Deep Politics Forum

Mark states the following: My replies are in bold.

Kennedy was killed because Israel considered his firm opposition to the Dimona project an existential threat. Ben-Gurion indicated this in his correspondence with Kennedy in 1963. Also, Kennedy insisted that military aid to Israel be tied to concessions in regard to the Palestinians. He bargained tough and wouldn't give any ground.

Your opinions. Not evidence in anyway. Kennedy opposed to the Dimona Project? The Dimona project was started well before he came to power and was aided by the French. If the Israeli's were going to be hacked off with anyone it would have been de Gaulle.

Where's the correspondance? On one hand people say it's still classified (what utter crap) and the official documents say well.......they say this.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/docu...index.html

Both Kennedy and Gurion were satisfied with results though there were one or two niggles. The Israeli's were pretty coy and may have been deceptive. But generally speaking Mark, JFK was satisfied with what he was getting back. He was actually more worried about CIA covert actions in Latin America and Africa

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

So 'Pop' goes that weasel Mark.

His mistrust of Israel may have been fuelled by two incidents which occurred just before his inauguration, although this is only my opinion. They were the attempt by the Israel Lobby to purchase US Middle East policy lock, stock and barrel in return for funding prior to the 1960 election and the revelation in December 1960 that the Dimona project was more advanced than previously thought. Angleton, as head of the Israel desk at the CIA and a strong supporter of the Jewish state, is generally considered responsible for concealing this information from other US institutions.

'Is only my opinion' Thanks for that Mark. Wow Angleton was head of the Israeli desk. Like we've never heard that before? Again if they were so successful with their deception they didn't need too off JFK did they? Thats my opinion seeing as your so good at giving yours.

It's clear that Israeli wasn't going to get the nuclear deterrent had Kennedy remained President and I think they were pretty sure he would win in '64. When Johnson took over they not only got Dimona but a sevenfold increase in funding over the next three years, nearly all of it military, with no strings whatsoever.

In the above Link Mark it's very clear the Israeli's 'had' Dimona. You can't even get your facts straight.

Johnson also shamefully covered for them when the Liberty was attacked by Israel in 1967. Johnson had proven his loyalty to Israel prior to November 1963 and upon becoming President he promptly surrounded himself with advisors who were staunchly Zionist. There were many other indications of Johnson's loyalty to Israel (and a healthy dose of gratitude, imo) such as Eshkol's visit to the WH in June 1964, which was the first official visit by an Israeli Prime Minister to the White House.

So your now implying that no Israeli Prime Minister and US President had met before 1964? Well that's just not true.

BEN-GURION MET TRUMAN IN THE OVAL OFFICE IN 1951. This all looks pretty official to me.

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/656750...eive-gifts

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/photographs...=&listid=2

Now as ifthat's not embarrassing enough for you. I don't run around saying the 'Memphis Mafia' and the 'Colonel' had power over the President. But hey thats the logic cos Elvis visited there. So did Shirley Temple for chrissakes. Furthermore if Israelites were running all over the LBJ White House then it wouldn't be such a big deal to have one visit would it?

That's the bones of it, insofar as motive is concerned. I'm convinced that Israel was the only one of all the suspects who have been mentioned as possible sponsors who made a tangible gain from Kennedy's death. Indeed, a windfall gain. From nothing to everything.

Oh so guys like say Henry Luce, Allen Dulles and other proto facists didn't? Oh yes they were all in cahoots with Jews and Nazi's? Noooo. Pipers not silly! He's stark raving mad IMO. I mean that should be the real debate. Pipers insanity.

As for naming other names, like shooters or the leaders of the cells and higher ups in the conspiracy, I can't name any. I do know that Israel had many powerful staunch allies in the media and institutions like Paley, Sarnoff and JEH, to name just a few. I know that Yitzhak Shamir befrended Mickey Cohen, Lansky and other powerful Jewish underworld figures while he was on the run in the US in the early 1950's. I know Lansky was a staunch supporter of Israel and fell in love with the country after his first visit there in 1962.

Lansky fell in love with it so much he left after his honey moon to go back too the States. He really only loved the place when he was on the run, he petitioned to live there. The Israeli's loved him so much they kicked him out. Duh!!!

I know Lansky was tied to LBJ through mutual business associates like Ed Levinson. And I know Jack Ruby was a staunch supporter of Israel and helped ship arms to the country after WW2.

He was such a staunch supporter of Israel and his Jewishness, he changed his name to Jack Ruby. He may well have been sensitive to Jewish issues, so what? Ruby was running guns to anybody. People think he blew the lid on it when he said Lyndon Johnson did it didnt he? (clearly showing he'd been fed bollocks in IMO) Or was he to scared of giving the game away about the real killers? Why am I wasting my time with this?

I also know that Israel has a covert assassination policy dating as far back as 1948 and possibly beyond, when they murdered Folke Bernadotte (and his wife) in a motorcade in Jerusalem in 1948. He had been unanimously elected as the first ever UN mediator and was in Israel to mediate on their dispute with the Palestinians. I also know, and so do you, that Israel routinely murders humanitarian and aid workers with impunity because the US has protected them in the UN for many years.

Nothing to do with anything. It's idol speculation and utterly useless in terms of any evidentary value.

In conclusion, I believe it highly plausible that Israel had the necessary reach and influence, through a complex network of powerful sayanim, to orchestrate Dealey Plaza and, with a loyal friend in the White House, to have carried out an effective coverup. Now that I have done my best to answer your question will you do me the same courtesy and answer my (earlier) question? Why is Piper's book so silly?[/QUOTE]

Why is Pipers book so silly. You tell me your the expert Mark!

Jim wanted evidence. Real evidence. This is just bombast and hyperbole of the worst kind.

Alright, we have come to this: That after all the research, all of the reputable books written on the subject of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, it was Israel who did this. Whew..

Mark, I don't know if you've read any of my posts on this forum, but if you read my signatures, you know that I value logic above all else. Not prejudiced opinion based on one's opinion of another country, religion, or race. LOGIC...not unsubstantiated hyperbole by a person or persons whose sources are dubious at best.

Let's see where logic gets us on some key points here:

Logic states: The only people who could have changed the motorcade route on the day of the assassination had to be either governmental or extra-governmental forces inside of the United States - not Israel, not Cuba, not Soviet Russia. ONLY from inside of the US.

Logic states: The only people who could have ordered a United States military detachment less than 300 miles from Dallas, Texas to stand down on the day of the assassination were inside of the US. Israel, nor any other foreign nation has the power to do that.

Logic states: The people who basically pressured Lyndon Johnson to create the Warren Commission and begin the coverup were inside of the US. Last that I heard, Joseph Alsop, Eugene Rostow, Nick Katzenbach, they were all American, not particularly pro-Israel, and they were the people who pressured Johnson into creating the Commission.

Logic states: The people who sabotaged Jim Garrison were FBI and CIA...not Mossad, not KGB, or any other foreign agency.

Those are just a few of my thoughts on the subject. I'm not a published author, as some of the people who frequent this forum are, nor am I a university professor or anything like that. I'm just a 45 year old East Texas country boy, who went to college, got some book sense, and has a helluva lot of common sense. Being from Texas, I've also heard all of the "LBJ did it" stories that have ever been invented, and they are all wrong when you look at the simple basic facts of the case. I've shared some of my own theories on this case over the last few months, and while many may not agree with them, they are a LONG way from "Israel did it", which is about 100 times more ridiculous than the Johnson theories. Sherlock Holmes said that detective work was about eliminating the impossible, because when you did that, whatever you have left, however improbable, had to be the truth. When you look at the staggering amount of evidence collected in this case over the years by reputable writers like Vincent Salandria, Jim DiEugenio, Bill Davy, and others, I think you can safely say that the nation of Israel being the main force behind the Kennedy assassination is impossible.

James Lewis Wrote:Alright, we have come to this: That after all the research, all of the reputable books written on the subject of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, it was Israel who did this. Whew..

Mark, I don't know if you've read any of my posts on this forum, but if you read my signatures, you know that I value logic above all else. Not prejudiced opinion based on one's opinion of another country, religion, or race. LOGIC...not unsubstantiated hyperbole by a person or persons whose sources are dubious at best.

Let's see where logic gets us on some key points here:

Logic states: The only people who could have changed the motorcade route on the day of the assassination had to be either governmental or extra-governmental forces inside of the United States - not Israel, not Cuba, not Soviet Russia. ONLY from inside of the US.

Logic states: The only people who could have ordered a United States military detachment less than 300 miles from Dallas, Texas to stand down on the day of the assassination were inside of the US. Israel, nor any other foreign nation has the power to do that.

Logic states: The people who basically pressured Lyndon Johnson to create the Warren Commission and begin the coverup were inside of the US. Last that I heard, Joseph Alsop, Eugene Rostow, Nick Katzenbach, they were all American, not particularly pro-Israel, and they were the people who pressured Johnson into creating the Commission.

Logic states: The people who sabotaged Jim Garrison were FBI and CIA...not Mossad, not KGB, or any other foreign agency.

Those are just a few of my thoughts on the subject. I'm not a published author, as some of the people who frequent this forum are, nor am I a university professor or anything like that. I'm just a 45 year old East Texas country boy, who went to college, got some book sense, and has a helluva lot of common sense. Being from Texas, I've also heard all of the "LBJ did it" stories that have ever been invented, and they are all wrong when you look at the simple basic facts of the case. I've shared some of my own theories on this case over the last few months, and while many may not agree with them, they are a LONG way from "Israel did it", which is about 100 times more ridiculous than the Johnson theories. Sherlock Holmes said that detective work was about eliminating the impossible, because when you did that, whatever you have left, however improbable, had to be the truth. When you look at the staggering amount of evidence collected in this case over the years by reputable writers like Vincent Salandria, Jim DiEugenio, Bill Davy, and others, I think you can safely say that the nation of Israel being the main force behind the Kennedy assassination is impossible.

Good stuff man that should end it.

Mark and Al:

It is not a negative slur to use the word anti-Semite with the Piper book.

Why?

Two reasons:

1.) It is pretty much alone on the bookshelf isn't it? And at conferences, correct? Therefore it comes form a very unique background. And it comes from nowhere and leads to nowhere, that is it has little or no influence.

2.) Now the reason for this is easy to detect when you look at the author's background. He used to be part of the Carto group and wrote for Spotlight. That is correct. You know, those people who say the Holocaust was a hoax? Its the same place that another deceptive author came from, Gregory Douglas.

As Seamus pointed out, the whole nuclear reactor thing has so many problems with it, that its hard to believe Piper did not understand them.

But let us give him the benefit of the doubt. Which he does not merit.

It is not enough to say Kennedy had a dispute with some country or group and therefore they offed him. Why?

First, because Kennedy had enemies just about everywhere. I mean this guy rankled the Establishment like no one since FDR. (Who the Eastern Establishment also tried to get rid of.) Just because there is some dispute, or perceived dispute, that does not mean it was the reason for his death. I mean this kind of logic leads us to the Triangle of Death crap: the South Vietnamese killed JFK.

Second, it is very important to be able to trace movements and players in the plot. See, this is a legal requirement of the conspiracy law. I am not saying we have to follow it strictly, but we should follow it generally. If not, how are you ever going to convince anyone of your case?

This was one of Blakey's great failures in his nutty "Oswald was a hit man for the Mafia" thesis. Where was the connective tissue between Oswald and Trafficante, or Marcello? Blakey never developed anything real. Now Waldron takes up the challenge and gives us a completely senile Marcello babbling away in his own closed world. Only Waldron would use this stuff, and only someone as uninformed as DiCaprio and his father would buy it.

We have to go beyond this stuff now. If we don't its going to squander probably the last chance we have.

Jim, this is what happens when people let their personal prejudices override good sense. No, anti-Semite is not a negative slur in connection with the Piper book or most other Israel-did-it theories. The simple fact is, these theories have no basis in fact. And that's why they shout so loudly about them...to drown out simple logical thought.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Mark and Al:

It is not a negative slur to use the word anti-Semite with the Piper book.

Why?

Two reasons:

1.) It is pretty much alone on the bookshelf isn't it? And at conferences, correct? Therefore it comes form a very unique background. And it comes from nowhere and leads to nowhere, that is it has little or no influence.

2.) Now the reason for this is easy to detect when you look at the author's background. He used to be part of the Carto group and wrote for Spotlight. That is correct. You know, those people who say the Holocaust was a hoax? Its the same place that another deceptive author came from, Gregory Douglas.

As Seamus pointed out, the whole nuclear reactor thing has so many problems with it, that its hard to believe Piper did not understand them.

But let us give him the benefit of the doubt. Which he does not merit.

It is not enough to say Kennedy had a dispute with some country or group and therefore they offed him. Why?

First, because Kennedy had enemies just about everywhere. I mean this guy rankled the Establishment like no one since FDR. (Who the Eastern Establishment also tried to get rid of.) Just because there is some dispute, or perceived dispute, that does not mean it was the reason for his death. I mean this kind of logic leads us to the Triangle of Death crap: the South Vietnamese killed JFK.

Second, it is very important to be able to trace movements and players in the plot. See, this is a legal requirement of the conspiracy law. I am not saying we have to follow it strictly, but we should follow it generally. If not, how are you ever going to convince anyone of your case?

This was one of Blakey's great failures in his nutty "Oswald was a hit man for the Mafia" thesis. Where was the connective tissue between Oswald and Trafficante, or Marcello? Blakey never developed anything real. Now Waldron takes up the challenge and gives us a completely senile Marcello babbling away in his own closed world. Only Waldron would use this stuff, and only someone as uninformed as DiCaprio and his father would buy it.

We have to go beyond this stuff now. If we don't its going to squander probably the last chance we have.

There is no "special relationship" between Israel and the truth.

Israel is no more -- or less -- a true Sponsor of the assassination than is America.

But if I charge certain members of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff with being complicit as Facilitators of the assassination -- which I do -- and someone subsequently charges me with being anti-American, I laugh in his or her face.

Fuck charges of anti-Semitism. If sound evidence leads us to conclude that Israeli interests were involved at the Facilitator level of the JFK hit, then so be it.

Is Piper an anti-Semite? IRRELEVANT to the value of his hypothesis.

Weigh the hypothesis on its own merits. If it's meshuggah, so be it. If it's valid, so be it.

Let us rid ourselves once and for all of what might charitably be called the "first among equals" status of Israel.

For the record: I am confident in my conclusion that "Israel" was not a Sponsor of the JFK assassination.

I reach said conclusion in spite of, and not because of, the myth of the "special" nature of the state of Israel.

Were Israeli interests served by JFK's death? Were Israeli specialists involved as Facilitators of the assassination?

Entirely different matters.

Charles, I wasn't suggesting that Israel had any kind of special relationship with the truth or anything like that. I was just saying that if someone has personal prejudices about Israel or anything such as that, it should be left out of any serious discussion about this subject.

Charles Drago Wrote:There is no "special relationship" between Israel and the truth.

Israel is no more -- or less -- a true Sponsor of the assassination than is America.

But if I charge certain members of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff with being complicit as Facilitators of the assassination -- which I do -- and someone subsequently charges me with being anti-American, I laugh in his or her face.

Fuck charges of anti-Semitism. If sound evidence leads us to conclude that Israeli interests were involved at the Facilitator level of the JFK hit, then so be it.

Is Piper an anti-Semite? IRRELEVANT to the value of his hypothesis.

Weigh the hypothesis on its own merits. If it's meshuggah, so be it. If it's valid, so be it.

Let us rid ourselves once and for all of what might charitably be called the "first among equals" status of Israel.

For the record: I am confident in my conclusion that "Israel" was not a Sponsor of the JFK assassination.

I reach said conclusion in spite of, and not because of, the myth of the "special" nature of the state of Israel.

Were Israeli interests served by JFK's death? Were Israeli specialists involved as Facilitators of the assassination?

Entirely different matters.

Yes it's all a very, very bizarre confluence. I'm wary on both counts! Liberty Lobby did a great job with Lane in one case. But then on the other with Piper they've really lost it. I'm against reckless charges of anti-semitism, for valid criticism.

But then on the other a lot of people have used the Zionist dialogue to encapsulate Judaism and so on in what is truly bigotted stuff. It's these twerps like Piper who have fueled that paranoia with appalling facts and crummy logic which helps brand any critique as being 'anti-semitic'. With research that bad what else can you call it but agenda driven? So we have a debt of thanks to Mr Piper.

For the record. I'm disgusted with the behaviour and justification of guys like Netanyahu. What a dick that guy is. But he doesn't represent all Israeli people. Just like John Key (our prime minister of Jewish descent by the way-as if that means squat) doesn't represent the views of all Kiwi's. Zionist's are not pleasent. But there's people full of the same zeal in any culture or group!

And I go along with James, Vasilios and Jim Di. Not to mention Dawn and others. Also I was questioning Pipers sanity more than his 'anti-semitism' I don't think he is one but he's dabbling in some murky territory.

Mark, in your #107 above you dispute my stipulation that Israel was not responsible for the JFK and RFK assassinations.


I am neither surprised nor dissuaded.


That you find my characterization of Sirhan Sirhan as the Palestinian Lone nut rich is promising.


Per the cartoon of propaganda:

1. Sirhan Bishara Sirhan (Arabic: سرحان بشارة سرحان, born March 19, 1944) is a Palestinian who was convicted for the assassination of United States Senator …
   

Yet we know from Thomas Noguchi that Sirhan did not fire any bullets into Robert Kennedy.



And I missed the agency of Israel in framing Oswald and all of that.



We start out with a thread stating Johnson did not do it and wind up with allegations that the Jews did it.



The cited excerpt of Evica's Perfect Cover dovetails with our friend the retired financial planner from Boston and New York relating Eliot Janeway's prepared hiss the summer of '63 delivered to the financial houses of what a dangerous man this Kennedy was.



Echoed by our friend from Army intelligence, and Elmer Moore, of course.



EO 11110 June 3, 1963, NSAM 263, also 55, 56, 57, JFK was ruining all the funno war, no drugs, no banks.



Larger than America or Israel according to wiser minds.



It's always useful to the large interests to blame matters on the small.

Post #101 (if I have the number right -- Evica's Excerpt) and Dragoo's #119, pretty well nail it for me. I think significant distinction has been made in terms of Israel's interests and its actions, and it might serve well to tease apart Israeli or 'Jewish' or Zionist or 'quasi-Jewish' inter-connects with Federal Reserve and BIS matters as well. Other labels or attributed names can be used, but they muddy things rather than clarify them.

As I read recently the Wikipedia entry on David Rockefeller, I was struck by the size of his Rolodex and the fact that he had and could have exceedingly private meetings with a wide range of people at a wide range of locations, including at the family estate at Pocantico and inside what surely is a well-guarded, debugged and highly-secure inner sanctum.

What seems clear to me from the cheap seats is that these powers are increasingly cocky and arrogant and brazen, and are increasingly boastful and somewhat loose with their statements and actions; they feel they have power and control of sufficient strength that it cannot be challenged. [I am not arguing that point, simply stating their attitude....]

I was struck recently by a statement... I had to think for a bit to realize where I saw it... about justice, about how it was for each of us "to deliver justice and heal ourselves, to muster the courage to ask questions and the strength to endure answers."

Oh, yes, of course, I said to myself as I retrieved the book off my nightstand....

it was that fellow Drago in the introduction to "A Certain Arrogance". :pope: