How do Truthers explain the cooperation/coordination needed within the US govt...

[bknight]

Can you highlight the bit where it says "kill" Cuban refugees? The nearest I can see is "even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized"; one of the most striking things I recall about reading the Northwoods document is that, whatever conspiracy theorists like to claim, it very clearly didn't advocate killing anyone.

Dave

Why are we discussing a plan that was proposed, but NEVER implemented. We don't know what MIGHT have been done all just proposals. Furthermore we don't know if it would have succeeded in the false flag of initiation of an invasion of Cuba. Pure speculation on a plan that was never implemented.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why are we discussing a plan that was proposed, but NEVER implemented. We don't know what MIGHT have been done all just proposals. Furthermore we don't know if it would have succeeded in the false flag of initiation of an invasion of Cuba. Pure speculation on a plan that was never implemented.

Because conspiracy theorists feel that a plan that was never implemented and never called for the killing of anyone is proof positive that it's more or less routine for the US government to consider killing thousands of its own citizens. It's worth pointing out that their reasoning is not just missing the element of the plan actually having been carried out, but also missing even the thing they like to pretend the plan called for in the first place. Not only is there nothing there, there isn't even a there for something to be.

Dave

 

[caveman1917]

So my point stands, that there's no precedent because people in power care about their own people in general.

The victims of the Gladio operations would disagree. And appealing to a childish fantasy of people in power caring so much about their own people in general that they'd never harm them hardly constitutes a convincing argument.

In my opinion that's a strong argument towards tilting your estimations of probabilities.

Even if there was no known precedent then your conclusion still wouldn't follow because, again, just because there would be no known precedent doesn't mean there is no precedent.

 

[caveman1917]

Skimmed the pdf. Can't find any mention of the CIA running Islamic extremists to engage in terrorist attacks. There is a reference to 'links' with the religious wing of the National Front, but nothing solid, conclusive, or even evidenced.
Happy to be wrong if you can post the relevant parts of this book.

It's not a book, it's a paper. You can read it in full from the cached version here.

The CIA also had a young operative in Teheran named Richard Cottam. A Fulbright fellow and later professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh, Cottam collected information not only on the Tudeh which he generously shared with the British Embassy but also on Baqai's Toilers Party and the far right Arya (Aryan) Party and SUMKA (National Socialist Workers Party of Iran) (FO 248/ Persia 1952/1517). These two mini-parties outdid each other in mimicking the Nazis, especially in denouncing Jews and communists. Their leaders had been interned with Zahedi during World War II. Cottam also wrote articles that were planted in the subsidized newspapers. One such piece claimed Fatemi was a convicted embezzler, a well-known homosexual, and a convert to Christianity as well as Bahaism. This would have earned him at least three death sentences in the eyes of fundamentalists. Not surprisingly, the Fedayyan-e Islam tried to assassinate him (FO 371/Persia 1953/104566). The CIA was also interested in finding in Mossadeq some form of Jewish ancestry (Gasiorowski, 1987, 284).

The CIA had at least four important local agents: Colonel Abbas Farzanegan; Ehsam Lankarani, and the so-called Boscoe Brothers.Colonel Farzanegan, a desk officer, had just returned from Washington where he had received a crash course on covert operations. Commissioned to the General Staff, Farzanegan knew most field officers in Teheran. Lankarani was a Tudeh activist with a drug problem. Although not in the party leadership, he came from a prominent religious family and enjoyed the reputation of being a daredevil revolutionary. In other words, he was the perfect agent provocateur. The Boscoes, named by Wilber simply as Keyvani and Jalali, were most probably Farrukh Keyvani and Ali Jalali. The former was a reporter for Ettelaat and a stringer for the Daily Telegraph (Bozorgmehr, 1993, 188, 190, 209). The latter was the editor & publisher of the journal Iran Parastan. These two had connections to the Taj Sports Club as well as to weight lifters, lutis (thugs), and chaqukeshan (knife wielders) associated with traditional zurkhanehs (houses of strength). They funneled CIA funds not only into their own papers but also into Keyhan, Mellat-e Iran, Mellat-e Ma, Aram, Setareh-e Islam, and Asiay-e Javanan. Roosevelt mentions that the CIA had prompted the Boscoes to attack a Tudeh rally on the day Harriman arrived in Teheran in July 1951. What he does not mention is that the attack resulted in heavy casualties and was instigated through the local Nazis.

That's one assassination attempt by Fedayyan-e Islam (an Islamic terrorist group) and one attack on a communist rally by a neo-nazi terrorist group. Fedayyan-e Islam primarily belonged to the British though:

Fourth, the British had contacts in less visible but equally vital positions. These included some chiefs of the Bakhtiyari, Boir Ahmadi, Zolfoghari, Khamseh, Moqaddam, and Arab tribes (the Bakhtiyaris alone could mobilize over 10,000 armed men). These contacts also included the editors of at least three vociferous newspapers Dad (Justice), Atesh (Fire), and Farman (Order) and the three Rashidian brothers who imported British goods and financed the National Will Party (the British embassy praised them as loyal and true friends who kept a keen eye for a business chance) (FO 371/Persia 1955/ 114811). The Rashidians themselves had useful contacts in the bazaar: with Shaban Jafari, nicknamed Shaban Bimokh (Brainless), the most dangerous gang leader; with guild elders among butchers, bakers, confectioners, and sugar loaf makers; and with middle- ranking clerics associated with the conservative Mojahedin-e Islam and the terroristic Fedayyan-e Islam (FO 248/Persia 1952/38572). Woodhouse estimates that the Rashidians funneled every month at least 10,000 pounds sterling to these clerics, politicians, and newspaper editors.

 

[Leftus]

Here's how this actually works:

Person A: "There was no covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks."

Person B: "Where's the evidence for that claim?"

You are Person A. Here's what Person B has to provide evidence for: Absolutely nothing.

You've got the cart before the horse here. Person A, in your example, didn't make the claim ex-nihilo. It's in response to a claim. It's the rejection of the statement that there was involvement, usually made sans evidence. It's just shorthand for the more specific "your claim is rejected"

There is no Easter Bunny is a rejection of a claim of an Easter Bunny. While it's not precisely worded, people are inherently imprecise. Removing it from the context of a larger conversation, which is what you have done, is dishonest. Nobody is standing on street corners preaching the official version of the 911 attacks. Your version of the conversation is disingenuous.

 

[caveman1917]

Can you highlight the bit where it says "kill" Cuban refugees? The nearest I can see is "even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized"; one of the most striking things I recall about reading the Northwoods document is that, whatever conspiracy theorists like to claim, it very clearly didn't advocate killing anyone.

Dave

Yes, because plastic explosives can be placed to such precision to only wound people yet not kill them. Sinking boatloads of Cuban refugees also seems quite likely to kill them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, because plastic explosives can be placed to such precision to only wound people yet not kill them. Sinking boatloads of Cuban refugees also seems quite likely to kill them.

What you've highlighted, then, is that the bit where Northwoods talks about killing people is inside your own head.

Dave

ETA: BTW, nice job conflating two separate parts of the proposal - it's fairly clear when reading without an agenda that the wounding would take place as a result of faking unsuccessful assassination attempts, and that the plastic explosives are a suggested separate thread to the operation. Did you think nobody was clever enough to spot what you did?

 

[caveman1917]

You've got the cart before the horse here. Person A, in your example, didn't make the claim ex-nihilo. It's in response to a claim. It's the rejection of the statement that there was involvement, usually made sans evidence. It's just shorthand for the more specific "your claim is rejected"

There is no Easter Bunny is a rejection of a claim of an Easter Bunny. While it's not precisely worded, people are inherently imprecise. Removing it from the context of a larger conversation, which is what you have done, is dishonest. Nobody is standing on street corners preaching the official version of the 911 attacks. Your version of the conversation is disingenuous.

If you believe my version of the conversation to be disingenuous then you are free to quote me or anyone else in this thread making the claim that there was covert US involvement in 9/11.

 

[caveman1917]

What you've highlighted, then, is that the bit where Northwoods talks about killing people is inside your own head.

Dave

By your logic, even if the document had literally stated "we will shoot a bunch of people in the head" you could still claim it doesn't talk about killing people because it doesn't literally use the term "kill" in the statement. You know as well as I do that the obvious result of the act of using plastic explosives to "wound" people as well as sinking boatloads of refugees would be killing them. You're grasping at straws.

 

[Dave Rogers]

By your logic, even if the document had literally stated "we will shoot a bunch of people in the head" you could still claim it doesn't talk about killing people because it doesn't literally use the term "kill" in the statement.

No, I think anyone would agree that shooting people in the head is highly likely to kill them. However;

You know as well as I do that the obvious result of the act of using plastic explosives to "wound" people[...]

Reading Northwoods for comprehension, it's perfectly clear that no such thing is suggested; that's entirely your own conflation, as I pointed out above.

as well as sinking boatloads of refugees

"(real or simulated)". Did you miss that?

And, of course, it's perfectly straightforward to sink a boat without killing anyone on board; you simply have the rescue vessel take everyone off, sink the boat, then say, "We picked this boatload of people out of the sea after the Cubans sank their boat." Or, with a ship, you say, "Everyone get into the lifeboats," bring along a few spares just to make sure there's enough space, then sink it.

I would comment that your inability to understand how things can be done without killing people says more about your own imagination than the proclivities of any government.

You're grasping at straws.

You're projecting.

Dave

 

[Allen773]

If you understand that you can't prove your claim, then why make it? Does making claims while being unable to prove them sound more like CTism or skepticism to you? Perhaps the following will help:

CTist: "There was covert US government involvement in 9/11"
Pseudo-skeptic: "There was no covert US government involvement in 9/11"
Skeptic: "We don't know whether there was covert US government involvement in 9/11"



Except that only happened in your imagination, as neither I nor anyone else in this thread claimed there was covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Here's how this actually works:

Person A: "There was no covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks."

Person B: "Where's the evidence for that claim?"

You are Person A. Here's what Person B has to provide evidence for: Absolutely nothing.

Nope.

There was covert US government involvement in 9/11 = claim. That’s what can theoretically be supported with evidence. But one has to provide the evidence to do that.

The negative — that there was NO covert US government involvement in 9/11 — is not possible to prove or disprove, because you can’t prove a negative.

Here’s a quick example:

Person A: Aliens control our minds from deep outer space.
Person B: Yeah, I don’t think so.
Person A: Prove that they DON’T!

See the problem with Person A? The only claims that we need evidence for are claims that are falsifiable (there was covert US government involvement in 9/11), not claims that are not falsifiable (there was no covert US government involvement in 9/11).

No one can prove a “no”, “not”, logically, but the good news is no one has to. Prosecutors aren’t trying to convince juries that the accused are innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. I hope you can see the absurdity of having to prove absence of evidence.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here's how this actually works:

Person A: "There was no covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks."

Person B: "Where's the evidence for that claim?"

Actually, it more commonly works like:

Person A: "Items A, B and C are evidence of covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks."

Person B: "No, they aren't, because of reasons 1, 2 and 3."

Person A: "How can you claim there was no evidence of covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks?"

Person B: "I'm not making that claim, I'm pointing out that you haven't provided any."

Person A: "So you're absolutely sure there was no covert US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, even though I've provided you with evidence. That proves you're not a proper skeptic."

At this point Person B goes away to watch some paint dry because it's not so much of a waste of time.

Dave

 

[caveman1917]

No, I think anyone would agree that shooting people in the head is highly likely to kill them.

Not at all, it's possible to shoot people in the head in exactly the right way so that it doesn't actually kill them but merely wounds them. I would comment that your inability to understand how things can be done without killing people says more about your own imagination than the proclivities of any government. Like I said, your argument can be used regarding any statement short of literally using the term "kill".

And, of course, it's perfectly straightforward to sink a boat without killing anyone on board; you simply have the rescue vessel take everyone off, sink the boat, then say, "We picked this boatload of people out of the sea after the Cubans sank their boat." Or, with a ship, you say, "Everyone get into the lifeboats," bring along a few spares just to make sure there's enough space, then sink it.

Where does it say anything about a rescue vessel or putting a few spare lifeboats on a ship? You're doing exactly what you're accusing me of, starting with a preferred conclusion and then adding your own ideas to a document to make it reach that conclusion. You might also note how your additions to the document contradict other parts of it, since your additions assume the refugees themselves to be in on the plan as well, but then why would another part of the document call for actually wounding some?

I'll grant you that the published document is ambiguous enough to be interpreted in multiple ways, though.

 

[Leftus]

If you believe my version of the conversation to be disingenuous then you are free to quote me or anyone else in this thread making the claim that there was covert US involvement in 9/11.

Did you miss the Title of the thread? Hell, it's part of the first sentence of the OP. I'm going to move from just general dishonesty to intentional.

How do Truthers explain the cooperation/coordination needed within the US govt...

....for an “inside job?” of 9/11?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'll grant you that the published document is ambiguous enough to be interpreted in multiple ways, though.

Will you further grant that one perfectly reasonable interpretation is that the operation is intended to be conducted with the intention of causing no deaths among US citizens or the expatriate Cuban community?

Dave

 

[caveman1917]

Nope.

There was covert US government involvement in 9/11 = claim. That’s what can theoretically be supported with evidence. But one has to provide the evidence to do that.

The negative — that there was NO covert US government involvement in 9/11 — is not possible to prove or disprove, because you can’t prove a negative.

What a mumbled mess that passes for logic.

1. Of course you can prove a negative, we do this all the time.

2. Your claim that the statement "there was no covert involvement" can not be disproven contradicts your claim that its negation ("there was covert involvement") can theoretically be proven. After all, any proof that there was covert involvement would necessarily also constitute disproof that there was no covert involvement.

3. Even if it were impossible to prove a claim, that's still no reason to consider the claim true. "It's impossible to prove this claim therefor I'm believing it" - seriously, think that one through for a second.

Here’s a quick example:

Person A: Aliens control our minds from deep outer space.
Person B: Yeah, I don’t think so.
Person A: Prove that they DON’T!

See the problem with Person A? The only claims that we need evidence for are claims that are falsifiable (there was covert US government involvement in 9/11), not claims that are not logically falsifiable (there was no covert US government involvement in 9/11).

You're ticking off every pseudo-skepticism box. Making claims that you can't support, claiming that "you can't prove a negative", simple reasoning errors ("there was no covert involvement" is falsified by any theoretical proof of involvement, and is hence logically falsifiable), and persistently switching the burden of proof for your claims. You're following the same reasoning patterns and errors as the CTists do, you just merely happen to be arguing for claims that are opposite to theirs.

Skepticism is not simply claiming the opposite of whatever a CTist is claiming, it is the refusal to accept a claim to be true without having convincing evidence for its truth. That's why the claim that there was covert involvement is to be rejected. The claim that there was no covert involvement is however also to be rejected for exactly the same reason.

 

[Allen773]

What a mumbled mess that passes for logic.

I agree, your posts need serious work.

 

[caveman1917]

Did you miss the Title of the thread? Hell, it's part of the first sentence of the OP. I'm going to move from just general dishonesty to intentional.

How do Truthers explain the cooperation/coordination needed within the US govt...

....for an “inside job?” of 9/11?

And I gave an example of one such theory claiming that 9/11 was an "inside job" and showed that it required no such large scale cooperation/coordination, thereby refuting the claim in the OP.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Oh, and by the way:

Where does it say anything about a rescue vessel or putting a few spare lifeboats on a ship? You're doing exactly what you're accusing me of, starting with a preferred conclusion and then adding your own ideas to a document to make it reach that conclusion.

No, in fact, I'm not. You're committing the fallacy of argument from incredulity, by claiming that it's impossible to sink a ship without killing some of the people on board. I'm pointing out that it is in fact relatively straightforward to do so, therefore you cannot conclude that sinking a ship implies killing people. I don't need to conclude that Northwoods specifically excludes deaths; you're the one making the affirmative claim (that Northwoods is evidence that the US government is prepared to kill its own citizens in false flag attacks), so all I need to do is point out that your evidence doesn't support the claim.

You might also note how your additions to the document contradict other parts of it, since your additions assume the refugees themselves to be in on the plan as well, but then why would another part of the document call for actually wounding some?

I'm not assuming any such thing. There are many examples of ships being sunk after the crews and passengers were taken off without loss of life and without the crews and passengers being in on the sinking. And, again, I'm not asserting any such intention on the part of the planners, just pointing out that your limitation of options to those you choose to consider is unnecessary.

The refugees needn't be in on the plan, and the people being wounded in fake assassination attempts needn't not be in on it. And, of course, it's perfectly clear thatt some parts of the document contradict other parts; it's a series of suggestions of possible things that could be tried, and makes it clear that it hasn't reached the stage of a fully worked out plan of action. Which, of course, it never did.

Dave

 

[caveman1917]

Will you further grant that one perfectly reasonable interpretation is that the operation is intended to be conducted with the intention of causing no deaths among US citizens or the expatriate Cuban community?

Sure, just like another perfectly reasonable interpretation is that the operation was to be conducted without regard as to the life or death of the refugees in question, and yet another is that the operation was intending to cause a few deaths to have maximum effect.