Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[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.



.