Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Albert Doyle]

I have found, especially on these forums, that the poster can't hide from the evidence...
They can rant and rave and misdirect and confuse... but when it comes right down to it, they can't convince or persuade if there is nothing credible to support them.

Talk about chutzpah. This is bordering on trolling. David has the incredible balls to suggest his transparent diversions are the rule here and the simple questions he refuses to answer aren't. While accusing us of "misdirecting," as he says, with our direct reference to Piper's material that he refuses to answer in public, he dares suggest his contrived diversions of general conspiracy history are what isn't being answered here. Classic.

Identifying things like "Mindset" and "would lead to's" and "could mean's" from the evidence results in pure speculation.
Piper and these two are speculating based on the information THEY'VE chosen to read, and with very narrow interpretations.

"Very narrow interpretations" that David conspicuously can't answer in public. There's a simple rule here. The more bs you have to enter to get around simple facts you can't answer the more there's something there that needs to be gotten around. David has succeeded in lowering the debate to his desired pissing contest, but he still hasn't honestly answered the basic questions while accusing us of the same.

You are right Don, I firmly believe that many of the world's "bad guys", Mossad and international Jews included, would benefit from the removal of the "peace" president and would have "done their part if asked"...
Oil, Military, Mafia, Birchers, CIA, FBI, SS, ONI, LBJ, JEH, etc.... all benefited from the removal of this man and his policies...

...AND??? David has an annoying habit of admitting Israeli involvement but then qualifying it with vague equivocations that never seem to make any point. When told that he has admitted something there that has gotten others ostracized and accused of being vile anti-semites he doesn't respond. The obvious point is, that of all the other organizations he tries to spread blame out towards, how many of them were called "new jew backers" by one of the conspirators a day prior to the assassination? Somehow, with all his evasive filler, David never quite gets around to explaining that.

Does Israel feel better when their Big Brother the USA has its finger on the button ready to blow up Arabs? of course... but that was not JFK's way.

...AND??? All you are doing there is reinforcing Piper's thesis while denying it at the same time. The fact it wasn't JFK's way (which is correct) is what led to his difficulty with Ben-Gurion and eventually what got him assassinated. David is dishonest because what he is saying here is, yes, Piper has validity, but then concluding the opposite when it comes time to admit it. David is a creature of the grey area. When asked to come out in sunlight with direct answers to simple questions he submits his grey area is the only valid domain.

I agree 100% it wasn't JFK's way. In fact that's why he tried to prevent Israeli nukes. And that's why Ben-Gurion had his breakdown. And why the Assassination suddenly had new backers. While indirectly admitting all this in statements like he makes here, David will show all this stuff only to return and say there isn't enough proof. Ha!

How in the world are YOU or Piper supposed to know what causes a man's nervous breakdown? I've been to every instance of Gurion's name in the book
and the only thing that repeats is this "Sy Hersh" SECRET WAR where JFK refuses to allow Israel to build a weapons program, all the while BG is lying to the USA and JFK while doing it anyway.

If anything, the book should be seen as an indictment of BG for turning his back on his greatest ally. and then to have FRANCE go behind our backs and provide the help is even more an indictment against DeGaulle and his lack of understanding of what it means to be an ALLY....

At least you're admitting the nervous breakdown now. Before you were demanding proof for it. While pretending to possess a superior academic approach David forgets that Ben-Gurion's mental collapse, that drove him out of office, was said to have been caused by his dealings with Kennedy over Israel's nuclear weapons. This was recorded in books cited by Mark. It was witnessed by those around him in the Israeli government. Your offerings here are rubbish David and fail to register the factual record. Your desperate attempt to make that proven record other than what it is is apparent - which only accents the travesty of your assumed superiority in this debate. David just tripped and stumbled in one of his own hoops. David's pedantic forcing of all this to Sy Hersh isn't working because the evidence exists well outside of the confines of Hersh. It exists in conformity to Piper's thesis as the simple questions David refuses to answer proves. David is not dodging those questions because of Sy Hersh. And, yes, Ben-Gurion did turn his back on JFK.

Isn't this EXACTLY what I've been saying all along and explain above? or am I missing something? Piper IS WRONG Albert... yes... Israel was getting a bomb whether JFK liked it or not... and he STILL sold them Hawks.

Nice try David, but no. You're dishonest because this has already been explained to you. The correct context of the Hawk sales (and not your jerry-built clutsy evasion version) is that JFK had to placate Israel and its lobbies with some kind of assurance of US backing for its defense. The Hawk missiles were the way of doing that while still maintaining his tough stand on Israeli nuclear weapons. David's desperation to grasp at this is obvious but he is only doing this to try and justify his false scenario against the obvious facts. And, no, it isn't what David has been "exactly" saying. David doesn't ever exactly say anything as his refusal to answer simple questions shows. David is dishonest because my statement was clear that Piper was wrong about initiating sponsorship but not wrong about his diagramming of Israeli involvement. In the end David swings his kimono out broadly by schmoozing "Hey, Israel was going to get nukes anyway". Despite all the evidence and sophisticated arguments that simplistic viewpoint runs roughshod across. Like Israel not being able to have an excuse for not cooperating in JFK's test ban treaty detente as shown in the widely praised Unspeakable. People love The Unspeakable, that is, up to the point it proves Piper.

Piper says Israel/Mossad/BG/Lansky/Permindex were behind the Assassination and
that ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM and JFK's insistance on inspection and cooperation was the reason...
Dimona was the reason BG, the Mossad, Lansky/CIA/Permindex get together and plot JFK's death.

The more likely case is that Israel was firmly brought in to the assassination and its cover-up by this impasse. An important switch was thrown and the existing underground CIA government that existed on the Israeli side as the Mediterranean underground suddenly became the official power. And this is something that's played-out ever since. May I say that when you compare my input vs David's in this debate that David has a real set of balls posing himself as possessing the superior argument. I have pointed out that none of the scapegoats you attempt to pass equal blame off on to have the strongest lobby in world history sitting right in the middle of the US government. Nor do any of those scapegoats have the US war power fighting zionist wars as their 'raison detre'. Nice try David, but your dishonestly-constructed counter scenario doesn't quite achieve the task of overlapping this truth or displacing it. David even admits this unholy relationship but never quite gets around to what point he's making?

Piper does not DISCOVER anything that was not already known... Permindex, as shown, was way more than some Lansky/Mossad/CIA clearinghouse...
How does Piper forget about Nagy, the Italians and the hunt for communists and facists?

Gladio is not mentioned ONCE in Piper's book... not once...
How can an accurate history of the CIA/Mossad in Europe along with a "set up of the situation of the time" NOT include this secret army, it's purpose, its funding and its activities?

Because with Piper/Al/Mark it's all Israel all the time.... (kinda like "3 bullets, no more no less")
with that type of preconception of the events... how else can THREE bullets do all that damage but the SBT... ?

This is just evasive filibuster David and you're not getting away with it. Smart and honest people will see you can only say what you say above if you ignore the operative evidence you refuse to answer. This is all directly tied to the meaning of "new jew backers" in the context of JFK's battle with Ben-Gurion. Wise people will see that your general evasions are only possible if you ignore Piper's evidence as you do. Those entities you use to evade Piper's context have nothing to do with Israel's direct interests in the assassination. A truthful rendering of them would show that Israel was so networked in to that CIA power in Europe that it could safely rely on it post-assassination and did. In the end, in David's classic tradition, it's his arguments that don't show any thing new. Piper, on the other hand, reveals deeply scandalous, unpopular, and previously-undisclosed assassination conspiracy evidence very valuable to deep political understanding. David's kivetching is just noise compared to this and should be treated as so.

Since the question includes the answer's assumption there is no arguing it... from: "The Warren Report, The Truth, and Arlen Specter" by Gaeton Fonzi
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics...ecter.html

And when Specter is confronted with evidence which conflicts with his conclusions,
he usesas the Commission Report often dida form of reverse logic to refute
it. For instance: "Talk about the grassy knoll and shots?" he says. "The
bullets didn't enter from that direction."

Columnist Murray Kempton has said: "The case against Oswald badly needs an
unimpeachable eyewitness."

David, once again, tries to draw the debate out into irrelevant, ruminating discussion of non-related assassination material. Pure evidence of his attempt to filibuster around the operative evidence. David, once again, doing a ballsy reversal of who is assuming the Lone Nut position here and denying the conspiracy evidence.

the case against Israel needs AUTHENTICATED proof, not just speculative coincidences and faith... from THAT argument on ANY topic, I will not back down
Cheers
DJ

Your filibustering bullshit in combination with your flagrant dodging of simple questions should be all the "evidence" most honest people need. A sure sign of guilt is people who shout loudly for "Authenticated proof" when the evidence is obvious. I beg people to notice that, while labeling Mark and myself as being like Specter, that this is the exact method persons like Von Pein and other well-known LNer's use against the assassination evidence. David proudly boasts of refusing to back down, but like Cinque, spears himself on his own lack of anything backing that.

Thank you very much for doing that in public David. Please go and put your clothes back on. Your protesting too much has been duly noted.