Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Charles Drago]

2. While the KNOWINGLY FALSE, cover-up-enhancing charge that Israelis were SPONSORS of the JFK conspiracy may not have surfaced publicly until the '90s, we have no way of knowing when the "Israel did it" card first was played far behind the scenes. Your charge that there was a 30-year delay before that play was made is without merit -- not to mention glaringly devoid of deep political insight.

It's a bit rich, unless you know who the sponsors were, to claim it's a 'knowingly false, cover-up-enhancing charge'.

You only need a bunch of like minded and well connected people who liked Israel a lot more than they liked Kennedy.

They don't all need to be Israelis. I can think of a few off the top of my head: Ben-Gurion, Lansky, Angleton, LBJ, Ruby. Of course, there's many more.

Again you avoid a direct response. So what's new? I'm begging you, Mark: read carefully and for meaning.

Please share with us, in detail, your own JFK conspiracy model. When you do, please provide a thorough description of the pre-requisites for Sponsorship.

I don't have a JFK conspiracy model, Charles. I don't even know what it is, except for the familiar terms used here to describe its' components, like sponsor, facilitator and mechanic.

As you can see, I'm not well equipped to answer your question about the pre-requisites for sponsorship.

I'll have to repeat Conspiracy Model 101 won't I.

No, you probably won't.

In order to repeat a course, one must first have taken it.

[Charles Drago]

Nothing is going to be 'proved'. How much has been 'proven' in last 49 years?

This is, to my knowledge, the second time you have attempted to serve the core interest of the cover-up by claiming -- falsely -- that we know nothing about what happened to JFK and that all we really have are theories.

In other words, uncertainty is all we possess and all we can hope for.

Knowingly or not, you are providing yeoman service to the Sponsors of JFK's murder.

You've previously spouted that we don't have "authenticated" proof of what happened to JFK. Now you ask rhetorically "how much has been 'proven' in the last 49 years".

In doing so, you simply reveal your own ignorance and attempt to ascribe it to others.

To date not one person has been proven to have knowingly participated in JFK's murder. That's what I'm saying.

What is your standard of proof for establishing, for example, complicity in the cover-up -- and thus by definition, participation in the conspiracy to murder JFK -- by the Bethesda prosectors?

[Albert Doyle]

Remember, David refuses to answer whether Douglass' evidence of Kennedy putting pressure on all governments for nuclear detente is relevant.

You asked a question in there somewhere? Seems awfully rhetorical to me - again. JFK puts pressure on HIS ALLIES as the #1 Superpower on the planet, to strive for and work together for peace in the region.

Yeah right. Rhetorical? Coming from Mr discusses everything but the specific matter. Truth is, no, you haven't given a direct or honest answer to how Ben-Gurion and Israel would react to the unquestionable peace effort JFK was enacting as introduced at the American University speech or as shown in The Unspeakable. You got awfully quiet when I brought this up and never gave any direct answer to it (as you do here). Your answer above is once again wholly disingenuous simply because it doesn't make any attempt to give a straight or honest answer as to what Israel would have done when it had to account for developing nuclear weapons in the face of Kennedy's more than established call for nuclear restriction? Considering the question, and your answer in response, you have real balls accusing ME of rhetoric.

... JFK is asking HIS ALLIES to respect the desire for PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Does he come down on France for having supplied all the necessary material to this point?
Does the work at Dimona stop? Does BG lie to JFK's face AND THE WORLD about the non-weapon status and future of the plant...? Does BG's lying put both Israel and her allies at risk...

More dishonest schmoozing. First of all, if you read The Unspeakable, one of the first instances of JFK going against established power was his opposition to France in Algeria. So JFK had acted against France and wasn't afraid to do so. David, once again, runs roughshod against the established grain. The answer to David's disingenuous dodge is that Kennedy was acting against Israel and therefore didn't need to sanction France. I'm sure he trusted that France would fall back on its well-known liberalism and fall in line with the effort at detente since it was closer to Russia and would realize this worked in its interest in the case of a European land war with the Soviets. Once again, you're just fishing for excuses against the obvious and constructing hoops and hurdles that are easily negotiated by a simple look at the truth.

As for your last 3 questions they don't really try to answer the pertinent points that qualify them. They are simply your bulldozer points you try to use to change the reality and avoid answering the obvious. You see JFK would have held Ben-Gurion accountable. This probably made Ben-Gurion a little 'nervous'.

BG does not want detente, he wants to wipe all arabs off the planet... eye for an eye. I REFUSE nothing Albert... you just aint gonna learn what you simply dont wanna know.

And so David swings his kimono wide open in bold type while speaking in terms of having the superior position in this debate. (Forget the fact he's made no effort to answer the main points honestly)(He has, however, given us a very good example of zionist arrogance) How in god's name does "BG does not want detente" work against anything I said??? We're all saying the same thing. David, once again, practices his annoying habit of admitting the truth while drawing the opposite conclusion from it.

He also refuses to give any honest interpretation of Ben-Gurion's statement that JFK was threatening the future existence of Israel. David, if Kennedy wasn't denying Ben-Gurion nuclear weapons then why would he say this? David says this is a common statement from Israel, but he fails to follow-through and admit what usually follows after Israel makes that statement

Can't follow simple instruction either Albert... YOU concentrate on proving YOUR case, I'll state mine myself - thanks.

While being accused of refusing to answer credible points David returns with a blustering response that boasts he refuses to answer the points and will only conduct a parallel argument of spider webs designed to entangle the issue in a disingenuous counter scenario. The simple and obvious fact here that David really hates is that Ben-Gurion would not have said JFK threatened the future of Israel if JFK had not prohibited the development of Israeli nuclear weapons as part of his peace overtures. David avoids any direct answer to this and tries to schmooze "Hey, Israel would have developed nukes anyway." However there's some important things he hasn't recognized or answered that seriously qualify that. David now assumes the position of lecturing instructor informing us we haven't followed his instructions on how to conduct this parallel debate. But isn't it obvious that David must follow this method simply because he can't give any direct, honest answer to the obvious like he does here. He needs to avoid the fact that Ben-Gurion's 'semantics' point towards Kennedy having refused him nuclear weapons. David doesn't want to admit this or what actions it might have entailed.

"Honest interpretation" is only one that agrees with you - yes?
Now you have JFK threatening the future existence of Israel by asking BG not to produce weapons...

Repeating the question without being able to answer it is a sure sign of guilt David. By the way, everything points towards it as The Unspeakable shows. It's not me who has Ben-Gurion doing this but all the evidence you refuse to acknowledge. Really, David, how could Kennedy's battle with Ben-Gurion not be part of his American University action? Do you think Kennedy was going to ask the Soviet Union to stop producing nuclear weapons but then turn around and say OK for Israel? How would that have looked?

JFK did not DENY anything Albert... why do you keep saying that yet NEVER offer anything to support such drastic interpretations of the information?
We've posted the relevent passages and no one agreew with your "interpretation".

Very believable David. And Ben-Gurion was only being 'rhetorical' when he said Israel's future existence was at stake? David once again attempts one of his obscene reversals and points towards his gratuitous doubt and filler material as the rule here while being painfully unable to answer these simple points. Sure.

If JFK was sanctioning France for selling ANYTHING to Israel... okay you have a start.
If JFK blocked the sale of ANYTHING to Israel during this time - Hawks come to mind - okay, there is some evidence of this conclusion...

No matter how many times you point out to David that JFK used the Hawks as incentive to not produce nuclear weapons he ignores it and once again tries to force his excuse-making interpretation as the rule. He also tries to blame France. This is something my kindergarten teachers taught me not to do. The overt canard that JFK would have sanctioned France is not valid. The fact David tries to use it speaks for the credibility of his arguments. The suggestion that JFK would have sanctioned France if Piper's thesis were true is not logically valid. JFK knew that sanctioning Israel would have the same result. France didn't need to be sanctioned. Israeli did, if you recognize its regional strategic importance (fully realized today). I think David is a little arrogant in not realizing his very own "Israel would have produced nuclear weapons anyway" is proof enough of why JFK needed to control them.

But you offer NOTHING of your own but to paraphrase me... pretty lame there Albert...

I realize you must be completely demoralized for not being able to articulate your position well enough to convince anyone...
but you dont even post the supporting evidence for others to make up their own minds... I POSTED IT... but not you. and everyone can read it for themselves....

DEFEND your position or STFU already Albert... whining about me is starting to sound like an obsession... and is eerie...
Whining about "interpretations" when you barely offer the evidence to evaluate is a joke...

Let's make this simple.... You ... have... not... made.... your ... case. Now stop blaming me and put forth an effort worthy of your own standards...
If that's already been done and you've not been convincing, maybe try a different subject you CAN defend.

...and accept defeat like a man. or you can of course continue whining about it... and falling incredibly short with each attempt...

Gotta go now...

Later
DJ

I think the quality of the arguments is pretty obvious now. David can't answer the honest, germane, or operative points. He's in denial.

[Charles Drago]

"Albert,"

With each new post, "your" prose grows more disturbingly Fetzerian.

[David Josephs]

Now you have JFK threatening the future existence of Israel by asking BG not to produce weapons...

Again you miss the point.

From Ben-Gurion's perspective, JFK was threatening the future existence of Israel.

Read his letters if you need evidence of this. "Mr. President, my people have a right to exist", he says at one point.

You need to read Israel and the Bomb by Cohen. No flowery rhetoric in this book, I assure you.

Otherwise you might keep making these uninformed comments for months. I'll highlight every one of them.

Fair enough Mark... yet Since 1947 most every "Top" Israeli has been saying they have a right to exist - that's just Israeli rhetoric... they still say it today...
A "Right to exist" does not translate to "Give me Nukes or we KILL you"

You do understand that NO ONE in the rgion had nukes yet...
Israel wanted nukes at any cost - even to potentially alienate their greatest supporter...

Did anything JFK do or say stop progress at Dimona, Mark?
Did JFK enact any types of "punishments" for BG's actions other than your "harsh words" and the request to abide by USA's desire to explore peace in the region..

Does it not make sense to you that the "power" would want Israel to have a nuke asap so both sides have to escalate...
so the chance of war was so much greater and War profiteering/US Foreign policy enters the "poke em in the side until they fight back" ala Japan and WWII, so once again the cash machine can churn.

The idea that BG would initiate such an act with such a SMALL PRIZE in mind is again, Piper's shortsightedness.
I am sure Cohen makes a convincing argument related to Israel and the Bomb... and I WILL go find it....

but IMO JFK was killed for much larger reasons that Israel's bomb... None Dare, Mark... A nukesless, threatless Middle East is not nearly as profitable to the MIC/CIA/Mossad/etc. as a heavily armed Middle East.
Why would France act in such defiance of the US's wishes? a BIGGER PICTURE maybe?

DJ

From Israel and the Bomb... it again seems apparent that it was Israel, France and Britain who were hiding Dimona's purpose from the US since 1958...

From an Israeli perspective, however, this failure was crucial for the survival of the nuclear project. Had the U.S. discovered Dimona soon after launching, and exerted political pressure on both France and Israel, the Dimona project might have never been completed.In
retrospect, the late 1950s might have been the only time that the United States could have successfully pressured Israel to give up its nuclear weapons project in exchange American security guarantee, but the opportunity was not explored.

Documents

Document 1. A memorandum
of conversation between Israeli Ambassador to the US Abba Eban and Ambassador
Morehead Patterson, President Eisenhower's special emissary on atomic energy,
concerning bilateral agreement for cooperation in the peaceful use of atomic
energy. Israel had expressed early on of its interest to sign such an agreement
with the United States, as part of the "Atoms for Peace" initiative, and was the
second country (after Turkey) to do so. Within days the agreement reached the
offices of Prime Minister Moshe Sharett and minister of Defense David Ben
Gurion. "We found no fault in it," wrote Sharett in his diary. Then he explained
this: "It does not prohibit us from contacting other powers, nor even the use of
nuclear power to be produced in by own means. On the other hand, it promises us
a reactor for experiments and also research, and requires only one limitation:
not to use this reactor for any other purpose." Two months later, on 12 July
1955, Israel and the US signed the agreement.
Source: United States National Archives
For more Details: Israel and the Bomb, pages 44-45.



Documents 15-16. The hour and a half-long meeting between President Kennedy and Prime Minister Ben Gurion was anticlimactic. What clearly set the relaxed and amicable tone was the scientists' report on the Dimona reactor that Kennedy received prior to the meeting. Ambassador Harman took notes for the Israeli side, while Feldman took notes for the American participants. The American and Israeli versions of the conversation are presented here in full.
From these minutes it is evident that, on the matter of Dimona, both leaders wanted to avoid a confrontation. Each leader seems to have had a sense of his own political limits. Neither wanted to rock the boat. The nuclear issue was the reason for the New York meeting and the cause of Ben Gurion's apprehensions, but it took up no more than ten to fifteen minutes of the conversation. Kennedy exerted no new pressure and Ben Gurion had no need to use all the arguments he had prepared. As his biographer wrote, "Ben Gurion felt relieved. The reactor was saved, at least for the time being."




Document 1. On 5 July, less than ten days after Levi Eshkol became prime minister, Ambassador Barbour delivered a 3-page letter to him from President John Kennedy. Not since President Eisenhower's message to Ben Gurion, in the midst of the Suez crisis in November 1956, had an American president been so blunt with an Israeli prime minister. Kennedy told Eshkol that the American commitment and support of Israel 'could be seriously jeopardized' if Israel did not let the United States obtain 'reliable information' about Israel's efforts in the nuclear field. In the letter Kennedy presented specific demands on how the American inspection visits to Dimona should be executed. Since the United States had not been involved in the building of Dimona and no international law or agreement had been violated, Kennedy demands were indeed unprecedented. They amounted, in effect, to American ultimatum. Source: Israel State Archive, Jerusalem
For more information: Israel and the Bomb, 153-162.


Mark... this is what we are offered without buying the book.... the HARSH LETTER was to Eshkol after BG "retires"
AFTER years of stalling and lying and hiding BY ISRAEL to it's #1 Ally in the WORLD....

Can you paraphrase Cohen's evidence stating this letter to Eshkol caused BG's breakdown and helped lead to the Mossad/Mafia/CIA assassination...
According to the site, BG and JFK left on good terms... BG lying to JFK about his reactor... and JFK not pushing the point.

I simply want a source you offer to actually CONFIRM the story, not reinforce my argument that Israel and nukes were no where near the top of any list of reasons BG himself would be behind anything.
Did JFK's death benefit the Nuke program... yes, of course.... did it aid the CFR group and help them push the world into the directions it wanted - yes.

THAT is why we can say that elements of these groups WERE INVOLVED... when you finally remove the anit-semitism from the discussion as well as remove nationalities, boundaries and politics
you find yourself back in the NONE DARE world... where governments are PUSHED towards a unified goal.... NOT where a government strives for peace.

my .02
DJ

[Greg Burnham]

I began re-reading "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" a few days ago. I haven't picked it up since it was first published while Nixon was still in office. Time flies.
Beyond the obvious right wing bias of the author the main tenets found therein are sound and timeless. His observation is astute: that the American public has
pretty much accepted a "sliding scale" of Socialism; where Fascism is National Socialism, Democracy has become "Creeping" Socialism, and Communism is
International Socialism. He properly defines all Socialism as a form of dictatorial government no matter if it is left wing, right wing, or down the middle, where
even then it's only a matter of time. The Deep Political insight he offers resides in viewing Communism as a conspiracy rather than as a philosophy or ideology.
That it did not originate in Moscow or Peking, but rather in London, New York, and Paris speaks volumes. But, I digress. Zionism needs to be seen in a similar
light. It is not Nationalism, philosophy, ideology or religion. It is a conspiracy, first and foremost, perpetrated by a cadre of ruthless individuals who do not even
themselves live in the region.

[David Josephs]

I began re-reading "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" a few days ago. I haven't picked it up since it was first published while Nixon was still in office. Time flies.
Beyond the obvious right wing bias of the author the main tenets found therein are sound and timeless. His observation is astute: that the American public has
pretty much accepted a "sliding scale" of Socialism; where Fascism is National Socialism, Democracy has become "Creeping" Socialism, and Communism is
International Socialism. He properly defines all Socialism as a form of dictatorial government no matter if it is left wing, right wing, or down the middle, where
even then it's only a matter of time. The Deep Political insight he offers resides in viewing Communism as a conspiracy rather than as a philosophy or ideology.
That it did not originate in Moscow or Peking, but rather in London, New York, and Paris speaks volumes. But, I digress. Zionism needs to be seen in a similar
light. It is not Nationalism, philosophy, ideology or religion. It is a conspiracy, first and foremost, perpetrated by a cadre of ruthless individuals who do not even
themselves live in the region.

Greg... I will have to repsectfully disagree with that last bit...

Zionism -
The national movement for the return of the Jewish people totheir homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. Hascome to include the development of the State of Israel and the protection ofthe Jewish nation in Israel.
Zionism avocated, from inception, tangible as well asspiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions - left and right, religiousand secular - joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together towardthese goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish statein its ancient homeland was attained.
The term "Zionism" was coined in 1890 by NathanBirnbaum.


Zionism IS nationalism and the survival of a race, religion and country... I will concede that the USE of "Zionism" as a lever is a tool used by this cabal....
But most people do not understand the difference...

If Communism dies/fails the identity of a people does not disappear... the US thinks they CRUSHED Communism in USSR yet the people and the country remain (Golitsyn even tells us this was part of the plan).

Zionism is simply the patriotic manifestation of the needs of an Israeli state and people.... just like we have patriots here now and in 1963 who felt that killing JFK was their PATRIOTIC DUTY,
and in most every one of the "CIA influences other coutry's policies/politics" campaigns...

Iran Contra? Patriotic duty
Lying about Dimona - Zionism at is most secretive... an int heir eyes, most necessary for the survival of the Jewish State - REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES ON THE WORLD STAGE.

Greg... I am more than willing to hear you out on your "Zionism the same as Communism" argument...
but at this moment I have to strongly disagree

Cheers... (sure is nice to discuss things without the May/Lamson/DVP off-topic interruptions)
DJ

[Greg Burnham]

I began re-reading "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" a few days ago. I haven't picked it up since it was first published while Nixon was still in office. Time flies.
Beyond the obvious right wing bias of the author the main tenets found therein are sound and timeless. His observation is astute: that the American public has
pretty much accepted a "sliding scale" of Socialism; where Fascism is National Socialism, Democracy has become "Creeping" Socialism, and Communism is
International Socialism. He properly defines all Socialism as a form of dictatorial government no matter if it is left wing, right wing, or down the middle, where
even then it's only a matter of time. The Deep Political insight he offers resides in viewing Communism as a conspiracy rather than as a philosophy or ideology.
That it did not originate in Moscow or Peking, but rather in London, New York, and Paris speaks volumes. But, I digress. Zionism needs to be seen in a similar
light. It is not Nationalism, philosophy, ideology or religion. It is a conspiracy, first and foremost, perpetrated by a cadre of ruthless individuals who do not even
themselves live in the region.

Greg... I will have to repsectfully disagree with that last bit...

Zionism -
The national movement for the return of the Jewish people totheir homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. Hascome to include the development of the State of Israel and the protection ofthe Jewish nation in Israel.
Zionism avocated, from inception, tangible as well asspiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions - left and right, religiousand secular - joined to form the Zionist movement and worked together towardthese goals. Disagreements led to rifts, but ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish statein its ancient homeland was attained.
The term "Zionism" was coined in 1890 by NathanBirnbaum.


Zionism IS nationalism and the survival of a race, religion and country... I will concede that the USE of "Zionism" as a lever is a tool used by this cabal....
But most people do not understand the difference...

If Communism dies/fails the identity of a people does not disappear... the US thinks they CRUSHED Communism in USSR yet the people and the country remain (Golitsyn even tells us this was part of the plan).

Zionism is simply the patriotic manifestation of the needs of an Israeli state and people.... just like we have patriots here now and in 1963 who felt that killing JFK was their PATRIOTIC DUTY,
and in most every one of the "CIA influences other coutry's policies/politics" campaigns...

Iran Contra? Patriotic duty
Lying about Dimona - Zionism at is most secretive... an int heir eyes, most necessary for the survival of the Jewish State - REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES ON THE WORLD STAGE.

Greg... I am more than willing to hear you out on your "Zionism the same as Communism" argument...
but at this moment I have to strongly disagree

Cheers... (sure is nice to discuss things without the May/Lamson/DVP off-topic interruptions)
DJ

I will agree to disagree, respectfully. BTW: I did not argue that "Zionism [is] the same as Communism" -- but that the former should be seen in a similar light within the context of my post.

[David Josephs]

Zionism needs to be seen in a similar light.
It (zionism?) is not Nationalism, philosophy, ideology or religion. It is a conspiracy, first and foremost, perpetrated by a cadre of ruthless individuals who do not even
themselves live in the region.

Greg,

Usually you offer an explanation for your conclusions... and very effectively...

when you write that Zionism is a conspiracy first and foremost... in the vein of None Dare and the power elite's creation/support of Communism as an economic and political state to counterbalance capitalism and democracy...
you are not differentiating the two...

All I can conclude is that your statement presupposed that this cabal initiated/assisted in creating Israel and Zionsim to add yet another balance/counterbalance situation in an area and in a time that needed it.
Giving the USA the opportunity to chose their side while the USSR let it be known that any action on one side of the coin will be met with an equal and opposite reaction.

In THAT light... I believe I understand your comment... and can now spend some time pondering THOSE implications....

please correct me if I am putting meaning into your words that is off base... I respect your opinion quite a bit, yet I don't always GET where you're going

Cheers
DJ

[Charles Drago]

I'm sticking my nose in here to say, FWIW, what a pleasure it is to read exchanges of high tone and deep substance on DPF.