11-06-2011, 07:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-06-2011, 08:13 PM by Albert Doyle.)
I'm wondering if Seamus even read 'Final Judgment'? The reason I ask is because the counter points he gives so much weight to are easily shattered by Piper's material if you read it in depth. For instance Seamus gives refuting value to his link on Israel's development of nuclear weapons. I scanned it and it didn't contain anything that would challenge what Piper wrote. A better attempt to refute Piper would have acknowledged his detailing how Kennedy had dug his heels in on supplying nuclear development materiel to Israel while Angleton was directly subverting his power by sneaking nuclear blueprints and uranium to Dimona. You can see the value the mediterranean connection had and what kind of power it was forming.
Another thing is de Gaulle's attempted assassination by OAS was somewhat similar to JFK's in the way that a right wing military oriented group refused to go along with his soft position on a rebelling colony. Israel had direct interests in limiting arab independence and therefore power.
I fear how those who oppose Piper's thesis would do if he came into this thread and defended his material. While pleading to avoid any personal animosity and requesting diplomatic immunity on the subject, I suggest diverting the discussion to "anti-semitism" is, in my mind, a sign that the direct actual facts and their meanings are being avoided. Or maybe they haven't been understood?
Alas, I confess I have not the time to go dig into 'Final Judgment' and seek out the quotes. Maybe this discussion can be put off for now?
Another thing is de Gaulle's attempted assassination by OAS was somewhat similar to JFK's in the way that a right wing military oriented group refused to go along with his soft position on a rebelling colony. Israel had direct interests in limiting arab independence and therefore power.
I fear how those who oppose Piper's thesis would do if he came into this thread and defended his material. While pleading to avoid any personal animosity and requesting diplomatic immunity on the subject, I suggest diverting the discussion to "anti-semitism" is, in my mind, a sign that the direct actual facts and their meanings are being avoided. Or maybe they haven't been understood?
Alas, I confess I have not the time to go dig into 'Final Judgment' and seek out the quotes. Maybe this discussion can be put off for now?