Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Albert Doyle]

Imho, he dug his feet in here in response to your aggressive, confrontational style.

I would also add "insulting" to that.I have to admire David for being new here,and putting up with Alberts addiction to ad homs.Hope you stick around David......

My posts contain more pertinent information than David's. If you read them they directly refer to facts and evidence Piper brings. For you to refer to ad hominems is only to come in after the fact and honor David's use of them to avoid the facts and evidence I was trying to get him to directly answer. David refused and referred to his contrived diversions as the guiding rule here. But any honest person could see the only reason he constructed that contrived alternate scenario hoops and hurdles course is because he needed it to avoid answering what I was showing. There's major dishonesty going on here that can't be gotten away with. As long as David and Keith, or anyone else, refuses to address the main points they win. No matter how much after the fact excuse-making is entered. There's a simple honest fact here, the more people come in and practice the real ad hominems being committed here, as is shown in the totally irrelevant opinions on style shown above, the stronger the points they're in denial of become. I mean it's nice that you feel that way about the subject or my style, but as long as you can't answer the points I made you're saying all that any honest person needs to know. That's where I come from. It's called honesty and truth. How you respond to that is up to you.

What's obvious here is that those who come in and make these totally irrelevant and off-topic observations after the real evidence has been discussed are only doing so because they can't participate in the real discussion. There were some very clear points made in this debate that are perfectly valid and deserve serious discussion. So far, that hasn't happened. All Keith is doing is personalizing this in order to make it look like a matter of personality. That's not honest because the direct facts are all right out there in thread. David dodged them like the devil and shouldn't be given credit for his deliberate dishonesty. Nor should people be allowed to only come in after the fact and enter the real ad hominems here.


David wasn't honest. He entered a ridiculous explanation for Echevarria's comment and refused to account for it. When asked he just continued to expand his filibustering of disingenuous speculation and blame-spreading. He contended that, yes, the Israelis were somehow involved in backing Echevarria but only for the Cuban cause. When asked to admit he was saying Israel was involved he never gave a straight answer. I pointed out that any understanding of the deep political scenario of the Cuban exiles would show that you couldn't only back the Cubans alone. The network was so intertwined (thanks to Piper's evidence) that it would be impossible to separate-out only the Cuban interest from that cabal. When shown this David entered more evasive filibuster and refused to recognize it. Frankly the idea that the Israelis would forego their own interests and only back the Cubans is as preposterous as it sounds. Especially when Ben-Gurion was recorded saying "the future existence of Israel" was at stake. It's pretty clear here that these one-liners and personal remarks are the way that those who refuse to discuss this deal with their inability to directly address the real and direct subject matter.


Sorry guys this can't be dealt with this way and the attempt to do so only emphasizes the truth being avoided/denied here.


David refuses to answer what exactly did cause Ben-Gurion's nervous breakdown if it wasn't Kennedy's "aggressive and confrontational digging-in of his heels" in refusing to allow Israel nuclear weapons? Was it Sy Hersh? David also blatantly refuses to answer whether or not Kennedy's restriction was right in line with what Douglass showed in The Unspeakable and Kennedy himself voiced at American University. Clearly if he was instituting a test ban treaty Israel would not be allowed to test its covert weapons that it was building behind Kennedy's back. THIS is where the discussion is. Not in personal snipes after the real information has been discussed.


Shame on you Keith for that cheap shot. This evasiveness and unwillingness to recognize the truth only lessens the credibility of those who practice deep political philosophy. You're welcome to discuss the facts and subject matter any time. The idea that David deserves credit after what he entered is incredible. In the end the facts remain unanswered. For those with good wisdom they will see the truth of this matter is what is in control of the entries one way or the other.