Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Charles Drago]

This stuff can't be deflected with accusations of a certain agenda. It's too close to the credible facts. [emphasis added]

Indeed.

[Albert Doyle]

What I find fascinating about this is how it reinforces the Evica/Drago model. It looks like JFK was going after the main facilitators in his resistance to the WWIII slippery slope he was fighting. To me, that tells me JFK had a brilliant awareness of the Sponsors and their intentions and was battling them by going after their facilitators (since, according to their definition, the Sponsors were untouchable) . This is proof of their (as Charles puts it) supranational nature and loyalty to no individual nation. This is why JFK was such an important man and also why his assassination is so important.

[Charles Drago]

This stuff can't be deflected with accusations of a certain agenda. It's too close to the credible facts. [emphasis added]

Indeed.

The writer's dilemma -- the question that should not have to be asked:

Sarcasm missed?

[Albert Doyle]

This stuff can't be deflected with accusations of a certain agenda. It's too close to the credible facts. [emphasis added]

Indeed.

The writer's dilemma -- the question that should not have to be asked:

Sarcasm missed?

Facts missed?


I beg to suggest facts come before sarcasm. Who are the "credible facts" with here Charles?

[Charles Drago]

This stuff can't be deflected with accusations of a certain agenda. It's too close to the credible facts. [emphasis added]

Indeed.

The writer's dilemma -- the question that should not have to be asked:

Sarcasm missed?

Facts missed?

Question answered.

[Albert Doyle]

Question answered.

Indeed...

[David Josephs]

What I find fascinating about this is how it reinforces the Evica/Drago model. It looks like JFK was going after the main facilitators in his resistance to the WWIII slippery slope he was fighting. To me, that tells me JFK had a brilliant awareness of the Sponsors and their intentions and was battling them by going after their facilitators (since, according to their definition, the Sponsors were untouchable) . This is proof of their (as Charles puts it) supranational nature and loyalty to no individual nation. This is why JFK was such an important man and also why his assassination is so important.

It's too close to the credible facts.

Thanks Dawn... My only point is that I deserve the same respect from Albert for my convictions as he expects for his...


Albert,

All I see is someone married to a conclusion with no room for discussion.... not a crima against humanity mind you, yet makes for very one sided conversations.

Echevarria was talking about Cuba, IMO. That you wont see I am allowed my opinion without negating your conclusion is your problem Albert, not mine.
I appreciate your passionate presentation of the information... Now allow me my own thoughts.

The players Piper touches upon were indeed "close to the credible facts" and could have easily been instrumantally involved...
Israel and Israel's bomb is just one of many reasons for these and a host of others to want JFK dead.

A good reason, a plausible reason and one very likely to play in the final account... but not the ONLY reason

I also have no problem with your zealous faith in the conclusions or the procees that brings Piper there...
but respect my right to question and NOT believe Piper, as much as you want me to respect yours for FINDING the holy grail to the assassination - in your eyes.



So please... we're done - or at least I am... we do not disagree... yet I am not going to say that it was "Israel" behind the assassination due to JFK's interference with their Nuclear program and the fact that many of the key bad guys used the same funding channels and desired the same outcomes...
I do not think that conclusion is any more OR LESS plausible than the oil allowance, Vietnam, civil rights, cuban revenge, printing of money..... rogue CIA - we can do anything we want attitude

when one looks at the source of massive wealth resulting from JFK's assassination (which in great part funded black ops) and the shift from Peace talks to Cold War / Hot War expansion, SE Asia, and ultimately the Middle East, Israel's nuclear program and THIER concerns pale by comparison...

That ANY anti Israel or Israeli accountability is equal to an anti-semetic inquisition - similiar to questioning 9/11 for fear of "patriotic" reprisal - is the success of a very effective "campaign"
that thwarts democracy and the people's right to question the government and require greater accountability...



my .02

Enjoy your sunday
DJ

{go Yankees and NYGiants}

[Albert Doyle]

OK, David's attempt to obfuscate with irrelevant filibuster and anti-semite-baiting is his final position. While saying he's really interested in finding-out about Piper he isn't going to read the book. OK.



Meanwhile you have to ask yourself, with so much at stake for itself, and an issue that Ben-Gurion defined as threatening the future existence of Israel, is it really believable, as David suggests, that these "new jew backers" would only be interested in Cuba? That these US syndicate treasurers with their zionist dedication would only be interested as "new backers" in helping the Cubans? Is it really believable to suggest that even with Angleton being CIA liaison to Israel, and having taught the formers of Mossad how to be an intelligence agency directly, that there would be no cross-over interest? Even with Angleton being caught by Newman manipulating Oswald's files within CIA? Also, is it believable to suggest with Clay Shaw sitting right in the middle of both Permindex and its interests in both the Cuban action, CIA funding, and Tibor Rosenbaum's Mossad-oriented Swiss bank network - is it really plausible to suggest that these new altruistic backers would ignore all those firmly tied-in causes, directly related to Israel and it current interests, and only decide to jump in and back the Cubans? Yet David accuses me of being "narrow-minded". Hmm. I think David has the telescope turned backwards here.

I'm sorry but that dog don't hunt and it is laughably unbelievable to assert that this firmly tied-in interest would abandon all its seriously pressing needs and only decide to back Cuba when Israel itself stood to gain so much from "getting rid of Kennedy," as Echevarria said. It's simply unbelievable to seriously assert that with this proven Lansky-based Swiss bank underground and US mafia/CIA connection that those "new jew backers", with their proven dedication to zionism (as evinced in Rosenbaum's Swiss mafia money laundry bank), would suddenly become altruistic saints and decide to sacrifice their own need and only assist the Cubans as David so sincerely suggests. Who are you trying to fool?

[David Josephs]

OK, David's attempt to obfuscate with irrelevant filibuster and anti-semite-baiting is his final position. While saying he's really interested in finding-out about Piper he isn't going to read the book. OK.



Meanwhile you have to ask yourself, with so much at stake for itself, and an issue that Ben-Gurion defined as threatening the future existence of Israel, is it really believable, as David suggests, that these "new jew backers" would only be interested in Cuba? That these US syndicate treasurers with their zionist dedication would only be interested as "new backers" in helping the Cubans? Is it really believable to suggest that even with Angleton being CIA liaison to Israel, and having taught the formers of Mossad how to be an intelligence agency directly, that there would be no cross-over interest? Even with Angleton being caught by Newman manipulating Oswald's files within CIA? Also, is it believable to suggest with Clay Shaw sitting right in the middle of both Permindex and its interests in both the Cuban action, CIA funding, and Tibor Rosenbaum's Mossad-oriented Swiss bank network - is it really plausible to suggest that these new altruistic backers would ignore all those firmly tied-in causes, directly related to Israel and it current interests, and only decide to jump in and back the Cubans? Yet David accuses me of being "narrow-minded". Hmm. I think David has the telescope turned backwards here.

I'm sorry but that dog don't hunt and it is laughably unbelievable to assert that this firmly tied-in interest would abandon all its seriously pressing needs and only decide to back Cuba when Israel itself stood to gain so much from "getting rid of Kennedy," as Echevarria said. It's simply unbelievable to seriously assert that with this proven Lansky-based Swiss bank underground and US mafia/CIA connection that those "new jew backers", with their proven dedication to zionism (as evinced in Rosenbaum's Swiss mafia money laundry bank), would suddenly become altruistic saints and decide to sacrifice their own need and only assist the Cubans as David so sincerely suggests. Who are you trying to fool?

OK Albert...

Discussing this with me gets very easy when you get to both ask and answer all the questions.

What you fail to follow Albert is that I AM AGREEING WITH YOU ON MANY LEVELS... At the heart of the money supply are Jews... along with SE Asians, WASP Generals, the Bush family, the CFR and all its tentacles.

Permindex was formed in 1958.... the CIA and those associated with PERMINDEX were moving money and performing illegal "security based" operations PRIOR to JFK - agreed?
The history of money and wealth and government control and dark ops started WELL BEFORE - the "NEW BACKERS" arrived on the scene... - yes?

Nobody becomes altruistic Albert.... in the same breath that the NEW JEWISH BACKERS did not come into existence with the creation of PERMINDEX or for the JFK assassination... these Backers became known to Echevarria enough to make his comment on 11/21. He then refers to the Killing of JFK as a seperate thing

"OUR NEW BACKERS ARE JEWS".... "as soon as (we or they) take care of Kennedy" "AS SOON AS" Albert... as in referring to a seperate action... "AS SOON AS" one thing happens, SOMETHING ELSE can happen - i.e. the taking back of CUBA with OUR NEW BACKERS' MONEY.... for it was Kennedy's policies that were making it so difficult to keep attacking Cuba - he wanted to talk peace while the 12/63 plan was in full swing.

Why would these people - if they knew about the 12/1 coup plans, interfere when they'd be getting back what they wanted without having to do a thing themselves? You have to assume with the kind of contacts this group maintained, they KNEW about these plans, right?

You and Piper INFER that these BACKERS, who have been in place in one form or another for hundreds of years, are now focused and instrumental in the killing of JFK... DUE TO A COMMENT MADE on 11/21.
That the connections are there so they MUST HAVE DONE IT...

and no other explanation for the assassination makes sense... nothing else fits the evidence like these JEW BACKERS and the hatred toward JFK due to his desire to oversee (and keep peaceful) their Atom Bomb project....

Albert... you do not have the slightest concern over Ben-Gurion's defining the situation as a THREAT to the FUTURE EXISTENCE OF ISRAEL... being somewhat of an exaggeration?
A rally cry to secure the support of the USA... a cry that has been thrown around year after year since Israel is in a CONSTANT STATE OF THREAT...

Jews/Int'l Bankers/CIA/MAFIA/MIC/CFR were not in bed together so Israel could have a bomb Albert... that's absurd.
Nor would Israel having a bomb done much for the MIC, the survival of the CIA and other military/domestic intelligence agencies, communism in the western hemisphere, or create a flow of drug money unmatched in history..

yet Albert... if you want to hang your hat on Piper's persentation as the ONLY EXPLANATION - I am not stopping you...

and if you happen upon a photo of Oswald from 11/22 prior to 12:30... sure be nice to see.

[Mark Stapleton]

Albert... you do not have the slightest concern over Ben-Gurion's defining the situation as a THREAT to the FUTURE EXISTENCE OF ISRAEL... being somewhat of an exaggeration?
A rally cry to secure the support of the USA... a cry that has been thrown around year after year since Israel is in a CONSTANT STATE OF THREAT...

David, the ignorance of that comment shows how little you know about the final years of Ben-Gurion's Prime Ministership.

BG's obsession with protecting and preserving the nuclear deterrent is not just emphasised in Piper's book but also in Cohen's "Israel and the Bomb" and Michael Bar-Zohar's biography of Ben-Gurion, to name just two. The old man was so upset by Kennedy's determination to prevent Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons that some Cabinet colleagues thought he was losing his mind.

And yes, Israel has played the existential threat card on other occasions (like now with Iran for example), but the point you ignore is that in mid-1963 Kennedy wasn't buying it. That's the point. He couldn't get through to Kennedy no matter how hard he appealed, no matter how many times he invoked the (relatively fresh) memory of the Holocaust.

Kennedy's harsh letter of May 18 causes the most consternation. BG responds with a letter on May 27, which basically stalls for more time. On June 5, after a meeting in El Paso, it is announced that JFK will visit Texas in November. On June 15 Ben-Gurion resigns. He never corresponds with Kennedy again.