06-05-2010, 10:24 PM
James H. Fetzer Wrote:Mark,
None of these things can be known with certainty, since that is not logically possible in the case of empirical knowledge. But some of them can be known beyond reasonable doubt, which means that no alternative theory or hypothesis is reasonable, given the available relevant evidence. I have been asked the question you raise about Israeli complicity several times before. I can only report that, based upon my research, while it may have had a grudge to bear against JFK, Israel does not appear to have played a role in the assassination. That's my take and you were asking me for my conclusion. Others have drawn different conclusions. That is mine.
The list of those involved appears to be substantial. The oil men feared he would cut the oil depletion allowance. Anti-Castro Cubans wanted revenge for the Bay of Pigs. The Joint Chiefs had concluded that he was part of the problem and not the solution to containing the expansion of international communism: he had not invaded Cuba (which they supported), he had signed an above ground test-ban treaty with the Soviet Union (which they opposed), and he was pulling our forces out of Vietnam (which they also opposed). He was threatening to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces. Bobby was cracking down on the mob. He was going to reform or abolish the FED.
Others wanted more for themselves. Lyndon wanted to be president of all the people. J. Edgar wanted to stay on as Director. An excellent study about JFK's evolution from a traditional "cold warrior" to a statesman for peace may be found in James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE. Another interesting book about JFK's death is David Talbot, BROTHERS, where he adopts Bobby's point of view. I may have been more confrontational than appropriate with regard to a confrontational post. For my overview of the assassination, you might read my review of RECLAIMING HISTORY archived on assassinationscience.com and in assassinationresearch.com.
Jim
very nice summation...