Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum - View Single Post

SpitfireIX · #**696** (**permalink**) 03-June-2006, 03:19 AM

"..that only leaving the refugees aboard the boat would constitute a "real" sinking."...you left out the refugees....

One does not "sink" people--one "drowns" or "immerses" or "kills" or "wounds" people.

When they state....

We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated).

...that means either "simulate" the incident, in whole or in part, or make it a "real" incident - and have it actually happen entirely as written. Any element that is simulated makes it a "simulated" incident. If not, you are proposing that every element of an incident must be "simulated" to make it a "simulation", and if there is any aspect of an incident which is "real", that makes the entire incident "real"

And, of course, you must continue ignoring the fact that the words "real" and "simulated" cannot modify the word "sink," and must modify either "boatload" or "Cubans." Yet another example of how you must twist the wording of the memo in order to make it appear to mean what you wish it to mean.

You aren't getting my point. That is still an incident which includes simulated elements. There would not be any concern over whether or not the boat was a "genuine" refugee boat! I mean, it's not very likely that witnesses will say "That was no genuine refugee boat." So it could certainly have a "real refugee boat" - but "simulated" refugees.

I do get your point, but your point is incorrect, and, as I have stated, requires twisting the wording of the memo. The words "simulated" and "real" can only reasonably be taken to modify "boatload" or "Cubans." So, a Coast Guard cutter's taking a group of "real" Cubans off of their "real" boat and then sinking the boat by gunfire would fit. You are attempting to claim that a "real" sinking would require that the Cubans still be aboard their boat, else the sinking would be simulated. I don't agree with this reasoning, but it's irrelevant anyway, as the word "real" cannot modify the word "sink."

In contrast, other scenarios would require careful preparation of "decoy" ships or aircraft. Like the passenger airplane scenario - a "simulated" plane would need to be created that would succeed in fooling any eyewitnesses. As well as the fake Mig scenarios.

Again, this is because the methods by which these incidents could be staged with no real casualties are not obvious. But they are obvious in the case of an anchored ship and a small boat sunk by a larger ship. Further, you simply assume, as usual because it suits your purpose, that each scenario is equally fleshed out, despite the clear statement that the suggestions are preliminary, and for planning purposes.

As I noted, is anyone really going to say that the refugee boat was a fake? Would they flip through "Jane's Refugee Ships" for identification? Unless "SS Minnow" is painted on a piece of the fake debris or something, it wouldn't be very difficult to "simulate" blowing up a non-descript refugee craft. Or not, because who would ever notice the difference?

A piece of debris that was clearly of US origin picked up by a boat chartered by a group of reporters might generate suspicion, though most debris would indeed likely be rather generic. In any case it's irrelevant, because "simulated" can modify either "boatload" or "Cubans."

No, I wasn't implying "deaths ordinarily expected" in my point. It was meant to explain the fallacy of your argument - that because they specifically mention injuries in one scenario, that the remaining scenarios are harmless because they would have mentioned it otherwise.

Whether intentional or not, that is the implication of your wording. And you are oversimplifying my argument in an attempt to make it appear less credible. To briefly recap: why are the only scenarios you claim intend US casualties sinking or sabotaging a ship in Guantanimo Bay, sinking a "real" boatload of Cuban refugees, or a fake terror campaign? I claim that this is because evacuating the crew/passengers [edit: or detonating a bomb so as to likely cause no casualties] would have been easy enough that they did not warrant discussion. My evidence for this is that the "shot down [edit: or harrassed] fighter/airliner" and "blown up ship at sea near Havana/Santiago" scenarios do not include options to "shoot down a real American airliner" or "blow up a non-drone ship near Havana/Santiago." You evidently feel that these omissions are merely coincidental; I feel that they are evidence of the implicit subtext of a lack of US casualties. The "even to the extent of wounding" phrase, again implying that the expected condition is no one hurt, is further evidence of this subtext.

So when they suggest We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington, they don't mention that injuries could occur because it is "assumed" there wouldn't be any? Is that really your contention? [emphasis original]

Yes it is, for the reasons stated above--in particular the phrase "even to the extent of wounding," which, as noted, clearly implies that no deaths or injuries would be the default expectation.

Naphthalene alone is not used as an incendiary - but it becomes an incendiary when it's mixed with palmitate, and becomes the well known, and brutally lethal incendiary, napalm. [emphasis original]

This still does not require that anyone be aboard the ship when the napalm is ignited.

<snip of totally irrelevant UN resolution passed 11 years after Northwoods memo was written>

The only way I have found that naphthalene becomes an incendiary is when it is used in combination with palmitate to create napalm. Do you know of any other way that naphthalene could be used as an incendiary?

I've never had organic chemistry, so I don't know. But it's not overly relevant to the discussion of the Northwoods memo, as it is possible that some other substance was intended.

[edit: clarity]