Posts Tagged ‘Gulf Wars’

A discussion thread titled “War, what is it good for? Absolutely nuthin!” on our Underground Knowledge group on has prompted an outpouring of anti-war comment, the overwhelming concensus being that war is, indeed, good for absolutely nuthin.

Gulf War Photobox.jpg

The discussion was prompted by publication of an excerpt from our book THE ORPHAN CONSPIRACIES. It was lifted from a chapter titled ‘False flag operations’ and reads as follows:

According to our research, WW2 was one of the last legitimate wars. Legitimate in that there was probably no other alternative but war. Nearly all other wars since – especially the Gulf Wars, Vietnam, The Falklands War and the various Afghan wars – have simply been money-spinners spawned by the fear of fabricated enemies or at least unproven enemies.

This all leads to other questions.

Were communists ever a valid threat? When the US pulled out of Vietnam, why didn’t the much hyped Domino Theory ever occur? Why weren’t most other Asian countries overrun by communism as this theory stated was inevitable?

Is it realistic to have a war on ‘terror’ instead of a conventional war against a recognizable nation or group of nations? Can bearded nomads living in caves in Afghanistan or Pakistan really be a genuine threat to superpowers? And can isolated and impoverished nations like North Korea prevent world peace if the rest of the world wants peace?

Would North Korean president Kim Jong-un actually order his military to fire nuclear weapons and incite war? If so, what would be in it for North Korea when they’d obviously be committing suicide by inviting the rest of the world to immediately invade them? Can a leader of any nation really be that stupid?


A random selection of some of the more interesting responses from group members follow. (Names withheld):

Some conflicts/wars I believe are a necessary evil – a terrible waste and disgraceful but if you lived in Africa wouldn’t you want someone to help you. There in lies your argument who decides where we go to war and where we ignore?


I’d replace the word ‘country’ with ‘government’. That’s the biggest con of all- this belief that we’re all countries of people starting and fighting wars, when it’s always been the top elite (government, royalty…) creating those wars. And in today’s age especially, the vast amount of people in the world want peace. It’s the governments that make those decisions, not the people.


Somewhere along the way the US was hijacked by elitists and American values were discarded.


War is often propaganda-dly sold to us with fear.


All we’ve got to do is defend rather than invade. It’s effing simple.


At the beginning of the “War on Terror,” here in New Mexico I was shocked and awed to see so many American flags erected on private properties as well as a popular bumper sticker which said; “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS,” which really meant “SUPPORT OUR WAR.”


There used to a sarcastic slogan back in the 60’s; “Sure its a dirty little war. But its the only one we’ve got.”


Fighting just creates more fighting; its an endless loop in human history that will never cease until we go about things another way.


If we don’t work for those in power… if we don’t pay those in power, they’re stuffed. But it’ll take a huge amount of people, including people in politics, armed forces, police forces… to come together to change the world.


History strongly suggests that the human story is the story of wars and dominance. So, to escape all that has gone before, it seems necessary to do something new; a miracle, if you will. Its hard to keep believing in the face of reality.


ISIS seems like yet another fabricated enemy ala Al Qaeda. And indeed there is already much evidence to support this theory.


There have always been evil doers…terrorists, dictators, are all over the show – yet for some reason we always inflate the Middle Eastern ones and under-report other ones…5 million people have been killed in the Congo (formerly Zaire) in the last 10 years plus 1 million women have been raped. But no Western country wants to invade The Congo and try to do the right thing.


Trying to achieve peace by one more war is like saying terrorists can be defeated by terrorizing other nations in the charade they call the War on Terror…For me, Jim Morrison said it best when he sung “They got the guns, but we got the numbers.”… It’s similar to what Gandhi said during the time of the British Raj: “100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate.”


The debate continues. To see all comments, or better still to have YOUR say, go to:


The Underground Knowledge group is open to everyone! All you need is an enquiring mind, an interest in the world we live in and a desire to learn or to uncover “underground knowledge” on important issues of our times.

Goodreads: Book reviews, recommendations, and discussion

Our members include whistleblowers, scientists, historians, conspiracy theorists, students, authors, doctors, teachers, librarians and more.

To visit our Underground Knowledge group go to:—a-discussion-group



In the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s vault a description of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is listed as follows: “Saddam Hussein (1937-2006) was the president of Iraq from 1979-2003. In 2003, coalition forces invaded Iraq and deposed Hussein. In 2006, he was tried by the Iraqi Interim Government and convicted of the retaliatory executions of 148 Iraqi Shiites. He was executed on December 30, 2006.”

Saddam Hussein hanging AFP

The FBI summary goes on to mention the “Iraqi Special Tribunal concerning Hussein’s commission of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide.”

This image obtained from an Arab language website and seemingly shot on a camera phone appears to show former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein hanging on a noose after being executed.

Saddam in death.

Describing Saddam as a war criminal and an enemy of the West sounds to us like a fair summary that few would argue with.

As Steve Pickering, then intern with the Washington Peace Center (WPC), wrote for the center in a June 1998 article: “The history of Iraq under Saddam Hussein is one of harsh oppression, with widespread abuses of human rights, and frequent torture and murder of political opponents, or just those who displease him.”

However, even with the knowledge of Saddam’s confirmed atrocities, it seems there’s little doubt the US was in bed with him for decades before his eventual removal from power if the assertions of various independent researchers are correct.

To this day, those assertions remain theories – unproven in the eyes of many.

At the heart of such theories is the idea that the West needs enemies to lambast in the media in order to engineer wars. Once a leader like Saddam has been condemned, or at least heavily derided, through media propaganda the masses hardly blink when false flag attacks are attributed to those who have been labeled dictators, despots and war criminals.

“Saddam’s military machine is partly a creation of the Western powers,” according to American investigative journalist Murray Waas, who extensively researched and wrote about the Gulf Wars and earlier Middle East conflicts.

As is the case with many conspiracy theories, the theories surrounding Saddam Hussein are often extreme and unprovable. Some go so far as to say that Saddam, along with Osama Bin Laden, was CIA-trained; others suggest the real Saddam was killed long before he was officially put to death, and the man who was executed in 2006 was one of the Iraqi leader’s doubles.

There’s enough evidence to suggest the Iraqi leader had at least one double. But to our knowledge there’s no evidence to prove that the man they executed wasn’t the real deal.

However, at the very least, there’s a question that needs to be asked. It is: Why did Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney all have extensive dealings with Saddam Hussein?

                 Above: A US Marine places the American flag over the face of Saddam’s statue.                  

Below: The iconic photo that shows the statue toppling in downtown Bagdhad. 


The Iran-Iraq War

During the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), it has been widely reported that governments of the US, Germany, France, the Soviet Union and the UK all sold Saddam vast quantities of weapons, including everything from missiles and armored vehicles to nerve gas and fighter planes.

Again, war is just about business to the global elite. And wars in the Middle East are big business.

Officially, the US was neutral in the Iran-Iraq conflict. Certainly, all White House and Pentagon statements made during that period confirm this supposed stance.

However, a US interests section cable since declassified under the Freedom of Information Act appears to radically contradict the official role of America in the conflict. It describes presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld’s planned meeting with Saddam Hussein. Expected talking points for the meeting included the Iran-Iraq War – a war which the cable states the US “would regard any major reversal of Iraq’s fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West”.

It wasn’t just the US that profited from the Iran-Iraq War, of course. Numerous sources claim various industrialized nations were arming both sides during the conflict. For example, the Washington Times claimed that “France has been sleeping with Saddam for decades.”

Trench warfare during the bloody Iran-Iraq War.


Kentbridge spun around from the blackboard and held up an infamous photograph of former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The special agent gave the photo to Eleven, a stunning brunette orphan who had been genetically engineered for beauty. She looked at the image before sharing it with the other orphans. The Orphan Factory


That infamous photograph

One of the potential pieces of evidence that possibly confirms Saddam Hussein was a pawn of the West is a mysterious photograph he appears in with former US Secretary of Defense and then private businessman Donald Rumsfeld. This photo was taken in December 1983, at the height of the Iran-Iraq War, when Rumsfeld met with Saddam on behalf of President Ronald Reagan. The meeting took place in the Iraqi dictator’s Baghdad palace.


Photos don’t lie…Rumsfeld meets Saddam.

This has become a much talked about photo in conspiracy circles, primarily because Saddam Hussein’s atrocities were known to the US Government by this point and the Reagan Administration claimed it fostered zero ties with Iraq.

Declassified documents reveal the main motivations of Rumsfeld’s semi-secret meeting with Saddam were to discuss how to increase Iraqi oil production via new pipelines in the region and preventing arms sales to Iran by foreign countries – potential outcomes of which were both deemed beneficial to US interests.

In The Orphan Factory, our orphans are shown the photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam during a lecture in the fictitious Pedemont Orphanage. The following excerpt from this passage provides what we believe could be an accurate summation of the background to that historic photo shoot:

“That photo was taken in Baghdad in 1983 during the Iran-Iraq War,” Kentbridge stated. “Officially, Donald Rumsfeld was sent as special envoy of President Reagan. The thing is though, people, Saddam was already a known war criminal by that stage.”

When the revealing photo reached Nine, he studied it before flipping it over. On the reverse side was a handwritten question. It read: Saddam Hussein = CIA Puppet?

Nine turned the photo over again and inspected Rumsfeld’s smiling face. The handshake looked suspiciously like a deal had gone down. Nine couldn’t be certain, but nothing would surprise him given the game he understood secret organizations such as Omega orchestrated on the world stage.

The ninth orphan also understood that game often involved an official story – usually presented to the media via politicians – that created a believable enough smokescreen to conceal the truth. And he was learning the truth nearly always had to do with money and power.

In his 2006 memoir Known and Unknown, Rumsfeld denies any wrongdoing in the 1983 meeting with Saddam. He states his meeting with the Iraqi President “has been the subject of gossip, rumors, and crackpot conspiracy theories for more than a quarter of a century… Supposedly I had been sent to see Saddam by President Reagan either to negotiate a secret oil deal, to help arm Iraq, or to make Iraq an American client state. The truth is that our encounter was more straightforward and less dramatic.”

However, various official US Government documents fly in the face of Rumsfeld’s denials. For example, one declassified document points out that a major issue discussed in the meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam was the “expansion of Iraqi pipeline facilities”. Another declassified document – a cable from Charles H. Price II to the Department of State retrieved from the US Embassy in the UK – states that Rumsfeld encouraged “arrangements that might provide alternative transshipment routes for Iraq’s oil, including pipelines through Saudi Arabia or to the Gulf of Aqaba in Jordan.”

Beyond the photo itself, video recordings of the 1983 Rumsfeld-Saddam meeting have been posted on YouTube and other Internet sites in recent years. In these videos, Rumsfeld looks surprisingly at home in the Iraqi dictator’s grand palace – as you’ll see for yourself if you check them out.

Rumsfeld and Saddam…old chums.


“Conspiracy means there is more than one player knowingly engaged. But with that term (conspiracy), you think of all the people with the tin foil on their heads before you think of what it really means. So these people are often discounted before you even hear them … I think the best way to hide is to do it in broad daylight and in public. So, a lot of your present-day conspiracies are literally major multi-national corporations working with governments, including America’s, to extract minerals from countries with ridiculous contracts to oil.” –Henry Rollins. Excerpt from an interview with the Swerve Magazine.


The Gulf Wars

In 1989, President George H. W. Bush signed a National Security Directive ordering closer ties with Iraq. Yet conversely, around the same time, Bush condemned Saddam Hussein in press interviews – like the one in which he accused the Iraqi leader as being “worse than Hitler.”

The following year, in 1990, the First Gulf War began and the US invaded Iraq.

It was one of the most surreal wars ever, and few if any journalists seemed to be able to accurately describe what caused it. Other than the obvious, that is. We refer of course to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait – something countries do to each other with frightening regularity and with little or no interference from the international community.

Iraq invades Kuwait.

Someone said the First Gulf War was like a movie without a screenwriter. Can’t remember who it was who said that. Wait a minute…oh yes, it was us! Certainly, it seemed to lack a coherent storyline or plot.

Some journos observed that the war was about overthrowing a dictator, which didn’t happen if you recall, while others said it was fighting to free the Iraqi people, which didn’t happen either.

As former Pentagon defense analyst Pierre Sprey told Congress, “The shallow, Nintendo view of the war on TV was false. It was created by hand-picked video tapes and shamelessly doctored statistics.”

Let’s return to the June 1998 article Washington Peace Center intern Steve Pickering wrote for the center. It was curiously headlined The Making of an Enemy: Saddam Hussein. In this insightful article, which was written in the interim between the First and Second Gulf Wars, Pickering goes to great lengths to acknowledge the Iraqi leader’s war crimes, but also mentions US “foreign policy propaganda” and states the US had reasons for “demonizing Saddam Hussein”. He claims those reasons had nothing to do with fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people.

In the article, Pickering goes on to describe how throughout the period of the Iran-Iraq conflict “United States foreign policy was firmly in support of Iraq”. During this time, the Soviet Union, the UK, the US and various other major nations, all saw their (mainly oil) interests being threatened. As “the war shifted in Iran’s favor,” these superpowers and industrialized nations suddenly realized if Iran defeated the Iraqi regime, “Iraq would have become a mirror of the political situation seen in Iran”.

“In order to tip the scales back in the favor of Iraq,” Pickering continues, “the international community began to supply technologically advanced weapons, credit facilities and important military information to Iraq.”

Pickering also explains how the West saw its Middle Eastern interests threatened again in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Only this time, Iraq was in the position Iran had formerly been in where they were the ones threatening Western interests.

And thus, Pickering concludes, Western media suddenly informed the public of “the horrors of Saddam Hussein, of his despotic control, of his endless paranoid quest for power”.


From the many years he’d spent in the Omega Agency, the special agent understood there were no obvious good guys or bad guys on the world stage. Contrary to the PR spin generated within Congress and spoon-fed to the well-meaning American public by a gullible or at least malleable media, Kentbridge also knew there were no clear sides anymore. As he often told the orphans, patriotism was a useless emotion because the modern world was no longer shaped by countries or governments. In fact, nations had long since been superseded by the vast spider web of elite conspirators spanning the globe. The Orphan Factory


The Iraq War

File:UStanks baghdad 2003.JPEG

US tanks enter Baghdad.

The plot thickens when we come to the Iraq War (aka the Second Gulf War). That’s the conflict that followed the George W. Bush Administration’s erroneous allegation that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Conspiracy theorists and opponents of that war are pretty unanimous in their opinion of the WMD allegation. Most view it as a trumped-up justification to invade Iraq. Whether those two factions are right or wrong about that is still up for debate. However, we all know that weapons of mass destruction were never found despite the best efforts of the Bush Administration and the UN weapon inspectors on the ground.

Further allegations leading up to the American-led coalition’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 included the never-proven and apparently unfounded accusation that Saddam was harboring al Qaeda terrorists and, of course, that old chestnut that the Iraqi Government was responsible for the most despicable human rights abuses.

There’s no doubting the validity of the latter allegation. Under Saddam, Iraq had a terrible and well documented reputation for abuses of human rights. However, the same could be said of numerous other countries – then and now.

Remember Rwanda? In just three months, in 1994, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans (mainly Tutsis) were killed in one of the worst cases of genocide in the 20th Century.

But where were the Coalition Forces then? They were conspicuous by their absence. Could it have something to do with the fact that Rwanda has few natural resources and little strategic value?

Iraq on the other hand was, and is, almost literally swimming in oil. According to Wikipedia, Iraq has 143 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, which ranks it second in the world behind Saudi Arabia for reserves of the precious black gold.

Starting to get the picture?

Even Saddam Hussein’s capture and subsequent execution in 2006 sparked a flood of conspiracy theories, throughout the Middle East in particular.

Theories to emerge from the Arab world have ranged from Saddam being an agent of America, waging war against Iran to help out the US, and even the suggestion that Saddam was already a prisoner of the Americans who, for PR reasons, opted to delay his capture.

This last conspiracy theory was highlighted in WND Weekly’s online news site beneath the heading The mother of all conspiracy theories. In an article dated December 19, 2003, WND quotes Middle East Media Research Institute senior analyst Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli who, it says, “explains the dramatic flowering of fanciful explanations for Saddam’s capture”.

Dr. Raphaeli is quoted as saying, “Almost every calamity that adversely affects the Arab world prompts conspiracy theories that are quickly woven into intricate shapes and patterns to demonstrate innocence and blame others for the calamity. In recent times this was demonstrated by conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attack and the terrorist attacks inside Saudi Arabia. The capture of Saddam Hussein served as yet another new cause celebre generating, to paraphrase Saddam’s own words, ‘the mother of all conspiracies’.”

Perhaps the most iconic photo of Saddam…taken in Baghdad in 2000.


It seems clear there’s enough smoke to indicate the presence of fire regarding the West’s demonizing and usage of Saddam Hussein, in particular by the US. And that fire would prove that at least some of the conspiracy theories regarding the Iraqi leader and the Gulf Wars are true, or at least very close to the mark.

Then again, we’ve never been to Iraq and we don’t have a direct line to the White House. Nor do we know anyone in the Bush family. So again we ask, why listen to us?


Read more in The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy – available now via Amazon at:

A book that’s for the common people.


Not all is what it seems! –James & Lance




 One of the recurring themes throughout The Orphan Trilogy is that the global elite will continue to profit any way they can. That often means orchestrating wars all over the planet. And to create wars there don’t need to be any genuine enemies, only perceived enemies. If enough citizens believe their national security’s in jeopardy then politicians who propose wars will receive the support they need.

Of course, the public are reliant on the media to inform them of the facts regarding potential threats. And therein lies the problem.

In early 2013, the world was told North Korea was on the verge of starting a nuclear war. This sparked a certain amount of fear worldwide while on social media reaction to the rumored nuclear threat bordered on something closer to hysteria.

Notwithstanding Kim Jong-un’s Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a brutal regime that has committed untold human rights violations against its own people, it appeared then as now an unlikely threat to world peace. Despite the 25 million-strong rogue state having declared itself a nuclear power, it seemed in all probability to be just that – self-declared and nothing more. The vast majority of nuclear and regional experts agreed that North Korea’s arsenal amounted to only a handful of crude devices and they concluded the country was unlikely to have nuclear-armed missiles capable of reaching the United States.

Furthermore, the overwhelming consensus was that to become a true nuclear power, North Korean scientists would need a lot more bomb fuel than they had access to at that time.

Kim Jong Un Hasnt Been Seen for Weeks as Kerry, U.S. Confront North Korea Aggression

Kim Jong-un…Is he really a threat to the West?

Siegfried Hecker, an American nuclear scientist who has regularly been granted access to North Korea’s nuclear facilities, said the rogue nation lacked the materials to be a nuclear threat. Posting on the website of Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation in April 2013, Hecker said: “North Korea does not yet have much of a nuclear arsenal because it lacks fissile materials and has limited nuclear testing experience.”

Other similarly qualified commentators expressed near identical viewpoints. However, none of these expert opinions seem to have been taken into account by Western media outlets. Instead, most ran with the sensationalist angle that a nuclear war was a possibility. Some journalists even went so far as to mention the potential for World War Three by bringing China into the equation and assuming it would side with North Korea in any international conflict.

Less than a month or so later the news story had completely fizzled.

From what we can ascertain, the whole episode was essentially the media hyping up a decades old stand-off between North Korea and the West.

This brief but high profile news story drove us to question whether any wars have arisen from sensationalism or propaganda.


“Why else do you think we are permanently at war in various regions all over the world? And why is it the citizens of this country, one of the richest on earth, get poorer each year?”The Orphan Factory


Conventional wisdom suggests all international armed conflicts since WW2 were inevitable and the millions of soldiers and civilians who have been killed during this period were sacrificed for some greater good. Certainly that’s the commonly-held belief about conflicts Western nations – America and Britain in particular – have been involved in.

But is this really true?

If wars create vast sums of money for the global elite, is it possible the Soviets, Viet Cong and Muslims were, or are, also fabricated enemies of the West along with North Korea? Or at least exaggerated threats?

We also questioned whether there are enough natural enemies left in the 21st Century to organically lead to wars involving superpowers. After researching the history of false flag operations, we would have to say no. Otherwise, why would there be a need for any of these false flag attacks? If the purported aggressors were invading other nations in broad daylight then surely there’d be no need to fabricate anything.

Gulf War Photobox.jpg

The First Gulf War aka Operation Desert Storm…Another false flag op?

A false flag operation is basically the act of committing a terrorist event or an act of war and having others blamed for it. In recent times those others are usually oil-rich countries like Iraq, geographically or strategically important nations such as Cuba, or drug-abundant states like Afghanistan.

False flag terrorism is employed by governments and intelligence agencies all over the world. It is cleverly orchestrated propaganda designed to provoke specific reactions from the masses in the build-up to war. Sowing the seed, they call it, where – in agricultural terms – the ground is prepared for the harvest that will most assuredly follow. The harvest in this case being war, or more to the point, the spoils of war.

The powers-that-be understand that to create the appropriate atmosphere for war, it’s necessary to create within the general populace a hatred, fear or mistrust of others regardless of whether those others belong to a certain group of people or to a religion or a nation.

Essentially, the global elite’s modus operandi when it comes to creating the perfect environment for wars can be summed up in two words: manufacturing consent.


“In war, truth is the first casualty.” –Aeschylus, Greek dramatist (525 BC – 456BC)


Ancient Rome

Roman emperor Nero is believed by many historians to be responsible for one of the earliest false flag operations. Those historians claim that Nero was the perpetrator of the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD in which a third of the ancient city was torched.

The emperor’s ulterior motive, they say, was to build Domus Aurea, an enormous building that would include the Colossus of Nero – none other than a massive bronze statue of himself! Before the fire, the Senate had blocked the emperor’s proposal to destroy a third of the city to make way for this complex.

According to Roman historian Tacitus (56 AD – 117 AD), Nero told the Roman population that the Christians, whom Rome was at war with, were responsible for the fire.

While not everyone agrees with Tacitus, no-one disputes that Nero got his way in the end. The impressive Domus Aurea was built in the heart of ancient Rome precisely where the great fire had cleared away the aristocratic dwellings. Naturally, the complex included that statue of himself – the mighty Colossus of Nero.

Nazis framing communists

Another fire was responsible for one of many Nazi false flag operations.

In 1933, the Reichstag, the seat of the German parliament, was set ablaze. Adolf Hitler immediately stated he had evidence that communist terrorists started the fire. Most Germans readily accepted that – influenced no doubt by the month-long, Nazi-sponsored street violence that preceded the fire. The violence achieved its aim of creating a Red Scare, or a fear of communists, within the general populace.

The following day, Hitler and his party persuaded the elderly and senile President von Hindenburg to sign the Reichstag Decree. The decree, which was supposedly a defence against future terrorist acts, suspended almost every major civil liberty afforded German citizens at that time.


The Reichstag fire a Nazi plot.

Despite the Nazi party’s attempt to blame the fire on a group of communists, the communists were later acquitted by the German government itself.

Most historians agree that members of the Nazi Party were responsible for the fire in the Reichstag. The Hitlerites did this in stealth of course, using one Marinus van der Lubbe, a mentally disturbed arsonist hungry for fame, as their patsy. They’d received a tip-off that van der Lubbe planned to burn the building down. Not only did the Nazis let him do it, they encouraged him and even helped by leaving gasoline in parts of the building.


“All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed.” –Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf


The US Military’s proposal to kill Americans

In 1962, the US Government’s Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed carrying out acts of terrorism on American soil to justify military intervention in Cuba.

Hard to swallow or believe, we know, but it’s on the record. Numerous military and intelligence documents recording these disturbing false flag proposals, known as Operation Northwoods, have since been declassified.

Operation Northwoods remained a secret for 35 years. The sinister proposal first came to the public’s attention in November 1997 when The John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board declassified various top secret military records, which included the Northwoods documents. The following year, the National Security Archive published further revealing information on Northwoods.

A (since declassified) ‘Top Secret’ memo dated March 13, 1962, addressed to the Secretary of Defense and signed by then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff makes for interesting reading. Its subject line reads: Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba.

Item No. 1 on that memo reads: “The Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the attached Memorandum for the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, which responds to a request of that office for brief but precise description of pretexts which would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba.”

Operation Northwoods’ plans included the sinking of US war ships, shooting down hijacked passenger planes, killing innocent American citizens, letting off bombs and orchestrating other violent terrorist acts in major cities including Washington DC and Miami.

Every event would be blamed on Fidel Castro and the Cuban regime. The Joint Chiefs of Staff’s logic was that these events would help gain enough support from the American public and the world at large for a US military invasion of Cuba.

Fortunately, President Kennedy immediately rejected the Northwoods proposal and fired one of its main proponents, Lyman Lemnitzer, who was then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

President Kennedy with his Joint Chiefs of Staff incl. Lemnizter (third from left).

The following year, Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, while Lemnitzer was appointed Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

Go figure!

In his 2001 book Body of Secrets, US political journalist and bestselling author James Bamford wrote that Operation Northwoods “called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war”.

Sadly, Bamford is one of the few well-known political commentators to write about Operation Northwoods. When the documents were declassification in 1997, they were almost universally ignored by the media.

Apparently on-the-record discussions within the US Government about murdering its own citizens as propaganda to create a war were not deemed newsworthy.


Nine knew from experience it was simply about those powerful few, the secret elite, who manipulated the world’s nations. On his many international assignments over the years, he had discovered the so-called evil countries were all too often controlled by the same people who ran the countries fighting to liberate them.The Ninth Orphan


The false flag that began the Vietnam War

On August 4, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson alerted his fellow Americans on national television that North Vietnam had attacked the American destroyer USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Not long after, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave Johnson the green light to begin military operations against North Vietnam. American troops were soon stationed in Vietnam and neighboring countries, and the war that would dominate an era began.

However, President Johnson and his Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, successfully hoodwinked the American people because North Vietnam never attacked the USS Maddox as the Pentagon had claimed, and the so-called unequivocal evidence of a second attack by the North Vietnamese is now commonly acknowledged as being a false report.

A National Security Agency (NSA) report on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, declassified in 2005, concluded that USS Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, 1964, but (and this is a big but) “The Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.”

Regarding the all-important second attack on August 4 – which effectively caused the Vietnam War – the NSA report concluded there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the entire incident: “It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night.”


“No attack happened.” – NSA report on Gulf of Tonkin incident.

If an organization as biased as the NSA says no attack ever happened then it seems very safe to say the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was nothing but a phantom attack on the US Military. It was carefully crafted propaganda devised to manufacture consent for all-out war.

In this instance that propaganda ended up costing approximately 60,000 American lives and three million Vietnamese lives.


Factual reporting is all too often propaganda designed to provoke certain reactions from the masses.The Orphan Factory


According to our research, WW2 was one of the last legitimate wars. Legitimate in that there was probably no other alternative but war. Nearly all other wars since – especially the Gulf Wars, Vietnam, The Falklands War and the various Afghan wars – have simply been money-spinners spawned by the fear of fabricated enemies or at least unproven enemies.

This all leads to other questions.

Were communists ever a valid threat? When the US pulled out of Vietnam, why didn’t the much hyped Domino Theory ever occur? Why weren’t most other Asian countries overrun by communism as this theory stated was inevitable?

Is it realistic to have a war on ‘terror’ instead of a conventional war against a recognizable nation or group of nations? Can bearded nomads living in caves in Afghanistan or Pakistan really be a genuine threat to superpowers? And can isolated and impoverished nations like North Korea prevent world peace if the rest of the world wants peace?

Would North Korean president Kim Jong-un actually order his military to fire nuclear weapons and incite war? If so, what would be in it for North Korea when they’d obviously be committing suicide by inviting the rest of the world to immediately invade them? Can a leader of any nation really be that stupid?

And why is it leaders of such fiercely independent nations as Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and Libya are usually portrayed as madmen while the likes of George W. Bush are said to be completely sane?

Maybe world leaders and the invisible puppet masters who pull their strings are not that different to Rome’s Emperor Nero all those centuries ago.

And it appears the world has not learnt from the well-documented false flag deceptions of the past, for as at the time of writing, news reports are surfacing that imply a new arms conflict between Russia, the Ukraine and the United States is possible.

Although the disagreement over the disputed region of Crimea appears to be a little more complicated than the North Korea issue, the usual signs of propaganda also seem to be being disseminated by warmongers. Echoing almost verbatim the alarmist news reports on North Korea a year earlier, talk of a return to the days of the Cold War, or even the possibility of World War Three, are being mentioned in the media in regard to this standoff in the Ukraine.

War memorial in Tiraspol,

And here we go again…This time it’s the Ukraine.

We certainly don’t pretend to have all the answers, but we agree with whoever it was who said we should all study the past to understand the present.

Of course, we could be totally wrong in our assumptions concerning wars. In which case, North Korea really may be about to nuke us all! If that’s true, the best advice we could give you is to put this book down immediately and spend what’s left of your precious life in party mode.


Read more in The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy – available now via Amazon at:

A book that’s for the common people.


Happy reading! –James & Lance