JFK Files: US Contemplated Fake Soviet Attack To Provoke War

The DC:

The U.S. government considered manufacturing or obtaining Soviet aircraft in order to launch an attack on American or friendly bases that could then provide an excuse for war, according to newly released documents.

The documents are part of an October release of thousands of formerly classified files related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It describes a March 22, 1962 meeting that discussed “the question raised by the attorney general on the possibility of U.S. manufacture or acquisition of Soviet aircraft.”

The meeting was held by the “Special Group (Augmented),” which according to an encyclopedia on the Central Intelligence Agency, included Attorney General Robert Kennedy, CIA Director John McCone, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Lemnitzer. And while not members, President Kennedy and Secretary of State Dean Rusk would attend meetings.

The previously top secret documents listed three reasons for obtaining or manufacturing the aircraft.

“There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention.”  read more 

26 Comments on JFK Files: US Contemplated Fake Soviet Attack To Provoke War

  1. Sooooo, let’s have a chat about BUILDING 7 ON 911 collapsing w/o being hit by a plane (filled with girder melting jet fuel) and not even being on fire. Yet strangely fell neatly and vertically as if in a controlled demolition that the media reported before the building actually fell.


    Now let’s see all those small government Conservatives log in and defend their big government sacred cow from this now verified “Operation Northwoods” ‘conspiracy.’

  2. Do you really think that such operations (and much worse) aren’t part of the possible contingency plans of all major nations for any type of war scenario that can be imagined?

    All options are on the table at all times, but just because something is “discussed” doesn’t mean it is ever seriously contemplated.

    Here’s an example:


  3. I wonder how that would go over with the FBI and courts if a few citizens conspired to attack the U.S. government with false-flag operations to make it look like someone else was doing it. Cause chaos and disorder, murderous rampages across the nation.

    Had the plans all mapped out, then used the excuse,

    ‘“Discussed” doesn’t mean it is ever seriously contemplated!’ Hmm, my guess is, not so good.

  4. @Half-Assed-Patriot: You need to read up on some of the differences between individuals and governments if you think that is an apt analogy.

    Besides, I see people on the internet discussing their plans for insurrection, civil war, etc. all the time. Who knows how detailed their plots are, or how serious their intentions? Yet nothing comes of it. That is the difference between discussing and doing.

  5. Sucks to be in the military or not and that our gov thinks when they need to sway the people of a nation or nations we are expendable.
    Tell me again why we should trust anything they say?

  6. castro groped me, way back in 61, I think the beard was an overcompensation for being light in the army boots….che, too.

  7. A government even CONSIDERING an attack on its own citizens, is a 5 alarm situation. Is that what we are paying them for?

    I knew some big government apologist would log in and come to their defense.


  8. @Half-Assed: If you don’t think that such things (and worse) are considered (and done) at the highest levels of Governmental power in this world, then you are more naïve than I took you for to begin with. And that is NOT a defense of such actions, just a realistic acceptance that they do exist, regardless of whether we like it or not.

    Study some history sometime.

    As far as what we are paying them for, do you approve of all the other things they do that we are paying them for?

    If not, then why are you paying them?

    What’s that? You say you have no choice? Then why even raise the question?

    Come back and ask us that after you have stopped paying your taxes.

    If you can.

    I was going to close this comment with FAKE PATRIOT, but I decided not to.


  9. Well we had Fast and Furious, the hatched plot by Obama and Holder so they could have an excuse to clamp down on guns. Of course the truth came out and they had egg on their face at the expense of 2 dead border patrol.

  10. In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future.Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect.

    “in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect.

    So, our own government had a CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER, but apologists rush in and say, “Well….they don’t go through with it did they? Then it’s not a crime!”

    If you could go ahead and not give our government who sought to murder its own people the benefit of a sliver of a doubt….that’d be greeeeat.

  11. @Half-Assed-Patriot: Again, I fear you are confusing individual law with international law. When a citizen conspires to kill people, it is a punishable offense. When a Government does it, it is called contingency planning. Otherwise you could say that any war plan is a conspiracy to commit murder. Governments operate by different rules than individuals.

    My original point, which you seem to keep missing, is that Governments have to think the unthinkable, and plan for such things. It doesn’t mean that they are seriously desiring to do them. A lot of people think President Roosevelt did nothing to prevent the attack on Pearl Harbor in order to get us into WW2 (I don’t, BTW). Would that make him a murderer? Or is the sacrifice of couple of thousand of your own people worth it for the greater good of stopping fascism? Depends on who you ask.

    On 9/11/2001 the U.S. Government would have had American pilots shoot down civilian airliners full of men, women, and children if it had been possible at the time. If there weren’t plans in place to do so then, you can bet your ass there are now. Would you call those a conspiracy to commit murder?

    I could go on, but I won’t.

    Those are the kinds of questions that keep world leaders up at night. I’m glad I don’t have to deal with them.

    Notice that I don’t give the government the benefit of a sliver of doubt that they would be capable of doing such a thing if they thought it was the best (or only) option to achieve the needed objective. Hopefully that will make you feel better.

    If not, xin loi.

  12. Do you support your own government using resources to conspire to murder their own people.

    There is only one short answer: No.


  13. @Half-ass: OK, I’m going to waste a few more words, anyway, just to ask you this: Do you see anywhere an ANY of my comments where I said I supported my government using resources to conspire to murder their own people?
    Or that I approved of such actions?

    There is only one short answer: No, you do not.

    Yet you persist in reading that into anything I say here.

    If jumping to conclusions was a track and field event, you’d be a goddam Olympic athlete.

  14. Word Count: 652

    That’s an awful lot of words to say you don’t support your government’s murderous scheme.

  15. Actually, that’s an awful lot of words to try to convince a misguided troll that he doesn’t know how to interpret another person’s simple statements without inferring some diabolical meaning that wasn’t there to begin with.

    Yet I persisted, against my better judgment, hoping beyond hope that somehow that parts of that reading comprehension class that you probably failed in high school would bubble up to the surface of your tortured mind and you would finally snap to the fact that merely describing a phenomenon does not mean you approve of it.

    Yet, alas, it was not to be.

    Remind me to never let you know if I decide to write a book about Charles Manson. You’ll be running around telling everyone that I’m in favor of mass murders.

  16. Not that I’m trying to butt in, lol, but …

    Vietvet: “Do you see anywhere an ANY of my comments where I said I supported my government using resources to conspire to murder their own people?
    Or that I approved of such actions? ”

    I did not.

  17. Thanks, MJA. At least somebody gets it.


    …You can send ’em to school, and you can buy ’em books,
    and all they do is chew on the covers.


  18. @Half-Ass: The “disagreement”, if you want to call it that, only existed in your alleged mind. You were talking about one thing (i.e., the morality of the government); I was talking about another (i.e., the actions of governments). Because of that fact, it is totally irrelevant whether I agree or disagree with you on this (or for that matter, any subject), and for you to assume that I do or do not is meaningless in the context of this discussion.

    Next time, try turning on brain before engaging mouth.

    P.S. – Just so you know, I never said I agreed with you. Go back and read the comments.

  19. Now you’re back to supporting a government guilty of “Conspiracy to Commit Murder” against its own citizens?

    Pffft! You’re incorrigible.

  20. No, I just said I never agreed with you on the subject.

    There you go again, jumping to conclusions.

    You’re incorrigible.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!