IIRC, there was a plan drawn up for a US invasion of Canada (as well as a Canadian plan to respond to a US invasion.)

As I'm sure there was a US plan to respond to the Canadian response to the US invasion

Yes, there was a whole set of "color" plans developed in the 20's & 30's. They involved planning for war with a whole set of opponents, some more likely than others. Among them were

Orange: Japan
Red: Great Britain
Crimson: Canada
Black: Germany
Green: Mexico (not sure about this one)

As these plans tended to focus on single opponents, they were discarded in the 30's and the five so-called "Rainbow" war plans developed that involved war with multiple opponents. These developed eventually into the actual operations of WW II.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

It does indeed make the event a simulation. If an actual boatload of actual refugees is not sunk, then the event is not "real". They don't say "We could sink a boat after we remove the refugees".

As I have pointed out several times, the words "real" and "simulated" do not modify the entire event; only certain elements of it.

Then back up your claim and put it into a sentence.

You are arguing just to argue. I stand by my statement that my scenario could fit either of your sentences.

And "mock-victims" have been added to the second option.

Which, despite your handwaving, does not imply that real victims are intended in the first option.

"Large fires" and napthalene are in the plan, and it's some sort of far-fetched notion that there would be, or quite likely to be, casualties - only imagined because it suits my purpose? So a headline in the NY Times reads: Ship Sabotaged in Harbor - Large Fires People thinking that there are injuries or casualties based on that headline are therefore jumping to absurd conclusions because it suits their purpose to do so....... [emphasis original]

You are assuming that the appearance of casualties is required, when several of the "provocations" call for no casualties at all, and one calls for wounded but not killed real casualties.

This brings up another point. You have claimed that "fake" casualties would lack the emotional impact of "real" casualties ("Joe was my cousin" or something to that effect). Recall that 1962 was well before 24-hour news, with interviews of victims' families. Assuming for the sake of argument 100 real casualties, 100 people who knew each victim well enough to be significantly impacted, and ignoring overlap (e.g. two brothers killed who knew many of the same people) that is only 10,000 people directly impacted; a tiny fraction of 1% of the US population. So why would the US political leadership take the terrible risk of deliberately causing real casualties, if they felt that fake casualties would create a "helpful" wave of anti-Castro sentiment?

Blowing up a ship whose crew is evacuated beforehand is blowing up an unmanned ship!

No. "An unmanned ship" connotes a ship that is designed to operate without a crew; not a ship whose crew is temporarily absent.

Well, the option "We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba" does meet those requirements.

The problem is, in each of the scenarios you claim has an option for real or fake casualties, at least one other highly significant detail changes between options. If the JCS truly intended to suggest that real casualties were optional, why are there no otherwise identical scenarios? Specifically, why is there no option to shoot down a real airliner/drone airliner, or blow up a real ship/drone ship near a large Cuban city?

I'm trying to get my points across, but it's only more

The wall you are beating your head against is built of facts and logic, and the reason you aren't getting your points across is frankly due to their utter lack of merit. Further, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are not interested in serious or meaningful debate. You have yet to acknowledge or take responsibility for any of the numerous mistakes or misinterpretations that have been pointed out to you in this and other threads; you repeatedly duck problematic questions in favor of peripheral issues; and when pressed on these points, you simply attack the person pressing you. Now, I specifically request that you answer the following question, turbonium: in light of this undeniable track record of yours, why do your expect anyone to take you or your theories seriously?

As to "conspiracy" claims being the de facto extraordinary claims compared to the "official" claims, I beg to differ.

No. In the case of September 11, the existence of some conspiracy is beyond doubt. In those circumstances, the claim that the conspirators were members of an organization believed responsible for several previous terrorist attacks, and whose leader had repeatedly proclaimed his intention to attack American interests, is not an extraordinary claim. Conversely, the claim that the attacks were staged by the US Government is an extraordinary claim.

9/11, JFK and many other "official" versions of events contain many extraordinary claims that have not been supported with extraordinary proof.

No. Many people have demonstrated that conspiracists' expectations that certain claims are extraordinary (e.g., that the terrorist pilot of American 77 displayed tremendous flying skills) are based on nothing more than ignorant assumptions.

The burden of proof is on the Gov't to support their extraordinary claims of the 19 hijackers, the SBT, and so on.

No. Even were we to grant for the sake of argument that the official story is an extraordinary claim, conspiracists still have at least an equal burden of proof to show that there is a Government conspiracy. As I have attempted to point out many times, doubts about the involvement of al-Qaeda do not equate to doubts about the non-involvement of the US Government. This is nothing more than an elaborate form of the "something is wrong; therefore I am right" fallacy.

Not only do they lack extraordinary proof, they lack the most basic proof.

No. There is ample proof (though not necessarily exhaustive proof in all cases). The fact that you stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly whenever anyone attempts to provide you with proof does not mean none exists.

[edit: also, turbonium, please explain how the phone calls from passengers and flight attendants, the security video of the hijackers boarding American 11, the car and suitcases full of suspicious items, the record of the men's attending flight school, and the multiple tapes of bin Laden claiming responsibility for the attacks do not constitute "the most basic proof." Please explain also how "the most basic proof" of the Single Bullet Theory was not presented in the JFK thread.]

[edit: typo]

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

We're still waiting for those statements from the Pentagon rescue and recovery crews from you, turbonium. What's taking you so long?

I'm curious whether they have a plan should we (Belgium) ever take the nukes they store overhere and use them against somebody . Not to judge them, just to know how far this "what if" scenario planning goes.

I am quite willing to believe they have plans stored for an invasion of Britain, but indeed one must see all those plans in the context they were made. "let's roll" will not be the motivation I guess .

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Almost certainly. The goal, I think, is to plan for as many contingencies as possible, no matter how bizarre, in the hopes that you cover everything. Of course, you don't--you can't--but you do what you can.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I think the plan is to bomb Brussels with copies of Hercule Poirrot mysteries (books, films, video tapes, DVDs, and so on) until you beg for mercy.

There's only so much phony Belgian-accented English a country can stand!

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

And of course, even if you haven't made a plan specifically to cover a particular scenario involving country A, it is always possible to apply a similar plan covering country B instead.

The French speaking part of Belgium wouldn't know what's wrong with the accent

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

If such a plan exists, it's undoubtedly classified. So the Defense Department could tell you, but then they'd have to kill you.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Of course they would fight back by making us eat Brussel Sprouts (ick!).

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

I like sprouts yum! esp in a bubble and squeak the following day lol

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

1. If you're busting on my main man David Suchet... them's fighting words!
2. I will volunteer to suffer the bombardment. Just let me make room on my shelves first!

Well, there are plenty of others who have portrayed H.P. But I was really thinking of the bad accent I hear in my head when I read a Poirot story.

I like Suchet as Poirot, but I wasn't quite as impressed with his Aslan in the radio dramatizations of the Chronicles of Narnia books. That's just not the way I imagined the lion's voice to sound. (No, he didn't use his French accent!)

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

Oh, not again I'm getting seriously tired of everybody having to kill me over one or another Evil Plan

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

To refresh the specific request you originally posted...

Also, present the testimony from the hundreds of rescue and recovery personnel who were at the Pentagon in the minutes, hours, and days after the disaster and who were responsible for recovering the remains of human beings and the wreakage. Is their testimony consistent with the crash of AA77 or not? Why?

First of all, I don't know where you have found testimony from hundreds of Pentagon rescue & recovery personnel. I haven't even seen testimony from hundreds of Pentagon witnesses period - rescue and recovery personnel, and all other people combined.

As for the ones I have seen? No, they are not at all consistent with the crash of AA77.

One example of contradicitory reports follows, with emphasis added.....

Members of Congress who toured the site Thursday said rescue officials reported that much of the fuselage of the hijacked airplane remains intact in the ruins.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...tagon-usat.htm

Around the area of impact along the building's perimeter, where a section of the building collapsed, FBI evidence teams found parts of the fuselage from the Boeing 757, Tamillow said. No large pieces apparently survived.

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/Phoen...n_pentagon.htm

So which one is accurate? A much intact fuselage, or only smaller parts of a fuselage? No photos show a largely intact fuselage section(s), nor any identifiable section of AA77 fuselage.

One report of passengers still in rows of seats is contradicted by reports of no wreckage of any aircraft at all. And again, no photos show passengers in rows of seats. Or passengers. Or rows of seats. And so on for the other accounts.

Nothing I've seen indicates accounts consistent with a 757, let alone specifically AA Flt.77. The reports are inconsistent and even contradictory at times.

Even the black boxes, which were said to have been recovered, have either not had the information released (FDR), or were said to be damaged, with the salvaged contents being "nothing useful" (CVR), so again were not released.

As I have pointed out several times, the words "real" and "simulated" do not modify the entire event; only certain elements of it.

And as I have continued to point out, even simulating "only certain elements" of an event still makes it a simulated event. A real event, such as to "..sink a boatload of refugees.", was suggested as one of two options. Not in part "real" and in part "simulated". Real as written. They didn't leave it that way for interpretation. If there was another intent, why would they not detail that?

You are arguing just to argue. I stand by my statement that my scenario could fit either of your sentences.

I'm not "arguing just to argue". I stand by my specific request that you actually make it fit into those sentences, so that it makes sense.

Which, despite your handwaving, does not imply that real victims are intended in the first option.

If "mock-victims" were also intended in the first option, then why would they not mention that detail?

You are assuming that the appearance of casualties is required, when several of the "provocations" call for no casualties at all, and one calls for wounded but not killed real casualties.

The plan has suggestions which run the gamut - mild disruptances, staged or real; attacking a US ship, or fake US ship; sinking a boat full of Cuban refugees, real or staged; wounding people, and so on. All of which are to be implemented in phases, to increasingly foment worldwide outrage against Cuba.

You won't accept that the suggested plans involved any deaths, obviously. But you also fail to accept the possibility that even so-called "collateral" (or unintentional) deaths existed, or were considered by the JCS as possible in the aftermath. All because they don't specifically state that actual deaths would or could occur in any of the scenarios.

So "We could sink a boatload of refugees (real or simulated)", actually should be understood as "We could sink a boatload of refugees ((partially) real or simulated)", in your view. Or maybe ("real (as much as possible without harming or killing anyone) or simulated").

You have claimed that "fake" casualties would lack the emotional impact of "real" casualties ("Joe was my cousin" or something to that effect). Recall that 1962 was well before 24-hour news, with interviews of victims' families. Assuming for the sake of argument 100 real casualties, 100 people who knew each victim well enough to be significantly impacted, and ignoring overlap (e.g. two brothers killed who knew many of the same people) that is only 10,000 people directly impacted; a tiny fraction of 1% of the US population. So why would the US political leadership take the terrible risk of deliberately causing real casualties, if they felt that fake casualties would create a "helpful" wave of anti-Castro sentiment?

But if "only" 10,000 people are directly affected, how many more than that are still affected to a lesser degree? That is, if each one of the 10,000 directly affected people each know 100 people, that adds up to one million people who directly know someone who lost a family member or close friend, etc. In 1962, that would be roughly one out of every 187 people. The number of people aware if it, though less affected, still would continue to grow exponentially. That is, 100 million people may not react with great shock or grief, but it still could have an emotional affect when they hear about it in person, directly from people they know.

Using your calculations for 9/11, the 3000+ deaths on that day had a significant impact on 300,000 people, roughly estimated. Of course, this was not a strictly US tragedy, not limited to directly impacting only US citizens. But along with those of other nations, there are a very significant number of Americans who knew someone who died, either directly or indirectly, on 9/11.

Blowing up a ship whose crew is evacuated beforehand is blowing up an unmanned ship!

No. "An unmanned ship" connotes a ship that is designed to operate without a crew; not a ship whose crew is temporarily absent.

No. An "unmanned ship" connotes any ship afloat without a crew. It's irrelevant what the ship's operational state was intended to be. The Coast Guard, as one example, often find what they describe as an "unmanned" vessel, floating adrift, or even circling endlessly with a motor still running. "Unmanned" is simply defined as "not furnished with men". An "unmanned ship" is simply "a ship not furnished with men".

The problem is, in each of the scenarios you claim has an option for real or fake casualties, at least one other highly significant detail changes between options. If the JCS truly intended to suggest that real casualties were optional, why are there no otherwise identical scenarios? Specifically, why is there no option to shoot down a real airliner/drone airliner, or blow up a real ship/drone ship near a large Cuban city?

Well, clearly the "...sink a boatload of refugees" plan is completely unchanged, except it's either "real" or "simulated". The options for the ship were "...blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay.." or "..blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters...". Guantanamo Bay is still Cuban waters, so the unmanned vessel could be blown up there, as well at other locations on Cuban waters. The aircraft option was only outlined as a simulation. So if they had created option 8.(i): "We could blow up a US passenger airliner in mid-air", with option 8 (ii): remaining as the simulation described in the document, how would you interpret the first option?

I'll address the rest later...

But your quote doesn't say it was intact, only that most of it was there. It can be there but in bits, you know.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Well, Gillianren, that doesn't make any sense to me.

If one says that much of the fuselage of the hijacked airplane remains intact surely that doesn't mean it is there to be found only in small bits? As, according to the other quote, No large pieces apparently survived?

One might as well say that after 9/11 much of the twin towers remained intact.

But then of course, I am not a native speaker, so what do I know?

So it all comes down to pictures of dead bodies? You are sick. You think they would put that on the internet for you to ogle? Maybe in USAToday? It's nooz, right? Here's a clue, there are no posted photos of dead people because it's not news because most people believe that an airplane crashed into the pentagon and it doesn't need to be shown. It's also sick to even want to see it. Most people don't need to have it proven that fire is hot. You are are in the minority. Mouthy but minority nevertheless. You are a nut.


Also what is this then???????



Inconsistancies mean nothing without an alternative solution. Your sick ravings also mean nothing.

I read a book once. It had pictures of dead passengers. One even still in his seat, if I recall. One was dead laying on somebody's porch. Does that give you a warm tingly? Hit your local library, maybe you can find it.

Ban me, I've had enough. What an idiot.

BANG

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

The WHOLE quote from the article linked was:
Empahais mine.

Thats is hearsay and should be treated like any anecdotal evidence. If I tell Bob I robbed a store, he can testify. If Bob tells Jill I said I robbed a store, she cannot testify that I robbed the store. She has no direct knowledge of what was said.

If a Congressman reports what he was told by someone that was there, it is the same thing. Each retelling of something has the potential to introuduce new errors. A rescue worker saying he had cut through the side of the plane is different than a rescue worker saying there was a lot of debris from the plane to get though, which, as the worker stands with the jaws of life or s steel saw can be interpreted that the worked needed that tool to 'get through' the plane.

Edit to add the complete second quote:
Tamillow was the Battalion Fire Cheif.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

OK then, Tog.

So what we have is hearsay conflicting with an eyewitness account, which is not the same as two conflicting eyewitness accounts. Agreed?

I was reacting to Gillianren who appeared to argue that there was no conflict at all. That to me just seems false.

Let me see if I have this correct. For the official story we have,

A bunch of people saying a plane hit the Pentagon.
There's a hole in the Pentagon the size of a plane.
There are plane parts all over the crash area.
AA77 is missing.
There is a plane load of missing passengers.
Poor quality videos shows an object traveling at airplane speeds.
Cars in Pentagon parking lot damaged by something flying over head.
WTC attacked with planes.
Low flying plane reported over DC (by CNN I believe. I heard that one live)


For the CTs we have,

Conflicting eyewitness statements, but not about the plane, just the fine details.
Poor quality videos shows an object traveling at airplane speeds, but object can't clearly be IDed as a plane.
Government not releasing all the evidence when the CTs want it.
No pictures available of dead bodies or body parts

By a preponderance of the evidence, it was a plane. No evidence for anything else.

I'm gonna just point out that this: is a mere code capture of the CNN site and not a real CNN web page. That means that anybody can change whatever is on this page and repost it. .mil not withstanding. Whether CNN ever posted it or not who knows but the fact remains that CNN posted something and can now never ever change it because it's now been grabbed up as "evidence". For all we know they may have changed it, it may have been retracted it may never have existed. The world may never know due to such obsfucation. Same as UFOs. gg

__________________
You're a coward and a liar and a thOOF - Bart Sibrel

For once, you're right. I read it wrong. For what it's worth, I haven't been sleeping well lately.

(By the way, this is how to respond if you're proven wrong. Apologize, admit error--excuses are optional--and move on, with the correction actually affecting what you believe.)

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

*honesty mode on, so switching sides for this particular case*

Gillianren, I don't think that Brumsen would consider "for once, you're right" as an apology . The "admit error--excuses are optional--and move on, with the correction actually affecting what you believe" steps are there however.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Well, not the "for once" part, no. But I did say he was right!

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

That's true.

carry on

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

And as I have continued to point out, even simulating "only certain elements" of an event still makes it a simulated event. A real event, such as to "..sink a boatload of refugees.", was suggested as one of two options. Not in part "real" and in part "simulated". Real as written. They didn't leave it that way for interpretation. If there was another intent, why would they not detail that? [emphasis original]

For the last time, the "event" is described by the words "We could sink," and the adjectives "real" and "simulated" cannot modify a verb. The event (the sinking) is thus real in either case; the only difference is what is being sunk--a real refugee boat, or a simulated refugee boat. I reiterate my contention that removing the real refugees from a real refugee boat immediately before sinking it does not instantly convert the boat into a "simulated" refugee boat. My last response on this point unless you have something significant to add.

I'm not "arguing just to argue". I stand by my specific request that you actually make it fit into those sentences, so that it makes sense.

To repeat, I contend that it fits both of your sentences. If you wish, you may accept it as read that I repeated those.

If "mock-victims" were also intended in the first option, then why would they not mention that detail?

You are assuming that some victims, real or simulated, are necessarily required, when several of the scenarios call for no victims at all. In particular, one of the other points in the memo suggests:

So, what is your evidence that the "blow up a ship" scenario did not envision a Navy press release reading in part: "Although Neosho's crew bravely attempted to save their ship, at 0833 her captain ordered her abandoned when the fires threatened her cargo of aviation gasoline. All hands were taken off by destroyers, which rapidly stood away from the doomed tanker. At 0907 Neosho exploded and sank."

You are further assuming that the authors felt the need to flesh out each point in exactly the same detail, and did not choose to omit repetitive details from certain scenarios.

The plan has suggestions which run the gamut - mild disruptances, staged or real; attacking a US ship, or fake US ship; sinking a boat full of Cuban refugees, real or staged; wounding people, and so on. All of which are to be implemented in phases, to increasingly foment worldwide outrage against Cuba.

Again, this does not imply that any particular point must necessarily include casualties (see above).

You won't accept that the suggested plans involved any deaths, obviously. But you also fail to accept the possibility that even so-called "collateral" (or unintentional) deaths existed, or were considered by the JCS as possible in the aftermath. All because they don't specifically state that actual deaths would or could occur in any of the scenarios.

No, I said I did accept that it is possible (although not certain) that some small risk of friendly casualties was contemplated.

So "We could sink a boatload of refugees (real or simulated)", actually should be understood as "We could sink a boatload of refugees ((partially) real or simulated)", in your view. Or maybe ("real (as much as possible without harming or killing anyone) or simulated"). [emphasis original]

Though not exactly the way I would phrase it, that's the general idea. Again, I claim that a lack of friendly casualties is an implicit subtext of the entire memo, for reasons I've previously stated.

But if "only" 10,000 people are directly affected, how many more than that are still affected to a lesser degree? That is, if each one of the 10,000 directly affected people each know 100 people, that adds up to one million people who directly know someone who lost a family member or close friend, etc. In 1962, that would be roughly one out of every 187 people. The number of people aware if it, though less affected, still would continue to grow exponentially. That is, 100 million people may not react with great shock or grief, but it still could have an emotional affect when they hear about it in person, directly from people they know. [emphasis added]

First, I was not just including family members and close friends; practically no one has 100 of those (I personally have about 30 of both combined, but I hardly ever see some of my extended family). I was also including co-workers and more casual friends and acquaintances, who would generally be less affected. Second, you are ignoring overlap. When my grandmother died, of the 100 people closest to me, 15 of them (the members of my extended family) were affected roughly as much as I was. I would estimate overlap to be about 25%. Second, you are assuming that everyone in the second, third, and fourth rounds would tell everyone else he or she knows; in fact, the percentage hearing the story would greatly decrease with each round. Finally, please explain how hearing about one or two deaths third- or fourth-hand would have been expected to have had significantly more emotional impact than reading a list of 100 casualties in a newspaper, especially when, as stated, fake casualties were expect to "create a helpful wave of public indignation."

Using your calculations for 9/11, the 3000+ deaths on that day had a significant impact on 300,000 people, roughly estimated. Of course, this was not a strictly US tragedy, not limited to directly impacting only US citizens. But along with those of other nations, there are a very significant number of Americans who knew someone who died, either directly or indirectly, on 9/11.

Irrelevant to the issue of whether the Northwoods memo allowed for real casualties.

No. An "unmanned ship" connotes any ship afloat without a crew. It's irrelevant what the ship's operational state was intended to be. The Coast Guard, as one example, often find what they describe as an "unmanned" vessel, floating adrift, or even circling endlessly with a motor still running.

This usage, though it occasionally appears even in official reports (but more often in newspaper articles) is incorrect. It may someday gain acceptance through the evolution of language, but at the moment it has not done so. For example, an "unmanned aerial vehicle" (UAV) is an aircraft designed to operate without a crew; a 747-400 sitting in a hangar with no one on board is not an "unmanned aerial vehicle." If you do a Google search for "unmanned ship," you will find very few hits, and most of those refer to drones or barges. "Abandoned ship" and "deserted ship" will generate many more hits.

"Unmanned" is simply defined as "not furnished with men". An "unmanned ship" is simply "a ship not furnished with men".

And the fact that the men are temporarily absent does not mean the ship was never furnished with them.

Well, clearly the "...sink a boatload of refugees" plan is completely unchanged, except it's either "real" or "simulated".

Again, no proof other than your assumption that real casualties are intended.

The options for the ship were "...blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay.." or "..blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters...". Guantanamo Bay is still Cuban waters, so the unmanned vessel could be blown up there, as well at other locations on Cuban waters.

Yes, but you claim that blowing up a ship in Guantanimo Bay is intended to cause real casualties. Why is that scenario restricted to Guantanamo Bay? My contention is that it is because such a ship would not need to be a drone, as it could be easily abandoned shortly before the explosion. In other words, the drone can go anywhere "in the Cuban waters" without a crew, but the normal ship can only be without a crew while anchored in Guantanamo Bay.

The aircraft option was only outlined as a simulation. So if they had created option 8.(i): "We could blow up a US passenger airliner in mid-air", with option 8 (ii): remaining as the simulation described in the document, how would you interpret the first option?

Clearly that would imply that real casualties were intended, which is why I contend that a lack of real casualties is an implicit subtext of the entire memo.

I'll address the rest later...

I'll be waiting.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor