14-10-2012, 07:46 PM
OK, David's attempt to obfuscate with irrelevant filibuster and anti-semite-baiting is his final position. While saying he's really interested in finding-out about Piper he isn't going to read the book. OK.
Meanwhile you have to ask yourself, with so much at stake for itself, and an issue that Ben-Gurion defined as threatening the future existence of Israel, is it really believable, as David suggests, that these "new jew backers" would only be interested in Cuba? That these US syndicate treasurers with their zionist dedication would only be interested as "new backers" in helping the Cubans? Is it really believable to suggest that even with Angleton being CIA liaison to Israel, and having taught the formers of Mossad how to be an intelligence agency directly, that there would be no cross-over interest? Even with Angleton being caught by Newman manipulating Oswald's files within CIA? Also, is it believable to suggest with Clay Shaw sitting right in the middle of both Permindex and its interests in both the Cuban action, CIA funding, and Tibor Rosenbaum's Mossad-oriented Swiss bank network - is it really plausible to suggest that these new altruistic backers would ignore all those firmly tied-in causes, directly related to Israel and it current interests, and only decide to jump in and back the Cubans? Yet David accuses me of being "narrow-minded". Hmm. I think David has the telescope turned backwards here.
I'm sorry but that dog don't hunt and it is laughably unbelievable to assert that this firmly tied-in interest would abandon all its seriously pressing needs and only decide to back Cuba when Israel itself stood to gain so much from "getting rid of Kennedy," as Echevarria said. It's simply unbelievable to seriously assert that with this proven Lansky-based Swiss bank underground and US mafia/CIA connection that those "new jew backers", with their proven dedication to zionism (as evinced in Rosenbaum's Swiss mafia money laundry bank), would suddenly become altruistic saints and decide to sacrifice their own need and only assist the Cubans as David so sincerely suggests. Who are you trying to fool?
Meanwhile you have to ask yourself, with so much at stake for itself, and an issue that Ben-Gurion defined as threatening the future existence of Israel, is it really believable, as David suggests, that these "new jew backers" would only be interested in Cuba? That these US syndicate treasurers with their zionist dedication would only be interested as "new backers" in helping the Cubans? Is it really believable to suggest that even with Angleton being CIA liaison to Israel, and having taught the formers of Mossad how to be an intelligence agency directly, that there would be no cross-over interest? Even with Angleton being caught by Newman manipulating Oswald's files within CIA? Also, is it believable to suggest with Clay Shaw sitting right in the middle of both Permindex and its interests in both the Cuban action, CIA funding, and Tibor Rosenbaum's Mossad-oriented Swiss bank network - is it really plausible to suggest that these new altruistic backers would ignore all those firmly tied-in causes, directly related to Israel and it current interests, and only decide to jump in and back the Cubans? Yet David accuses me of being "narrow-minded". Hmm. I think David has the telescope turned backwards here.
I'm sorry but that dog don't hunt and it is laughably unbelievable to assert that this firmly tied-in interest would abandon all its seriously pressing needs and only decide to back Cuba when Israel itself stood to gain so much from "getting rid of Kennedy," as Echevarria said. It's simply unbelievable to seriously assert that with this proven Lansky-based Swiss bank underground and US mafia/CIA connection that those "new jew backers", with their proven dedication to zionism (as evinced in Rosenbaum's Swiss mafia money laundry bank), would suddenly become altruistic saints and decide to sacrifice their own need and only assist the Cubans as David so sincerely suggests. Who are you trying to fool?