Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Mark Stapleton]

Are we really to believe that LBJ was bullied by "the Heebs" (a "term of endearment" that he himself used)?

I wouldn't express it like that, but that's what characterised his Presidency.

He owed a massive debt to those who saved his life.

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark, your model of these dynamics lacks foundation and appears based in bigotry.

Why?

[Charles Drago]

Mark, your model of these dynamics lacks foundation and appears based in bigotry.

Let's not forget ignorance, simple-mindedness, deep political naivete, and an intellectual onanism which, were it to be transferred to the physical, would result in dismemberment.

[Albert Doyle]

LBJ "bowed" to no one that was publically known--ever--in his political career, with the possible exception of Averell Harriman. To suggest that the Texan, LBJ, cowtowed to "Israel" is perhaps among the shallowest of intellectual offerings I've read on this forum to date. People of the LBJ mindset don't "bow" to nations. They submit to those rare individuals who they perceive to be more in charge than they are.

Mark, your model of these dynamics lacks foundation and appears based in bigotry.

So you're saying the record Mark has provided which shows Johnson serving Israeli interests each and every time is somehow not a record of LBJ 'bowing' to Israel? Hmm. This entry seems to pivot on a semantic interpretation of bowing and for whom the bowing was done. It seems to me to be a process that uses the strong Johnson when it suits the purpose and dismisses him as being a pawn when needed as well. If this statement is saying Johnson served the real Sponsors I agree. Even Dawn has posted that the Johnson 'Mastermind' thesis is disproven by the fact of RFK's assassination. If you look at the Liberty old cornpone wasn't capable of planning that. The overall pattern of Johnson's doings throughout his presidency disproves any sponsorship on his behalf.

As far as bigotry, this topic tends to be upheld the most by those usual suspects who dislike jews or zionism. But that is a skewed perspective because of the corruption of the status quo and their unwillingness to criticize zionism or Israel. This condition tends to make it look like the subject is favored by the worst anti-semites. Accusations of bigotry should be very carefully considered, however, when dealing with a religious state that practices one of the last major forms of apartheid existing in the modern world. I would even go so far as to say the murder of a catholic Irish president most likely had an element of bigotry itself that goes unseen because of this seizure of the terms. In my mind people who try to bring the blunt instrument of anti-semitism into this topic are ones seeking to avoid the evidence of Israeli involvement as shown in Piper. A person who was successfully buried by that very technique.

[Albert Doyle]

If we analyze Ruby he was assassination figure known to try to speak the truth about what really happened.

From Tonto's Tautology

My Big Fat Jewish Wedding

Inside the lump, we find Albert's twin

If you psychologically profile Ruby he tried to come forward with the truth in a way that would keep him from having a jail accident. There's a video of him trying to say if you look at the current president you'll have a better understanding of JFK's assassination and why he killed Oswald. I think this has direct relevance on his self-reference as being a jew with guts. Ruby was quite open with statements about who was really involved in the assassination, as the record shows. I think it is more than coincidence that he decided to mention his jewishness when asked to explain his motives. It is not outrageous to suggest that if Echevarria was so open about jewish involvement that it isn't out of the realm of possibility that Ruby had some sort of similar informing done to him about the new backers as well. In my mind, to make the accusation of "tautology" you have to prove the unsound element. If you read this thread I don't think that has been done. In fact, it appears that every single challenger has either non-participated or conceded.

[Charles Drago]

This entry seems to pivot on a semantic interpretation of bowing and for whom the bowing was done.

This sentence alone exposes the "Albert Doyle" provocation -- a sentence that the historic "Albert Doyle" is not able to understand, let alone create.

I urge everyone on DPF to refrain from responding to the individuals currently posting over the "Albert Doyle" signature. They are playing a sinister game -- but only if you choose to engage them on their terms.

We can learn from this charade -- learn how to recognize agents provocateur when they utilize what I'll now term the "'Colby'/'Doyle' Gambit".

[Albert Doyle]

Thank you Albert and Mark for making your case....

I'm confident anyone reading thru the thread will get a fair dose of both sides of the debate...

Cheers
DJ

And so David blinks. Forced to by the facts.


I think we've seen the way that some claim this Piper issue "has already been discussed." Obviously it hasn't in any credible way. No, the offense here isn't bigotry or anti-semitism, it's a rogue double standard and pure bias in favor of Israel.


The most noticeable absence here is that of James DiEugenio. DiEugenio has a rare talent for detail and usually doesn't miss a stitch on this kind of matter. He said that Final Judgment was disinformation and that he tossed the book into the trash can where it belonged. However, having read DiEugenio I find that his particular method is to uproot and destroy any false work by means of its furthest-most sources and material. What is really noticeable here is he doesn't do that with Piper. In fact, if you read this thread, no one does it. This, along with the eye-blinks, as well as the trolling, should be evidence enough of Piper's validity - albeit a partial one due to his incorrect claim that Israel was perhaps the Sponsor.


I notice that David's prolific typos went unmocked...

[Albert Doyle]

This entry seems to pivot on a semantic interpretation of bowing and for whom the bowing was done.

This sentence alone exposes the "Albert Doyle" provocation -- a sentence that the historic "Albert Doyle" is not able to understand, let alone create.

I urge everyone on DPF to refrain from responding to the individuals currently posting over the "Albert Doyle" signature. They are playing a sinister game -- but only if you choose to engage them on their terms.

We can learn from this charade -- learn how to recognize agents provocateur when they utilize what I'll now term the "'Colby'/'Doyle' Gambit".

Let the facts be the blade edge which determines the 'twins'...

[Charles Drago]

The most noticeable absence here is that of James DiEugenio. DiEugenio has a rare talent for detail and usually doesn't miss a stitch on this kind of matter. He said that Final Judgment was disinformation and that he tossed the book into the trash can where it belonged. However, having read DiEugenio I find that his particular method is to uproot and destroy any false work by means of its furthest-most sources and material. What is really noticeable here is he doesn't do that with Piper. In fact, if you read this thread, no one does it. This, along with the eye-blinks, as well as the trolling, should be evidence enough of Piper's validity - albeit a partial one due to his incorrect claim that Israel was perhaps the Sponsor.

Another classic agent provocateur move -- entice well-known/respected experts into a no-win exchange with a "'Colby/'Doyle'" entity whose brief is to distort, disinform, and deceive.

Again: The ONLY noble response to such an entity is comprised of a combination of exposure and ridicule.

[Charles Drago]

This entry seems to pivot on a semantic interpretation of bowing and for whom the bowing was done.

This sentence alone exposes the "Albert Doyle" provocation -- a sentence that the historic "Albert Doyle" is not able to understand, let alone create.

I urge everyone on DPF to refrain from responding to the individuals currently posting over the "Albert Doyle" signature. They are playing a sinister game -- but only if you choose to engage them on their terms.

We can learn from this charade -- learn how to recognize agents provocateur when they utilize what I'll now term the "'Colby'/'Doyle' Gambit".

Let the facts be the blade edge which determines the 'twins'...

Now that's more old "Albert" than new "Albert" -- utter gibberish.