Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[David Josephs]

You do understand that NO ONE in the rgion had nukes yet...
Israel wanted nukes at any cost - even to potentially alienate their greatest supporter...

David, why do you keep restating material that has already been posted here as if it's news? Anyone following this thread already knows this. You do this all the time.

Albert has already carved you up and shows no sign of letting up. Cherry picking passages from Cohen to buttress your bizarre conclusions won't really help your case. Read the whole book, you can read it online I think.

I have grave fears for your credibility.

Well Mark... I've been posting for about 10 years now... I generally reiterate points as I find that not everyone who visits a thread will start at the beginning and read all the way thru...
By reinforcing the building blocks of an argument those that are just now tuning in can get the jist of my tone without having to read every post...

Your worrying about my credibility is very heart-warming... as I've asked Albert... YOU watch YOU and tell us what YOU think or conclude... I'll take care of my end.
When you ask me to look at a certain book... I do and pick what the website promotes as representative of the book... and you call it Cherry Picking?
And when I ask that you post more complete information from the same book... since you are so much more aware of its contents and supporting of its conclusions You don't.

Here http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/findings.htm we are offered some of the books key points... 8 main points and only one dealing with the SUGGESTION that BG resignes due to this pressure... (even though the pressure was not actually asserted until after BG leaves) If JKF and BG are such important aspect of Israel's Bomb... I simply ask that you post text where Cohen supports Piper, you and Albert... simple?
News & Findings

• In the period 1955-1957 a heated debate took place within the small scientific and policy community in Israel regarding the feasibility and desirability of the nuclear weapons option. When Shimon Peres put together the Dimona deal in 1957, and obtained massive French assistance, Ben Gurion gave the go-ahead to the project.
  
• The United States "discovered" the Dimona project in late 1960, almost three years after it had been launched. The late discovery of Dimona is one of the colossal blunders of American intelligence. (In comparative terms, this failure was more severe than the failure to identify the Indian test in 1998.) Israel and the Bomb revisits this intelligence failure.
  
• President Kennedy was the only American president who made serious efforts to curb the Israeli nuclear project. Based on a volume of newly declassified documents as well as interviews, Israel and the Bomb reconstructs the details of Kennedy's efforts. Cohen suggests that Ben Gurion's resignation in 1963 may have been triggered, in part, by Kennedy's pressure.
  
• The visiting American scientists never found direct evidence that Israel engaged in weapons-related activities. The book explains why. The book also reveals that the CIA, since the early-mid 1960s, understood and presumed that Israel was determined to develop nuclear weapons. By late 1966 the CIA circulated reports that Israel completed the development phase of its nuclear program, and was only weeks away from having a fully assembled bomb. Such information was never shared with the inspection teams that visited Dimona, nor was it accepted by the State Department.
  
• By late 1966 Israel completed the development phase of the nuclear project. Yet Prime Minister Eshkol forcefully disallowed a nuclear test, knowing that such an act would violate the unique set of tacit understandings he had with the United States.
  
• The June 1967 War had an important nuclear dimension. New and little-known Israeli and American sources suggest that Israel had improvised two nuclear devices and placed them under alert. Cohen suggests that some time prior to the Six-Day War Israel had achieved a rudimentary nuclear weapons capability, and during the tense days of the crisis in late May it placed that capability under "operational alert." By the eve of the war Israel had two deliverable explosive devices.
  
• The advent of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 set the stage for the most direct confrontation between the United States and Israel on the nuclear issue during the Johnson era.. Based on newly declassified documents and oral history Israel and the Bombreconstructs the details of the last American-Israeli confrontation on the nuclear issue. The two prime players in that confrontation were Ambassador Yitzhak Rabin and Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Warnke.
  
• A new set of American-Israeli understandings on the nuclear issue came into being in 1970 through meetings between President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Golda Meir. The United States no longer pressed Israel to sign the NPT; it also ended the visits at Dimona. In return, Israel is committed to maintaining a low profile nuclear posture: no testing, no declaration, no acknowledgment. With these "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" understandings nuclear opacity was born. Those understanding persist today.
  

and if you look at Alberts most recent post - I expect yout to offer the same admonishment over his repetition, ad nauseum, of what HE THINKS is accepted FACT and the position that Echevarria's statement (which he once again misquotes) has one and only one meaning. - The "we" in the last sentence was written with "(they)" in the original report.... they were not sure exactly what he said... nor was anyone sure of what he meant - except of course you and Albert.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...PageId=364

This reiterates what Echevarria said... as well as mentions how Mosley approaches E. in Sept 63 to discuss "some machine guns which Mosley could supply, in order that E's group of Cubans could invade Cuba" E's group turns out to be the "30th of November" and continues discussion of Mosley's bona fides as well as their groups desire to invade Cuba with HEAVY artillery.

to finish that argument yet again... this comment occurs on Nov 21st.... the NEW BACKERS are verbally identified followed by detailed deiscussion over the types of weapons - none having to do with JFK... yet all having to do with Cuba's invasion.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...PageId=369 A little later in the E/Mosley report we find that E and Mosley meet a rep of the Student Revolutionary Directorate (E's "superior" charged with checking Mosley out), an Agent Rogers tells us that lawyer Paulino Sierra may be involved with SRD and that there are allegations that Sierra's money is "hoodlum money but that Sierra has denied this and states that his backers are American businessmen."

So we've gone from a lower level anti-castro cuban tell ing us about Jewish money
To the next level up and that level's LAWYER telling us AMERICAN BUSINESSMEN... are the backers.... do you stop short since "American Businessmen" does not equate to the Mossad/CIA and BG?

I can't make that leap as I don't have enough info... but since you and Albert can jump to conclusions so easily... how about YOU explain it....

I wonder why Albert and Piper stop so short of completing the presentation of information from this all important report...
how these events continue to take place well after 11/22 and not a single word is reported about this groups POV on JFK's killing...

Mark,
Albert couldn't carve a turkey with a chainsaw... not with the poor excuses for arguments he puts forth... with the number of "would have's" and "could have's" he offers and the FACT that the following is one of the few CLEAR THINGS he posts:

Yet each time I ask him about it he refuses to even acknowledge this post stating the exact opposite of his position...

HE WROTE:
Just to make it clear I think Piper is wrong in his suggestion Ben-Gurion was the initiating sponsor of the assassination.

and

"We have 'new jew backers'...As soon as we get rid of Kennedy" - I think David is in denial of the dynamic that is clearly shown here. While David tries to mislead that those new backers were only interested in Cuba, Echevarria's statement is more than clear that the Cubans, as represented by Echevarria, were enlisted by those backers with the understanding that their weapons would come as soon as they got rid of Kennedy

and

I think a proper deep political analysis would show where those senses of "patriotism" merged. If anyone cares to notice, I think Piper did a good job of showing that. It was the manipulation of Ben-Gurion's nuclear needs and the firming of the Mediterranean underground/Swiss bank funding network that connected this new deep "patriotism" for the purpose of JFK's removal. The rest is irrelevant.

I think you can judge the credibility of people's input by observing their dedicated incuriosity. Like, for instance, their disinterest in seeking who those new backers were? Or who exactly told Echevarria about those backers? Or who told that person? The rest is irrelevant and is being used to coerce and intimidate, or brow-beat, persons with genuine interest off the topic in my opinion.

We are Not disinterested… we are simply waiting for Albert to produce the supporting evidence that it was who he and Piper say they were…

I've just produced evidence that suggest E's superiors are in bed with American Businessmen…

Maybe E, a lower level player didn't hear it right?
One would think that if Bloomfield was their backer it would be "Canadian businessmen", or "Jewish Bankers", or "American Jews" but that is not what is said….
That if it was "hoodlum money" AND JEWS he does not correct the "hoodlum money" reference…

Every time I go to look up your recommended sources I find more and more arguments AGAINST Piper's conclusions…

Sure be nice if you did half the work I have and posted the relevant passages in these books that supports your argument…

Instead of just trying to attack mine… I post documents and links..

You both - opinions, conjecture and ad hom...


I will repeat… the evidence stand on its own if authentic… offer some that readers can reply with, "Oh, THAT's what you are saying and why"… not a big sigh cause you spend three paragraphs attacking my position and not defending your own.

Thanks
DJ