Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Albert Doyle]

The FACT of the matter is JFK had little if any effect on developing Israel's Dimona reactor because Israel felt that their needs were more important than the needs of the world/region/allies... THAT is plain to see from what has been posted...

"Last Word" is something apropos here considering the correct order of things.


David's semantic discussion is the obvious dodge of the relevant questions it is. No matter what excuses he makes for it it's kind of obvious he can't answer the questions so he offers his usual filibustering load of rubbish in its stead.


What David is seriously offering here is a Bugs Bunny-like schmoozing that, despite all the credible evidence that has been shown, and how it fits like a glove to Piper's assertions, the over-arching idea that "Israel was going to have nuclear weapons anyway" is an adequate response. As you can see he is forced to offer that nonsense only because he needs to contemptuously avoid the operative scenario he obviously can't answer or recognize. As well as Piper's accurate description of it.


What David writes above is dishonest because Ben-Gurion's reaction by having a nervous breakdown shows how much influence Kennedy actually did have. Ben-Gurion was forced out of office because of it.

By June of 1963 Dimona was in full operation - JFK was not having the least bit of an effect on the producing of a nuclear weapon all the while BG is lying to its closest ally and friend IN THE WORLD...
but that charade could not be why BG breaks down... or the idea that if it became known to the US, the US would expose the lie and create all sorts of havoc in the middle east by the hands of BG, not JFK.

Utter mendacious rubbish designed to get around the truth. What David is really saying here in his backward, indirectly dishonest way, and by means of rogue travesty, is that Kennedy sensed that Israel had become an international liability because of that unilateral zealotry. He was also savvy enough to know how the CIA he was trying to control was involved in that process. David, of course, will ask for precise documentation of this obvious situation.

What's clear here is that JFK was setting-up a situation where Israel would be forced to chip in its part in the nuclear detente and show its good will by not developing nuclear weapons. David is clearly dishonest because if Israel was as comfortable and confident with its nuclear program as he suggests then it wouldn't have gone to the lengths it did like building an entire false facility and bricking over the elevator. Nor would Ben-Gurion have reacted so extremely with a nervous breakdown. David has an annoying tendency of fishing cheezy excuses out of the obvious, hugely-prevailing evidence. He once again acknowledges Kennedy's ploy to make Ben-Gurion accountable, but then draws the opposite conclusion from it.

By the way, why did Ben-Gurion break down then? (As you admit). Funny, David takes the Chomsky position above in his last line when he suggests JFK was responsible and not Ben-Gurion. What he's saying here is Israel's nukes were a done deal and Kennedy was foolish not to realize it (Zionist arrogance). That's a similar position to those who contend VietNam was unavoidable. The hard scrape against the grain of The Unspeakable here is deafening.

"The Dimona reactor became active some time between 1962 and 1964, and with the plutonium produced there the Israel Defense Forces most probably had their first nuclear weapons ready before the Six-Day War. When the United States intelligence community discovered the purpose of the site in the early 1960s, the U.S. government demanded that Israel agree to international inspections. Israel agreed, but on the condition that U.S., rather than International Atomic Energy Agency, inspectors be used, and that Israel would receive advance notice of all inspections. Israel is one of only three nations thought to possess nuclear weapons never to have signed the NPT ( others are India and Pakistan )."

More irrelevant text. All this shows is how important the juncture of Kennedy's restriction was in 1963. Obviously Israel would have been asked to forego nuclear weapons as a sign of good faith towards Kennedy's intended peace-making with the Soviets. That's what Kennedy was doing in those letters as much as David denies it. And that's what Ben-Gurion was sweating over. The CIA took care of all those worries with not only Kennedy's assassination, but the use of VietNam to destroy any chance of detente.

I have to thank you though for exposing this joke for further scrutiny... I've known the players and knew their stories for many years and had never heard how Sy Hersh found out what no other researcher or historian or close Kennedy advisor/author found out about Israel.... and Sy, being such a credible source (sarcasm alert !!!) how can we do anything but accept his being privy to something no one on the planet can coroborrate... or has ever mentioned...

You're not arguing honestly because you've already been shown this came from sources other than Hersh.

By now Albert...
you can have the final word as I'll be disconnecting from this travesty of research
and DVP/VB-like responses, "How could you be so stoopid as to NOT understand and accept this as the truth.... nothing else makes sense and you're a maroon for even trying"

You've done poorly by the facts David.


This only goes to show the depth and power of the Unspeakable and how even Kennedy researchers will serve it and its consumption of the truth. There's no scandal, including Israel's participation in the Kennedy assassination, it isn't powerful enough to absorb.



Shame on you David.

[David Josephs]

:lol:

hutup:

[Don Jeffries]

Albert,

I think David was initially open to at least considering Piper's thesis. Imho, he dug his feet in here in response to your aggressive, confrontational style. Read his earlier posts on this thread. I don't think he was outright dismissive to what Piper was saying.

I think Piper has been give short shrift by the JFK assassination research community, almost certainly because of the fact he makes Israel out to be the driving force behind JFK's murder. I emailed Piper a few times way back when, urging him to join the forums and defend himself. I think he did do that, on a forum I wasn't posting on at that point, and I guess he just was frustrated by the lynch mob against him and is reluctant to go through that again.

I think JFK's tough stance against Israel's burgeoning nuclear program could have been a contributing factor to his death, but I seriously doubt it was the main reason. Even if he'd been just as friendly to Israel as LBJ and all the other presidents after him, I still think he would have been killed, for all the other things he was doing to rattle the establishment.

[Keith Millea]

Imho, he dug his feet in here in response to your aggressive, confrontational style.

I would also add "insulting" to that.I have to admire David for being new here,and putting up with Alberts addiction to ad homs.Hope you stick around David......

[Charles Drago]

As do I.

[Albert Doyle]

Imho, he dug his feet in here in response to your aggressive, confrontational style.

I would also add "insulting" to that.I have to admire David for being new here,and putting up with Alberts addiction to ad homs.Hope you stick around David......

My posts contain more pertinent information than David's. If you read them they directly refer to facts and evidence Piper brings. For you to refer to ad hominems is only to come in after the fact and honor David's use of them to avoid the facts and evidence I was trying to get him to directly answer. David refused and referred to his contrived diversions as the guiding rule here. But any honest person could see the only reason he constructed that contrived alternate scenario hoops and hurdles course is because he needed it to avoid answering what I was showing. There's major dishonesty going on here that can't be gotten away with. As long as David and Keith, or anyone else, refuses to address the main points they win. No matter how much after the fact excuse-making is entered. There's a simple honest fact here, the more people come in and practice the real ad hominems being committed here, as is shown in the totally irrelevant opinions on style shown above, the stronger the points they're in denial of become. I mean it's nice that you feel that way about the subject or my style, but as long as you can't answer the points I made you're saying all that any honest person needs to know. That's where I come from. It's called honesty and truth. How you respond to that is up to you.

What's obvious here is that those who come in and make these totally irrelevant and off-topic observations after the real evidence has been discussed are only doing so because they can't participate in the real discussion. There were some very clear points made in this debate that are perfectly valid and deserve serious discussion. So far, that hasn't happened. All Keith is doing is personalizing this in order to make it look like a matter of personality. That's not honest because the direct facts are all right out there in thread. David dodged them like the devil and shouldn't be given credit for his deliberate dishonesty. Nor should people be allowed to only come in after the fact and enter the real ad hominems here.


David wasn't honest. He entered a ridiculous explanation for Echevarria's comment and refused to account for it. When asked he just continued to expand his filibustering of disingenuous speculation and blame-spreading. He contended that, yes, the Israelis were somehow involved in backing Echevarria but only for the Cuban cause. When asked to admit he was saying Israel was involved he never gave a straight answer. I pointed out that any understanding of the deep political scenario of the Cuban exiles would show that you couldn't only back the Cubans alone. The network was so intertwined (thanks to Piper's evidence) that it would be impossible to separate-out only the Cuban interest from that cabal. When shown this David entered more evasive filibuster and refused to recognize it. Frankly the idea that the Israelis would forego their own interests and only back the Cubans is as preposterous as it sounds. Especially when Ben-Gurion was recorded saying "the future existence of Israel" was at stake. It's pretty clear here that these one-liners and personal remarks are the way that those who refuse to discuss this deal with their inability to directly address the real and direct subject matter.


Sorry guys this can't be dealt with this way and the attempt to do so only emphasizes the truth being avoided/denied here.


David refuses to answer what exactly did cause Ben-Gurion's nervous breakdown if it wasn't Kennedy's "aggressive and confrontational digging-in of his heels" in refusing to allow Israel nuclear weapons? Was it Sy Hersh? David also blatantly refuses to answer whether or not Kennedy's restriction was right in line with what Douglass showed in The Unspeakable and Kennedy himself voiced at American University. Clearly if he was instituting a test ban treaty Israel would not be allowed to test its covert weapons that it was building behind Kennedy's back. THIS is where the discussion is. Not in personal snipes after the real information has been discussed.


Shame on you Keith for that cheap shot. This evasiveness and unwillingness to recognize the truth only lessens the credibility of those who practice deep political philosophy. You're welcome to discuss the facts and subject matter any time. The idea that David deserves credit after what he entered is incredible. In the end the facts remain unanswered. For those with good wisdom they will see the truth of this matter is what is in control of the entries one way or the other.

[Keith Millea]

Here's another cheap shot Albert.

15 pages on this thread and you have solved NOTHING.Get over yourself........

[Charles Drago]

If one were to search for a silver lining here, I submit it is to be discerned in the sudden, unprecedented improvement of Albert's literary skills.

Strange.

But hey ... stranger things have happened.

Not much stranger, but still ...

[Albert Doyle]

Albert,

I think David was initially open to at least considering Piper's thesis. Imho, he dug his feet in here in response to your aggressive, confrontational style. Read his earlier posts on this thread. I don't think he was outright dismissive to what Piper was saying.

He never quite got around to admitting what he did commit to Don. No offense but if we need a debate sensitivity counselor we'll call for one. Right now we're just dealing with the hard facts.

I think Piper has been give short shrift by the JFK assassination research community, almost certainly because of the fact he makes Israel out to be the driving force behind JFK's murder. I emailed Piper a few times way back when, urging him to join the forums and defend himself. I think he did do that, on a forum I wasn't posting on at that point, and I guess he just was frustrated by the lynch mob against him and is reluctant to go through that again.

I e-mailed him too. He's his own worst enemy because I agree he would definitely be the best defender of his own material. I don't have time to go back and re-read Final Judgment that I read 5 years ago. He's probably said his piece and doesn't want to offer any neck to be chopped, which, as this thread shows, is the pre-determined outcome of any and all discussions of the subject.

Just to make it clear I think Piper is wrong in his suggestion Ben-Gurion was the initiating sponsor of the assassination. Any lengthy reading of Assassination websites will show the conspiracy was already well-along before Ben-Gurion got involved. I think he was enlisted as a main facilitator and person who would lend cooperation to the cover-up in league with the American conspirators and their post-assassination intentions.

It's tough because it is like defending the involvement of Johnson while rejecting any "Mastermind" theories on the basis of Deep Politics. If you observe David he dishonestly takes advantage of this by deliberately putting Ben-Gurion mastermind words in my mouth he knows I have already clearly disclaimed. It's the facilitator evidence I am discussing.

I think JFK's tough stance against Israel's burgeoning nuclear program could have been a contributing factor to his death, but I seriously doubt it was the main reason. Even if he'd been just as friendly to Israel as LBJ and all the other presidents after him, I still think he would have been killed, for all the other things he was doing to rattle the establishment.

Like David, you've answered an argument I haven't made in this thread. The main strength of Piper's thesis is its exposing the Lansky Swiss bank underground that CIA's main funding sources were all deeply tied to, including the French Connection. This explains why the Texas police could be waiting at the docks for an arriving ship and not be able to capture a suspect. The ties to this are much deeper than people realize and they have to do with this cabal. The fact it doesn't appear in these post-criticisms speaks for the lack of validity of the opposing arguments. The "new jew backers" were operating under the interest that Israel would directly benefit by their participation in the assassination. Something David never registers in his offerings and serves as a fatal detriment to that which he enters. He tries to get away with saying the new jew backers he indirectly admits, but never commits to, were only interested in Cuba...

[Albert Doyle]

Here's another cheap shot Albert.

15 pages on this thread and you have solved NOTHING.Get over yourself........

Assassination researchers have spent 49 years.


You're still here.


What point do you think you're making there vs the facts evidence you're using it to avoid?