24-09-2009, 04:07 PM
"Debating" what, exactly?
When we "debate" anyone on the conspiracy/no conspiracy "controversy," we play into the killers' hands. We help to preserve them and protect them. We do their bidding.
With all due respect: Unless Jim DiEugenio in his opening statement declares that A) conspiracy in the death of JFK is established fact, B) anyone with reasonable access to the supporting evidence who does not so conclude is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime, and C) his intention is to expose McAdam as an accessory after the fact to first degree murder, this exercise will do enormous harm to the cause.
Again: All that McAdams's masters desire is to prolong the illusion of a level playing field for their lies and our truth.
This "debate" likely will aid and abet the killers of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
When we "debate" anyone on the conspiracy/no conspiracy "controversy," we play into the killers' hands. We help to preserve them and protect them. We do their bidding.
With all due respect: Unless Jim DiEugenio in his opening statement declares that A) conspiracy in the death of JFK is established fact, B) anyone with reasonable access to the supporting evidence who does not so conclude is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime, and C) his intention is to expose McAdam as an accessory after the fact to first degree murder, this exercise will do enormous harm to the cause.
Again: All that McAdams's masters desire is to prolong the illusion of a level playing field for their lies and our truth.
This "debate" likely will aid and abet the killers of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.