Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Danny Jarman]

Ya, how does a post mocking our own dear CD turn the frig into "the Jews killed JFK"?

Who said that?

[Albert Doyle]

Good stuff Vas. Al you dissapoint me. Further I dealt to our dear Mr Stapleton on this Pipes inspired bullshit on a thread here many moon's ago. I'm surprised he's crawled back from out his hole. I don't anticipate Mr Stapleton will be here to long.

I suggest reading Piper point for point. We still allow discussion of academic facts don't we? I wish I had time to open a Final Judgment thread. I think the Deep Politics perspective and zionist involvement are not necessarily conflicting. (In no way do I take the side of that crude attack against Charles).



No offense Seamus, but what was your answer to Echevarria's comment?


(I think Piper didn't even mention Janeway)

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Good stuff Vas. Al you dissapoint me. Further I dealt to our dear Mr Stapleton on this Pipes inspired bullshit on a thread here many moon's ago. I'm surprised he's crawled back from out his hole. I don't anticipate Mr Stapleton will be here to long.

I suggest reading Piper point for point. We still allow discussion of academic facts don't we? I wish I had time to open a Final Judgment thread. I think the Deep Politics perspective and zionist involvement are not necessarily conflicting. (In no way do I take the side of that crude attack against Charles).



No offense Seamus, but what was your answer to Echevarria's comment?


(I think Piper didn't even mention Janeway)

Creation of False sponsors maybe?

[Mark Stapleton]

Good stuff Vas. Al you dissapoint me. Further I dealt to our dear Mr Stapleton on this Pipes inspired bullshit on a thread here many moon's ago. I'm surprised he's crawled back from out his hole. I don't anticipate Mr Stapleton will be here to long.

Predictably shrill and incoherent. Obviously not a fan of free speech and the open exchange of ideas.

[Mark Stapleton]

So basically you're saying Johnson loved everything Israel stood for. I agree.

When a President turns back fighter planes which were responding to a distress call from an American ship for fear of embarrassing the aggressor, namely Israel, then I say that Lyndon Johnson's main loyalty was to Israel. America came in second. When the chips were down during the USS Liberty tragedy Johnson chose to protect Israel not the US. Unequivocal proof as to where his true loyalty resided.

Sure, but don't you see that those actions could still be done in obedience to the will of the Sponsors as their facilitator?

I do.

These actions were done in obedience to the will of the Sponsors (Zionist Israel). As their loyal facilitator, Johnson put Israel's interests above that of his own country and countrymen who had elected him as their President. A shameful episode in US history duly suppressed by the mainstream media, the owners of which were, and still are, staunchly pro-Zionist.

[Mark Stapleton]

So basically you're saying Johnson loved everything Israel stood for. I agree.

When a President turns back fighter planes which were responding to a distress call from an American ship for fear of embarrassing the aggressor, namely Israel, then I say that Lyndon Johnson's main loyalty was to Israel. America came in second. When the chips were down during the USS Liberty tragedy Johnson chose to protect Israel not the US. Unequivocal proof as to where his true loyalty resided.

That serving Israel that way would serve the interests of the Sponsors and not necessarily be due to Johnson's personal zionist tendencies or putting Israel above America?

I think you are suggesting that the interests of the Sponsors and the interests of Israel are two separate things. I'm saying they are one and the same.

In any case, if serving the interests of the Sponsors means protecting and covering up for Israel's actions, doesn't that indicate that the Sponsors and Israel share common interests? And that these interests clearly overrode those of the US, which LBJ had sworn to uphold?

[Magda Hassan]

I think you are suggesting that the interests of the Sponsors and the interests of Israel are two separate things. I'm saying they are one and the same.

That's a mistake. They share some common interests. Like Israeli hawks and right wing Christian zionists have some common interests but they are not one and the same. Israel, as a nation state, too will be sacrificed when it suits. As will any other. Other alliances with be formed to continue the project. It is supranational.

[Charles Drago]

Mark, you're my friend and comrade.

But "Zionist Israel" was no more "the" Sponsor of the JFK hit than any other usual suspect.

Please share your definition of "Sponsor" in this context.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

I think you are suggesting that the interests of the Sponsors and the interests of Israel are two separate things. I'm saying they are one and the same.

That's a mistake. They share some common interests. Like Israeli hawks and right wing Christian zionists have some common interests but they are not one and the same. Israel, as a nation state, too will be sacrificed when it suits. As will any other. Other alliances with be formed to continue the project. It is supranational.

well said

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark, you're my friend and comrade.

But "Zionist Israel" was no more "the" Sponsor of the JFK hit than any other usual suspect.

Please share your definition of "Sponsor" in this context.

Sure Charles. My definition of sponsor is chief organiser and funder.

The main reason I believe Israel and its hardline supporters in the US were the driving force behind JFK's death is that, as far as I can see, Israel was the only one of all the suspects who extracted a tangible gain from JFK's removal. I hasten to add that the MIC also made a profit also but I don't regard Israel and the weapons industry to be mutually exclusive. Many hardline Zionists have large investments in the industry.

What were the tangible gains? First and foremost was its nuclear capability. I believe Kennedy's intransigent opposition to a nuclear Israel was regarded by hardline Zionists as an existiential threat to their nation's survival. The timeline on this is very clear. Once LBJ took over the pressure valve was switched off and Israel suddenly became much more willing to allow 'limited' inspections of Dimona by American inspectors (all on Israel's terms of course). It was all sham and window dressing, as some of the inspection parties complained.

The other tangible gain was military funding, which grew from zero to $300 million from 1963 to 1967. LBJ helped Israel become the regional superpower. No way Kennedy would have gone along with this. He wanted any funding of Israel to be tied to concessions to the Palestinians.

Another compelling reason is that the mainstream media-naturally there was little alternative media back then-was owned by those sympathetic to Zionism. Paley, Sarnoff and the rest. That's why the media has actively discouraged genuine investigations into JFK's death for the last 49 years. This crime would never have remained unsolved for so long unless those complicit in it had control of the media. Once LBJ was sworn in, they had control of the Government as well, and all the sham Government inquiries which followed.

Anyone who thinks Israel didn't have the power and influence to carry it out doesn't know Israel. They still carry out covert assassinations on a regular basis. Four Iranian nuclear scientists have been murdered in the last two years so their reach can even extend to overtly hostile countries.

If you can tell me other parties who made such tangible gains (and also owned the media), I'm all ears.

And to those who think Israel should be placed above suspicion I would just remind them that at various times the Governments of Cuba, Russia and even the US have been nominated as sponsors. Why should Israel be off limits, given their bellicose past and present?