Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Phil Dragoo]

Magda

The question remains whether it was Jack Ruby or Nate Stein.

Nate Stein was an agent in Los Angeles who was used by Hoffa and his vice president Harold J. Gibbons.

Stein is mentioned in transcripts of the McClellan Hearings wherein Robert Kennedy tracks down checks written to Stein, some for El Al tickets to Israel.

Russell's On the Trail page 84 discusses this but with outrageous tales there's only the gestapo's word for it--

Jack Ruby in tel Aviv posing as a high ranking NKVD official recruiting--

Philip Agee commented that Histadrut was used by CIA.

Was Ruby seen in New York with Gregory Bardacke--

Efforts to confirm Ruby in Israel are inconclusive--

My sense is he was not there.

Cuba? Sure. Calling the list in Twyman's chart, yes. Going across the pond with AFL-CIO officials, uh, no.

Going down the alley on Dean's signal--you bet.

Honk, honk, bang.

Now he did go see Rabbi Silverman at Temple Beth Israel.

But that doesn't make him an NKVD officer.

[Stan Wilbourne]

Quick question: What is the difference between the United States Empire and Israel, fundamentally?

At the epicenter of power, is there a difference? James Angleton, just co-ordinating all those efforts into a singular interest?

If there isn't a difference, then "Israel" becomes just another "false sponsor." Like "Cuba." The "Mafia." The "CIA." "Texas Oil." "LBJ."

Set aside all the religious histronics, what is "Israel?"

I suggest that it is just another branch of the United States Empire.

Same. The same. Same.

Who/what is behind it?

In the forest, we always get lost in the trees...

[Magda Hassan]

Set aside all the religious histronics, what is "Israel?"

It is a Western cuckoo's nest in a sea of Arab states. A wedge to divide. It is a stick waved and poked at the bees by the bee keeper in the hive that makes honey. A place to dump the stateless problematic proletarian 'other' of Europe outside of Europe. But not too far... They should be happy with the booby prize even though they should have had Bavaria signed over to them instead. While wealthy Jewish, or should I say banking, families like the Rothschilds bought up land there from the absentee Turkish landlords they had no intention of actually living there themselves any more than the Turkish landlords did. New York and Europe and Beirut are so much more convenient and comfortable. It is of no concern to either of them the fate of their evicted Palestinian tenants and poor wandering Jews or gentiles.

I suggest that it is just another branch of the United States Empire.

Indeed. And the US Empire Pty Ltd itself being just another tool on the board for the players.

[Charles Drago]

Nah.

Just stating a fact.

Me too.

Non-responsive mimicry. Comme d'habitude.

[Dawn Meredith]

[
Am I going to wind up with the same level of responses if I start a Lee/Harvey thread?

No, David.

We will not permit this EF-like situation to recur.

Please know that your posts are welcome and respected -- even by most of those who substantively disagree with you on these matters.

Absolutely David. Total agreement here. And I am turning the channel. Not reading this thread, except some...The Piper issue was discussed at length at EF years ago.

Dawn

[Albert Doyle]

Albert... maybe it's time to up the dosage on your meds?

This is the pissing contest level David sought to bring this debate to from the start. It is also the uncredible level of debate he seeks. I ask anyone following this thread to see if David has honestly honored my points from my last post. Clever people will see he makes an effort to strip the operative information I supplied in my last post and redouble his canards as if they were the rule here. But any honest person could see the information he stripped and context he refused to honor is what David needs to run from. Simple as that. For instance he re-quotes my saying Piper was wrong about suggesting Sponsorship but then doesn't quote the explanation of why Piper is still correct in his detailing of Israeli involvement. That is dishonest.


There's a simple way to judge this debate. David is a person who specializes in demanding exact firm proof and authentication. However he is also a person, who, while trying to draw attention to his lengthy irrelevant material, doesn't offer anything of substance towards the actual information being discussed. The way to judge the credibility of David's offerings is to realize that while demanding such strict proof he himself refuses to answer basic questions and has now withdrawn into the safe sanctuary of his own self-imposed position. But that's not good enough because it doesn't honestly address the real issues here. One of the best examples of this is his treatment of Ben-Gurion's recorded mental collapse. The biography Mark cited said those around Ben-Gurion in the Israeli government witnessed it was his interactions with Kennedy over Israel's nuclear weapons that caused it. As he does, once again, above, each time you point this out to David he ignores it. That to me tells me David, while claiming he was seeking to find the truth about this, is not really doing so. So as far as David's vociferous demand that we produce absolute documented and confirmed proof he very visibly fails to meet his own standard in the case of Ben-Gurion, nor does he admit that evidence when shown. You have to understand that the nervous breakdown of the Prime Minister of Israel is no small event. Especially one that drives him from office. Yet, to David, this doesn't seem important or worth explaining. To David nervous breakdowns are common and happen all the time. But in any case you have to realize that the great demander of truth, David, hasn't followed through on his own demands and explained the reason why Ben-Gurion broke down? He suggests it wasn't because of Ben-Gurion's battle with Kennedy over Israeli nukes, yet offers no explanation of what then caused it? Like I said, such an event is pretty serious. It has to have an explanation. You would think if David was seriously trying to pursue the truth, as he says, that he would use his boasted research skills that he lectures people about and find out exactly what caused Ben-Gurion's breakdown in order to disprove Piper. What is David's response to all this? Well, besides medication advice, nothing. Hmm.


Who are Belins and Specters here? Honestly?

[Charles Drago]

In post 112, "Albert Doyle" writes:

"Ben-Gurion was driven to a nervous breakdown by his negotiations with Kennedy."

In post 155, David Joseph responds with the most reasonable and appropriate question:

How in the world are YOU or Piper supposed to know what causes a man's nervous breakdown? "

This prompts "Doyle," in post 188, once again to dazzle us with "his" logic:

"The biography Mark [Stapleton] cited said those around Ben-Gurion in the Israeli government witnessed it was his interactions with Kennedy over Israel's nuclear weapons that caused it. As he does, once again, above, each time you point this out to David he ignores it. That to me tells me David, while claiming he was seeking to find the truth about this, is not really doing so. So as far as David's vociferous demand that we produce absolute documented and confirmed proof he very visibly fails to meet his own standard in the case of Ben-Gurion, nor does he admit that evidence when shown. You have to understand that the nervous breakdown of the Prime Minister of Israel is no small event. Especially one that drives him from office. Yet, to David, this doesn't seem important or worth explaining. To David nervous breakdowns are common and happen all the time. But in any case you have to realize that the great demander of truth, David, hasn't followed through on his own demands and explained the reason why Ben-Gurion broke down?" [emphasis added by Drago]

Your obligation, "Albert," to "produce absolute documented and confirmed proof" for the propositions on which you base your arguments is not relieved by the behavior of any other correspondent in this area. Your dodge, alas, is less than artful.

Another thing, "Albert:" Please try your best to understand that David is under no obligation to offer a hypothesis regarding "the reason why Ben-Gurion broke down." Were he to do so, he would be guilty of the very intellectual dishonesty that you so eagerly embrace and ape.

Also come to grips with the fact that not all Jews are psychoanalysts -- although most are carriers. (This ends the abbreviated humor portion of our program.)

Finally, while I have your attention: Are you, "Albert Doyle," prepared to give us your word of honor that you are the sole author of all posts (with the exception of attributable quotes) made under your name on this and other JFK assassination-related Internet sites?

Do it convincingly, and I'll remove the quotation marks/inverted commas from "your" name.

[Albert Doyle]

It was written in the biography Mark cited. Those around Ben-Gurion said he became so obsessed with his battle with Kennedy over nuclear weapons that he had a nervous breakdown and was forced out of office because of it. Remember Israel was creating false facilities at Dimona and bricking-over elevators at this time. Even David indirectly admits this.


It's amazing what some people will do to avoid that simple fact.


Your "agnosticism" is showing Charles.


Charles ignores the fact that David first asked us to provide documentation of this nervous breakdown. His most recent posts acknowledge the breakdown. So David has already conceded it. I am asking David to practice what he preaches and follow his own advice and document what caused the nervous breakdown he now admits?


I'd also like to remind Charles he was the person who said I was free to take an opinion that differed from the Deep Politics website majority.

[Greg Burnham]

It was written in the biography Mark cited. Those around Ben-Gurion said he became so obsessed with his battle with Kennedy over nuclear weapons that he had a nervous breakdown and was forced out of office because of it. Remember Israel was creating false facilities at Dimona and bricking-over elevators at this time. Even David indirectly admits this.


It's amazing what some people will do to avoid that simple fact.


Your "agnosticism" is showing Charles.


Charles ignores the fact that David first asked us to provide documentation of this nervous breakdown. His most recent posts acknowledge the breakdown. So David has already conceded it. I am asking David to practice what he preaches and follow his own advice and document what caused the nervous breakdown he now admits?


I'd also like to remind Charles he was the person who said I was free to take an opinion that differed from the Deep Politics website majority.

Albert,

Even if Ben-Gurion indeed had a nervous breakdown the question "why" has not been adequately answered in my view. So far the reasons cited are supposition--or perhaps--unsupported or weakly supported assertions. The real cause may not be knowable at this juncture.

I can't speak for Charles, but I'm pretty sure you are still free to take a different opinion, Albert. I'm just not sure "y'all" are though.

[David Josephs]

It was written in the biography Mark cited. Those around Ben-Gurion said he became so obsessed with his battle with Kennedy over nuclear weapons that he had a nervous breakdown and was forced out of office because of it. Remember Israel was creating false facilities at Dimona and bricking-over elevators at this time. Even David indirectly admits this.


It's amazing what some people will do to avoid that simple fact.


Your "agnosticism" is showing Charles.


Charles ignores the fact that David first asked us to provide documentation of this nervous breakdown. His most recent posts acknowledge the breakdown. So David has already conceded it. I am asking David to practice what he preaches and follow his own advice and document what caused the nervous breakdown he now admits?


I'd also like to remind Charles he was the person who said I was free to take an opinion that differed from the Deep Politics website majority.

Tell me that your whole point here was not to get me to admit to BG's breakdown... I am not questioning it since I am not specifically aware of it... all I'm doing is question your ability, or anyone's for that matter, to know WHY the man experienced what he did...

I did NOT ask for documentation of the breakdown - you misstate my intentions and meaning in every post Albert... I asked for documentation of the JFK/BG hatred that supposedly leads to his involvement in planning the assassination...

The letters and citations do not justify the HATRED AND ANGER you and Piper attribute to the relationship... it simply is not there. Regardless of whether Israeli's and Mr. Hersh say so... Like syaing RFK had an affair with Jackie... Saying it does not make it so Albert... and when not one other historian can find supporting evidence of such a rift between these men,other than Sy Hersh and friends, I for one am not convinced.

Futhermore - why do you distance yourself from your own posts?

YOU WROTE: Did you not?
Just to make it clear I think Piper is wrong in his suggestion Ben-Gurion was the initiating sponsor of the assassination.

If he is wrong about BG being an initiating sponsor and just was an agreeable ex-ally... what difference does his relationship to JFK and his breakdown make to OTHER PEOPLE planning the assassination... if you can prove these other people were involved... there is strong circumstancial evidence that tyhe players Piper discusses are involved... but NOT due to his overriding conclusion that it was the BG nuclear situation that pushes that boulder down the mountain...

Finally Albert... "OPINION" remains the key word here... an OPINION based on what the evidence tells you... is just as right or wrong as any other OPINION... when, for example, you can remove speculation from the evidence and let the evidence itself provide the conclusion, OPINION turns to fact... like the FACT that Klein's never sent Hidell anything... or the FACT that Seaport never sent Hidell anything...

These can be proven with documentation... Do you have the secret tapes of BG's psychoanalysis where he claims it was JFK's stance on his nuclear program that causes his problems? Or the concern that a substantial portion of the 80 million arabs were ready to blow Israel of the map at any second?

Do you realize that BG was moving forward anyway? That whatever JFK said and did had NO EFFECT AT ALL on the progress of Dimona?

That you cannot make that connection, seems to me, the reason you maintain your OPINIONs and why Piper is ultimately wrong. JFK was much more interested in Israel than Ike ever was... yes Jophnson was even moreso that JFK... - all I ask is that proper context be included when reaching OPINIONS

Cheers
DJ

"Kennedy was the first president to approve the sale of defensive US weapons to Israel, specifically Hawk anti-aircraft missiles. But Johnson approved tanks and fighter jets, all vital after the 1967 war when France imposed a freeze on sales to Israel. Yehuda Avner recently described on these pages Prime Minister Levi Eshkol's successful appeal for these weapons on a visit to the LBJ ranch. "