Talk:Operation Northwoods

What does it mean?

I don't know where NPOV leaves off and preferring life over murder picks up, but there is something to be said for the goverment institutions and personnel who could cook something like this up.

Issues with use of Ruppe ABC news piece and intro

I'm sorry if I do anything out of line, I am new to editing Wikipedia. Fundamentally, the Northwoods document (hosted on GWU's natl security archive and many other places) does not actually expressly contain plans to "commit acts of terror against American civilians." Here is the critical text:

"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 en route 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 bombs in carefully chosen spots."

Simplifying that above text down to "commit acts of terror against American civilians" is ludicrous and missing complexity. I understand that this is a quote from the David Ruppe ABC News piece, but Ruppe frankly did a bad job summarizing the document. He also possibly didn't even read the document, since he prefaces the claim by saying "the plans *reportedly* included... committing acts of terror against American civilians."

Ruppe got it wrong. Don't use the Ruppe reporting. Use the Northwoods document itself.

another issue: in the first sentence, the term "almost implemented"... what does that mean? Why is that in the opening sentence? All sources (Bamford etc) indicate that Northwoods was resoundingly rejected when given to McNamara and Kennedy. "Almost implemented" is harmful language which moves this article from a grounding in objective fact toward editorialization. Its presence is the opening sentence is unacceptable and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.106.208 (talk • contribs)

That specific part of the document had about nine parts to it and you conveniently only mentioned one of them. Besides, Wikipedia uses secondary and tertiary sources over primary ones in the vast majority of cases for this exact reason: original research. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfounded claims

Read the document. It says to stage assassination attempts resulting in at most injury, not to actually assassinate Cuban immigrants. Nowhere in the document is it suggested that anyone would suffer worse than that, although it is ambiguous as to what how the sinking of a Cuban refugee, which it proposes could be real, would be handled. The document talks about staged terrorist attacks but not bombings specifically. The ABC source suggests that the document contemplates killing American services members, when the section it quotes clearly and explicitly states that these would be fabricated individuals. You have an actual conspiracy here, why be an equivocating conspiracy nut? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.101.54 (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Are we just gonna pretend this isn't at all like 9/11

I mean, at the very least this shows that the idea of using planes as weapons was not at all new or unexpected on September tenth. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:D2BC:F4CC:CF61:92BB (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Do any reliable secondary sources exist which make this comparison? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 18:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)