Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Mark Stapleton]

Dimona was Ben-Gurion's brainchild and his baby, right from its beginning. He steered it through some turbulent times, for instance when De Gaulle announced France was withdrawing its participation in 1959.

When Ben-Gurion realised Kennedy wasn't going to budge, he resigned and explored other ways of protecting his baby.

He had wealthy and powerful friends in the US.

These are facts, not idle speculation.

[Albert Doyle]

OK Albert...

Discussing this with me gets very easy when you get to both ask and answer all the questions.

Cinque would be in strong agreement. Sorry David not all specious, evasive, excuse-seeking questions and answers are equal.

What you fail to follow Albert is that I AM AGREEING WITH YOU ON MANY LEVELS... At the heart of the money supply are Jews... along with SE Asians, WASP Generals, the Bush family, the CFR and all its tentacles.

Yeah right. What you are doing is setting-up false agreement that you then methodically construct all the disingenuous escape hatches to bail out and then set-up the scene for your real intention - which is disagreement. Who do you think you're fooling David? What you are really saying here is you agree with the evidence but disagree with the conclusions. It's obvious you have set-up a psychological situation in your mind where you are going to fight Piper's suggestion no matter what is shown. The rest of your text is obvious as the psychological denial mechanism by which you do that. Don't waste our time. When accused of trying to spread blame, you ignore what is said and then return with another round of blame-sharing that is obviously designed to divert from and obscure Israel's true involvement.

Permindex was formed in 1958.... the CIA and those associated with PERMINDEX were moving money and performing illegal "security based" operations PRIOR to JFK - agreed?
The history of money and wealth and government control and dark ops started WELL BEFORE - the "NEW BACKERS" arrived on the scene... - yes?

This is just another effort by David to speciously assert irrelevant histories as if they had anything to do with the very specific juncture of Ben-Gurion's difficulties with Kennedy. Sure Permindex was set-up before this incident, but what does that have to do with anything we're talking about? All you're doing here David is trying to switch the topic to 1958 - which has absolutely nothing to do with Kennedy's impasse with Ben-Gurion in 1963. Your excuses are like strokes across the blade of truth here that only gets sharper as you stroke harder with your weak excuses.

Nobody becomes altruistic Albert.... in the same breath that the NEW JEWISH BACKERS did not come into existence with the creation of PERMINDEX or for the JFK assassination... these Backers became known to Echevarria enough to make his comment on 11/21. He then refers to the Killing of JFK as a seperate thing

Once again I come into the thread to see you arguing something that I never said. You are arguing a creation of your own device. Your argument is dishonest because we are not arguing when those "new jewish backers" came into existence. We are arguing when and why they came to the attention of Echevarria? You are also wholly dishonest about Kennedy's killing being a separate thing. If you read Echevarria comment he very definitely says that the new backing is dependent on Kennedy's killing. If it wasn't why would he mention it at all if it was completely unrelated? Arguing with you is waste of time because you intentionally ignore everything that was said in order to return, once again, to your original, evasive, invalid points.

The reason your entry above is intolerably dishonest is because it flagrantly ignores my explanation of how any "jew backers" in the US could not be separated from Piper's deeply-explained cabal. Any backers with that power showing-up in the Dallas/Cuba conspiracy would not be able to escape any CIA/mob oversight after being connected with any Cuban exiles. You need to ignore this to make your excuse-seeking arguments work. That isn't missed, nor are your intentions not seen because of it. The truth here, that you are obviously running from with your excuses, is that once you got to that depth it was automatic that any such interest would automatically fall under the control of all the main assassination players. Discussion of the period of origin of Permindex is just in flagrant contempt of this, in my opinion, and shows a wanton need to deny/avoid the truth. Yet you have the unmitigated hubris to accuse me of not answering all the questions.

The argument that you are avoiding is that Israel would indeed involve itself with the Cuban action because the Cuban action was a main CIA need. The way plausible deniability works is that even those who are being used as facilitators would be kept from the plan by having them think they were being backed for the Cuban action. The fact you would reverse all this obvious covert strategy and plain vested interest to try and sell that these new jew backers, even though they had desperate needs themselves, were only self-effacingly acting in the altruistic interest of Cuba is uproarilously laughable consider what it asks us to not only ignore but believe. No, the robbers who ended up with the giant bag of loot were not acting in their own interest but were instead on a mission from god in order to save an orphanage. What pisses me off about you David, is no matter how many times it is explained to you you refuse to even recognize that, according to the unholy underground relationship CIA had to both Israel, the mob, and Cuba, there was no difference in acting in favor of any separate one. Until you understand and register the Lansky/Rosenbaum/Israel cabal Piper explains you simply can't validly participate in any discussion of it. Especially in relation to Echevarria. CIA was directly in control and receiving kickbacks from that relationship. The same CIA that was directly involved in the assassination.

"OUR NEW BACKERS ARE JEWS".... "as soon as (we or they) take care of Kennedy" "AS SOON AS" Albert... as in referring to a seperate action... "AS SOON AS" one thing happens, SOMETHING ELSE can happen - i.e. the taking back of CUBA with OUR NEW BACKERS' MONEY.... for it was Kennedy's policies that were making it so difficult to keep attacking Cuba - he wanted to talk peace while the 12/63 plan was in full swing.

Semantic wordsmithing against the obvious David. What you are trying to deny is what stands out the most from your efforts. What's painfully obvious here, David, is the vastly begging omission that really belongs in your statement is the main benefactor, Israel, and how it gained the most immediately following Kennedy's removal and how Israel's purposes are what fit and fill your claim better than anything. Yet you are seriously trying to say that these backers were only acting for Cuba.

Why would these people - if they knew about the 12/1 coup plans, interfere when they'd be getting back what they wanted without having to do a thing themselves? You have to assume with the kind of contacts this group maintained, they KNEW about these plans, right?

You and Piper INFER that these BACKERS, who have been in place in one form or another for hundreds of years, are now focused and instrumental in the killing of JFK... DUE TO A COMMENT MADE on 11/21.
That the connections are there so they MUST HAVE DONE IT...

You are just going to endlessly repeat that invalid 11/21 canard over and over again aren't you David? Next we'll see a long discourse on Roman period corruption. Until you can explain who they were and what Echevarria meant by that you're just offering empty filler against the obvious. Piper correctly shows that any "new jew backers" could not be separated from the Lansky cabal and its involvement with zionist interests. It's obvious the reason you need to go back 100 years is because you can't deal with what the contemporary critical juncture of Echevarria's witnessing entails.

and no other explanation for the assassination makes sense... nothing else fits the evidence like these JEW BACKERS and the hatred toward JFK due to his desire to oversee (and keep peaceful) their Atom Bomb project...

You haven't shown how it could be separated, honestly. You can't name any contemporary jewish backers who were separated from this cabal. Even better, you can't explain how Cuba could be separated from this Lansky/Mossad interest except by deliberately ignoring everything Piper spells out. What you are really saying, David, is everything else makes sense except the obvious.

Albert... you do not have the slightest concern over Ben-Gurion's defining the situation as a THREAT to the FUTURE EXISTENCE OF ISRAEL... being somewhat of an exaggeration?
A rally cry to secure the support of the USA... a cry that has been thrown around year after year since Israel is in a CONSTANT STATE OF THREAT...

The lesson here is watch-out when an Israeli leader says you represent a problem that threatens the future existence of Israel. What argument are you trying to make? The answer is this threat has been successfully used over and over again to gain achievements similar to Kennedy's assassination. You're filibustering David.

Jews/Int'l Bankers/CIA/MAFIA/MIC/CFR were not in bed together so Israel could have a bomb Albert... that's absurd.
Nor would Israel having a bomb done much for the MIC, the survival of the CIA and other military/domestic intelligence agencies, communism in the western hemisphere, or create a flow of drug money unmatched in history..

Again, David, you are arguing a strawman of your creation that I never said. What you should be worried about is the specific relationship Angleton had as CIA liaison to Israel where he was undermining Kennedy's authority by smuggling nuclear materiel behind Kennedy's back. I've said this several times. Why do you ignore it and insist on switching to your strawman?

yet Albert... if you want to hang your hat on Piper's persentation as the ONLY EXPLANATION - I am not stopping you...

and if you happen upon a photo of Oswald from 11/22 prior to 12:30... sure be nice to see.

I'm sorry, based on what again? I don't think you're doing that well in this discussion. But at least you're better than most because you seem to indirectly concede that Israel had some non-specific involvement. So far I don't see Piper's information disproven by what you've written. Though I have to add that Piper's personal bent suggests Ben-Gurion was the initiating Sponsor - which is obviously wrong according to well established Deep Politics. I think maybe he was drafted into the conspiracy by the main American facilitators. Facilitators who were looking to enlist other powerful interests and their causes in the assassination.


The important thing you have to understand is that Cuba was so inextricable from the assassination cabal that backing it was tantamount to participating in the assassination. It is the plausibly-deniable course these backers would have taken to hide the their true intentions. This is the inarguable modus operandi of the beast.



.

[David Josephs]

The important thing you have to understand is that Cuba was so inextricable from the assassination cabal that backing it was tantamount to participating in the assassination. It is the plausibly-deniable course these backers would have taken to hide the their true intentions. This is the inarguable modus operandi of the beast.

Yeah right. What you are doing is setting-up false agreement that you then methodically construct all the disingenuous escape hatches to bail out and then set-up the scene for your real intention - which is disagreement. Who do you think you're fooling David?

As I said above - when YOU get to both ask and answer the questions, you don't need a conversation partner...

Sir, you are so taken by what Piper has told YOU, and you alone here in this conversation, that there is no discussion anymore... this is you Preaching from the Piper pulpit... hoping someone like me comes along so you can spout all your Piper knowledge... I see MANY OTHERS here have avoided you and this conversation...

Guess I need to learn.

When you repeatedly use phrases like - "WOULD be involved", "WOULD be kept from the plan" - to present your "facts" you are making assumptions - you do not have anything to support using the word "WILL" be involved, and "WILL" be in or out of the plan. You can only connect the group to the activity thru supposition.

You and Mr Piper simply do not know - there is a theory that fits the players... anti-semitism has kept this breakthru theory from being accepted mainstream... right?
We identify ONE GROUP that is probably tied to OTHER GROUPS who have ties to OTHER GROUPS who all want JFK dead.
So JFK dies. and everyone on this list benefits.

This is not "surgery to the top of the head" or "there was NO TRANSIT thru the shoulder"... this is you (& Piper) looking at the players and deciding who COULD do this, who MIGHT do this, who is in the best position to accomplish this... and coming to your conclusion....

Since the Mafia/CIA/Israel are all connected, AND Israel was miffed over the nuclear situation, AND the mafia wanted back into Cuba, AND the CIA did not want JFK and his brother to release them from their role, AND the JCS wanted to blow CUba off the planet along with Russia and anyone else, and the MIC/United Fruit wanted to play their games...

yet you conclude that ISRAEL was behind the killing of JFK.
You dont understand there are no absolutes in this case, that we can't KNOW, but only assume and support with authenticated and corrobrated evidence...
IF it went down as Piper said, then these people are key players and could have pulled it off....
No argument...

Yet as you keep pushing, this is the ONLY WAY to see the assassination, that anyone looking at it differently or not accepting THIS explanation is plain wrong...

Keep up this POV and my guess no one will want to play with you anymore Albert - at least not on this subject -
so I hope you are not waiting for me to tell you how CORRECT you are...

When an entire community of people I respect do not give Piper the time of day....
and the one person who does support him insults me for discussing my OPINION based on the facts I've researched...

I'm not inclined to continue this conversation any longer... or any conversation where the other person writes off the questions asked by changing the subject and insulting the poster.

Take it or leave it Albert - this is my last post in this thread....



[QUOTE][If you read Echevarria comment he very definitely says that the new backing is dependent on Kennedy's killing

/QUOTE]

Again... your interpretation...

"we now have plenty of money.... our new backers are jews... as soon as 'we' (or 'they') take care of Kennedy.....

You have no idea HOW this was said OR what was meant... but you and Piper and others have IDEAS... very nice Albert, yet your ideas of what things mean is not
the only way to see them... sorry to burst your self importance bubble

Sir... reading again thru your response...

[QUOTE][What pisses me off about you David, is no matter how many times it is explained to you you refuse to even recognize that, according to the unholy underground relationship CIA had to both Israel, the mob, and Cuba, there was no difference in acting in favor of any separate one. Until you understand and register the Lansky/Rosenbaum/Israel cabal Piper explains you simply can't validly participate in any discussion of it. Especially in relation to Echevarria. CIA was directly in control and receiving kickbacks from that relationship. The same CIA that was directly involved in the assassination.

/QUOTE]

Oh I understand it and register it just fine Albert... I'm simply not a Piper disciple like you are... You've come to your conclusion and you defend it... fine.

Sell it to someone else please... I'll be dropping from this thread as I simply cannot discuss this with you - you are so closed to anything that challenges or even questions Piper - you've lost the ability to behave with respect and make an argument that includes EVIDENCE, not WOULD OF's and COULD OF's.... and "IF"

[Albert Doyle]

[quote=David Josephs]
As I said above - when YOU get to both ask and answer the questions, you don't need a conversation partner...

Sir, you are so taken by what Piper has told YOU, and you alone here in this conversation, that there is no discussion anymore... this is you Preaching from the Piper pulpit... hoping someone like me comes along so you can spout all your Piper knowledge... I see MANY OTHERS here have avoided you and this conversation...

Guess I need to learn.

When you repeatedly use phrases like - "WOULD be involved", "WOULD be kept from the plan" - to present your "facts" you are making assumptions - you do not have anything to support using the word "WILL" be involved, and "WILL" be in or out of the plan. You can only connect the group to the activity thru supposition. [/QUOTE]


Sorry David you're not going to be able to hijack the subject to that weak canard once again. The discussion here is about Piper and what he said and not about your obvious side tracks designed to get around it (for the fourth time now). Re-entering them with bluster doesn't change that. Simply put your input is visibly content-less towards Piper.

Another thing I've noticed over the years in internet debate. When a person starts analyzing semantics as their offering they are showing they can't answer the points and have no honest intention to do so. You'll find similar arguments from Cinque and Fetzer using that method. Pure sophistry vs Piper's facts. Your reference to some kind of undefined majority clashes with the content of what you offer.




[quote=David Josephs]You and Mr Piper simply do not know - there is a theory that fits the players... anti-semitism has kept this breakthru theory from being accepted mainstream... right?
We identify ONE GROUP that is probably tied to OTHER GROUPS who have ties to OTHER GROUPS who all want JFK dead.
So JFK dies. and everyone on this list benefits. [/QUOTE]



You're just re-entering the same stuff that has already been answered. It isn't working.


If you closely examine your paragraph above it doesn't answer anything nor does it change what was said. What's obvious here is your desperation to avoid that Piper might be right. Once again, that's what stands out the most here. It looks like a pathetic struggle to not admit what is obvious.





[quote=David Josephs]This is not "surgery to the top of the head" or "there was NO TRANSIT thru the shoulder"... this is you (& Piper) looking at the players and deciding who COULD do this, who MIGHT do this, who is in the best position to accomplish this... and coming to your conclusion....

Since the Mafia/CIA/Israel are all connected, AND Israel was miffed over the nuclear situation, AND the mafia wanted back into Cuba, AND the CIA did not want JFK and his brother to release them from their role, AND the JCS wanted to blow CUba off the planet along with Russia and anyone else, and the MIC/United Fruit wanted to play their games...

yet you conclude that ISRAEL was behind the killing of JFK.
You dont understand there are no absolutes in this case, that we can't KNOW, but only assume and support with authenticated and corrobrated evidence...
IF it went down as Piper said, then these people are key players and could have pulled it off....
No argument... [/QUOTE]



You're offering a regressive, primitive argument that is well below what was already established. Once again, if you go back and read the thread, I never said the things you attribute to me in your obvious strawman. You are answering your own arguments. This is a step back from what I had shown. It doesn't answer what was said but instead offers your spurious doubt as the main issue and then responds. My arguments offered Piper's evidence as the main issue and dealt directly with it. The fact you can't deal with, or directly answer, that evidence shows you are trying to avoid something. My arguments showed why support of Cuba was inseparable from support of Israel. You failed to answer why that wasn't so. What you offer is like a person who accused of robbing a bank who then walks you through a long description of bank robbery and all the evidence for their involvement but never quite gets to the point where they show they weren't involved. In police interrogations a person who repeats the question when asked is a person who shows signs of guilt. You, David, are basically repeating the question while never really getting around to answering it. When I read your entries it sounds like you are saying Israel was involved but Israel wasn't involved. And you attack my material?






[quote=David Josephs]Yet as you keep pushing, this is the ONLY WAY to see the assassination, that anyone looking at it differently or not accepting THIS explanation is plain wrong...

Keep up this POV and my guess no one will want to play with you anymore Albert - at least not on this subject -
so I hope you are not waiting for me to tell you how CORRECT you are... [/QUOTE]




I don't think you understand that I'm not playing. Did it ever dawn on you that the others aren't participating because they can't answer Piper's evidence? Otherwise your entry above is rubbish and never comes close to answering Piper's evidence.





[quote=David Josephs]When an entire community of people I respect do not give Piper the time of day....
and the one person who does support him insults me for discussing my OPINION based on the facts I've researched...

I'm not inclined to continue this conversation any longer... or any conversation where the other person writes off the questions asked by changing the subject and insulting the poster.

Take it or leave it Albert - this is my last post in this thread.... [/QUOTE]




I beg you to consider what some posters on this board would respond with if you tried that with another subject they were interested in. I think you're in denial that there is a strong pro-Israel bias and media control in America. As I said before, it is the nature of CIA to hide its doings behind such a reliable shield. You might think your evasive questions deserve respect. I, unfortunately, do not. And I'm not sure you realize your material above is classic of persons who are losing the debate.





[quote=David Josephs][If you read Echevarria comment he very definitely says that the new backing is dependent on Kennedy's killing

/QUOTE]

Again... your interpretation...

"we now have plenty of money.... our new backers are jews... as soon as 'we' (or 'they') take care of Kennedy.....

You have no idea HOW this was said OR what was meant... but you and Piper and others have IDEAS... very nice Albert, yet your ideas of what things mean is not
the only way to see them... sorry to burst your self importance bubble [/QUOTE]




" Self-importance bubble "??? I'm sorry David, I believe I adequately challenged you via the facts to show how they couldn't not be involved. Forgive me if I think the obvious evasive input above doesn't quite answer that. You've succeeded in setting-up the quagmire above, but it doesn't nearly answer Piper's facts and evidence. What stands out the most is your reckless willingness to avoid the chance that Piper might right. We've heard your excuses. In the end they haven't disproven Piper's theory.







[quote=David Josephs]Sir... reading again thru your response...

[QUOTE][What pisses me off about you David, is no matter how many times it is explained to you you refuse to even recognize that, according to the unholy underground relationship CIA had to both Israel, the mob, and Cuba, there was no difference in acting in favor of any separate one. Until you understand and register the Lansky/Rosenbaum/Israel cabal Piper explains you simply can't validly participate in any discussion of it. Especially in relation to Echevarria. CIA was directly in control and receiving kickbacks from that relationship. The same CIA that was directly involved in the assassination.

/QUOTE]

Oh I understand it and register it just fine Albert... I'm simply not a Piper disciple like you are... You've come to your conclusion and you defend it... fine.

Sell it to someone else please... I'll be dropping from this thread as I simply cannot discuss this with you - you are so closed to anything that challenges or even questions Piper - you've lost the ability to behave with respect and make an argument that includes EVIDENCE, not WOULD OF's and COULD OF's.... and "IF"[/QUOTE]



I'll present this a pure example of your contempt for Piper's fact-based arguments. While accusing me of not entertaining your obvious evasions what stands out the most here is your refusal to recognize or address even the most basic aspects of this scenario. What I wrote above is correct and provable in Kennedy assassination conspiracy facts. Facts and reasonable conclusions your material above obviously seeks to avoid. Don't worry David, you'll win this one no matter what you enter. And that's the main reason I'm interested in it. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't get away with what you've gotten away with here on any other subject.


.

[David Josephs]

Just a few quick notes

I found Piper's book on-line
I also found the actual memos/correspondence between all the parties from the time period - one would have thought that more of these documents - which detail in the words of those attending - would have made it to the book... http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...fktoc.html

Maybe you could do us all a favor - Albert or Mark - since you know the book so well....
Please direct us to the sections in the book that YOU believe supports the conclusion of the book....

Albert - you wrote this earlier on in this thread: what did you mean?

(Although I totally agree on a Deep Political basis that Israel was probably made a false sponsor by the real sponsors)

All I can find are connections and coincidences in that book... I've tried to find where he ties them together other than simply making the case that they occupied the same planet at the same time and had dealings with each other...

There is even an entire chapter dedicated to the claim that since the Mossad was planning to kill GHW Bush in 1991, they certainly COULd have killed or been involved in the assassination of JFK...

He proves NOTHING in the chapter about JFK's "secret war with Israel"... at a time when he is trying to broker peace in the Middle East he would HAVE to talk with both sides, no?
Then he quotes Meir, yet only partly and out of context...

Here is the memo from their meeting: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou..._62-2.html

the word "nuclear" appears twice and it sure appears to me that there was not secret war going on:
This country is really interested in Israel, the President said, as he is personally. We are interested that Israel should keep up its sensitive, tremendous, historic task. What we want from Israel arises because our relationship is a two-way street. Israel's security in the long run depends in part on what it does with the Arabs, but also on us. He would hope, for example, that Israel would give consideration to our problems on this atomic reactor. We are opposed to nuclear proliferation. Our interest here is not in prying into Israel's affairs but we have to be concerned because of the over-all situation in the Middle East.

Mrs. Meir reassured the President that there would not be any difficulty between us on the Israeli nuclear reactor. She also said she wanted to suggest that at least the first one or two talks in the new round of US-Israeli discussions about the refugees should be held in Israel. This would permit participation in the talks by the Prime Minister who could bring to them his full authority. How helpful it would be, she went on, if only the Arabs would agree to follow the President's proposals on refugees. Indeed, it might be helpful if there were a possibility of getting Israeli representatives together with Egyptian leaders for talks which could be held anywhere, just to have direct discussions about their common problems. We could be sure that the Israelis would not be the ones to reveal publicly any private talks

He talks about Mike Feldman.... and JFK's attempt to talk peace with Arab nations:
Piper sure does lay a foundation for JFK and his secret war with Israel.... ???

By stating that since JFK was putting the USA before Israel in the Middle East - which, as the SuperPower behind Israel against the SuperPower of Russia behind many of the Arab states is not too hard a thing to understand - Piper is jumping to the conclusion that THIS ACTION was yet another brick in the wall of the Mossad's involvement.

If this is the level of evidence and support that permeates the book - and I have jumped from chapter to chapter hoping to find SOMETHING of significance that supports any of Piper's conclusions & I have yet to come across any, then why spend time reading and analyzing? The first things I checked on came up wrong... his conclusions are cherry-picked and poorly sourced...

But I am sure you both will help us out and show us.

So please... if you can, cite the passages in Piper's book that shows YOU he's made his case.... that this mixture of people and organziations was responsible for JFK's assassination.
I will gladly find them and post them... so we ALL can discuss the SAME THING from the SAME PLACE... K?

There are a lot of accusations and assumed connections... but there is no MEAT boys... Where's the BEEF?
DJ

[size=12]
Thus, it was that upon assuming office, Kennedy made positive
attempts to contact Arab heads of state asking how the U.S. could help each
country in its individual disputes with Israel.
[size=12][size=12]
It was during that meeting that Kennedy actually went so far as to
emphasize American support for Israel, probably the farthest that any
American president had gone since Israel was first established.
[/SIZE][size=12]
Thus it was that John F. Kennedy informed Israel, in no uncertain
terms, that he intendedfirst and foremostto place America's
interestsnot Israel's interestsat the center of U.S. Middle East policy.
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[Mark Stapleton]

Just a few quick notes

I also found the actual memos/correspondence between all the parties from the time period - one would have thought that more of these documents - which detail in the words of those attending - would have made it to the book... http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...fktoc.html

So you found the actual memos/correspondence between ALL THE PARTIES from the time period did you?

Not really.

There is no mention of the frank exchanges contained in the Kennedy/ Ben-Gurion correspondence in 1963.

There is no mention of NSAM 231 or the deception employed by the Israelis hosting the American inspections of Dimona, including concealing the existence of an underground reprocessing plant.

And the so-called JFK-Peres exchange uses a memo from Asst. Secretary Talbot, whoever he was, to Myer Feldman to sugar coat Peres lying to Kennedy. Peres' actual words were "I can tell you most clearly that we will not introduce nuclear weapons to the region, and certainly we will not be the first. Our interest is in reducing armament, even in complete disarmament". An impressive quartet of lies. There was a note taker present, namely Myer Feldman. Peres later boasted that his improvisation became Israel's policy for years to come.

A bunch of briefing notes and memos, selectively chosen by the Jewish Virtual Library, doesn't constitute ALL the relevant correspondence between all the parties. You'll need to do better than that.

[Mark Stapleton]

Just a few quick notes

I found Piper's book on-line

It's about time.

[Mark Stapleton]

There are a lot of accusations and assumed connections... but there is no MEAT boys... Where's the BEEF?
DJ

[size=12]
Thus, it was that upon assuming office, Kennedy made positive
attempts to contact Arab heads of state asking how the U.S. could help each
country in its individual disputes with Israel.
[size=12][size=12]
It was during that meeting that Kennedy actually went so far as to
emphasize American support for Israel, probably the farthest that any
American president had gone since Israel was first established.
[/SIZE][size=12]
Thus it was that John F. Kennedy informed Israel, in no uncertain
terms, that he intendedfirst and foremostto place America's
interestsnot Israel's interestsat the center of U.S. Middle East policy.
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

Kennedy was involved in a serious conflict with Israel over Dimona when he died. Fortunately it's on the record.

LBJ made Kennedy's financial and military aid to Israel look like chicken feed.

[David Josephs]

Just a few quick notes

I also found the actual memos/correspondence between all the parties from the time period - one would have thought that more of these documents - which detail in the words of those attending - would have made it to the book... http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...fktoc.html

So you found the actual memos/correspondence between ALL THE PARTIES from the time period did you?

Not really.

There is no mention of the frank exchanges contained in the Kennedy/ Ben-Gurion correspondence in 1963.

There is no mention of NSAM 231 or the deception employed by the Israelis hosting the American inspections of Dimona, including concealing the existence of an underground reprocessing plant.

And the so-called JFK-Peres exchange uses a memo from Asst. Secretary Talbot, whoever he was, to Myer Feldman to sugar coat Peres lying to Kennedy. Peres' actual words were "I can tell you most clearly that we will not introduce nuclear weapons to the region, and certainly we will not be the first. Our interest is in reducing armament, even in complete disarmament". An impressive quartet of lies. There was a note taker present, namely Myer Feldman. Peres later boasted that his improvisation became Israel's policy for years to come.

A bunch of briefing notes and memos, selectively chosen by the Jewish Virtual Library, doesn't constitute ALL the relevant correspondence between all the parties. You'll need to do better than that.

Maybe you didn't quite follow Mark...

Please point us to a section or sections (with page numbers) where you feel Piper makes his case...

I used the word "the" not "all"... so where are the sources for these "Frank exchanges" as you say.



from piper's index:Ben-Gurion, David 9, 37, 40, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 97,101, 159,
243, 291, 297, 298, 304, 309, 407, 620-630 (See Chapter 5 and Appendix Nine inparticular)


Chapter 5 -
By mid-1963 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurionhated Kennedy with a passion. In fact, he considered JFK a
threat to the very survival ofthe Jewish State.


"Later, Myer Feldman, Kennedy's aide for Middle East matters, would
reveal that in return for the periodic U.S. inspections, Ben-Gurion had
exacted a promise of provision of advanced Hawk ground-to-air missiles.
"There is no reason to doubt Kennedy's seriousness in wanting to track
Israeli nuclear research and forestall weapons development, but whether
annual inspections under the terms indicated achieved this result [was, as
events unfolded] open to question." 105
So it was that John F. Kennedy unintentionally found himself already
at loggerheads with Israel behind the scenes.

THE SECRETWAR
Kennedy's friendly overtures to the Arab states were only a public
aspect of what ultimately developed into an all-out 'secret war' between
Kennedy and Israel.
According to Seymour Hersh: "Israel's bomb, and what to do about it,
became a White House fixation, part of the secret presidential agenda that
would remain hidden for the next thirty years."106
As Hersh notes, quite profoundly we see in retrospect, this secret war
with Israel was never once noted by any of Kennedy's biographers.107 If
indeed it had been, as we shall see, the mystery behind the JFK
assassination might have been unraveled long, long ago

106 Hersh, p. 100. (That's it Mark -

Seymour Hersh. The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and
American Foreign Policy. (New York: Random House, 1991), p. 98.
According to The New York Times, Hersh relied on Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli government employee who says he worked for Israeli intelligence, for much of his information on the state of the Israeli nuclear program. However, Hersh confirmed all of this information with at least one other source.[SUP][1][/SUP] Hersh did not travel to Israel to conduct interviews for the book, believing that he might have been subject to the Israeli Military Censor. Nevertheless, he did interview Israelis in the United States and Europe during his three years of research.[SUP][1][/SUP]

(1)Brinkley, Joel (1991-10-20). "Israeli Nuclear Arsenal Exceeds Earlier Estimates, Book Reports". The New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...gewanted=1*. Retrieved 2007-11-13.

[size=12]*President Kennedy repeatedly pressed David Ben-Gurion, the Israeli Prime Minister, to give assurances that Israel was not pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. He finally won permission for an American inspector to examine the Dimona plant once each year. But the Israelis built a false control room and other fake sites and managed to convince the inspector year after year that Dimona was involved only in academic research.

[/SIZE]According to Seymour Hersh,"Israel's bomb program, and the
continuing exchange of letters about it, would complicate, and eventually
poison, Kennedy's relationship with DavidBen-Gurion."
[size=12][size=12][size=12][size=12]
[size=12]What was on Ben-Gurion's mind as he turned over the reins of
government to his successor? What was David Ben-Gurion's final act as
Prime Minister of the Jewish State? In light of Ben-Gurion's explicit
comment to John F. Kennedy that "my people have the right to exist. .
and this existence is in danger," we can certainly make a goodpresumption.

In Ben-Gurion's eyes, John F. Kennedy was clearly a modern-day
Hamanan enemy of the Jewish people.

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]In the BibleDeut 25:19, I Sam. 15:8the ancient Hebrews were
urged to "blot out the memory of the Amalekites" from whom Haman
descended.

In Israelin 1963David Ben-Gurion certainly looked upon John F.
Kennedy as a modern-day Haman, a son of the Amalekites. As he pondered
the brutal conflict with JFK, Ben-Gurion no doubt remembered the
meditation that is read on Purim:

Where does PIPER get this crap Mark - a modern day Haman - please... there is nothing in that chapter or even in the chapters preceeding that comes close to identifying the reasons or the results of this HATRED other than Piper's words... please make your case for why Piper writes this about JFK?

"A wicked man, an arrogant offshoot of the seed of Amalek, rose up
against us. Insolent in his riches, he digged himself a pit, and hisown
greatness laid him a snare. In his mind he thought to entrap, but was
himself entrapped; he sought to destroy, but was himself speedilydestroyed
. . . he made him a gallows, and was himself hanged thereon."
[size=12][size=12]
[size=12]It is the thesis of this volume that Ben-Gurion, in his final days as
Prime Minister, ordered the Mossad to participate in the JFKassassination
conspiracy. Based upon evidence that we will outline in
Final Judgment, we believe that the Mossad carried out Ben-Gurion'sorder.


[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

This is the extent of his evidence for the SECRET HATRED...?

SO this is Piper's big proof - SY HERSH SAID SO? and the man NEVER EVEN WENT TO ISRAEL...
ONE source checked possibly by one other source... maybe...

Piper sure leaves no stone unturned to discover the REAL EVENTS of the time... but will believe whatever Sy pushes as FACT and EVIDENCE.

That JFK agreed to sell Hawks, and did... for Israel opening up their reactor to inspection... and for wanting to continue to talk peace in the Middle East...
Looks to me from the sources that it was Israel just being secretive and sabatoging the US's attempts at Middle East peace talks...

As I asked... post some text that supports your claim Mark/Albert... Piper relying on Hersh as the source for something "never once noted by any Kennedy biographer"
and you falling for it hook lina nd sinker - well Piper falling for it and then offering no source at all to support this "secret war" other than "trust me" strikes me as very poor research
when attempting to conclude that JFK and Israel were locked in some antagonistic secret war....

But please - post Piper's evidence...

Appendix 9 - "in particular" can be the subject of my next post

but here is a snipet of Piper defending himself against criticism without an ounce of substance - only supposition and Faith....
Pretty sad endorsement Albert/Mark... when we actually go look and find nothing but hot air and Sy Hersh propping Piper's theory up
and repeated unfootnoted CONCLUSIONS that only Piper comes to...

But please... post a rebuttal WITH EVIDENCE - I will gladly read and post anything you say supports your/his case....
So far, the other members of the forum have this book nailed for what it is... and its sources for what they are...

Can you rebut without ad hominem boys? - You'd have ot agree that Manchester's book offers an amazing amount of behind the scenes info... "Israel" does not even appear in the index.

btw - I will post in rainbow skittles colors if I choose Mark... Piper's support of this hatred is transparent no matter what color we post in

DJ



p620Piper claims as fact that the "primary reason" for David
Ben-Gurion's resignation asPrime Minister of Israel was
his "inability to pressureJFK into accepting Israel's
demands."

He cites Seymour Hersh's
The Samson Option as evidence. (a joke in itself)

As Hersh makes clear, and this is
clearly evident in the quotePiper produces to prove that
the "nuclear option"was the "primary reason," this was
just "another factor."

For the uninitiatedwhichincludes most of those who read the library
review, without having read
Final Judgment (or Hersh's book)this might
sound like quite a damning indictment.

But the truth is that while other factors played a part in Ben-Gurion's
resignation, the final showdown with JFK over the nuclear bomb was the
proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" and, clearly, the "primary
reason" behind Ben-Gurion's resignation.

[size=12][size=12][size=12][size=12]The bottom line is thatin 1963the issue of JFK's conflict with Ben-
Gurion was a secret to both the Israeli public and the American public and it
remained so for more than 20 years at least and still largely remains so,
despite the release of Hersh's book, followed by
[/SIZE][size=12]Final Judgment [/SIZE][size=12]and then [/SIZE][size=12]the book by Avner Cohen.
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
So secret in fact, there is no corroboration by anyone in the JFK administration... what about Feldman?
Nope, there doesn't seem to be anyone with credibility to corroborate Sy's accusations...

Why is that boys?
DJ

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou..._1962.html
I also informed Ben-Gurion that we would inform Nasser of the decision in the hope that we could prevent escalation of weapons in the Near East. Ben-Gurion replied that he would gladly agree to no missiles at all if Nasser would agree to arms limitations and controls. In fact, he said he would like to exclude weapons of every kind from the area.
[size=12]
[/SIZE]

[/SIZE]

[Albert Doyle]

The letters were classified. Therefore they were not part of the record. You could make the same argument you are making here for the NSAM documents. Their importance has only come to light with recent revelations concerning Bundy's claim that the president had seen them and approved.

Why would these letters still be classified if they were so innocuous David? I think you are trying to smear the subject with Hersh. Just because Hersh examines something doesn't automatically dismiss that which he studies. If Hersh had come out and claimed Oswald was innocent and JFK was killed by conspiracy would you reject that claim simply because Hersh made it? I find that patently disingenuous and typical of your argument method.

Ben-Gurion had a dispute with Kennedy over Israel's attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. This is fact and it doesn't matter if contemporary historians missed it. But they would hardly be in a position to cover it when the letters were classified. Also, the tumult of the assassination and its investigation obscured this incident. This classification of important documents happened with the assassination also.

Ben-Gurion was driven to a nervous breakdown by his negotiations with Kennedy. He resigned office because of it, yet you are trying to suggest this was a product of Hersh's imagination. As is typical of you David, it seems to me like you are trying to hide too much behind that obvious Hersh-association device. You can't defeat this with source defamation. It is obviously well beyond just Hersh alone. Mark has already cited the books referencing this.