22-10-2012, 03:31 PM
David's obviously not arguing honestly and hoping to string together some momentum from his constructed canards. However what is most clear here is that he is in open contempt and denial of Ben-Gurion's mental collapse that led to his departure from Israeli government. He is playing dumb and saying we have failed to document it. He obviously protests too much and attempts to deny a well-known and accepted event and its cause as described by those close to Ben-Gurion and detailed in those books.
Your "position" David is an obvious attempt to bypass the meaning of Echevarria's comment and what it meant. What you are doing is a regressive maneuver designed to digress into ruminations of deep political groups associated with the assassination in order to create an obfuscating filibuster designed as 'sincere' argument in order to get around the main issue. This is due to your not having read the book and other biases. However as I posted numerous times the key is defining "new jew backers" and who they were? Once you were as deep into the conspiracy as Echevarria was any group that prominent and powerful would have to be under the knowledge and control of the main cabal. Most likely Echevarria was referring to some kind of Lansky organized backing. It is very possible this had a direct Mossad input which would explain why this was now defined as a "jewish" interest. For you to try suggest this new separate "Jewish" interest was only interested in Cuba is laughable and only illustrates how ignorant you are of what Piper wrote and how much merit it has. I mean who's fooling who here David? Your attempt to claim they were only interested in Cuba is obvious as the desperate denial that it is and once you understand the bigger arrangement in that underground it is laughably ridiculous that these jewish interests would drop all the desperate concern they themselves had "for the future existence of Israel," as Ben-Gurion put it, and only back Cuba. But go ahead David, weild that weak canard in the face of all this and continue to assert a 'superior' position in the debate using those obviously cheap devices against the well-established facts.
By the way, what did cause Ben-Gurion's nervous breakdown that those in government around him said was caused by his exchanges with Kennedy? Or are we going to be dragged back into your footnote hoops and hurdles?
Your "position" David is an obvious attempt to bypass the meaning of Echevarria's comment and what it meant. What you are doing is a regressive maneuver designed to digress into ruminations of deep political groups associated with the assassination in order to create an obfuscating filibuster designed as 'sincere' argument in order to get around the main issue. This is due to your not having read the book and other biases. However as I posted numerous times the key is defining "new jew backers" and who they were? Once you were as deep into the conspiracy as Echevarria was any group that prominent and powerful would have to be under the knowledge and control of the main cabal. Most likely Echevarria was referring to some kind of Lansky organized backing. It is very possible this had a direct Mossad input which would explain why this was now defined as a "jewish" interest. For you to try suggest this new separate "Jewish" interest was only interested in Cuba is laughable and only illustrates how ignorant you are of what Piper wrote and how much merit it has. I mean who's fooling who here David? Your attempt to claim they were only interested in Cuba is obvious as the desperate denial that it is and once you understand the bigger arrangement in that underground it is laughably ridiculous that these jewish interests would drop all the desperate concern they themselves had "for the future existence of Israel," as Ben-Gurion put it, and only back Cuba. But go ahead David, weild that weak canard in the face of all this and continue to assert a 'superior' position in the debate using those obviously cheap devices against the well-established facts.
By the way, what did cause Ben-Gurion's nervous breakdown that those in government around him said was caused by his exchanges with Kennedy? Or are we going to be dragged back into your footnote hoops and hurdles?