Special Group Augmented, Biological Weapons, & Operation MONGOOSE...

[Robert Montenegro]

 

• https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2023/157-10011-10001.pdf

 

So according to the above linked document, a 06 September 1962 meeting of Special Group Augmented, a meeting that included then US Attorney General Robert Francis Kennedy, no less, the entire Operation Mongoose task force signed off on the use of biological weapons against the Cuban citizenry:

 

 

 

 

At the expense of sounding like a liberal bleeding heart, how, may I ask, does that square off with members of this forum who defend the legacy of the Kennedy brothers, for better or worse.

I mean, the use of biological weapons against a civilian population during a state of formal conflict, since the Nuremberg Trials, have been strictly forbidden under the penalty of being charged as a war criminal.

And we certainly were not in a state of formal war against the Cuban government.

The way I see it, the Attorney General, Robert Kennedy, and everyone at this meeting, covertly signed off on an act of state-sponsored biological terrorism. 

Now the follow-up question is, did it ever go into effect?

I just gotta say, some real gems are being released in these new documents that are causing me to completely reevaluate just how savage the military personnel surrounding President Kennedy really were, and how that environment was poisoning the mind of anti-criminal crusaders like RFK. 

  

Edited July 10, 2023 by Robert Montenegro

[Benjamin Cole]

They also entertained "sabotaging" airplane parts being shipped from Canada to Cuba, according to the doc. 

[Robert Montenegro]

45 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

They also entertained "sabotaging" airplane parts being shipped from Canada to Cuba, according to the doc. 

 

Now the sabotaging of airplane parts using the Canadian Vickers Limited in Canada, that did go into effect... 

[Benjamin Cole]

54 minutes ago, Robert Montenegro said:

 

Now the sabotaging of airplane parts using the Canadian Vickers Limited in Canada, that did go into effect... 

Egads...for civilian planes? 

[Robert Montenegro]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Egads...for civilian planes? 

Jawohl!

[Allen Lowe]

On 7/10/2023 at 4:53 AM, Robert Montenegro said:

 

• https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2023/157-10011-10001.pdf

 

So according to the above linked document, a 06 September 1962 meeting of Special Group Augmented, a meeting that included then US Attorney General Robert Francis Kennedy, no less, the entire Operation Mongoose task force signed off on the use of biological weapons against the Cuban citizenry:

 

 

 

 

At the expense of sounding like a liberal bleeding heart, how, may I ask, does that square off with members of this forum who defend the legacy of the Kennedy brothers, for better or worse.

I mean, the use of biological weapons against a civilian population during a state of formal conflict, since the Nuremberg Trials, have been strictly forbidden under the penalty of being charged as a war criminal.

And we certainly were not in a state of formal war against the Cuban government.

The way I see it, the Attorney General, Robert Kennedy, and everyone at this meeting, covertly signed off on an act of state-sponsored biological terrorism. 

Now the follow-up question is, did it ever go into effect?

I just gotta say, some real gems are being released in these new documents that are causing me to completely reevaluate just how savage the military personnel surrounding President Kennedy really were, and how that environment was poisoning the mind of anti-criminal crusaders like RFK. 

  

does anyone actually read these documents? It advocated use of chemical agents to promote "crop failures." NOT against Cuban citizenry; this was part of a general plan of sabotage against Cuban economic targets. Big difference.

Edited July 22, 2023 by Allen Lowe

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Allen Lowe said:

does anyone actually read these documents? It advocated use of chemical agents to promote "crop failures." NOT against Cuban citizenry; this was part of a general plan of sabotage against Cuban economic targets. Big difference.

Allen - how does using chemical agents to promote crop failures not constitute a chemical attack against the Cuban citizenry? You’re grasping at straws. Put yourself in the field, or at the dinner table. Imagine how many people worked on those farms? This wasn’t agribusiness as we know it now. And if it was implemented, how many Cubans went hungry as a result? What about the farm animals? 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Paul Brancato

[Kirk Gallaway]

Wow, Robert  quite a find! But it doesn't surprise me.  Hasn't the message been for years the Kennedy's were morally infallible?

Definitely some hearts are going to bleed.

Somebody's going have to break it to Jim. Paul I think you're the guy.

 

[Allen Lowe]

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Allen - how does using chemical agents to promote crop failures not constitute a chemical attack against the Cuban citizenry? You’re grasping at straws. Put yourself in the field, or at the dinner table. Imagine how many people worked on those farms? This wasn’t agribusiness as we know it now. And if it was implemented, how many Cubans went hungry as a result? What about the farm animals? 

uh, no it does not; does putting pesticides (which is poisonous) on crops  constitute an attack against the citizenry of the USA? The original post more than implied that they were advocating a form of chemical warfare. Look it up - this wasn't it. Any more than the pesticides would poison farm workers. Yes, there would be some residual danger - I am not advocating for this action - but it is a far cry from chemical warfare.

Also - biological weapons are composed of very specific kinds of toxins - if you read the document they propose using agents "which would appear to be of natural origin." In which case, this is NOT a biological weapon. Unless you can tell me, please, what they had in mind. If not, then you have no basis for the accusation.

Edited July 22, 2023 by Allen Lowe

[Kirk Gallaway]

Of course, instigating crop failure would be devastating to a  small fledgling country like Cuba, and as usual, it's the poorest that would suffer the most.

But I might agree, it's difficult to put it in a proper context. In a quick search there's very little about crop Biological warfare in the 50's and 60's. But it does mention that Cuba accused the U.S. on numerous occasions of using biological agents on them.

We all agree none of this is good.

 

[Mark Knight]

So what "biological agents" were we talking about in the early 1960s? Perhaps something as simple as corn rootworms that were bred to be pesticide-resistant? Remember, it took a couple more decades to get to the point of genetically-modified organisms we have today. Sugar was a major Cuban export, as well as tobacco in the form of cigars. I know very little of organisms that attack sugar cane, but having neighboring farms with a "tobacco base" in the 1960s and '70s, I know there were creatures that could kill your tobacco crop that might have been collected and bred in sufficient quantities to have been dropped into Cuba and overwhelmed normal eradication measures.

In my mind, those are the kinds of "biological agents" that may have been proposed, or used, in Cuba.

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Allen Lowe said:

uh, no it does not; does putting pesticides (which is poisonous) on crops  constitute an attack against the citizenry of the USA? The original post more than implied that they were advocating a form of chemical warfare. Look it up - this wasn't it. Any more than the pesticides would poison farm workers. Yes, there would be some residual danger - I am not advocating for this action - but it is a far cry from chemical warfare.

Also - biological weapons are composed of very specific kinds of toxins - if you read the document they propose using agents "which would appear to be of natural origin." In which case, this is NOT a biological weapon. Unless you can tell me, please, what they had in mind. If not, then you have no basis for the accusation.

You have no basis for concluding that whatever they were thinking of using wasn’t dangerous to humans. 

[Allen Lowe]

On 7/22/2023 at 3:16 PM, Paul Brancato said:

You have no basis for concluding that whatever they were thinking of using wasn’t dangerous to humans. 

 you have missed the point massively - first of all, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove their intent - I can't prove a negative. And the memo CLEARLY indicates that the target was crops, not people. And probably no worse than the pesticides we use here. Second of all you conveniently missed that part of my post which explained that these were not the kind of chemical agents that constitute chemical warfare.  I won't argue this point any more. It's just futile.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Allen Lowe

[Paul Brancato]

On 7/22/2023 at 10:33 AM, Allen Lowe said:

uh, no it does not; does putting pesticides (which is poisonous) on crops  constitute an attack against the citizenry of the USA? The original post more than implied that they were advocating a form of chemical warfare. Look it up - this wasn't it. Any more than the pesticides would poison farm workers. Yes, there would be some residual danger - I am not advocating for this action - but it is a far cry from chemical warfare.

Also - biological weapons are composed of very specific kinds of toxins - if you read the document they propose using agents "which would appear to be of natural origin." In which case, this is NOT a biological weapon. Unless you can tell me, please, what they had in mind. If not, then you have no basis for the accusation.

Yes actually, putting pesticides on crops does constitute an attack on US citizens. 

[Robert Montenegro]

1 hour ago, Allen Lowe said:

 you have missed the point massively - first of all, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove their intent - I can't prove a negative. And the memo CLEARLY indicates that the target was crops, not people. And probably no worse than the pesticides we use here. Second of all you conveniently missed that part of my post which explained that these were not the kind of chemical agents that constitute chemical warfare.  I won't argue this point any more. It's just futile.

 

The report states the approval of biological weapons, not pesticides.

 

Plus the burden of proof, in terms of intent, is in the document.

 

Operation Mongoose was state-sponsored terrorism, end of story.

 

And now we know US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy had no qualms about using bioweapons against civilians.

 

My apologies, however history has no regard for personal sacred narrative building.