Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Magda Hassan]

I totally know what you mean Vas. It seems really pointless in so may ways since it is a non starter. However, I'm fine for the thread to go on. Mark said he was going to rebut Seamus's work and vis a versa. It might be good to have it all out in point form and debate the merits or other wise of each point. Lay it to rest once and for all. This way too newcomers to the investigation can save themselves a lot of trouble by having an archive they can refer to. Save reinventing the wheel.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Ok Magda, and i hope taht Seamus will write the article about piper's book in CTKA

[Magda Hassan]

Ok Magda, and i hope taht Seamus will write the article about piper's book in CTKA

I think he is working on it soon if not now.

[Mark Stapleton]

Yes, the LN theory is garbage too. You yourself have said it is all just supposition. There is little to show for it. Other theories have far stronger legs to stand on than this one. Outside the lone nut theory it is one of the weakest theories around so I suppose that is enough for some to ridicule it but it is not your baby Mark. Why are you so wedded to it? It's like it is personal with you. Why not go for some thing stronger with more substance to it? Why aren't you looking at other theories?

Magda, with respect, this isn't a restaurant and you aren't a waitress. Everything else on the menu stinks anyway.

My reply to Don Jeffries thoughtful post (#101) seems to have disappeared down the sink hole. Don't worry, I'm not suggesting anything sinister. It's just a shame. I don't have the energy to write it again.

[Albert Doyle]

The thesis, that Israel assassinated JFK, is not proved.

The assertion, that Israel owns, controls, directs U.S. policy is belied by its exclusion from the recent counterterrorism conference as the series of events in the Arab Spring work against its interest.

Secular regimes are replaced by Islamist ones. Witness the remarks of the General Guide of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Mohammed Badie on June 14:

"How happy would be the Muslims if all Muslim rulers made the Palestinian cause a pivotal issue, around which Muslims, rulers and the ruled, would line up," he stated. According to Badie, they would ally to make "the sole goal for all of them the recovery of al Aqsa Mosque, freeing it from the filth of the Zionists, and imposing Muslim rule throughout beloved Palestine."

This is a government installed with the congratulations of the current U.S. president. Shall we expect per the extant thesis that the congratulator is now persona non grata to Israel's "psychopathic leaders" and its "murderous Mossad"?

Never thought I would disagree with the deep poet bard. In the end if the CIA helped form the "revolutions" that displaced previous arab leaders they would form a bond with those revolutions at an important level that would be remembered. The objective here was to destabilize arab states. The entrenched leaders of those countries aspired more to anti-Israeli politics than Islamic. If CIA helped overthrow those entrenched leaders and their governments they would be undermining the established anti-Israel order in the region. If those governments were replaced by Islamic governments that would only make a more ripe and justifiable target for the already-in-place War On Terror forces. This, in fact, brings out a more polarized 'enemy' that is easier to justify attacks against by this international force. This action is designed to delegitimize the political validity of those arab nations. You couldn't think of a better way to do that than Islamicizing them at a time when you are trying to get the rest of the world to see them as dangerous terrorists. This drastic polarization and inflamation only serves the same Military Industrial Complex powers that sought to create a profitable need for their military involvement just as they did during Kennedy's time. To say this doesn't serve Israel's purposes, and is therefore invalid, is to miss that these countries were already out to get Israel anyway. The end goal being that popular movements can be coopted and eventually shed their Islamic elements in favor of international I-Phone/internet culture which is automatically pro-Israel. Typical of CIA/Mossad, there's an end game here that isn't immediately visible from its direct parts.

Placing "Zionists" as Sponsors in the assassination of JFK is tantamount to granting them Sponsorship status in the long-view business model rather than the primitive and simplistic ad hoc model revolving around one day in the Autumn of 1963.

Are these Zionists then universal catalysts of evil or simply another in a series of pathetic false sponsors.

The pathetic thing here is that Israel had become a strong CIA cause whose interests were involved in destabilizing the Kennedy administration. This cause has grown into the CIA power that it is today. These forces flanked and overtook American democracy. Based on hate alone? I'm not sure.

[Albert Doyle]

Israel was a pissant country with a rag tag military surrounded by angry disorganised Arabs. Kennedy's concern was to limit the influence of the Soviets in the region and keep Israel there for western interests. Ultimately he was on Israel's side regardless. No need to kill friends and make un-necessary difficulties for yourself.

Israel was a nation capable of corrupting the most powerful sectors of western society into obedience for its cause. This was assisted by those same pro-military forces in the US that saw an opportunity in supplying Israel's aggressive intentions. I find that Israel supporters tend to use the poor victim state argument when it suits their purposes, however one look at Israel will show it to be one of the most powerful nations in the world. Probably the most powerful when it comes to impunity.

Your last two lines ignore the fact Kennedy was in a desperate struggle with Ben-Gurion over nuclear weapons. One that drove Ben-Gurion to a nervous breakdown and resignation. JFK was on Israel's side all right, but only in the sense that they cooperated with his peace-making sensibility. Something any honest person would admit Israel was in diametric opposition to. I don't see how people could ignore the Mearscheimer and Walt summation of this situation.

But Mordechai was a man who was in a position to do much more damage to the military state of Israel than JFK could hope to do. He was an eyewitness to the truth and he was a man of conscience. His expose of the weapons programme could have and should have, according to US law, put an end to all US military aid. Very very serious money in the mid 1980's as it is today. Not as it was in 1963. But they didn't kill Mordechai either. And they could have so much more easily. No one would have even known and no blow back. Cindy could have ditched him over board on that boat they holidayed on. Just like Robert Maxwell. Just another poor swimmer.

Maybe Vanunu was smart enough to have files kept by a trusted lawyer or friend if ever he was killed? Just because they didn't kill Vanunu doesn't mean he didn't have knowledge that backed Piper's (non-Sponsor) information. They didn't kill Lansky either, even though he had become a hot potato for all involved. The fact that Vanunu's information was absorbed by the Unspeakable might evidence why there was no need to kill him.

[Albert Doyle]

Ok let's say for the shake of the argument that Israelis were involved at the Facilitator-mechanics level.
Again they would have been junior partners in the crime not the prime movers.

For "junior partners" it's funny how Israel, or persons of strong pro-Israel politics, show-up at all the most influential and powerful locations in the assassination, as Piper details.

Piper tried to convince us that Israel and Ben Gurion were the big sponsors of the conspiracy which is a different game all together. It is classical disinformation that mixes facts with fiction, concentrates in a detail blown out of proportion and the end result is to discredit anything that might be true.

Funny how a "blown out of proportion" detail would cause a Prime Minister to resign in a state of compromised mental health.

I wouldn't rush to discrediting the true parts so quickly. Instead of making excuses to dismiss them, why don't we discuss them instead? You'll find they lead to some of the most powerful influences and networks in the assassination. During the War On Terror the US Government was saying "follow the money". When you do that with the Kennedy assassination it leads right square back to the same covert funding sources for Israel. So it would be accurate to say that the nuclear issue was not the only one involved. Lansky was funding Israel through this Tibor Rosenbaum network. Bobby Kennedy was going after Hoover's 'non-existent' mafia. This wasn't only about nukes.

It is pointless to discuss this any further, we'll end up repeating ourselves, saying the same things in another 100 posts and we 'll never convince Mark or Albert about the fallacy of the Piper book.

In my opinion you can't credibly do that without discussing Piper's outlining of the Mediterranean - Swiss Bank - CIA - Israel connection. I think some people's political bias won't let them be convinced of the influence of the Mediterranean network Piper exposes.

The main thing is that Israel is a false sponsor that provides cover and alibi to the real sponsors, and this were this thread should end. We have a difference in opinion and there is no way that we'll ever agree. This is the democratic way.
Besides if anyone wants to become a tool that will help the sponsors to perpetutae the big lie, it's their right to do so. History will judge us all, no question about that.

I don't think the Evica model should be used as a blunt instrument. Yes, it is important to identify the Sponsors and the footprint of their actions, however it is also important to identify key facilitators too.


You're quitting too quickly.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Albert

This is my response regarding Lansky in an oldest thread

CH: As for Lansky in particular and OC in general: Do you conclude that he/they are Facilitators, Sponsors, and/or patsys?
V: This is a difficult one. If Ruby was involved in a plot to kill JFK and he was calling Rosselli, Gruber and McWillie then we should conclude that Lansky was also involved. If Ruby was not involved then all of them might have been involved with Oswald in Anti-Castro operations unrelated to JFK.
On the other hand The Lansky syndicate and Trafficante had a business interest in South East Asia and specifically the Golden triangle of heroin. They had cooperated with Helliwell and JM/WAVE in laundering drug money, in Lansky casinos and Florida banks.
So in my mind, Lansky was either another patsy, or he was used by the Far-East CIA elements involved in the assignation to launder drug money that were used to facilitate the assassination. It would have been easier and safer than to use H.L.Hunt's money to finance it.

And since you would like to repeat ourselves , here we go again

Israel is the cover and alibi of the real sponsors, and Piper's book a disinformation project with respect to the sum of its parts

[Jan Klimkowski]

Placing "Zionists" as Sponsors in the assassination of JFK is tantamount to granting them Sponsorship status in the long-view business model rather than the primitive and simplistic ad hoc model revolving around one day in the Autumn of 1963.

Are these Zionists then universal catalysts of evil or simply another in a series of pathetic false sponsors.

We have had Blakey and North and others crying out that organized crime, Marcello, Trafficante, et al, are the killers.

For Zirbel, and McClellan, and Nelson, and Morrow, it is LBJ.

The never-boring Frank Fiorini-Sturgis floated the KGB using Oswald.

The Israel-Zionist-Mossad thesis is not the final judgment.

It is speculation driven by palpable hatred.

This wasn't personal. This was business.

The Bard sings true.....

[Seamus Coogan]

Placing "Zionists" as Sponsors in the assassination of JFK is tantamount to granting them Sponsorship status in the long-view business model rather than the primitive and simplistic ad hoc model revolving around one day in the Autumn of 1963.

Are these Zionists then universal catalysts of evil or simply another in a series of pathetic false sponsors.

We have had Blakey and North and others crying out that organized crime, Marcello, Trafficante, et al, are the killers.

For Zirbel, and McClellan, and Nelson, and Morrow, it is LBJ.

The never-boring Frank Fiorini-Sturgis floated the KGB using Oswald.

The Israel-Zionist-Mossad thesis is not the final judgment.

It is speculation driven by palpable hatred.

This wasn't personal. This was business.

The Bard sings true.....

And very sweetly yes indeedy!