Israel,LBJ and the JFK assassination

[Mark Wilson]

My point was that it was an informative post then he ends it with the whole "Jews control the media" thing which immediately detracts from the information. It's like if I were posting about the mob's role in the assasination and said "all Italians are mobsters." I could care less whether he likes Jews or not, but don't assume that all Jews share the same views on any topic, including Israel.

I forget which prominent rabbi said this, maybe Daniel Lapin. "Jews agree on only one thing- that Jesus was not the Messiah."

Happy Passover

Scott,i disagree completely.You have the President of the United States and the most powerful Christian leader in American agreeing that there is Jewish dominance in the media.Therefore when discussing a theory that involves those dominants you must consider the message of the dominants...

What was their message in regards to the JFK assassination? Oswald,lone nut,Warren Report,only 3 shots,and the magic bullet....fast forward 40 years and what is their message? WMD,regime change,liberate/democratize Iraq, and a strong indication that the United States was in imminent danger from Iraq....the messages sent 40 years ago are no closer to the truth than the messages sent 3 years ago.

Clearly the media has lied about 11/22/63,9/11, and the war in Iraq among other things......why?

it all comes down to who one thinks owns and runs the media.i'm of the opinion that there is a massive Jewish media monopoloy in America and when critically looking at Israel's possible involvement in 11/22/63 or any other black op/false flag situations that directly affect foreign policy, this must be considered.

[Scott Deitche]

Final Judgment’s case in this regard is principally built on the key significance of Meyer Lansky as the real power player in American organized crime in the 1950s and 1960s, the superior of Giancana, Roselli, Marcello, Mickey Cohen, Mickey Weiner, Moe Dalitz, Frank Costello, and others previously mentioned as participants in the Kennedy conspiracy. quote]

Which is completely untrue. Lansky was subservient to the Genovese family. He was not the boss of Trafficante, and had a close confidant, Jimy Alo, look over Lansky's interests FOR the Genovese family.

THis comes from wiseguys' mouths not mine.

Also he did not die rich, nor did he die powerful. HIs 'power' in the underworld was being eclipsed by the 1960's.

BTW- another good book on Jewish gangsters is Rich Cohen's TOUGH JEWS- a great account of the Lower East side guys like Kid Twist Reles.

Scott,

Are you saying Lansky died poor? Didn't he offer the Israeli Government ten million bucks to allow him to emigrate in the 70's?

Lansky subservient to Genovese? Laughable. Genovese spent the last decade of his life in jail. Some believe Lansky helped put him there.

Politics of Heroin - I guess we could ask McCloy - he has Lansky being first to Havana. Trafficante 'assumed responsibility' for Lansky's interests in Havana and Miami.

I have never seen anything about Lansky being subservient to the Genovese family - would you mind sharing a reference?

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/mafia/luciano.html

Can't copy and paste from this site. Worth reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Anastasia

However, Genovese dared not move against Anastasia and his real target, Costello, because of Meyer Lansky, one of the highest ranking and most powerful members of the National Crime Syndicate. Lansky and Genovese were long-standing enemies, with disputes dating from the 1920s, and Genovese could not make a move for power without Lansky's support.

Anyone know the names of the Israeli journalists Ruby allegedly met with? Was Ruby a Zionist? If Ruby is really a hardcore Zionist, and I see no reason to believe otherwise, it would make a great deal of logical sense to me.

- lee

I think it's a safe bet he was fiercely Zionist. Cohen was and Jack looked up to him. To me it's obvious.

Good question re the journalists, Lee. It's a very hard topic to nail. Were they (if the story is true) "journalists". I wonder.

On the Genovese thing, I've always been under the impression that the 'big four'--Luciano, Lansky, Costello and Seigel--started out together. Two Italians and two Jews. I'm willing to be corrected but I've not read anything contradicting this. Luciano became leader of the New York mafia but didn't interefere in non competing jurisdictions, enhancing his underworld popularity. Genovese was Luciano's 2ic and from the beginning was disliked by the other three and Luciano himself, according to his bio. I can't see how the other three would accept Genovese as the boss once Luciano went to prison. It's daft.

Luciano ran only one of the five NY families. When Luciano was deported, Costello took over. After he was shot by Vincent GIgante, Costello retired and Genovese assumed control of the what is now called the Genovese family. You're right in that Costello and Lanksy hated Genovese, as did Carlo Gambino. Gambino had the most to gain from Genovese goign to prison and reportedly teamed with Lansky and COstello to pin those drug charges on Genovese.

I just re-read some of my posts and I don't think I'm conveying what I'm tryign to say. In a nutshell, Lansky had a low of power, but he was no overlord of the entire Mafia. Did he have more pull than say an Athony Giordano (St. Louis boss) or John LaRocca (Pittsburgh boss)? Yes, but he was not omniscent by any means.

Edited April 15, 2006 by Scott Deitche

[Owen Parsons]

[COMBINED WITH POST BELOW]

Edited April 15, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Mark Stapleton]

Final Judgment’s case in this regard is principally built on the key significance of Meyer Lansky as the real power player in American organized crime in the 1950s and 1960s, the superior of Giancana, Roselli, Marcello, Mickey Cohen, Mickey Weiner, Moe Dalitz, Frank Costello, and others previously mentioned as participants in the Kennedy conspiracy. quote]

Which is completely untrue. Lansky was subservient to the Genovese family. He was not the boss of Trafficante, and had a close confidant, Jimy Alo, look over Lansky's interests FOR the Genovese family.

THis comes from wiseguys' mouths not mine.

Also he did not die rich, nor did he die powerful. HIs 'power' in the underworld was being eclipsed by the 1960's.

BTW- another good book on Jewish gangsters is Rich Cohen's TOUGH JEWS- a great account of the Lower East side guys like Kid Twist Reles.

Scott,

Are you saying Lansky died poor? Didn't he offer the Israeli Government ten million bucks to allow him to emigrate in the 70's?

Lansky subservient to Genovese? Laughable. Genovese spent the last decade of his life in jail. Some believe Lansky helped put him there.

Politics of Heroin - I guess we could ask McCloy - he has Lansky being first to Havana. Trafficante 'assumed responsibility' for Lansky's interests in Havana and Miami.

I have never seen anything about Lansky being subservient to the Genovese family - would you mind sharing a reference?

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/mafia/luciano.html

Can't copy and paste from this site. Worth reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Anastasia

However, Genovese dared not move against Anastasia and his real target, Costello, because of Meyer Lansky, one of the highest ranking and most powerful members of the National Crime Syndicate. Lansky and Genovese were long-standing enemies, with disputes dating from the 1920s, and Genovese could not make a move for power without Lansky's support.

Anyone know the names of the Israeli journalists Ruby allegedly met with? Was Ruby a Zionist? If Ruby is really a hardcore Zionist, and I see no reason to believe otherwise, it would make a great deal of logical sense to me.

- lee

I think it's a safe bet he was fiercely Zionist. Cohen was and Jack looked up to him. To me it's obvious.

Good question re the journalists, Lee. It's a very hard topic to nail. Were they (if the story is true) "journalists". I wonder.

On the Genovese thing, I've always been under the impression that the 'big four'--Luciano, Lansky, Costello and Seigel--started out together. Two Italians and two Jews. I'm willing to be corrected but I've not read anything contradicting this. Luciano became leader of the New York mafia but didn't interefere in non competing jurisdictions, enhancing his underworld popularity. Genovese was Luciano's 2ic and from the beginning was disliked by the other three and Luciano himself, according to his bio. I can't see how the other three would accept Genovese as the boss once Luciano went to prison. It's daft.

Luciano ran only one of the five NY families. When Luciano was deported, Costello took over. After he was shot by Vincent GIgante, Costello retired and Genovese assumed control of the what is now called the Genovese family. You're right in that Costello and Lanksy hated Genovese, as did Carlo Gambino. Gambino had the most to gain from Genovese goign to prison and reportedly teamed with Lansky and COstello to pin those drug charges on Genovese.

I just re-read some of my posts and I don't think I'm conveying what I'm tryign to say. In a nutshell, Lansky had a low of power, but he was no overlord of the entire Mafia. Did he have more pull than say an Athony Giordano (St. Louis boss) or John LaRocca (Pittsburgh boss)? Yes, but he was not omniscent by any means.

Yes, but Scott, you stated that Lansky was "subservient to the Genovese family". That's ridiculous.

Lansky has stacks of money, power and connections. Just because he didn't covet fame and notoriety doesn't change that fact.

[Owen Parsons]

Owen,i wasnt going off on Stone for portraying Nixon as an anti semite,but he did.Rather,i was pointing out that yet again, the anti semite card had been played.As i recall Nixon was made out to be a racist,this was done when they were declassifying the transcripts of the Nixon tapes...Nixon had apparently used the slurs of Jews,Niggers, and possibly other racially offensive terms that were recorded on the tapes that needed to be cleaned up......my point about the media and film makers is that Israel is more than fairly represented in the media and in hollywood,some would say there's a Jewish media dominance in america......What's really hillarious is your denial of the Jewish influence in the media and hollywood and how any criticism or suspisions of Israel or Jewish propaganda is adressed as anti semitism...

Well, of course there is "Jewish influence in the media." The media has many different influences. What I deny is that there is any massive, organized, control of the media on the part of the "Jews." The fact that you are able to speak of both "Israel or Jewish propaganda" says something. A belief that Israel is pulling the strings of American foreign policy is not anti-Semitic, though it is not very informed (I note that you have not yet adressed any of the American actions I have pointed out that are very much in the interests of the PLO, not Israel). When you start speaking of some imaginary propaganda, propagated by the Jews as a people, you have become anti-Semitic.

The fact that Nixon spoke in a racist manner about Jews would indeed support the point that he was an anti-Semite; its a no-brainer. This is a trait that most sensible people find reprehensible. It does not indicate "Jewish" control of the media.

In addition, you have not felt it necessary to take the anti-Israeli garbage propagated in the major media by CIA men into account, as well as the many, many examples of anti-Israel bias in the media, documented here and here.

Ex-officer alleges cover-up in probe of spy ship attack

See here and here. Boston is really not credible.

Try this one:

http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

There's no way it was mistaken identity. Survivors of the Liberty claim there's no way the ship could have been mistaken for an Egyptian fishing boat. Many sites show a comparison between the two--to mistake one for the other is not something the IDF would do. Also, the US flag was flying full mast, for heaven's sake. Why don't you tell the survivors and their families that it was a simple case of mistaken identity. You can reach them online at the above site. The LBJ story has been told before on the Forum and I believe it to be true.

No myths, just facts.

Robert S. McNamara, an alleged participant, denies this and thinks it unlikely that LBJ would have done this. It's one man's word against another's. Taking into account the circumstances of the attack (ship didn't sink, Israelis were using inappropriate weapons, no plausible motive), I find McNamara's denial more credible.

As for the flag, see here, here, here, here, and here.

Also here:

"Immediately prior to the air attack, the Liberty had a 5 by 8-foot American flag hoisted but because of the light wind conditions it probably was not extended. This is the Finding of Fact number 2. of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry of June 18, 1967. As a matter of fact, a reference to the formula for visual acuity reveals that a flag that size, if fully extended in good light would not be identifiable beyond 1323 feet and the attacking aircraft never came that close. It is also the undisputed testimony of the Commanding Officer of the Liberty that the 5 by 8-foot flag was shot away on the first strafing run. A second, larger, 7 by 13 foot flag was hoisted after the air attack and prior to the torpedo attack but it was engulfed in smoke and thus was not an identification factor during the attacks. The first actual sighting of an American flag on the Liberty was made by an Israeli helicopter pilot more than 30 minutes after both air and sea attacks were over."

And what a surprise to find Richard Helms' endorsement of the conclusion that the Liberty was deliberately attacked (here) and lying about the conclusions of the CIA's own reports.

"...for heaven's sake."

Also, do you still hold to the belief that Israel is responsible for the poor living conditions in the "Occupied Territories" rather than the Palestinian Authority, which actually runs them?

Edited April 16, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Michael Hogan]

Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, writes a monthly column for the Washington Post. In today's edition, he writes:

"The calls by a growing number of recently retired senior generals for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is the most serious public confrontation between the military and an administration since President Harry S. Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951.....

First, it is clear that the retired generals -- six so far, with more sure to come -- are speaking for their former colleagues, friends and subordinates who are still inside. In the tight world of senior active and retired generals, there is constant private dialogue. Recent retirees stay in close touch with old friends, who were often their subordinates; they help each other, they know what is going on and a conventional wisdom is formed. Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, who was director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the planning period for the war in Iraq, made this clear in an extraordinary article in Time magazine this past week when he said he was writing "with the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership."

Although better known for his book Final Judgement, which makes a controversial, but persuasive case for Mossad involvement in the murder of John Kennedy, Michael Collins Piper has authored several provocative books. One is entitled The High Priests of War. (Subtitle: The Secret History of How Americas's "Neo-Conservative" Trotskyites Came to Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire.)

Piper writes:

However, the American military leadership did not agree with the neo-conservatives that an invasion of Iraq would either result in a mass uprising by the Iraqi people (in alliance with U.S. forces) or that the rest of the Arab world would sit back with satisfaction. Nor did the American military even want to fight the war in the first place. The military leaders saw no need for the United States to enter into conflict with Iraq, viewing such a war as contrary to American national interests.

The idea that the American military leadership somehow favored the war with Iraq was a myth that was widely being propagated by the neo-conservative pro-Israel propaganda network in official Washington with the active support of the pro-Israel elements in the American media.....

Piper also writes:

Although many grassroots Americans believed that the Bush administration and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were strongly supported by America's military leadership, the truth was quite the opposite. While Bush came into office with quite enthusiastic support from American military families, the truth is that the active duty military leaders in the Pentagon were very much dissatisfied with Rumsfeld and his neo-conservative associates such as Wolfowitz......

In the end, as we now know, the "neo-conservatives" prevailed and the military's warnings were shut out and sidelined, much to the military's disgust. Events in Iraq have since confirmed the military's fears.

(Author's emphasis)

Perhaps it is not quite fair to selectively quote just a portion of Michael Piper's writings, but I think his points are well taken in the context of the accounts of six retired Generals that have dominated the news recently.

I observed the intense passions and controversies sparked during Mr. Piper's brief participation on this forum. I have no desire to be a part of that.

However, certainly Michael Collins Piper is a very good writer that meticulously researches and documents his work. In my opinion, he generally makes reasoned conclusions, even if some of those conclusions are speculative.

I read the second edition of Final Judgment years ago. Mr. Piper generously sent me the updated sixth edition, which I am looking forward to reading. I believe Mr. Piper to be a good man, not because he sent me a free book, but because I feel that he has made valuable contributions to understanding some of the countless mysteries surrounding President Kennedy's murder, and he never fails to give credit to other researchers for their findings.

And although much of his research is not flattering to certain Israeli interests, I do not find him anti-Semitic, any more than someone that criticizes factions within our government to be anti-American.

Mike Hogan

[Len Colby]

I'm not familiar with all the details of the attack. I do recall reading that U.S. jet fighters were on their way to defend the ship, and LBJ ordered them to turn around and come back. If that's true, I guess LBJ figured that Israel, like Castro, is nobody to mess with.

I've never seen this particular allegation anywhere before. It sounds like another in the long line of myths which permeate anti-Israel propaganda. If someone can provide me with a citation or link, I'll look into it.

Try this one:

http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

There's no way it was mistaken identity. Survivors of the Liberty claim there's no way the ship could have been mistaken for an Egyptian fishing boat. Many sites show a comparison between the two--to mistake one for the other is not something the IDF would do. Also, the US flag was flying full mast, for heaven's sake. Why don't you tell the survivors and their families that it was a simple case of mistaken identity. You can reach them online at the above site. The LBJ story has been told before on the Forum and I believe it to be true.

No myths, just facts.

1) "No myths, just facts" you say. I wouldn't classify a site, like the one above, that doesn't provide evidence to support most of it's claims as facts.

2) Israelis said they mistook the USS Liberty for an Egyptian military boat NOT a fishing boat. If you consider that the attack happened in the heat of war the ships don't look that different. Especially if were compare them to the airplanes below. The fighter pilots were not calmly comparing photos on their computer screens in the comfort of their homes but flying over a warship that they suspected might have been shelling their forces during a war. The US Navy concluded that the flag was hanging limp due to a lack of wind. The US had told the Israelis it didn't have any ships in the area. Orders from the Pentagon for the Liberty to avoid the area apparently did not reach it util after the incident.

http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/evidence/mapsphotos/proportions.gif

Cases of mistaken identity and friendly fire attacks are common during war time almost half of the US casualties from the 1st Gulf War were due to friendly fire, there have been several well publicized incidents during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan such as US attacks on Canadian and American forces one of which killed famous (American) football player Phil Tillman. There is a site dedicated to US friendly fire incidents http://members.aol.com/amerwar/ff/ff.htm

Even during peace time cases of mistaken identity have taken place like the infamous shooting down of KAL 007 by Soviet fighters that seemingly mistook the 747 for a USAF RC-135 or when USS Vincennes mistook a climbing Iran Air Airbus 310 for a diving F-14 "Tomcat"

KAL 747 http://www.rescue007.org/images/KAL007.jpg

vs.

USAF RC-135 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/RC-135_takeoff.jpg

Iran Air Airbus http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/IranAir300.jpg

vs.

F-14 "Tom Cat" http://www.jimbrooks.org/web/aviation/full/f-14-3seater.jpg

If you are going to back stories like the one about LBJ calling back the fighters you should offer evidence to back your claims. Is it you position that he would let the Israelis sink the ship rather than demand that they call off the attack?

A very well documented account of what happened can be found at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty1.html although I'm sure most members of this forum will balk at the title!

The lack of any kind of realistic motive for why Israel would intentionally attack a US military ship and then help rescue its crew and inform the US authorities seriously undermines the case the attack was intentional.

Len

[Len Colby]

Ex-officer alleges cover-up in probe of spy ship attack

By James W. Crawley

UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

February 17, 2004

Even with Boston's affidavits and some newly released documents presented at the State Department conference, no consensus was reached on whether the attack was deliberate, accidental or the result of negligence.

[...]

There is no documentation to support Boston's account.

[...]

Kidd died in 1999 at 79 after a career topped by command of the Atlantic Fleet. He never spoke of a cover-up.

[...]

The judge, during a recent telephone interview, discounted Boston's contention that Johnson and McNamara covered up Israel complicity.

"I think those (accusations) are kind of nonsense," Cristol said.

Cristol – also a former Navy pilot and JAG officer – said Boston's comments show that he either lied in 1967 by knowingly filing a false report or that his memory has changed with age.

[Len Colby]

And although much of his research is not flattering to certain Israeli interests, I do not find him anti-Semitic, any more than someone that criticizes factions within our government to be anti-American.

Mike Hogan

Piper has worked for a neo-Nazi his entire career and is proud that his works are sold along side Mein Kampf and the Protocol of the Elders of Zion. Did you read his posts on this forum? It's hard for me to believe someone who is not anti-Semitic themselves could have done so and NOT believe that Piper is. He admitted to being a Holocaust denier and admitted being intellectually dishonest. He also promoted Jewish responsibility not just for the JFK assassination but for everything from Watergate and the Lincoln assassination to the pedophile priest scandal and him being ripped off a security deposit. The papers he works for blame Jews for virtually all of America’s and the World’s ills everything from decaying moral standards to the wrong version of the Bible being used in some churches, advertise tours of Nazi related locations in Europe, published a monthly column from an unrepentant Waffen SS general, and even once suggested Hitler should have won the Nobel Peace Prize!

When you have some free time Google “Willis Carto” who has been Piper’s boss his entire career.

[Lee Forman]

Final Judgment’s case in this regard is principally built on the key significance of Meyer Lansky as the real power player in American organized crime in the 1950s and 1960s, the superior of Giancana, Roselli, Marcello, Mickey Cohen, Mickey Weiner, Moe Dalitz, Frank Costello, and others previously mentioned as participants in the Kennedy conspiracy. quote]

Which is completely untrue. Lansky was subservient to the Genovese family. He was not the boss of Trafficante, and had a close confidant, Jimy Alo, look over Lansky's interests FOR the Genovese family.

THis comes from wiseguys' mouths not mine.

Also he did not die rich, nor did he die powerful. HIs 'power' in the underworld was being eclipsed by the 1960's.

BTW- another good book on Jewish gangsters is Rich Cohen's TOUGH JEWS- a great account of the Lower East side guys like Kid Twist Reles.

Scott,

Are you saying Lansky died poor? Didn't he offer the Israeli Government ten million bucks to allow him to emigrate in the 70's?

Lansky subservient to Genovese? Laughable. Genovese spent the last decade of his life in jail. Some believe Lansky helped put him there.

Politics of Heroin - I guess we could ask McCloy - he has Lansky being first to Havana. Trafficante 'assumed responsibility' for Lansky's interests in Havana and Miami.

I have never seen anything about Lansky being subservient to the Genovese family - would you mind sharing a reference?

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/mafia/luciano.html

Can't copy and paste from this site. Worth reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Anastasia

However, Genovese dared not move against Anastasia and his real target, Costello, because of Meyer Lansky, one of the highest ranking and most powerful members of the National Crime Syndicate. Lansky and Genovese were long-standing enemies, with disputes dating from the 1920s, and Genovese could not make a move for power without Lansky's support.

Anyone know the names of the Israeli journalists Ruby allegedly met with? Was Ruby a Zionist? If Ruby is really a hardcore Zionist, and I see no reason to believe otherwise, it would make a great deal of logical sense to me.

- lee

I think it's a safe bet he was fiercely Zionist. Cohen was and Jack looked up to him. To me it's obvious.

Good question re the journalists, Lee. It's a very hard topic to nail. Were they (if the story is true) "journalists". I wonder.

On the Genovese thing, I've always been under the impression that the 'big four'--Luciano, Lansky, Costello and Seigel--started out together. Two Italians and two Jews. I'm willing to be corrected but I've not read anything contradicting this. Luciano became leader of the New York mafia but didn't interefere in non competing jurisdictions, enhancing his underworld popularity. Genovese was Luciano's 2ic and from the beginning was disliked by the other three and Luciano himself, according to his bio. I can't see how the other three would accept Genovese as the boss once Luciano went to prison. It's daft.

Hi Mark - they could in a rewrite of history from an Italian perspective.

Thought the same thing on the journalists - with the assumption that 'journalists' were used as a cover frequently.

On the Liberty - As with anything else, more than likely there is more to the story. I would recommend studying the damage done to the ship before drawing any conclusions. If there are any photos of the before and the after, I'd like to see them.

- lee

[Michael Hogan]

Len,

I originally wrote: "And although much of his research is not flattering to certain Israeli interests, I do not find him anti-Semitic......"

My statement would have been more accurate had I said, "I do not find his research and writing (As appearing in Final Judgement and The High Priests of War) to be anti-Semitic....."

I know little of Mr. Piper's affiliations, or other writings. Nor did I refer to them in my post.

My comments were based upon a reading of the two aforementioned books and intended to reflect my interpretation of the merits of documentation and research in same books.

I also wrote: "I observed the intense passions and controversies sparked during Mr. Piper's brief participation on this forum. I have no desire to be a part of that." I still don't.

Perhaps you know much more about Piper than I do, but your quickness to label me as anti-Semitic speaks volumes about you.

Mike Hogan

[Mark Stapleton]

Len,

I originally wrote: "And although much of his research is not flattering to certain Israeli interests, I do not find him anti-Semitic......"

My statement would have been more accurate had I said, "I do not find his research and writing (As appearing in Final Judgement and The High Priests of War) to be anti-Semitic....."

I know little of Mr. Piper's affiliations, or other writings. Nor did I refer to them in my post.

My comments were based upon a reading of the two aforementioned books and intended to reflect my interpretation of the merits of documentation and research in same books.

I also wrote: "I observed the intense passions and controversies sparked during Mr. Piper's brief participation on this forum. I have no desire to be a part of that." I still don't.

Perhaps you know much more about Piper than I do, but your quickness to label me as anti-Semitic speaks volumes about you.

Mike Hogan

Touche.

[Mark Stapleton]

i tend to agree with Piper's general theory on the landscape of how Israel has progressed militarily and in the United States policies since 1963.Bottom line,they call the shots...look no further than the United States waging and threatening war today on Israel's worst blood enemies....the whole 9 yards from the USS Liberty to Jack Abramoff and everything in between.

More anti-Israeli nonsense. Israel as a state can certainly be subjected to criticism, but much of it is ridiculous and borderline, yes, "anti-Semitic." I really fail to see how the attack on the USS Liberty can be seen as anything other than a case of mistaken identity. First of all, I have never seen any plausible motive whatsoever put forward for why Israel would deliberately attack the ship. Second, Israel did not sink the Liberty. These two factors pretty much "sink" the theory. Its just another smear to paint the Jewish nation as totally malevolent and evil.

This little piece by Dr. Dore Gold (former Israeli ambassador to the U.N.) shows that the U.S.'s recent Iraqi adventure has not been at Israel's behest, nor is it even necessarily in Israel's best interest.

Also, this lengthy analysis by Dr. Francisco Gil-White shows that U.S. foreign policy has been pro-PLO, not pro-Israeli. How interesting that the United States should get the PLO out of Lebanon on the brink of their destruction by Israel, or that the PLO provided security for U.S. diplomats in the same conflict. This is just one example among many. In addition, another long series of articles by the same author details the attacks on Israel in the media by "former" CIA officials Raymond McGovern and Vincent Cannistraro, including linking Israel to 9-11 (for which there is still no evidence that hasn't been "cooked," so to speak).

You sure know where to find articles to support your ideas. The one by Dr. Gil-White is the most intriguing, IMO. For all these years it appeared to me that America's words and actions indicated they were strong allies, even protectors of Israel. Blow me down, now I find out that the US foreign policy has been pro-PLO all along!

Of course, it's hard to suspend disbelief for too long. It gives me a headache.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Owen Parsons]

[MERGED, SEE BELOW]

Edited April 16, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Len Colby]

Len,

I originally wrote: "And although much of his research is not flattering to certain Israeli interests, I do not find him anti-Semitic......"

My statement would have been more accurate had I said, "I do not find his research and writing (As appearing in Final Judgement and The High Priests of War) to be anti-Semitic....."

I know little of Mr. Piper's affiliations, or other writings. Nor did I refer to them in my post.

My comments were based upon a reading of the two aforementioned books and intended to reflect my interpretation of the merits of documentation and research in same books.

I also wrote: "I observed the intense passions and controversies sparked during Mr. Piper's brief participation on this forum. I have no desire to be a part of that." I still don't.

Perhaps you know much more about Piper than I do, but your quickness to label me as anti-Semitic speaks volumes about you.

Mike Hogan

What exactly does it say about me Mike? Where did I label YOU as anti-Semitic?