Skip to main content

Remember what it was like to be a child? When your biggest problems facing your day concerned T.V schedules, or whether or not Suzie would invite you to her birthday party? Every day, the food you ate simply appeared before you fully prepared. The clothes you dirtied would show up clean in your drawer the next day. You'd flip a switch and the light would come on

Probably back then, you never felt the need to thank anybody for all of these comforts. To a healthy, well-fed child life just has a rythym to it. Life is experienced as it was meant to be. It's called normalcy.

In reality, all of these things were provided to you by your parent(s). While you were in school learning, your parents were out there working. Day after day they went out and gave of themselves so they would have the ability to give to you the level of normalcy you simply expected. This is life as it is meant to be. It's normalcy.

P.S As Morpheus did for Keanu, I now offer you a choice, take the red pill (stop reading), and go on beleiving what you know. Take the blue pill (read on) and risk learning  the truth, unpleasant as it may be.

In reality, your family probably faced serious dangers along the way that you never even knew about. Perhaps Dad got laid off, or Mom got sick. Perhaps the strain of working so hard and raising children resulted in serious arguments between the two. Whatever the problem was, odds are that serious efforts were made to keep you safely away from the fray. You were protected from the worry, the guilt, the stress of the adult world. That is as it should be. It is normal.

Now imagine for a moment, that as this child, one day the normalcy of your life is shattered. Imagine the kind of thing that happens to children sometimes that never ever should. Imagine that one day, Mommy is murdered.

Imagine now the grief, the sudden shock of it all, the incomprehensible pain and suffering, and then let's add to that the fact that
not only is your mother now dead, but that serious questions come to light regarding the involvement of your Father in your Mother's death.

A horrible scenario, yes I know, but it is a scenario based in reality. It happens every day on this great earth and the utter pain and wrongness of it is so powerful, that in order for all of us to survive, it is neccessary for most of us that we don't spend too much time dwelling upon things so tragic, lest we go insane with grief. So we try not to think of such things, but that does not make it any less real.

The child in this scenario now faces a very serious choice. To go into complete denial, refusing to believe that thier own father could ever be responsible for something so heinous, or to ask questions, going against all that is ingrained, preparing to endure even further the pain that may come with the knowledge acquired by asking them. It is a difficult choice. With which choice lies the true path to reality for this child?

To those of us who have lived through the horror of 9-11, we face a similar choice. Do we go on, refusing to question the possibility that our elected officials could be responsible for something so aghast? Or do we ask the questions that may lead the way to an even more hurtful truth than the one we already know? But I ask you again, With which choice lies the true path to reality for us, the citizens of the USA?

In my opinion, you can never go wrong by asking questions. It's when we claim to know the absolute truth that we get into trouble.

For those that think that asking questionsabout 9-11 is for conspiracy theorists and tin-foil heads, that the idea of a government plot to destroy human life in order to forward an agenda is simply ridiculous, All I can do is direct you to a specific example in history that proves reality to be very much to the contrary.


Information from Wikipedia

Operation Northwoods was a document drafted in 1962 by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and presented to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (and possibly President John F. Kennedy himself) on March 13, 1962. Long believed to be residing in the imagination of conspiracy theorists, the document was declassified in recent years by the Freedom of Information Act.

The document was drafted with the intent of getting public support for an invasion of Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff argued that the US population would only support military intervention in Cuba in the event of provocative, aggressive action by the island nation against American soldiers, American civilians or Cuban refugees and Cubans in exile. The document frequently refers to staging fake attacks with fake victims, but in other cases does not specify whether the attacks should be fake or real, and for some recommended attacks explicitly notes that they could be real. Had Operation Northwoods been carried out, it would likely have required the coordinative efforts of the Central Intelligence Agency, which is mentioned several times.

Some of the recommendations of Operation Northwoods proposed by the Joint Chiefs were:

    * 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.
    * Start false rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios.
    * Stage mock attacks, sabotages and riots and blame it on Cuban forces
    * Sink an American ship at the Guantanamo Bay American military base - reminiscent of the USS Maine incident at Havana in 1898, which started the Spanish-American War - or destroy American aircraft and blame it on Cuban forces. (The document refers to unmanned drones, fake funerals etc.)
    * "Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions."
    * Destroy a fake commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday" (really an unmanned drone)
    * Stage a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees:

        "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 [sic] 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."


It has been reported that John F. Kennedy personally rejected the proposal, but no official record of this exists. What is known for certain is that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara examined and rejected the proposal, and that the President removed General Lyman Lemnitzer as Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly afterward. The continuing press against Cuba by internal elements of the U.S. military and intelligence community (the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion, etc.) prompted President John F. Kennedy to attempt to rein in a burgeoning military-industrial complex that was intent on proactive, aggressive action against Communism around the globe. After the Bay of Pigs disaster, John F. Kennedy fired then CIA director Allen W. Dulles, Deputy Director Charles P. Cabell and Deputy Director Richard Bissell and turned his attention towards Vietnam.

Kennedy also took steps to bring discipline to the CIA's Cold War and paramilitary operations by drafting a National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) which called for the shift of Cold War operations to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and The Pentagon as well as a major change in the role of the CIA to exclusively deal in intelligence gathering.


To wit. I have been reading alot of posts by people in the supposed "reality-based community" who always seem to suggest that somehow, we who are unafraid to ask reality-based questions are somehow hurting this community.

To them I ask, What is your reality based on? Is it is  based on your own limited perspective? Or perhaps your own fear of appearing foolish? Reality is not so very hard to understand. Or is it?
I can guarantee one thing, that no one truly sees it in it's entirety,
and DHinMI does not own a copyright on the word.

JFK was a strong leader. His resistance to this plan shows this clearly. In my opinion George Bush is not a strong leader or a decent human being. The questions behind 9-11 are many. There are many similarities to the plot outlined above, which is now documented fact, a point in the win column for tin-foil heads everywhere, if you will. Who knows what weak men do in the face of diabolical plans. We will never ever know unless we are brave enough to ask those questions without fear of political retribution. Some things, no most things, go beyond politics into the realm of simple decency. And decency is all the REALITY I need.

So to DHinMI and others like him, I will not succumb my right to ask questions based on your limited percetions. I will not give up the right to appear foolish before you. I will keep embarrassing you. Now why don't you mind your own business and leave us alone?

Originally posted to Brian Nowhere on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:26 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  how about prescribe you some lithium? n/t (none)

      "All institutions have in the long run to live by the nature of things, and not by childish pretendings." - George Bernard Shaw

      by gracchus on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:23:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But did you read it. (none)
        I'd love to hear someone disprove the logic behind it.
        •  It's not very plausible... (none)
          Even if you look at it with an open mind.

          First, 9/11 raises the stakes seriously from this document. They were talking about sinking a US ship (probably without American casualties) or sinking Cuban refugee boats. They also talked about taking advantage of a potential John Glenn death, but not causing it. So they didn't even imagine killing US citizens. It seems like the destruction of two buildings and the deaths of 3000 American citizens is beyond what people had imagined.

          The counter argument to this would be that they didn't expect the buildings to fall, so they were planning on asmaller tragedy. But still, you could have accomplished the same popular support thing by sending a series of fake suicide bombers, and you would end up killing fewer people than even the peple on the planes.

          I also have questions about the hijackers themselves. If one of these nineteen people were actually US operatives, don't you think we'd have heard something from the free press? (Outside the US that is) These people were on the FBI watch list. The larger the number of people involved, the less chance of a conspiracy, because the harder it is to keep everyone from talking.

          The counter-argument to this is that maybe the administration didn't plan it - it just saw it and let it happen. I don't buy that for the third reason.

          This is an incompetant administration whose attentions were elsewhere. Bush was on vacation. Rice was worried about missile defense. Cheney was writing the Enron energy bill. We have numerous independent reports from people like Richard Clarke and Bob Woodward that the administration wasn't focussed on terrorism. You would thing they would know more about what was going on if they were trying to stage an attack.

          So it doesn't ring true to me.

          Gay is the new Jewish.

          by Aguas de Marco on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:57:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good response (none)
            but I would also juxtapose this document with another, written by the Project for a New American Century in which it was written by them in the 90'2s that the objectives of this administration could not be achieved quickly unless there were to be a "new pearl harbor"
            It's striking how the objectives written about practically mirror the speps taken since 9-11
          •  The majority of deaths (none)
            Re: The counter argument to this would be that they didn't expect the buildings to fall, so they were planning on asmaller tragedy.

            Most of the 3000 deaths (including the 800 at the Pentagon) were caused by the crashes themselves and the subsequent fires. So even with "intact" buildings the tragedy would not have been much smaller.
            An inside job would have most likely have hit the buildings at night or on the weekends, when they had very few occupants, and involved bombs within (like the '93 bombing) not plane crashes (which did great damage to the bottom lines of major us coporations and stock holders). Even the Nazis burned the Reichstag in the middle of the night after all.
            It's interesting to note too that these leftwing conspiracy theories resemble rightwing ones linking Clinton to the OKC bombing since he benefited quite handsomely from the tragedy.

  •  It's (4.00)

    If you're going to launch an ad hominem attack, get the screen name right.

  •  Care To Point Out Where... (none)
    ...I EVER said or implied people don't or shouldn't have the right to ask questions?  Or is this just about inventing reasons for martyrdom?

    And since you're mischaracterizing what I wrote and argued, I don't feel restrained in quibbling and saying that you should really look up the proper usage of the word "succumb."  

    •  You have implied this (none)
      thousands of times by coming into other peoples diaries and criticizing their beliefs, by calling us tin-foil and other such things. I think you were among those who coined the term 'tin-foil' as it is now used here.
      You could just mind your own business and write about your own reality, but you seem to contantly go out of your way to attack others reality.
      Succumb- I know what it means and you are making an attempt to ridicule those you don't agree with to leave here. I will not succumb.
      •  Implications (none)
        Subjective to selective interpretation, no doubt, just like what's real, what's important?

        "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

        by Cathy on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:56:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Where? (none)
        I didn't ask for opinion, I asked for you to point out where I ever told people they can't ask questions.  And you said ask questions, and now you've changed it to have beliefs.

        And if you don't want anyone to question you, then why the fuck post in the the public marketplace of ideas?  

        Sounds to me that you want the blog equivalent of Bush's "rallies," where the only people allowed to attend are those who won't ask uncomfortable questions.  That's fine if you want that, but it's not fine if you expect that at Daily Kos.

      •  Whoa, what's that about minding your (4.00)
        own business?  You aren't minding yours.  You disagree with DHinMI.  You think you were born with the constitutional right to post on Dailykos.

        Some people think that all are welcome, but asking reasonable things from users here is not arrogance, butting into your business, or censoring, or advocating that you drop off the face of the earth, even, it's reasonable to ask these things.  If you disagree just say so, but quit pretending there was an attempt to censor.

        "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

        by Cathy on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:00:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

          •  Without ever acknowleding that (none)
            there could be something valid about what DHinMI was advocating, and all the while screaming that you deserve to have your thoughts considered as valid as anyone else's.

            Do you not a see a contradiction?

            "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

            by Cathy on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:07:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Perhaps (none)
              but is is REAL and I am forwarding the thoughts of many of us who don;t agree with DiHinMI and his line of reasoning.
              He's basically come out in the past and called us all stupid. (Although he probably didn;t specifically say those words, therefore leaving him the opportunity to now write "I never said that, show me where I said that".
              •  Tell him to .... (none)
                well, tell him whatever you want, but don't mischaracterize what's being asked for.  I don't understand this persecution complex.  Honestly.
                Here you sit with the access to Dailykos readers. A user who hasn't been asked anything to contribute to the ability to be able to do that, to facilitate the extraordinary undertaking where one day 50,000 users could read your thoughs, and you and others harumph when memebers of the community voice their own valid opinions about dairies and comments.  And you have the ability to start a diary the next day to say whatever you want about their opinons on the matter.  No one curtailed you.

                "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

                by Cathy on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:22:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think perhaps (none)
                  I unjustifiably implicated DiHinMI in this. I really did not realize he has so many other, much more well written pieces.

                  I have only noticed him when he's calling out the fringe elements here and it kind of sparks a defensive reaction within me as I enjoy my fringe-ness.

                  I know of feel bad now that I posted this, but it's out there now and I still stand by the intent of the article which is to show how the government is capable of absolute horror.
                  They might even be capable of rigging an election.

                  I don't mind being called irrational or stupid really, so I shouldn't really be uspet at DiHinMI, I suppose. He's just one of millions.

                  I just feel that within reason, Conspricies can and do happen and we ignore that fact at our peril, even if we risk being wrong.

                  •  This is the breakthrough (none)
                    An acknowledgement that reasonable people can disagree.  You can be passionately reasonable. I don't mean you have to be a bore or restrained but open to hearing people, as much you want people to be open to hearing you.

                    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

                    by Cathy on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 12:03:06 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  I kinda like... (none)
        "tin foil hat" or as I prefer TFHB (Tin Foil Hat Brigade). It's better than some of the others I've heard when talking to colleagues who really do field phone calls from folks who ring up to complain that the CIA is listening into their thoughts via implants in their teeth...that the aliens are doing X to them again at the behest of the federal government

        I'm an avid listener of late night radio...Art Bell rocks. But when he accepts calls from wind up hearing some really strange, or interesting, people. There are quite a few people out there who truly believe that they are angels, demons, or time travellers.

        There are different operations out there that wind up being really bad ideas. Like when the DoD tried to experiment with bats and a special kind of fire bomb. That one didn't work out to well...seems that the bats decided to go their bat way and set fire to a few places they shouldn't have. The DoD tried it with cats too...bad idea. It was all part of trying to defeat the Japanese during WWII. They thought that it would be easy to fly these critters in with their bombs and burn down the wooden homes.

        I'm still trying to figure out who thought up this one. But then again...there is this book: The Men Who Stare at Goats.

        But it's probably a wise move to take it all with a giant salt-lick. If you don't, you really can go a bit wonky.

        "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

        by kredwyn on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:10:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Succumbing your rights.... (none)
    No one asked this of you. No one said stop asking questions, unless they are the RIGHT questions.  No one said, this is a warining:  We who are superior to you are seriously thinking of taking your right to free speech away...

    That's a false issue that is being brought up.  There could be a reasonable understanding if people would just listen to each other and see what is really being said instead of pretending that you've been asked to shut up.

    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

    by Cathy on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:54:24 AM PDT

  •  one question mark suffices...ok, maybe two, tops (none)
    Why is it that the mentally unbalanced are never satisfied with a single punctuation mark?????? Don't get me started with italics, either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  •  nah, you're not embarrassing us... (none)
    ...just yourself. but, then again, gullible people rarely get embarrassed, do they?

    children are frightened of wolves and wicked witches and other things that go bump in the night. years of looking under the bed and in the closet before bedtime teaches them that the boogyman is mostly a figment of their imagination. they grow up to be healthy individuals who recognize that real boogymen do things like keep you from earning a decent wage, cut social programs meant to help you when you're in a jam and allow corporations to run roughshod over the environment.

    you're still looking under the bed.

    There are many who lust for the simple answers of doctrine or decree. They are on the left and right. They are terrorists of the mind. -- A. Bartlett Giamatti

    by FemiNazi on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:12:43 AM PDT

  •  I'm going to hit the Big R button (none)
    on this one.  Not because I agree but because I like the discussion that it sparked.

    "People cannot stand too much reality." - Carl Jung

    by environmentalist on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:17:17 AM PDT

  •  If the Bush administration (4.00)
    had had a 9-11 (other than the hand of mere negligence) I would expect:
    1. Laura Bush would not have been in Washington DC in 9-11-2001, testifying on Capitol Hill where she might well have perished had flight 93 not crashed in the PA woods.
    2. Barbara Olson (wife of Bush's solictor general) would not have been on board the plane that hit the Pentagon
    3. Evidence would have pre-faked linking Iraq and perhaps Syria and Iran directly to the attack
    4. Bush would have returned to DC immediately on 9-11 and acted boldly and without fear instead of flitting about the country on Airforce 1 giving an impression of confusion and timidity.
  •  I don't think (4.00)
    that asking questions about September 11th is for conspiracy theorists alone. It is important to understand our intelligence and preparedness failures so that we may improve our procedures. However, speculation, selective mining of data, and unwarranted conclusions are not the same thing as "asking questions".

    I disagree with your characterization of the Operation Northwoods document as a point in the win column for conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists believed that Operation Northwoods was carried out, and that has proven to be false. Thinking about a conspiracy and actually carrying it out are very different things. It only takes one person to come up with the idea, but it usually takes the cooperation of an improbable number of people to execute it.

    ... yet even the dogs eat the crumbs from their master's table.

    by Blue the Wild Dog on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:46:51 AM PDT

  •  Inform Yourselves (none)
    Folks really should read the evidence for an "inside job" on 9/11 before pooh-poohing it. "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin, which can be gotten for free in pdf form if you google it, does a pretty good job of laying the evidence and arguments out.

    It's really a blind, and foolish, discussion until one is working with all the available facts. And there really is no clout behind a rebuttal until the available evidence is given a fair hearing.


    •  read bob woodward's... (none)
      Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987

      i was all set to read about the great and powerful guv'ment. instead i read about a buncha keystone cops.

      There are many who lust for the simple answers of doctrine or decree. They are on the left and right. They are terrorists of the mind. -- A. Bartlett Giamatti

      by FemiNazi on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:57:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yup (none)
        And the work of Thomas Powers, whose essays over the last couple decades for the New York Review of Books were compiled in Intellegence Wars.  The CIA had a couple short-term successes that caused long-term problems (like Iran in 1956, overthrow of the Arbenz government in Guatamala) and they thought they were the player and the world was their chessboard.  After the 1950's, they fucked up just about everything.

        And irony of ironies, just as the CIA started to move away from reckless cowboy bullshit in the mid-to-late 1990's and start to apply at least a little bit of focus on the actual threats facing us, the Republicans go after them as icompetant because the analysts at the CIA (and state, and to a lesser degree DIA) told the Repubs what they didn't want to hear about Iraq.  

    •  So true (none)
      there is so much information regarding this is is so hard to be prepared with facts. I wish I was meticulous enough to put all of the puzzle pieces together. It really is kind of blind and foolish to try and argue this.
      I gave it a shot though, and I'm still alive. Wait, who's that knockign on the door? The Secret Police?
      Oh man I love that band. I gotta go...
Click here for the mobile view of the site