Quote:"Whether he was Zionism's greatest friend and facilitator is a matter of opinion isn't it."
So we finally get to the heart of the matter.. a matter of opinion.
Thank you for posting that excerpt Mark... yet
Quote:Mark Stapleton
You were right Albert. This has turned into a pissing contest of sorts. In any case, the issue of BG's resignation/mental state and whether this is attributable to Kennedy's pressure seems to have become a major bone of contention. I don't like quoting long slabs of text from books but this excerpt from Cohen (pp.135-136) covers it pretty well I think:
the word "breakdown" does NOT appear once in this LONG SLAB while "resignation" appears 6 times...
At what point did EVIDENCE of a NERVOUS BREAKDOWN, as Albert has called it, become evidence of the concerns weighing heavy on his mind when he resigned?? For that is all there is in this QUOTE Mark... When WAS this breakdown? Was there actually a "breakdown" in the clinical sense?
Albert has a tizzy fit jumping down MY throat about YOU offering the proof of the HATRED between the men leading to his BREAKDOWN which in turn does NOT mean BG was a facilitator of the assassination (remember, Albert's words which he refuses to acknowledge after writing them even after specifically asked three times now...)
Anyway, Mark.... his HATRED for JFK over Dimona has now gone from the causal reason for the assassination, to: "at least controversial" quite a fall...
Quote:So the issue of whether BG's mental deterioration and subsequent resignation is attributable to Kennedy's pressure on Dimona is at the very least, controversial. Personally I'm sure it was the catalyst, but that's just my opinion.
and the first use of "breakdown in this thread... Albert...
Quote:I would even dare suggest that Angleton played this breakdown with Ben Gurion to enlist endorsement through this already-existing Mediterranean underground/Swiss bank cabal. If indeed Mossad had given the green light to the assassination, or perhaps it would be better put 'cooperation', what you would see is an energizing of their pro-zionist assets in the American underground. And low and behold you see a sudden indication of "jews" suddenly becoming "new backers" in an American CIA effort that was dovetailed with Dallas.
.... Ben-Gurion was driven to a nervous breakdown by his negotiations with Kennedy. He resigned office because of it, yet you are trying to suggest this was a product of Hersh's imagination. As is typical of you David, it seems to me like you are trying to hide too much behind that obvious Hersh-association device. You can't defeat this with source defamation. It is obviously well beyond just Hersh alone. Mark has already cited the books referencing this
[B]
In his April 25 letter, BG equates the liberation of Palestine to the Holocaust. "The liberation of Palestine is impossible without the total destruction of the people in Israel" he babbles. He proposes a joint US-Soviet declaration guaranteeing the territorial security of all Middle Eastern states. He suggested cutting off assisstance to states threatening their neighbours. Senior diplomat Gideon Rafael describes BG at this time as 'hysterical' (Cohen p.120).
Ambassador Harman and his deputy Mordechai Gazit were even more critical of BG, knowing Washington would dismiss BG's letter as alarmist, which they did. BG's biographer describes him as 'panicky, even paranoid'. The impasse with JFK over Dimona was only part of it, however. What also spooked BG, and apparently BG alone, was the Arab Federation Declaration signed 8 days earlier by Egypt, Syria and Iraq calling for the liberation of Palestine. According to Cohen, other Israeli decision makers including Foreign Minister Golda Mier and the ministry's senior staff, did not share Ben-Gurion's alarm. Nor did the US.
David, I don't know what evidence you require short of a sworn affidavit from BG's doctor, but its clear from the evidence thus far that BG was losing it in the last few months of his leadership. Not being qualified to offer a medical opinion, I can only offer a personal opinion, which is that BG had a nervous breakdown. Regardless of how it is described, Ben-Gurion was showing extreme signs of stress.
Charles Drago Wrote:I use quotation marks/inverted commas around "Albert" and the pronouns referring to "him" for the same reason that I use them when referencing the "Colby" entity -- among others -- at the EF Swamp and elsewhere.
I could be wrong, but based on wide, difficult to explain variances in style, grammar, punctuation, and vocabulary, I have proffered indications that two or more individuals are posting on this thread under the identity "Albert Doyle." The "different font" business is icing on the cake. Please try to read more carefully; you're starting to sound like "Albert."
"Heated?" Hardly. Just tired of "Albert" and "his" impenetrable ignorance. It's like trying to communicate with a legume.
We're still waiting for "Albert" to assure us, on his honor, that "he" alone posts under "his" name.
Quote:"Whether he was Zionism's greatest friend and facilitator is a matter of opinion isn't it."
So we finally get to the heart of the matter.. a matter of opinion.
Thank you for posting that excerpt Mark... yet
Quote:Mark Stapleton
You were right Albert. This has turned into a pissing contest of sorts. In any case, the issue of BG's resignation/mental state and whether this is attributable to Kennedy's pressure seems to have become a major bone of contention. I don't like quoting long slabs of text from books but this excerpt from Cohen (pp.135-136) covers it pretty well I think:
the word "breakdown" does NOT appear once in this LONG SLAB while "resignation" appears 6 times...
At what point did EVIDENCE of a NERVOUS BREAKDOWN, as Albert has called it, become evidence of the concerns weighing heavy on his mind when he resigned?? For that is all there is in this QUOTE Mark... When WAS this breakdown? Was there actually a "breakdown" in the clinical sense?
Albert has a tizzy fit jumping down MY throat about YOU offering the proof of the HATRED between the men leading to his BREAKDOWN which in turn does NOT mean BG was a facilitator of the assassination (remember, Albert's words which he refuses to acknowledge after writing them even after specifically asked three times now...)
Anyway, Mark.... his HATRED for JFK over Dimona has now gone from the causal reason for the assassination, to: "at least controversial" quite a fall...
Quote:So the issue of whether BG's mental deterioration and subsequent resignation is attributable to Kennedy's pressure on Dimona is at the very least, controversial. Personally I'm sure it was the catalyst, but that's just my opinion.
and the first use of "breakdown in this thread... Albert...
Quote:I would even dare suggest that Angleton played this breakdown with Ben Gurion to enlist endorsement through this already-existing Mediterranean underground/Swiss bank cabal. If indeed Mossad had given the green light to the assassination, or perhaps it would be better put 'cooperation', what you would see is an energizing of their pro-zionist assets in the American underground. And low and behold you see a sudden indication of "jews" suddenly becoming "new backers" in an American CIA effort that was dovetailed with Dallas.
.... Ben-Gurion was driven to a nervous breakdown by his negotiations with Kennedy. He resigned office because of it, yet you are trying to suggest this was a product of Hersh's imagination. As is typical of you David, it seems to me like you are trying to hide too much behind that obvious Hersh-association device. You can't defeat this with source defamation. It is obviously well beyond just Hersh alone. Mark has already cited the books referencing this
[B]
In his April 25 letter, BG equates the liberation of Palestine to the Holocaust. "The liberation of Palestine is impossible without the total destruction of the people in Israel" he babbles. He proposes a joint US-Soviet declaration guaranteeing the territorial security of all Middle Eastern states. He suggested cutting off assisstance to states threatening their neighbours. Senior diplomat Gideon Rafael describes BG at this time as 'hysterical' (Cohen p.120).
Ambassador Harman and his deputy Mordechai Gazit were even more critical of BG, knowing Washington would dismiss BG's letter as alarmist, which they did. BG's biographer describes him as 'panicky, even paranoid'. The impasse with JFK over Dimona was only part of it, however. What also spooked BG, and apparently BG alone, was the Arab Federation Declaration signed 8 days earlier by Egypt, Syria and Iraq calling for the liberation of Palestine. According to Cohen, other Israeli decision makers including Foreign Minister Golda Mier and the ministry's senior staff, did not share Ben-Gurion's alarm. Nor did the US.
David, I don't know what evidence you require short of a sworn affidavit from BG's doctor, but its clear from the evidence thus far that BG was losing it in the last few months of his leadership. Not being qualified to offer a medical opinion, I can only offer a personal opinion, which is that BG had a nervous breakdown. Regardless of how it is described, Ben-Gurion was showing extreme signs of stress.
Not trying to be too cheeky, but you mean affidavits like Baker's 3rd/4th floor and Boone's and Weitzman's mauser - which means whatever, whoever is in charge wants it to mean....
I have no doubt that being #1 for Israel at this time was not easy for BG... again, 6 million / 80 million....
I also have no doubts about Lansky, the Mafia, the CIA/US Intelligence, and MONEY from all sources... including Bloomfield.
People ask why the JFK assassiantion, 49 years later, was so and remains so important.
The workings and processes of the world's power cabal lay just beyond the letters in the words of the WCR... reinforced by the HSCA, and finally recorded yet swept under the table in the ARRB. And this remains one of the most blantant examples of "you gonna believe us or your lying eyes & ears" ?
As I posted earlier Mark... it is really not hard to believe that some of those related to Israel were involved yet not due to Dimona, imo. I think if you we in any way part of the COLD WAR contraption and thrived as a result - you were potentially part of this "rearing of their ugly head" only to disappear down the rabbit hole...
That's why when we mere mortals have discussions about planning and procedure of the INTELLIGENCE MACHINE that it's as foreign to most of us as speaking Klingon... and we simply don't know how many layers the onion contains...
btw - I am with you on LBJ... mastermind? no. Willing (yet ultimately frightened) participant... I think LBJ was the first president who KNEW he could be offed if he made a wrong move, went against the wrong people... and he STILL helped get Civil Rights legislation thru... I have also read where LBJ was VERY HELPFUL TO JEWS during the war and even helped MANY escape...
... and I heard G. Khan liked kittens... doesn't change who he was at his core.... and how he "solved" the problems that lay between him and his goals.
David Josephs Wrote:Not trying to be too cheeky, but you mean affidavits like Baker's 3rd/4th floor and Boone's and Weitzman's mauser - which means whatever, whoever is in charge wants it to mean....
No. I mean what standard of proof do you require to finally acknowledge Ben-Gurion was losing his grip in mid-1963.
David Josephs Wrote:At what point did EVIDENCE of a NERVOUS BREAKDOWN, as Albert has called it, become evidence of the concerns weighing heavy on his mind when he resigned?? For that is all there is in this QUOTE Mark... When WAS this breakdown? Was there actually a "breakdown" in the clinical sense?
Question 1: Who cares and why do you need to know.
Question 2: Who cares and why do you need to know.
David Josephs Wrote:As I posted earlier Mark... it is really not hard to believe that some of those related to Israel were involved yet not due to Dimona, imo. I think if you we in any way part of the COLD WAR contraption and thrived as a result - you were potentially part of this "rearing of their ugly head" only to disappear down the rabbit hole...
That's why when we mere mortals have discussions about planning and procedure of the INTELLIGENCE MACHINE that it's as foreign to most of us as speaking Klingon... and we simply don't know how many layers the onion contains...
David, I just don't understand what you are trying to say. Perhaps you can clarify this.
David Josephs Wrote:the word "breakdown" does NOT appear once in this LONG SLAB while "resignation" appears 6 times...
At what point did EVIDENCE of a NERVOUS BREAKDOWN, as Albert has called it, become evidence of the concerns weighing heavy on his mind when he resigned?? For that is all there is in this QUOTE Mark... When WAS this breakdown? Was there actually a "breakdown" in the clinical sense?
Albert has a tizzy fit jumping down MY throat about YOU offering the proof of the HATRED between the men leading to his BREAKDOWN which in turn does NOT mean BG was a facilitator of the assassination (remember, Albert's words which he refuses to acknowledge after writing them even after specifically asked three times now...)
Anyway, Mark.... his HATRED for JFK over Dimona has now gone from the causal reason for the assassination, to: "at least controversial" quite a fall...
Another rubbish entry from David. People should be smart enough to realize that when the other side is reduced to extreme, precise definition semantics and counting words that they don't have much of an argument and are giving away the credibility of their position in the form of their input. And David is serious with this stuff. His arguments are now strict demands over the exact semantic meaning of words. But to understand what David's about go back in this thread and look at what he himself doesn't answer. For instance while accusing me of misinterpreting every one of his posts I showed that he actually did, according to his usual semantic technique, demand precise documentation for Ben-Gurion's breakdown (as he does once again here). One of the things that endears me to David is his admirable admission of being wrong and therefore establishing the true orientation of his obscene reversals as with Belin and Specter. There's a simple rule here. While accusing us of using weak debate methods David's semantic/documentation technique is what is weakest here. Common sense should tell you when you're down to raking people over the exact semantic use of words or counting quotes and commas you are telegraphing bankruptcy as far as credible argument. As is true once again, after reading David's empty discourse on the precise meaning of words and number counting we never see any substantive conclusion vs the arguments being made. What's pretty clear here is David has an unlimited will to continue to use real and honest debate over Piper as a venue for offering his vacuous input. However persons with a deeper understanding of the topic will see he comes up short of what is really there. In the end hair splitting over the precise and accurate use of the words "nervous breakdown" is not a credible means of discussing Piper. Once again, we have David saying far too much while also saying far too little. This is known to the wise as "protesting too much." Honest investigators would look further in to this event instead of number counting.
For those interested in real discussion of Piper we have to ask ourselves why Ben-Gurion never gave any reason for his forced departure from Prime Minister? What was it that Ben-Gurion couldn't say? I hate to criticize Mark but he has offered less than fully developed material. What should be noted is that the opinions of those around Ben-Gurion show a similar pattern to those around JFK. Some said there was no conspiracy and Oswald was the shooter and others admitted there was more to his assassination than the Warren Report allowed. Once again, you have to ask David to practice what he preaches. David, in his usual absent of argument way, suggests we take the word of those members of Israeli government. The Israeli government was no different than the US government and the suggestion that their word be taken without scrutiny violates David's own insisted-upon standard. While Ben-Gurion's state of mind was in direct synchronicity with his interaction with JFK over nuclear weapons David's main argument is that we don't have proof and it could have been something else. (Something he can't name while asking us to endure these empty lectures on semantics). At this fork in the road persons with genuine interest in what happened to Kennedy would not abandon the possibility that this departure was directly related to Ben-Gurion's interactions with Kennedy, as some Israeli government members suggested. This doesn't seem to bother David who blithely responds "I don't think it was related to Dimona" without ever offering any information to show what it was related to? Instead he tries to diminish the suggestion that Ben-Gurion left office because of a stress-related issue. By using this form of argument David relieves himself from having to answer the main issues and drags us into the endless debate tar pit he seeks to create.
Could it be that Ben-Gurion had this breakdown because he had been approached by persons who informed him that there were elements on the American side who were preparing to take care of his problem? Not an outrageous proposition if you look at the conspiracy framework Piper provides. James Angleton was CIA liaison to Israel. He was subverting JFK's power by supplying nuclear materiel to Israel behind Kennedy's back. Angleton helped form Mossad and directly trained its original members to be an intelligence agency. It was because of those ties that he was chosen as CIA liaison. Clay Shaw was a prodigy who was the only OSS member to be allowed into British Intelligence in Italy in WWII. Because of this background he was made a Permindex board member. With all this in mind you can see what a feeble offering David's "I don't think it was because of Dimona" is. As Piper makes clear in his book it was much more than Dimona. It was the Mediterranean underground Piper defines and details in his book as well, including the establishment of Israeli/CIA power through this underground. The US mob was tied in to it through Lansky which then involved the Cuban exiles as comrades. It was because of this Cold War-fused and welded relationship that no "new jew backers" could exist at such a deep level in the assassination and not be directly related. It is David's ignorance of Piper's credible showing of this relationship that causes him to suggest the new backers could only support Cuba and nothing else. If you view Piper's exposed cabal you would see right away that would be impossible. Not only could no "jews" with that much power separate out from Lansky's control, but they couldn't separate out the Cuban cause from the overall assassination cabal either, which firmly included Israel. In light of this you can understand the offense David commits with his superficial semantics and word counting. It's folly to reduce the debate to demands over the specific meaning of words with so much more out there of much more credible meaning. Piper is the one who bring this material forth credibly and in credible relation to the events.
David Josephs Wrote:Thanks again Mark for ultimately being gracious...
DJ
I think David is showing a good example here of not honestly seeking what Mark is really saying. David is, once again, desperately trying to get too much out of too little while ignoring the giant elephant Piper exposes and its true interpretation.
