Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Seamus Coogan]

Why is there such strong aversion to the very mention of Israeli involvement in the JFK assassination? Can we really deny that even in 1963 there was a tremendous vested interest on the part of the American elite to maintain and support a strong Israel? Certainly, JFK's opposition to the Israeli nuclear program wouldn't have been the primary impetus behind his assassination, but it could have been one of many contributing factors.

Don bro so to could have Kennedy's support of Patrice Lumumba. Yet, I don't hear about Mobutu planning a hit on JFK. Eisenhower was pretty staunch with Israel on numerous issues including the nuclear one. Yet, Ike never got deep sixed. The only angle on Dimona I could possibly see is American hawks in the administration adding this issue to a long list of things Kennedy was stalling them on. If this is the case Dimona is but a pin prick. Anyhow as Maggie says the horse had already bolted by the time Kennedy got there.

Piper has never been welcomed by any notable figure in the research community, to my knowledge. Again, I think many fear the "anti-semitic" canard. When assessing "false sponsors" vs. actual potential suspects, we ought to look at cui bono- who benefited? There is no question that Israel's influence over American foreign policy grew stronger with the death of JFK.

[B]So what are you suggesting mate? That Israel were the ones pushing, shaping and influencing this relationship? Next your gonna tell me it was the mob who were running CIA ops in Cuba. Now, I know by your conclusion in this post that you make some sense about Israeli involvement, but why even bring this above point up in such a manner? Sure they welcomed the assistance like the mob did, big deal no point making a silk purse out of a pigs ear. Further, I'm not scared of being labelled anti-semitic for calling someone an ass if they are Jewish or whatever. Everybody can be an asshole. Nor do I think established JFK researchers are pussies for not discussing the issue. Like I hope you are not implying here. The fact of the matter is quite simple Don, the evidence is very scant. And if you have not taken the time to read or have noticed the list of problems I linked in a previous thread, concerning Piper and this Israeli's did it stuff, then I really hope you do.[/B]

Cuba, on the other hand, has always been a "false sponsor" in my eyes. After JFK's death, Cuba effectively died as an American political issue. If the goal was to remove someone *(JFK) who was insuficiently anti-Castro, then why was there never another Bay of Pigs-like program? Why no further attempts to kill Castro? Even Nixon paid virtually no attention to Cuba as President.

What the hell lol. Israel an undisclosed possibility and Cuba a red herring!!! There are a number of factors at play here. You obviously don't understand a little thing called Kennedy building up a lot of enemies as a direct result of his bailing out of the Cuban equation. Further ties between the Cubans and Russians though tense and deteriorating, funnily enough by the end of Kennedys life (hence his envoys to Castro) were still militarily close for awhile after his death. The Cubans were and still are very loyal to Castro, hence the idea of an invasion like the Bay of Pigs invariably would mean heavy casualties and bad press. Another factor was the admins becoming distracted by Vietnam. Not to mention choosing softer targets in Latin America like Chile, were their leader got sold out by his own people. Tell me Don about the continued attempts by the likes of Orlando Bosch and his friends on Castro and their murder of numerous Cubans. These were well after JFK's death? Don't tell me that there was no operational tie to the agency, though they deny it. Tell me about the Cuban 5. Why is there still an economic embargo on Cuba? I really could go on. While there maybe some distractions pertaining to Cuba, to say the US isn't interested in those cigar munching commies is extremely naive.

The Viet Nam situation obviously changed with the assassination. The CIA and Mafia no longer felt threatened. However, General Walker and other right wing extremists had to be disappointed, since LBJ pushed through all of JFK's social legislation, which they violently opposed. Again, cui bono? Not the far right. Not anti-Castro Cubans. Those who wanted war, in Viet Nam and elsewhere, definitely benefited from JFK's death. And Israel's relationship with the U.S. government grew far more cozy. That doesn't mean they sponsored the assassination; I don't believe they had the power to do so, even if they wanted to. However, it's naive to dismiss them so cavalierly.

Naivety is the word here. I think its very naive and a tad arrogant to assume people have dismissed the issue of Israel so cavalierly. You will see this in the piece I shall do for CTKA, next year. Which again I really hope you will read. What's apparent from this discussion is not that people have shied away from the Israeli issue. It's clear that there has not yet been a well presented critique of the Israeli's did it disinfo, false sponsor BS for people to view. I likely won't sway the likes of Mark, but for those JFK folk on the margins I hope it will be a wake up call.