Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Albert Doyle]

Remember, David refuses to answer whether Douglass' evidence of Kennedy putting pressure on all governments for nuclear detente is relevant.

You asked a question in there somewhere? Seems awfully rhetorical to me - again. JFK puts pressure on HIS ALLIES as the #1 Superpower on the planet, to strive for and work together for peace in the region.

Yeah right. Rhetorical? Coming from Mr discusses everything but the specific matter. Truth is, no, you haven't given a direct or honest answer to how Ben-Gurion and Israel would react to the unquestionable peace effort JFK was enacting as introduced at the American University speech or as shown in The Unspeakable. You got awfully quiet when I brought this up and never gave any direct answer to it (as you do here). Your answer above is once again wholly disingenuous simply because it doesn't make any attempt to give a straight or honest answer as to what Israel would have done when it had to account for developing nuclear weapons in the face of Kennedy's more than established call for nuclear restriction? Considering the question, and your answer in response, you have real balls accusing ME of rhetoric.

... JFK is asking HIS ALLIES to respect the desire for PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Does he come down on France for having supplied all the necessary material to this point?
Does the work at Dimona stop? Does BG lie to JFK's face AND THE WORLD about the non-weapon status and future of the plant...? Does BG's lying put both Israel and her allies at risk...

More dishonest schmoozing. First of all, if you read The Unspeakable, one of the first instances of JFK going against established power was his opposition to France in Algeria. So JFK had acted against France and wasn't afraid to do so. David, once again, runs roughshod against the established grain. The answer to David's disingenuous dodge is that Kennedy was acting against Israel and therefore didn't need to sanction France. I'm sure he trusted that France would fall back on its well-known liberalism and fall in line with the effort at detente since it was closer to Russia and would realize this worked in its interest in the case of a European land war with the Soviets. Once again, you're just fishing for excuses against the obvious and constructing hoops and hurdles that are easily negotiated by a simple look at the truth.

As for your last 3 questions they don't really try to answer the pertinent points that qualify them. They are simply your bulldozer points you try to use to change the reality and avoid answering the obvious. You see JFK would have held Ben-Gurion accountable. This probably made Ben-Gurion a little 'nervous'.

BG does not want detente, he wants to wipe all arabs off the planet... eye for an eye. I REFUSE nothing Albert... you just aint gonna learn what you simply dont wanna know.

And so David swings his kimono wide open in bold type while speaking in terms of having the superior position in this debate. (Forget the fact he's made no effort to answer the main points honestly)(He has, however, given us a very good example of zionist arrogance) How in god's name does "BG does not want detente" work against anything I said??? We're all saying the same thing. David, once again, practices his annoying habit of admitting the truth while drawing the opposite conclusion from it.

He also refuses to give any honest interpretation of Ben-Gurion's statement that JFK was threatening the future existence of Israel. David, if Kennedy wasn't denying Ben-Gurion nuclear weapons then why would he say this? David says this is a common statement from Israel, but he fails to follow-through and admit what usually follows after Israel makes that statement

Can't follow simple instruction either Albert... YOU concentrate on proving YOUR case, I'll state mine myself - thanks.

While being accused of refusing to answer credible points David returns with a blustering response that boasts he refuses to answer the points and will only conduct a parallel argument of spider webs designed to entangle the issue in a disingenuous counter scenario. The simple and obvious fact here that David really hates is that Ben-Gurion would not have said JFK threatened the future of Israel if JFK had not prohibited the development of Israeli nuclear weapons as part of his peace overtures. David avoids any direct answer to this and tries to schmooze "Hey, Israel would have developed nukes anyway." However there's some important things he hasn't recognized or answered that seriously qualify that. David now assumes the position of lecturing instructor informing us we haven't followed his instructions on how to conduct this parallel debate. But isn't it obvious that David must follow this method simply because he can't give any direct, honest answer to the obvious like he does here. He needs to avoid the fact that Ben-Gurion's 'semantics' point towards Kennedy having refused him nuclear weapons. David doesn't want to admit this or what actions it might have entailed.

"Honest interpretation" is only one that agrees with you - yes?
Now you have JFK threatening the future existence of Israel by asking BG not to produce weapons...

Repeating the question without being able to answer it is a sure sign of guilt David. By the way, everything points towards it as The Unspeakable shows. It's not me who has Ben-Gurion doing this but all the evidence you refuse to acknowledge. Really, David, how could Kennedy's battle with Ben-Gurion not be part of his American University action? Do you think Kennedy was going to ask the Soviet Union to stop producing nuclear weapons but then turn around and say OK for Israel? How would that have looked?

JFK did not DENY anything Albert... why do you keep saying that yet NEVER offer anything to support such drastic interpretations of the information?
We've posted the relevent passages and no one agreew with your "interpretation".

Very believable David. And Ben-Gurion was only being 'rhetorical' when he said Israel's future existence was at stake? David once again attempts one of his obscene reversals and points towards his gratuitous doubt and filler material as the rule here while being painfully unable to answer these simple points. Sure.

If JFK was sanctioning France for selling ANYTHING to Israel... okay you have a start.
If JFK blocked the sale of ANYTHING to Israel during this time - Hawks come to mind - okay, there is some evidence of this conclusion...

No matter how many times you point out to David that JFK used the Hawks as incentive to not produce nuclear weapons he ignores it and once again tries to force his excuse-making interpretation as the rule. He also tries to blame France. This is something my kindergarten teachers taught me not to do. The overt canard that JFK would have sanctioned France is not valid. The fact David tries to use it speaks for the credibility of his arguments. The suggestion that JFK would have sanctioned France if Piper's thesis were true is not logically valid. JFK knew that sanctioning Israel would have the same result. France didn't need to be sanctioned. Israeli did, if you recognize its regional strategic importance (fully realized today). I think David is a little arrogant in not realizing his very own "Israel would have produced nuclear weapons anyway" is proof enough of why JFK needed to control them.

But you offer NOTHING of your own but to paraphrase me... pretty lame there Albert...

I realize you must be completely demoralized for not being able to articulate your position well enough to convince anyone...
but you dont even post the supporting evidence for others to make up their own minds... I POSTED IT... but not you. and everyone can read it for themselves....

DEFEND your position or STFU already Albert... whining about me is starting to sound like an obsession... and is eerie...
Whining about "interpretations" when you barely offer the evidence to evaluate is a joke...

Let's make this simple.... You ... have... not... made.... your ... case. Now stop blaming me and put forth an effort worthy of your own standards...
If that's already been done and you've not been convincing, maybe try a different subject you CAN defend.

...and accept defeat like a man. or you can of course continue whining about it... and falling incredibly short with each attempt...

Gotta go now...

Later
DJ

I think the quality of the arguments is pretty obvious now. David can't answer the honest, germane, or operative points. He's in denial.