Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Albert Doyle]

the word "breakdown" does NOT appear once in this LONG SLAB while "resignation" appears 6 times...

At what point did EVIDENCE of a NERVOUS BREAKDOWN, as Albert has called it, become evidence of the concerns weighing heavy on his mind when he resigned?? For that is all there is in this QUOTE Mark... When WAS this breakdown? Was there actually a "breakdown" in the clinical sense?

Albert has a tizzy fit jumping down MY throat about YOU offering the proof of the HATRED between the men leading to his BREAKDOWN which in turn does NOT mean BG was a facilitator of the assassination (remember, Albert's words which he refuses to acknowledge after writing them even after specifically asked three times now...)

Anyway, Mark.... his HATRED for JFK over Dimona has now gone from the causal reason for the assassination, to: "at least controversial" quite a fall...

Another rubbish entry from David. People should be smart enough to realize that when the other side is reduced to extreme, precise definition semantics and counting words that they don't have much of an argument and are giving away the credibility of their position in the form of their input. And David is serious with this stuff. His arguments are now strict demands over the exact semantic meaning of words. But to understand what David's about go back in this thread and look at what he himself doesn't answer. For instance while accusing me of misinterpreting every one of his posts I showed that he actually did, according to his usual semantic technique, demand precise documentation for Ben-Gurion's breakdown (as he does once again here). One of the things that endears me to David is his admirable admission of being wrong and therefore establishing the true orientation of his obscene reversals as with Belin and Specter. There's a simple rule here. While accusing us of using weak debate methods David's semantic/documentation technique is what is weakest here. Common sense should tell you when you're down to raking people over the exact semantic use of words or counting quotes and commas you are telegraphing bankruptcy as far as credible argument. As is true once again, after reading David's empty discourse on the precise meaning of words and number counting we never see any substantive conclusion vs the arguments being made. What's pretty clear here is David has an unlimited will to continue to use real and honest debate over Piper as a venue for offering his vacuous input. However persons with a deeper understanding of the topic will see he comes up short of what is really there. In the end hair splitting over the precise and accurate use of the words "nervous breakdown" is not a credible means of discussing Piper. Once again, we have David saying far too much while also saying far too little. This is known to the wise as "protesting too much." Honest investigators would look further in to this event instead of number counting.


For those interested in real discussion of Piper we have to ask ourselves why Ben-Gurion never gave any reason for his forced departure from Prime Minister? What was it that Ben-Gurion couldn't say? I hate to criticize Mark but he has offered less than fully developed material. What should be noted is that the opinions of those around Ben-Gurion show a similar pattern to those around JFK. Some said there was no conspiracy and Oswald was the shooter and others admitted there was more to his assassination than the Warren Report allowed. Once again, you have to ask David to practice what he preaches. David, in his usual absent of argument way, suggests we take the word of those members of Israeli government. The Israeli government was no different than the US government and the suggestion that their word be taken without scrutiny violates David's own insisted-upon standard. While Ben-Gurion's state of mind was in direct synchronicity with his interaction with JFK over nuclear weapons David's main argument is that we don't have proof and it could have been something else. (Something he can't name while asking us to endure these empty lectures on semantics). At this fork in the road persons with genuine interest in what happened to Kennedy would not abandon the possibility that this departure was directly related to Ben-Gurion's interactions with Kennedy, as some Israeli government members suggested. This doesn't seem to bother David who blithely responds "I don't think it was related to Dimona" without ever offering any information to show what it was related to? Instead he tries to diminish the suggestion that Ben-Gurion left office because of a stress-related issue. By using this form of argument David relieves himself from having to answer the main issues and drags us into the endless debate tar pit he seeks to create.

Could it be that Ben-Gurion had this breakdown because he had been approached by persons who informed him that there were elements on the American side who were preparing to take care of his problem? Not an outrageous proposition if you look at the conspiracy framework Piper provides. James Angleton was CIA liaison to Israel. He was subverting JFK's power by supplying nuclear materiel to Israel behind Kennedy's back. Angleton helped form Mossad and directly trained its original members to be an intelligence agency. It was because of those ties that he was chosen as CIA liaison. Clay Shaw was a prodigy who was the only OSS member to be allowed into British Intelligence in Italy in WWII. Because of this background he was made a Permindex board member. With all this in mind you can see what a feeble offering David's "I don't think it was because of Dimona" is. As Piper makes clear in his book it was much more than Dimona. It was the Mediterranean underground Piper defines and details in his book as well, including the establishment of Israeli/CIA power through this underground. The US mob was tied in to it through Lansky which then involved the Cuban exiles as comrades. It was because of this Cold War-fused and welded relationship that no "new jew backers" could exist at such a deep level in the assassination and not be directly related. It is David's ignorance of Piper's credible showing of this relationship that causes him to suggest the new backers could only support Cuba and nothing else. If you view Piper's exposed cabal you would see right away that would be impossible. Not only could no "jews" with that much power separate out from Lansky's control, but they couldn't separate out the Cuban cause from the overall assassination cabal either, which firmly included Israel. In light of this you can understand the offense David commits with his superficial semantics and word counting. It's folly to reduce the debate to demands over the specific meaning of words with so much more out there of much more credible meaning. Piper is the one who bring this material forth credibly and in credible relation to the events.

Thanks again Mark for ultimately being gracious...

DJ

I think David is showing a good example here of not honestly seeking what Mark is really saying. David is, once again, desperately trying to get too much out of too little while ignoring the giant elephant Piper exposes and its true interpretation.