Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Albert Doyle]

Mark,


Did you notice when you show David that CIA commonly calls its assets "Businessmen" he ignores it and doesn't answer? And the facilitator evidence as well.



(Here comes another long lecture that doesn't answer the point)



There's no point in pursuing this. There's a flagrant bias and double standard that makes any kind of objective analysis impossible in my opinion. I also think that more or less proves the validity of Piper's facilitator evidence. Again, in my opinion. The best thing Piper does is expose the Lansky/Rosenbaum/Swiss bank network that the critics universally avoid. This, once again, proves its validity, in my opinion.

[Charles Drago]

Honestly Charles, you're giving this rather ham-handed treatment. I'd be curious on how exactly you define your stated "agnosticism" on Piper?

There's nothing "honest" about anything "Albert Doyle" has posted on this thread.

I don't answer questions from anonymous entities.

Who are "you?"

[Greg Burnham]

If I were genuinely searching for the truth I'd be more interested in exactly how much Ruby's comment that he wanted to show jews had guts was influenced by his potential dual loyalties?

If only "you" were...

[Mark Stapleton]

And the answer to your question is a resounding NO!

For the sake of argument: Why should Ruby's "Zionism," and not his affiliation with/indebtedness to Organized Crime, be held up as his prime motive?

There's no reason to assume one of those motives should be accepted and the other disregarded. Where's your genuine curiosity Charles?

In any case Organised Crime, the Jewish branch of which Ruby belonged to, was headed by a passionate Zionist--Meyer Lansky. Hence Ruby, himself a Zionist, was acting under the orders of Zionist Organised Crime.

I think you're the one not thinking deeply enough Charles.

[Phil Dragoo]

For the sake of argument: Why should Ruby's "Zionism," and not his affiliation with/indebtedness to Organized Crime, be held up as his prime motive?

Jack Ruby as Jacob Rubenstein was a Chicago fellow sent to Dallas

His phone calls indicate his rubbing out the patsy was as the late-John Roselli described to Jack Anderson

Jack Anderson gets a hold of you and you wind up Casolaro-ed in a bathtub

Today United Arab Emirates spotlighted as focal point of money laundering, smuggling of arms and drugs

Piper paints glass backdrops for his epic Zionist Who Ate Dallas

That's his problem

ZOCD

(Besides, according to an informant who has provided dirt in the past
Jack Ruby was seen in Tel Aviv masquerading as a high NKVD official.)

He was pretty high when he shot Oswald

but calmed down when the guard said, "He's dead."

[Mark Stapleton]

And while I'm at it, you should make a choice: Was it "Israel" or a "Zionist cabal" that was "behind" the assassination?

"Israel" as a nation? The assassination as the result of formal "national" policy?

"Behind" as in "Sponsor?"

Zionist cabal is arguably more accurate, because American Zionists were also involved. Scheppes and Bloom from the Dallas Citizens Committee, Ruby, LBJ etc. In one respect the two are inseparable, because Zionism indicates a passionate devotion to Israel.

The assassination was obviously not formal Israel national policy Charles, but I've yet to see evidence that any party derived more benefit from JFK's death than Israel.

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark,


Did you notice when you show David that CIA commonly calls its assets "Businessmen" he ignores it and doesn't answer? And the facilitator evidence as well.

No, I hadn't noticed this Albert. I'll have a look.

[Charles Drago]

The assassination was obviously not formal Israel national policy Charles, but I've yet to see evidence that any party derived more benefit from JFK's death than Israel.

You just don't get it.

"Benefit" is a wholly subjective term.

[David Josephs]

Mark,


Did you notice when you show David that CIA commonly calls its assets "Businessmen" he ignores it and doesn't answer? And the facilitator evidence as well.

No, I hadn't noticed this Albert. I'll have a look.

Problem is "Albert" that the lawyer for the 30th of Novemebr group called them that, not me or the CIA.... Unless you can prove the lawyer for this group was CIA.

We all realize you're afraid to address me directly "Albert" ... your "did you notice" game is cute and all, but extremely juvenille.

It is for this exact reason you need to QUOTE in your reponses... I never called anyone a BUSINESSMAN but since you can't post with any honest intent, why should we be surprised at this post? right....

Let's see Mark/Albert/whoever...

The assassination was obviously not formal Israel national policy Charles, but I've yet to see evidence that any party derived more benefit from JFK's death than Israel.

You have not offered ANY EVIDENCE as to how Israel benefitted...

Dimona was proceeding without US
Israel already was preparing for JFK to hard line...
BG and Eshkol LIE THEIR ASS OFF about Dimona...

So let's see...
LBJ becomes POTUS
Hoover has a job for Life
The CIA/MIC get its Vietnam

so here we have Israel, 5 years later.. being told by LBJ the SAME THING JFK was saying... PEACE is the process, not Israel attacking and escalating...

Maybe YOU could post something that shows the BILLIONS made thru drugs/Arms/War profiteering is somehow subordinate to Israel still fighting the USA for it's right to bomb the arabs back to the stone age.... and the USA/USSR and other major powers trying to broker peace...

Do you GET IT OR NOT Mark? The same cabal that benefits from ALL WAR PROFITEERING is benefitting from the ongoing problems in the middle east...
Whether Israel has a bomb, or Hawks or they just continue doing what they've been doing... they are at the center of an ARAB GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION and want to d3efend their homeland...

Where again is the BENEFIT from JFK dying?


Johnson Letter to Eshkol Encourages Peacemaking

(April 6, 1968)

A number of terrorist incursions by Palestinians from
Jordanian territory provoked Israeli reprisals. King Hussein would then complain
to the United States and American officials would try to discourage Israel from
using military force in response to terrorism. This letter from President
Johnson to Prime Minister Eshkol is one
example of this line of argument and the President's efforts to coax Israel to
cooperate with the Jarring
mission.

Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

I have considered your message of March 22 with two thoughts
uppermost in my mind deep sympathy for the serious problems which continuing
terrorist acts pose for your country; and deep anxiety about the prospects for
peace in the Middle East.
2. I appreciate, of course, the dilemma which the recent growth
of terrorism presents. I believe, however, that military action across ceasefire
fines does not deter the type of terrorism you face, but leads to greater
insecurity, above all at this critical moment.
3. We both recognize, I am sure, that true security for Israel
lies only in peace.
4. I believe we are now at a crossroads in this respect in the
Near East: the sole peace-making process now available is the jarring Mission. I
am deeply concerned by the lack of tangible results from this mission and the
cumulative deterioration of the situation resulting from a growing incidence of
terrorism and counter military actions-especially at this delicate moment in the
internal life of Jordan.
5. I feel, therefore, that there is an urgent need to reverse
the present trend-a trend which carries the risk not only of greater and greater
violence and insecurity, but indeed of another round of general hostilities, as
well as irreparable damage to the Jarring Mission. We wish to see every possible
step taken to minimize these risks.
6. There is very little time. There is still, however, an
opportunity for an active strategy of peace.
7. I have just learned of Ambassador Goldberg's discussion with
Ambassador Tekoah of April 5. I believe that we must seize the opportunity
presented by King Hussein's visit to Nasser, and the King's apparent willingness
to urge acceptance of the formulation which Ambassador Jarring gave the Israeli
Government on March 10. I understand that Foreign Minister Eban told Ambassador
Jarring at that time that your Government could accept this formulation. I urge
you most strongly to make your acceptance clear to Ambassador Jarring. The King
believes it would greatly enhance the possibility of his success with Nasser if
you could also agree to a variation in wording[SUP]1[/SUP]
which Ambassador Goldberg set forth to Ambassador Tekoah. I hope you will be
able to consider such a variation in language, as necessary.
8. This may be the last chance for the Jarring Mission, and for
peace.
Lyndon B. Johnson
[SUP]1[/SUP]The language proposed by Jordan
stipulated not only acceptance of [URL="https://deeppoliticsforum.com/UN/unres242.html"]Resolution
242[/URL] but also a readiness to implement it.


and an excerpt from the Rogers plan

Thus, we accepted a suggestion put forward both by the French Government and the
Secretary-General of the United Nations. We agreed that the major Powers - the
United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and France - should
cooperate to assist the Secretary-General's representative, Ambassador Jarring,
in working out a settlement in accordance with the Resolution of the Security
Council of the United Nations of November 1967. We also decided to consult
directly with the Soviet Union, hoping to achieve as wide an area of agreement
as possible between us.

[Mark Stapleton]

Johnson Letter to Eshkol Encourages Peacemaking

(April 6, 1968)

A number of terrorist incursions by Palestinians from
Jordanian territory provoked Israeli reprisals. King Hussein would then complain
to the United States and American officials would try to discourage Israel from
using military force in response to terrorism. This letter from President
Johnson to Prime Minister Eshkol is one
example of this line of argument and the President's efforts to coax Israel to
cooperate with the Jarring
mission.

Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

I have considered your message of March 22 with two thoughts
uppermost in my mind deep sympathy for the serious problems which continuing
terrorist acts pose for your country; and deep anxiety about the prospects for
peace in the Middle East.
2. I appreciate, of course, the dilemma which the recent growth
of terrorism presents. I believe, however, that military action across ceasefire
fines does not deter the type of terrorism you face, but leads to greater
insecurity, above all at this critical moment.
3. We both recognize, I am sure, that true security for Israel
lies only in peace.
4. I believe we are now at a crossroads in this respect in the
Near East: the sole peace-making process now available is the jarring Mission. I
am deeply concerned by the lack of tangible results from this mission and the
cumulative deterioration of the situation resulting from a growing incidence of
terrorism and counter military actions-especially at this delicate moment in the
internal life of Jordan.
5. I feel, therefore, that there is an urgent need to reverse
the present trend-a trend which carries the risk not only of greater and greater
violence and insecurity, but indeed of another round of general hostilities, as
well as irreparable damage to the Jarring Mission. We wish to see every possible
step taken to minimize these risks.
6. There is very little time. There is still, however, an
opportunity for an active strategy of peace.
7. I have just learned of Ambassador Goldberg's discussion with
Ambassador Tekoah of April 5. I believe that we must seize the opportunity
presented by King Hussein's visit to Nasser, and the King's apparent willingness
to urge acceptance of the formulation which Ambassador Jarring gave the Israeli
Government on March 10. I understand that Foreign Minister Eban told Ambassador
Jarring at that time that your Government could accept this formulation. I urge
you most strongly to make your acceptance clear to Ambassador Jarring. The King
believes it would greatly enhance the possibility of his success with Nasser if
you could also agree to a variation in wording[SUP]1[/SUP]
which Ambassador Goldberg set forth to Ambassador Tekoah. I hope you will be
able to consider such a variation in language, as necessary.
8. This may be the last chance for the Jarring Mission, and for
peace.
Lyndon B. Johnson
[SUP]1[/SUP]The language proposed by Jordan
stipulated not only acceptance of [URL="https://deeppoliticsforum.com/UN/unres242.html"]Resolution
242[/URL] but also a readiness to implement it.


and an excerpt from the Rogers plan

Thus, we accepted a suggestion put forward both by the French Government and the
Secretary-General of the United Nations. We agreed that the major Powers - the
United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and France - should
cooperate to assist the Secretary-General's representative, Ambassador Jarring,
in working out a settlement in accordance with the Resolution of the Security
Council of the United Nations of November 1967. We also decided to consult
directly with the Soviet Union, hoping to achieve as wide an area of agreement
as possible between us.

What's all this crap?

You post some feeble 1968 letter from LBJ to Eshkol asking him to please stop being a naughty boy?

1968 is too late David. In the 6 day war of the previous year, Israel had already taken control of the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan and the Golan Heights from Syria.

Albert's right. You never seem to address the issue.