Valkyrie at Dealey Plaza

[Phil Dagosto]

Some do not like to hear only negative things about those who were murdered for political reasons - despite their flaws. They were not perfect, but the TOWERED above those who murdered them and our polity - those who secretly rule now.

I object to victim blaming in the case of political assassinations, particularly when the allegations are recycled bullshit from discredited sources that is dredged up and regurgitated by those who have neither the expertise in the case nor the judgement to be able to distinguish fact from fiction.

[Lauren Johnson]

Some do not like to hear only negative things about those who were murdered for political reasons - despite their flaws. They were not perfect, but the TOWERED above those who murdered them and our polity - those who secretly rule now.

I object to victim blaming in the case of political assassinations, particularly when the allegations are recycled bullshit from discredited sources that is dredged up and regurgitated by those who have neither the expertise in the case nor the judgement to be able to distinguish fact from fiction.

I have come to think that people should come to a forum and contribute to the debate as a member of a community. Trollish behavior seems to want to poke sharp sticks in members eyes and then insist that they have a right to their own opinion. What's more, this person might well challenge anyone to a debate fair and square. I've seen it happen way too much. Walking in to someone else's home with muddy feet and blaming the poor quality carpet for the stains is a bit much for my taste.

[Phil Dagosto]

Some do not like to hear only negative things about those who were murdered for political reasons - despite their flaws. They were not perfect, but the TOWERED above those who murdered them and our polity - those who secretly rule now.

I object to victim blaming in the case of political assassinations, particularly when the allegations are recycled bullshit from discredited sources that is dredged up and regurgitated by those who have neither the expertise in the case nor the judgement to be able to distinguish fact from fiction.

I have come to think that people should come to a forum and contribute to the debate as a member of a community. Trollish behavior seems to want to poke sharp sticks in members eyes and then insist that they have a right to their own opinion. What's more, this person might well challenge anyone to a debate fair and square. I've seen it happen way too much. Walking in to someone else's home with muddy feet and blaming the poor quality carpet for the stains is a bit much for my taste.

I don't get what you're trying to sat here. That I trolled Lateer?

[Lauren Johnson]

Some do not like to hear only negative things about those who were murdered for political reasons - despite their flaws. They were not perfect, but the TOWERED above those who murdered them and our polity - those who secretly rule now.

I object to victim blaming in the case of political assassinations, particularly when the allegations are recycled bullshit from discredited sources that is dredged up and regurgitated by those who have neither the expertise in the case nor the judgement to be able to distinguish fact from fiction.

I have come to think that people should come to a forum and contribute to the debate as a member of a community. Trollish behavior seems to want to poke sharp sticks in members eyes and then insist that they have a right to their own opinion. What's more, this person might well challenge anyone to a debate fair and square. I've seen it happen way too much. Walking in to someone else's home with muddy feet and blaming the poor quality carpet for the stains is a bit much for my taste.

I don't get what you're trying to sat here. That I trolled Lateer?

No! The opposite. You're spot on with your comments. Sorry for the confusion.

As Peter Lemkin said, people have the right to their own opinions, and I would add, as long as they are not spewing Lone Nut theories about JFK. A couple of steps back from this is the notion that JFK deserved what he got and, now, JFK brought it on himself.

The generally accepted assessment of JFK's assassination here DPF is best summed up by James Douglas' JFK and the Unspeakable. I am not a JFK researcher, but I have never seen anything written by the many researchers here who would disagree despite their many disagreements on details. And as you know, some of those debates are very heated. Considering Douglas' recounting of those harrowing days of the Cuban Missile Crisis in which JFK stood nearly alone surrounded by his hawkish advisers, saying he got what he deserved or that he brought it on himself, will not sit well.

[Phil Dagosto]

I object to victim blaming in the case of political assassinations, particularly when the allegations are recycled bullshit from discredited sources that is dredged up and regurgitated by those who have neither the expertise in the case nor the judgement to be able to distinguish fact from fiction.

I have come to think that people should come to a forum and contribute to the debate as a member of a community. Trollish behavior seems to want to poke sharp sticks in members eyes and then insist that they have a right to their own opinion. What's more, this person might well challenge anyone to a debate fair and square. I've seen it happen way too much. Walking in to someone else's home with muddy feet and blaming the poor quality carpet for the stains is a bit much for my taste.

I don't get what you're trying to sat here. That I trolled Lateer?

No! The opposite. You're spot on with your comments. Sorry for the confusion.

As Peter Lemkin said, people have the right to their own opinions, and I would add, as long as they are not spewing Lone Nut theories about JFK. A couple of steps back from this is the notion that JFK deserved what he got and, now, JFK brought it on himself.

The generally accepted assessment of JFK's assassination here DPF is best summed up by James Douglas' JFK and the Unspeakable. I am not a JFK researcher, but I have never seen anything written by the many researchers here who would disagree despite their many disagreements on details. And as you know, some of those debates are very heated. Considering Douglas' recounting of those harrowing days of the Cuban Missile Crisis in which JFK stood nearly alone surrounded by his hawkish advisers, saying he got what he deserved or that he brought it on himself, will not sit well.

No problem - just wanted to clarify.

[James Lateer]

Now I'm totally confused.

Definition found on the internet:
Troll

trōl/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: trolling
1.
Informal definition

"make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them." Example

"if people are obviously trolling then I'll delete your posts and do my best to ban you"

I have never posted anything on this site for the purpose of upsetting someone or eliciting anger from anybody. I am interested in provoking thought about any issue, not anger or upset.

Both Kennedy brothers were assassinated within 5 years, their older brother died after volunteering for a "suicide mission" in World War II, and their sister died in a light plane crash. And the fourth brother was both injured in a small plane crash and also was involved in a fatal car crash for which he was blamed. It's not out of line to question the Kennedy attitude toward personal security or risk-taking.

That's not to say they deserved to be hurt or be killed. If they had a problem, then it would be some sort of psychological tendency within the extended family. They may have had a problem. That doesn't imply, to me, that they deserved to be hurt or to die.

Ironically, according to CNN, Rose Kennedy thought her daughter Kathleen deserved to die and that it was "divine retribution" when her plan crashed (because she had married outside the faith).

The following is a quote from the memoirs of Hale Boggs' widow, Lindy Boggs at page 178:

[[[[[[[[["lt's fair to say that any president may be under threat wherever he goes, but many people were excessively, even uncontrollably, angry at President Kennedy about civil rights at home and entangling alliances abroad. Such troublesome groups as the radical right and anti-civil-rights and anti - UN organizations were noisily active everywhere.]]]]]]]]]]

When Lindy called the anger against JFK as "uncontrollable", I took that to be her BLAMING JFK for his own assassination (and absolving herself in the process). So I'm both sensitive to victim-blaming and I am against victim-blaming.

People are more interested in the more thought-provoking issues regarding Presidents and in general. Thought-provoking is not the same as anger-provoking (or trying to upset someone).

It's funny how certain people seem to carry their feelings on their sleeve when it comes to the truth or falsehood of facts about the JFK assassination. Not to point to anyone in particular, but it seems that some people who have adopted an exclusively pro-JFK posture and who have profited from this posture, are the same people who have to resort to the "hurt feelings" argument or the preposterous "libel" argument to try and suppress certain negative facts about the Kennedys.

This is, to me, just the "lone gunman" approach in another guise. If your approach to JFK and his history is to idolize him or to present him as nearly faultless, or put him on a pedestal, then fine. But the "debate" which Ms. Johnson suggested should occur may not involve only adulation of JFK or the Kennedys. It might even involve strong criticism of the Kennedys.

There is another legitimate point which should be mentioned. Some people have volunteered for the military and taken incredible risks for America. Personally, I was classed as "1-A" for Vietam. But then the Nixon draft lottery intervened and I was exempted. I was glad that I didn't have to serve, only because I didn't believe in the Vietnam cause, but also I would not have wanted to be killed. But I do feel that those who volunteered are probably better citizens than I am. I will admit that to anybody.

So to some, JFK's and the Kennedys' "bravery" is considered by others to be "risk prone" or "careless". That is merely an interesting and thought-provoking topic, to me, and not an opportunity to insult, anger, hurt or insult anyone here on this website or elsewhere.

As Shakespeare put it:

"Falstaff:
To die is to be a counterfeit, for he is but the counterfeit of
a man who hath not the life of a man; but to counterfeit dying,
when a man thereby liveth, is to be no counterfeit, but the true
and perfect image of life indeed. The better part of valor is
discretion, in the which better part I have sav'd my life."

Henry The Fourth, Part 1 Act 5, scene 4, 115121

James Lateer

[Lauren Johnson]

JL, please stop hijacking threads to vent your spleen about the Kennedy family. Feel free to start your own thread on this subject.

[James Lateer]

Got it. Thanks! And just can't leave it that I'm anti-Kennedy. Other than Rose K and JPK, they ranged from idealistic but deeply flawed like JFK and RFK to being almost saint-like in their idealism like EMK and RFK, Jr.

I would call myself a Kennedy fan and still am.

JL

[James Lateer]

I am now reading an excellent book on The Nazis and the Churches. The more we read in the way of The Skorzeny Papers, the more it looks like World War II and the "Cold War" were both part of one "religious crusade." If the Thirty Year's War is agreed to have been a religious war, then I don't see why World War II was any less of a religious war than that.

In the Skorzeny Papers, Ganis reveals that such people as the Tolstoy Foundation (a Russian Orthodox group) along with the Skorzeny-Franco-Peron types were clearly on a religious mission in trying to oppose Communism (and democracy for that matter). And throw in the John Birch Society (possibly a Mormon organization according to Harry Dean).

It looks like World War II, the McCarthy Era, the JFK assassination and the Vietnam War were all part of a basically futile effort to roll back the evil of "atheistic Communism."
In the end, it wasn't that crusade that ended Communism, but rather plain old greed, oligarchs and inertia.

More to come on this thesis.

James Lateer

[Peter Lemkin]

I am now reading an excellent book on The Nazis and the Churches. The more we read in the way of The Skorzeny Papers, the more it looks like World War II and the "Cold War" were both part of one "religious crusade." If the Thirty Year's War is agreed to have been a religious war, then I don't see why World War II was any less of a religious war than that.

In the Skorzeny Papers, Ganis reveals that such people as the Tolstoy Foundation (a Russian Orthodox group) along with the Skorzeny-Franco-Peron types were clearly on a religious mission in trying to oppose Communism (and democracy for that matter). And throw in the John Birch Society (possibly a Mormon organization according to Harry Dean).

It looks like World War II, the McCarthy Era, the JFK assassination and the Vietnam War were all part of a basically futile effort to roll back the evil of "atheistic Communism."
In the end, it wasn't that crusade that ended Communism, but rather plain old greed, oligarchs and inertia.

More to come on this thesis.

James Lateer

Well, yes...but... I think what you say is not wrong, but it was a bit more complex. If you read Conjuring Hitler by Preparata ,and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Sutton [and similar books], and look at how people like Prescott Bush and many other American Rich and Right wanted Franco, Hitler and Mussolini [and fascism abroad and at home] - not to mention some of the British and other European 'Royals', the full and very complex picture emerges - that was never told to the Public and still is not. After creating 'Hitler' and 'Nazi Germany' to thwart the USSR [which the US Oligarchs also funded and built up in order to be able to knock down and control the World], they lost control of their Frankenstein and finally had to fight it. Those in power mostly were against the USSR because of religion but more so their 'economic religion' and thus there was a common interest at war's end between the Axis leaders and powerful and those from the Allies - against the USSR...so yes the Cold War began before the guns fell silent in May 1945 and many of the deals were already made or would be in the next weeks and months. Today's 'War on/of Terror is just a continuation of WWI, WWII, Cold War et al. by another name and under another guise. It is the centuries [and longer] continuum of those in power wanting to control the Plebs through War and Deception - promising some economic and democratic security, while offering nothing but crumbs, at best - and really wanting to get back to Feudalism - where IMHO we almost are, albeit this time with smartphones. Religion is a dangerous tool in the hands of most in power - and those who want to rule others will do most anything to do so completely. While the masses want Democracy and Freedom, as well as economic security and advancement, those in power have never wanted to give it to them - only to use it as bait to control them for their own purposes - no matter the country, time or 'system'. This seems to be the endless duality and the period just after WWII - like that before and after - are just points along a continuous line of the People vs. the Rich and Powerful - who's interests are and always will be antithetical. We mostly see the actions of the 'Knights' - rather than their masters, but their masters are the ones calling the shots then as now......welcome to neo-Feudalism of today. I say realize what history has been and is and FIGHT for a change. The murder of JFK and the coup d'etat that it was was a major inflection point downward in the Plebs attempt to win some points in this endless War - and it has IMO been mostly downhill since...... but it need not be. It and 911 and other events - as well as the truth of WWII and Cold War can be used to enlighten the Plebs and make them fight for themselves and not be distracted, lied to and coopted by those who hate them and try to enslave and deny them......::willynilly::