Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Albert Doyle]

Problem is "Albert" that the lawyer for the 30th of Novemebr group called them that, not me or the CIA.... Unless you can prove the lawyer for this group was CIA.

That's not really honest David because you were clearly using it in the context of muddying whether Echevarria's "jews" were simply businessmen. Just like you tried to weaken the context of their involvement to only Cuba. Both issues you don't really give any direct answer to when pressed on other than offering another of your overly-long disingenuous run-arounds. I see you give no answer to my contention Echevarria's backers were being sheep-dipped as anti-Castro in order to conceal their real interest. Classic Intel plausible deniability.

We all realize you're afraid to address me directly "Albert" ... your "did you notice" game is cute and all, but extremely juvenille.

As this entry shows, you really have no serious interest or credibility in this discussion. Again, another obscene reversal.

It is for this exact reason you need to QUOTE in your reponses... I never called anyone a BUSINESSMAN but since you can't post with any honest intent, why should we be surprised at this post? right....

Just like you never asked me for references on Ben-Gurion's nervous breakdown. When I quoted them you disappeared. This is low quality debate. I'm sure you seek that level of discussion. This wishy washy, space-wasting type of discourse commits the offense of diverting the discussion away from the true meaning of who those backers were and their intent. If you read Piper he makes a damned good case that you couldn't be referred to as a "jew" that deep into the cabal without being directly involved with some people who had serious, traceable zionist interests. You've succeeded in steering the discussion away from that by, once again, bringing things to the level of semantics. If you read Piper you'll see that the kosher nostra and those "Businessmen" were one in the same. If you read this discussion you haven't given any direct answer to that.

Dimona was proceeding without US
Israel already was preparing for JFK to hard line...
BG and Eshkol LIE THEIR ASS OFF about Dimona...

This has been answered several times yet you ignore it and return to the same point. It's pretty clear that you are running away from the reality that the effort at detente Kennedy was evidenced as doing in The Unspeakable would have forced the issue of Israeli nuclear weapons. I asked you if Kennedy would have asked the Soviet Union for an unprecedented ban on nuclear weapons and not included Israel as part of the bargain? You refused to answer the question. Instead you jumped ahead to the evasive suggestion that "Hey, Israel would have gotten nuclear weapons anyway." Well, according to the argument you refuse to answer it wasn't as simple as that. As I already pointed-out and you ignored, JFK had shown signs of giving concessions to the Soviets in his withdrawal of missiles from Turkey. Ben-Gurion wasn't stupid. He probably knew exactly what Kennedy intended. He intended to up the ante and go for an even bigger detente with Khrushchev. The flaw in your evasive theory is it ignores that whether or not Israel continued its nuclear program anyway there would have come a point where it had to explain why it denied this world peace effort and lied to Kennedy? Really, that's why the letters are still classified. It's also why Ben-Gurion was sweating heavy water. Another flaw in your theory is it deals in the context of Kennedy being dead. At the time that Ben-Gurion was breaking down he did not know that Kennedy was not going to be a problem. So whether Israel intended to ignore the edict you still have to answer for the contemporary incidence or juncture that this effort illustrated in The Unspeakable would have entailed. I personally think David realizes that so he ignores it and skips ahead to "Hey, they would have gotten nuclear weapons anyway." I'm not sure that's true, and I'm also not sure that that would have happened once Kennedy drew his lines according to the very withdrawals assassination researchers stress like those in VietNam and Cuba. David, of course, has to erase this entire history that is the main argument of cutting-edge assassination researchers and authors like Douglass and DiEugenio. If you're sharp you'll see that David is subtly revising the center of power to Israel by posing it in terms of Israel calling the shots. It is that very impasse over who would have the say on Israeli nuclear weapons that caused the showdown with Kennedy. While avoiding the entire issue, David conveniently skips ahead and says it doesn't matter. In my opinion, what Piper shows proves otherwise, as does David's (and others) inability to answer it.

It's funny that some don't realize how accurate a reflection this very thread is of the impasse Kennedy had with Israel. Kennedy was surrounded by people who knew what he was doing but preferred to see spooks and shadows behind him and wonder who he was...