no doubt they recalled the aircraft. Both were idiots (in my opinion) when it came to military operations and I also suspect they were afraid that the aircraft carried nukes (very possible in that day and age) and that such action would indeed drag the US into a war in the ME. I am not so sure that Johnson was overly worried about "embarassing an allied nation" as has been reported. As I stated previously, the US was not exactly happy with Israel at the time.

Excellent points, CSM. What the anti-Israel crowd keeps trying to have us believe is that we put Israel on our back from its inception and have carried it ever since when quite the opposite is true. The US is actually third in line as far as benfactors go, behind Britain and France.

My only comment concerning the USS Liberty is that the attack did not draw us into the conflict and had that been its purpose, it would have.

I'm surprised STM forgot the Lusitania conspiracy theory.

ITA where Johnson and McNamara are concerned. NEITHER had ANY business making military decisions at any level. I wouldn't put either in charge of police call, much less the most powerful military on the Earth.