Mark Stapleton

Lee,

Interesting post. Meyer Lansky remains something of a shadowy figure to me. With all the emphasis being on Trafficante, Marcello, Giancana, and Rosselli, I've never read much about Lansky. I guess I'll have to.

So much to read, so little time. I may eventually just come to the conclusion that everybody got together and did their part in getting rid of JFK.

Ron

*****************************************************

"Interesting post. Meyer Lansky remains something of a shadowy figure to me."

Forgive me for coming in on this thread over a week later but, I found this review from James Richards url to be quite interesting:

The Last Word on the JFK Assassination November 28, 2002

Reviewer: Mark Braver from Chicago, Illinois

There seems to be a lot of misperception of what Final Judgment does and does not say about the JFK assassination. The book does not say that "the Jews killed JFK." That's horse manure.

What the book does say is that:

When New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison charged businessman Clay Shaw with participation in the JFK assassination conspiracy Garrison stumbled upon the Israeli Mossad connection to the murder of President Kennedy. Shaw served on the board of a shadowy corporation known as Permindex. A primary shareholder in Permindex was the Banque De Credit International of Geneva, founded by Tibor Rosenbaum, an arms procurer and financier for the Mossad.

What's more, the Mossad-sponsored Swiss bank was the chief "money laundry" for Meyer Lansky, the head of the international crime syndicate and an Israeli loyalist whose operations meshed closely on many fronts with the American CIA.

The chairman of Permindex was Louis M. Bloomfield of Montreal, a key figure in the Israeli lobby and an operative of the Bronfman family of Canada, long-time Lansky associates and among Israel's primary international patrons.

In the pages of "Final Judgment" the Israeli connection to the JFK assassination is explored in frightening — and fully documented — detail. For example, did you know:

That JFK was engaged in a bitter secret conflict with Israel over U.S. [Middle] East policy and that Israel's prime minister resigned in disgust, saying JFK's stance threatened Israel's very survival?

That JFK's successor, Lyndon Johnson, immediately reversed America's policy toward Israel?

That the top Mafia figures often alleged to be behind the JFK assassination were only front men for Meyer Lansky?

That the CIA's liaison to the Mossad, James Angleton, was a prime mover behind the cover-up of the JFK assassination?

Why didn't Oliver Stone, in his famous movie "JFK" not mention any of this? It turns out the chief financial backer of Stone's film was longtime Mossad figure, Arnon Milchan, Israel's biggest arms dealer.

The very fact that the Israeli lobby has gone through such great lengths to try to smear Michael Collins Piper and to try to discredit Final Judgment gives the book great credibility. If the book was really so silly or so unconvincing, it doesn't seem likely that groups such as the Anti-Defamation League would go out of their way to try to suppress the book as they have. The fact is that Piper demonstrates that Israel did indeed have a very strong motive to want to get JFK out of the way and that numerous people who have been linked in other writings to the JFK conspiracy were (as Piper documents) also in the sphere of influence of Israel's Mossad. Not only Clay Shaw in New Orleans, but also James Angleton at the CIA, who was Israel's strongest advocate at the CIA and also the CIA's liaison to the Mossad. The Israeli connection is indeed "the missing link in the JFK assassination conspiracy."

The "Reader from Chicago" who wrote the review of Final Judgment posted here is really off the beam and I suspect he (or she) is deliberately distorting what Piper's book does say in order to try to discourage people from reading it.

The fact is that Piper's book documents (quite clearly, in my estimation) not only the means, opportunity and the motive for Israeli Mossad involvement in the assassination (working in conjunction with the CIA), but it is also quite fascinating and very interesting read. "Boring" is the last word I'd use to describe the book, and it is certainly not "poorly written."

What's more, the book is not — I repeat — not "anti-Semitic" and the book has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the Holocaust.

In fact, anybody familiar with any of the standard writings on the JFK assassination will recognize the names of some of the key players in the scenario Piper documents: Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Guy Banister and James J. Angleton of the CIA — and none of them were Jewish. So where this reviewer gets off saying that Piper finds "a Jew under every rock" is beyond me.

I have read literally hundreds of books and magazine articles and other material on the JFK assassination and not in a single one of them — with the exception of Final Judgment — did I ever learn that President John F. Kennedy was trying to stop Israel from building the nuclear bomb and that this literally touched off a "secret war" behind the scenes between JFK and Israel's prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, who resigned (among other reasons) in disgust over JFK's policies with Israel. In fact, Israeli historian Avner Cohen in his book, Israel and the Bomb, documents this quite thoroughly.

And in Final Judgment Piper also outlines some interesting Israeli connections by people who have been linked to the JFK assassination and cover-up, including Clay Shaw of New Orleans. Even Israeli journalist Barry Chamish has written in an Internet review of Final Judgment that he finds Piper's Israeli connection (via Shaw and Permindex) quite convincing.

There was a controversy in the Chicago area following an attempt by the Anti-Defamation League (an Israeli lobby organization) and people associated with the ADL to prevent Final Judgment from being placed in the Schaumburg Township District Library. Chances are the Reader from Chicago is probably an ADL representative!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terry,

I've read that before but its interesting to read it again. I had a bio of Meyer Lansky which I've lost but it had photos of Lansky in Israel. Lansky tried to emigrate there late in his life but the Israeli Government rejected his application.

Terry,

I agree with you about Tim being a decent person. As for a good debater, nope. Watching Tim's debates with RCD is just watching Tim run away. The list of questions Tim leaves unanswered is long.

However, the problem is that this is also an investigation as well as a debate. While the investigation makes slow progress, the collective knowledge grows and the true picture might start to be seen. Why would anyone interested in seeing that picture object to the growth of that knowledge in any area, however unlikely?

There's some areas which I think are a waste of time--like Castro--but Tim's the only one who regularly claims that some areas are immoral and off-limits. If Tim really wants to know who killed JFK why would he say this?

Robert Charles-Dunne does somersaults to rebut my scenario of possible Cuban involvement in the assassination.

But his absence in refuting Piper's absurd claims that Isreal did it is conspicuous.

Wonder why he is more concerned with defending Castro than he is with defending Israel? Or can we infer he agrees with Piper?

Tim,

Already you're calling for the cavalry.

Alan,

A fine post and very even-handed, IMO.

On a very minor point: I agree with the premise that Meyer Lansky was more influential than many believe. Because he wasn't Sicilian he could never become a capo in his own right, but his influence and authority stemmed from his days as Luciano's consigliere. As the kingpin of the Cuba operations he would cut other mafia leaders in for a small cut, further enhancing his prestige. I always thought Vito Genovese was responsible for the hit on Ananstasia, the result of a longstanding dispute over Genovese's ambition to become the top mafia leader in New York. The Gallo brothers from Brooklyn were suspected of being the ones who carried it out, under contract, and were henceforth labelled the barbershop quintet.

What is this, some kind of tribunal in which Tim Gratz is being grilled by John Simkin? I think this thread is TOTALLY out of line. It's simply harassment by a socialist intolerant of someone who disagrees with his views.

This thread's not out of line, you're wrong there. And Tim's no martyr.

Ditto to that, Rush. I think Tim should be prepared to take some of what he dishes out.

The initiation of an entire thread devoted to Tim Gratz's political views isn't questionable because it's undeserved; it's questionable because it's inappropriate and crass.

T.C.

Crass? Yeah, probably. Inappropriate? No, not necessarily. IMO, no other member so often takes issue with others about the suggestion of people who had a role in the assassination.

Tim acts as like gatekeeper, ferociously defending his favorites from any hint of suspicion. His regular questioning of the motives of those who disagree is certainly crass and has become a common feature of the Forum. Some have suggested that this is effectively Tim's Forum. The amount of his posts far exceeds that of any other member. If Tim wants to establish this role for himself that's fine, but there's no reason why the Forum cannot periodically examine the motives of one who wishes to play such a role. FWIW.

Well let us start off with #1.

If Arbenz caused the murder of his main opponent, can you consider his election to be legitimate?

I would say no.

Does it make any difference in your analysis of the CIA actions in Guatemala whether in fact Arbenz came to power legitimately? Would you agree that the CIA's overthrowing a "legitimate" government has different implications than its actions in changing a government that had seized control through illegal means, i.e. an assassination?

WHY BY THE WAY IS A THREAD ON MY POLITICAL VIEWS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION CASE?

"Why BY THE WAY IS A THREAD ON MY POLITICAL VIEWS OF ANY CONSEQUENCE TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION CASE" That's something I was wondering about myself. What is this, some kind of tribunal in which Tim Gratz is being grilled by John Simkin? I think this thread is TOTALLY out of line. It's simply harassment by a socialist intolerant of someone who disagrees with his views.

Disappointed,

Roy Bierma

Royce, read post #14. Steve.

Royce,

I agree with Steve. If you have the time to read all Tim's posts (a year's long service leave would be about the time needed if, like me, you"re not an overly fast reader), you'll see that Tim has a long history of questioning the motives and even the intelligence of those who disagree with him or have the temerity to suggest the involvement of groups or individuals he holds dear.

He often states that his knowledge of the law must prevail when berating those who disagree. Tim's dished out a ton of spiteful invective and also threatened legal recourse.

This thread's not out of line, you're wrong there. And Tim's no martyr.

At this point, I don't see how anyone can be completely convinced of any suspect's guilt, to the exclusion of all others, without their having a personal agenda.

I agree. I've said before that I don't think "Israel did it" because it didn't have to. (That's in addition to the lack of evidence.) The Mossad would have found out first if any plots were already afoot, and there had to be at least one. And why would that one need or ask for Israel's help?

The Jewish Mafia may have been among the players, but that's not the same as saying Israel participated.

So it looks like there's an agenda here. OTOH Piper's book is now in its 6th edition, and has expanded from almost 400 pages (as in the 3rd edition that I have) to over 700 pages. That certainly suggests that Piper keeps coming up with new evidence to include in his book, almost doubling its original length. It could also mean he keeps adding nonsense to it. Who knows? Has he showed up yet?

Ron,

I disagree. I believe Israel may well have participated in the assassination and for the exact reason you cited--only in reverse.

I believe they did have to--if they wanted security and survival. JFK couldn't be moved on Dimona. If he won in '64 it would have to close down, an option unthinkable to the military and political leadership of that nation at the time. However, with LBJ in the White House it becomes a whole new ball game.

In '63, the memories of the holocaust where a lot fresher to Israel's leaders than they are now. And Israel knew about the enemies JFK had within America. I don't believe any theories about the World Jewish Congress ordering his death etc. It was simply a matter of the most powerful groups disaffected by JFK's agenda establishing contact and arriving at a plan.

I think there were definitely alliances established of which we know little. There was undoubtedly alliances formed to supress the truth in the aftermath of the assassination, the Government, the intelligence agencies and the media, to name three.

Large parts of the American media where owned and controlled by people strongly sympathetic to the Jewish cause: General David Sarnoff (NBC), William Paley (CBS), Arthur Krim (United Artists) were examples. I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm just stating a fact.

There were also influential people within the agencies who strongly supported the fledgling nation. According to Avner Cohen's book, James Jesus Angleton refused to pass on information concerning the progress of Dimona to the Government. The existence of the underground plutonium separation plant was thus not discovered officially by the US Government until 1961, four years after construction began.

To me, this and several other factors lead me to believe that Israel was one of the participants in DP. I know that several members think I have an anti-Israel agenda but I've stated my admiration for that country before so I won't bore anyone with it again. I know I don't have such an agenda and that's the most important thing for me.

This is simply what I believe. The more I discover about the assassination (and I admit I'm a beginner compared to some here with a much larger reservoir of knowledge, yourself included), the more convinced I become.

I wish to add another question to my short list of Piper questions.

One of the links in the American Free Press web-site is to the Truth Newspaper which apparently supports and endorses several "Southern" web-sites. At least one of these organizations proposes (I am not making this up) that there should be a new nation consisting of the states of the confederacy!

One of the Southern organizations includes this "humour" (its definition of a "damn Yankee):

You are a damn-yankee if:

1. You think you live in a free country.

2. You truly believe that Abe Lincoln freed anyone, anywhere.

3. You think it was “for the best” that the North won the War for Southern Independence.

4. You consider the citizens of the Confederacy to have been traitors to the U.S.

5. You see nothing at all wrong with the union army attacking the South and the union navy blockading Southern ports.

6. You think you have a right to tell Southerners how to live and if they don’t agree to force them.

7. You think it’s funny to depict Southerners as ignorant, slack-jawed, buck-toothed, inbred, violent, backwoods, beer-swilling potbellied rednecks, who just need to lighten-up and learn how to laugh at themselves.

8. You cannot fathom why Southerners would not want to keep company with you.

9. There’s some part of the statement, “Leave us the hell alone!” that you just can’t grasp.

10.You think our struggle for Independence from you people is over.

So my new question to Mr. Piper is:

Do you think the South was right in the Civil War, and do you support the cause of creating an independent nation of Southern states?

Tim,

So now this guy must justify his position on the Civil War?

I am without speech.

Occupation - Part Time Computer Technician and full time mother of six. Studying for Advanced Internet Degree part Time. Location Cairns, Tropical Australia. 39 Years Old.

Margaret,

You live in God's country. Far North Queensland as far as I am concerned is the very best this planet has to offer. I live on the Gold Coast but my wife and I also spend a few months a year in Port Douglas.

James

Yes, box jellyfish, irikanji jellyfish, sharks, cane toads, crocodiles, Ross River fever, cyclones etc. Best on the planet, IMO.

Only joking. I think I'm Sydney-centric.

p.s. welcome to the Forum, Margaret.

Mark,

You forgot Taipans, cockroaches you can put a saddle on, mosquitoes with the attack capabilities of Apache Helicopters and Victorian tourists.

I lived in Sydney for a couple of years. Just watch out for those blind mullets at Bondi.

James

James,

LOL. Lovely retort. Yes, those blind mullets were a problem. The deep water outlets have partially fixed the problem. I participated in the campaign to lobby the Government for those. Back in the old days, the outfalls at Malabar and North Head only had primary treatment for the effluent, which only turned large solids into smaller ones. Sometimes there were more mullets on a wave than surfers. Truly scary days.

Occupation - Part Time Computer Technician and full time mother of six. Studying for Advanced Internet Degree part Time. Location Cairns, Tropical Australia. 39 Years Old.

Margaret,

You live in God's country. Far North Queensland as far as I am concerned is the very best this planet has to offer. I live on the Gold Coast but my wife and I also spend a few months a year in Port Douglas.

James

Yes, box jellyfish, irikanji jellyfish, sharks, cane toads, crocodiles, Ross River fever, cyclones etc. Best on the planet, IMO.

Only joking. I think I'm Sydney-centric.

p.s. welcome to the Forum, Margaret.

Piper:

You believe World War Two should not have been fought. True?

Do you believe there is any moral difference between the murder of 1,000,000 Jews and the murder of 6,000,000?

Do you admit that the Hitler regime was murdering Jews (regardless of the number count)?

Do you agree with the tenets of the Storm Front organization?

For heaven's sake, give him a chance to make his first post. This isn't the Spanish Inquisition.

Those are legitimate questions Mark. What are you some sort of “moral guardian” of this forum?

You insisted that Piper be allowed to post here and chided John Dolva and Tim for objecting to his presence. Just as he has a right to join this forum veteran members have the right to ask him questions that serve to indicate whether or not he has any bias that many have predetermined the results of his research. He requested membership in this forum and his fellow members have the right to ask him any relevant questions that don’t violate the rules.

Or do you think Piper has more rights that Tim?

Len,

They may be legitimate questions but obviously I was suggesting that Tim wait until the guy has time to make a post before ripping into him. It's also a little rude to address him as "Piper".

It seems you have been eagerly awaiting the opportunity to throw the "moral guardian" comment back in my face but in your haste you have picked the wrong occasion. Asking that someone be given an opportunity to be heard is not the same as demanding that he not be heard.

The only thing I'm saying to Tim and others is to take it easy. He's already said he would address the various assertions made against him. And despite what you think of him, my other observation was also correct--this isn't the Spanish Inquisition.

Mark,

This "young man" running from behing the TSBD to Houston and Pacific, then down Pacific is a new one for me.

More than likely, this was James Worrell. You can read his actions that day here:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/worrell.htm

Steve Thomas

Steve,

Thanks for that. Looks like it was Worrell. Love the way Specter tried to push him into identifying dark jacket, light pants man as LHO.

Lee,

You've dug up some interesting stuff. I couldn't play the REELRADIO tapes because it required a subscription, login etc but I read many of the comments.

The tramps having earpieces and new shoes is intersting. I recall Garrison mentioned something about tall tramp having new shoes and a nice haicut. This "young man" running from behing the TSBD to Houston and Pacific, then down Pacific is a new one for me. Hope Sam responds to the E-mail. What chance those recordings showing up? Doubtful, IMO.

Trivia: According to IMDb, Ted Cassidy (Lurch) was working at WFAA that day.

Piper:

You believe World War Two should not have been fought. True?

Do you believe there is any moral difference between the murder of 1,000,000 Jews and the murder of 6,000,000?

Do you admit that the Hitler regime was murdering Jews (regardless of the number count)?

Do you agree with the tenets of the Storm Front organization?

For heaven's sake, give him a chance to make his first post. This isn't the Spanish Inquisition.

AH, noone expects the Spanish Inquisition, Cardinal Fang bring out the...........COMFY CUSHIONS..

LOL. Our main weapons are fear......surprise......no, wait a minute, wait a minute..............

Piper:

You believe World War Two should not have been fought. True?

Do you believe there is any moral difference between the murder of 1,000,000 Jews and the murder of 6,000,000?

Do you admit that the Hitler regime was murdering Jews (regardless of the number count)?

Do you agree with the tenets of the Storm Front organization?

For heaven's sake, give him a chance to make his first post. This isn't the Spanish Inquisition.

Michael,

Welcome to the Forum. I also hope you are granted permission to post on the Forum.

As you probably know from reading the enormous thread on this Forum dealing with your book, I believe you may have something to offer in uncovering the factors which surround this confusing, unsolved murder. I've read Avner Cohen's excellent book "Israel and the Bomb" which tells the story of how Israel obtained nuclear capability and its policy of "opacity" and this strengthened my suspicions about the strong motive Israel may have had to participate in the assassination. I haven't read yours yet but I hope to get it soon.

I don't hate Israel. I think that nation's short history is a story of remarkable achievement against huge odds. I actually admire that country's courage and ingenuity. Against this, I have a strong desire to see progress made, and possibly closure, on the JFK case.

Hopefully those who are more interested in focussing on other issues will allow you to stick to the topic. I was unaware of your friendship with Mark Lane. Rush to Judgement is still one my favorite books.

I don't like the idea of being refered to as this 'moral guardian'. Apart from the derogatory tone to the suggestion, I prefer to see everyone being their own.

Would you prefer I keep my opinions to myself here. Is that the 'free speech' you wish Piper to enjoy?

___________

As far as it being a special privilege to post here?

I think it is. There is a repository of individuals and ideas that contribute to the world here. This is good.

___________

While in some instances there is truth in what is said about some southern judges. It is also true that there were significant elements that were driven to nullify any such efforts. They in some states ruled by terror, economic control and 'eduaction'. Elements exist today.

It was through the courage of the Kennedys, the Evers brothers, Martin Luther King and the freedom riders, ordinary black and white americans that real change finally started.

And it is through the little people staying silent in the face of their supposed leaders bad choices that the Nazis rose to power. Just blaming the 'leaders' is a kind of 'over there and them' mentality that makes personal responsibility less than what it should be.

John,

I'll respond to the first two paragraphs of your post, as the remainder appears to refer to issues raised by Len.

I would have thought the term "moral guardian" is pretty mild compared to the tone of some of the heated language which has been used here, especially by you and Tim.

You and Tim wish to have Mr. Piper silenced before he has had a chance to state his case. To me that's behaving like a moral guardian. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. (Just as Michael Collins Piper is entitled to his).

He has been “zapprudered” after leaving the sniper nest behind the chopped tree

Nice one, George. "Where is that wascally Whittington?"

It takes all the fun out of killing things when a human gets shot in the process.

When I was a kid, our family dentist went out hunting one weekend. He sat in some bushes and made sounds like a turkey, and somebody shot him.

We had to find a new family dentist.

I guess I shouldn't laugh but I just picked myself up off the floor.

And re refering this to Freedom of Speech, of course Piper has the right to spew his vitriol, so long as it does not incite violence. But that does not give you the obligation to give him a forum to spread his hatred any more than it compels me to break bread with him. A defender of the Holocaust should be shunned by all moral men.

I have no time for people who deny the Holocaust. However, their crime needs to be seen in perspective. Who is worst, the people who denied it happened, or the people who allowed it to happen? What about those British and American politicians who denied Jews entry when they tried to flee from Nazi Germany. What about those British and American military commanders who refused to bomb the transport links to the concentration camps?

My least favourite historian, David Irving, aged 67, has been held in an Austrian prison since 17th November, 2005, because he said in 2000 that there had been no gas chambers at the Auschwitz camp. Yet this is a country that elected a former Nazi to become its president.

Tim says that people who he says are Holocaust deniers should be banned from this Forum (it is not at all clear that Michael Collins Piper falls into this category). Yet I allow him to support a man who has caused an illegal war to take place in order to satisfy the needs of his financial backers.

I mostly agree with John, the inaction of the Allies’ political and (European Theater) military commanders was disgraceful, many of the Holocaust’s 10 million victims (about half of whom were Jewish) could have been saved. The denial of visas lead many Jews to flee to Latin America or even as far as China and those were of course the luck ones*.

I feel that Piper should be admitted as a member for a few reasons.

1) I am a firm believer in free speech and feel that basic rights should be extended to all no matter how distasteful their views. America’s not to recent past illustrates this, in the 1960’s many southern Federal judges many of whom shared the racist views of the local community upheld the civil rights of African Americans because they believed that’s what the Constitution and federal law mandated. To them blacks demanding their fair place in society were as distasteful as Piper and his ilk are to me. These judges made these ruling at a high personal price as many became outcast in their communities or even there families.

2) No offense to present company, but membership is not really a special honor, since John and Andy let just about anybody in. He is being given a soapbox not a stamp of approval.

3) If he is he is barred here, he would be able to play the part of a “persecuted martyr” and go on about how the “Israel lobby” is even keeping him out of internet forums.

4) I doubt his thesis will bear the scrutiny of the combined expertise of this forum’s members

* What is little discussed is that financial status was very important to being able to flee Nazi era Europe. Visas often had to be “bought” from corrupt consular officials and application fees and transportation costs were high. In addition many countries would only grant visas to wealthy families. When my mother was born here family was working class but fortunately my grandfather was a successful businessman and was able afford forged documents as well as visas and transportation to Cuba.

Len,

That's quite a sensible approach. It would be nice if our self-appointed moral guardians took this view.

Where is my annoyance?

I noted it, and further, that Jeff posted illfounded quotes, prewsumably as argument for Pipers inclusion. Those quotes, apart from being false, had nothing to do with the assassination, but sets the tone.

I wouldn't support martyring Piper. As someone who knowingly does what he does I don't pity him either.

He is not here. Except through mouthpiece. And that product is not assassination related.

What Tim does, your interpretation of what he does, and his response is nothing to do with me.

Me don't run the forum? hmmm

"is allowed to discuss the assassination" "allow him to state his case" what do you think I think I am?

I don't get it.

I have opinions. You have opinions.

So what?

In your post #159 you seem a bit annoyed to me. Now you say you weren't annoyed? Maybe I read it wrong. I don't really care anyway.

You say you would ban Piper from joining the Forum to discuss the assassination because, in your opinion, this "special case" takes precedence over possible further discovery of the underlying factors surrounding the death of JFK. That's fine. I disagree and am glad the decision is not yours to make. What's so hard to understand there? hmmmm?

When I ask that you allow Piper to discuss the assassination and state his case, I'm referring to him being allowed to outline his case without being barraged with questions about the holocaust. My meaning isn't really that hard to fathom, John.

I'm quite happy to leave it at that because this discussion with you just seems to be travelling in ever diminishing circles.

Mark, I must disagree with John Dolva. "Filth" is too good a word for anyone who downgrades the significance of the slaughter of 1,500,00 (plus of course) people.

Piper does not belong on this Forum.

Here is where he properly belongs:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/

Members of that organization like Piper.

I do not understand how you can countenance social intercourse with a man who defends mass murder.

You wrote:

Question is, if Piper is allowed to discuss the assassination here, are you and Tim going to allow this man to state his case concerning the assassination. If not, then you are proving that you have no intention of abiding by the umpire's verdict.

Mark, if John S. overrules Andy's objection to Nazi members, I think John D., Len and I are powerless to stop him from posting. That does not however mean that we have to have any interaction with the beast.

Here is the ironic thing. If JFK was killed by Americans, it is possible he was killed by racists. People who welcome Piper's views. It's a heck of a lot more likely JFK was killed by Piper's "bedmates" than that he was killed by the Mossad.

Your opinions on Piper's apparent denial of the holocaust are duly noted. What are you going to say if Piper presents a reasonable case for Mossad/IDF involvement in JFK's assassination?

So, even before Piper is a memeber he phones another memeber who post's his position on Jews. And it's based on bullxxxx as shown by the links.

This will inevitably turn into a xxxxfight and a dissemination of his views. It already has. And you want him as a member???

Obviously those who are interested in his attitudes have no problem already accessing them. Why go further and give him and his ilk a legup here?

I wish you would be more specific in your posts and not make wild rants.

You have a problem with a Forum member and Mr. Piper communicating by phone? Why? Do you also wish to have phone contact banned?

For your information, I am interested in what Piper has to say about JFK. I resent you trying to determine what I may or may not hear. It probably will be a xxxxfight, judging by the extraordinary invective and animosity being whipped up by you and Tim. As far as I am concerned, Tim has slipped over the edge on this one. Looks like you are right behind him.

An interesting take on my post.

What do you think Mark. Do I want to ban phone contacts?

You as well as myself and anyone who reads the posts know the answer to that.

You suggest I do, Why?

________________________________

What power do I have to determine what enters your ears?

John is clear as to where the power resides as to who joins or doesn't join this forum.

________________________________

I find Pipers comments extremely inflammatory.

I think Tim happens to be right on this one, and would be quite pleased if you would characterise me as already having gone over the edge on this one. Way over. What Tim or anyone else chooses is up to them.

My position on membership for Piper is no. His situation takes precedence over the assassination.

Others are in contact with him and can state his position. That's fine with me.

And an interesting take on my post.

You seem to be annoyed that Piper communicated with Jeff Dahlstrom on the phone. If not, why did you mention it in your inflammatory post?

In your previous posts you have made comments such as "filth" and "perversion repulsive to humanity". Your strong opinions on anyone who denies the holocaust are duly noted. Ramping up the tone with each post only indicates to me that you border on fanaticism yourself. FWIW, someone who denies the holocaust is to be pitied, not burned at the stake. In any case, Piper is not here to discuss such issues--remember?

Tim is trying to make a case that listening to Piper's views on the assassination sullies the memory of holocaust victims. I disagree and consider the JFK assassination to be a separate issue. Tim wants the two issues to be linked permanently. However, Tim and yourself don't run the Forum--fortunately, IMO.

Question is, if Piper is allowed to discuss the assassination here, are you and Tim going to allow this man to state his case concerning the assassination. If not, then you are proving that you have no intention of abiding by the umpire's verdict.

So, even before Piper is a memeber he phones another memeber who post's his position on Jews. And it's based on bullxxxx as shown by the links.

This will inevitably turn into a xxxxfight and a dissemination of his views. It already has. And you want him as a member???

Obviously those who are interested in his attitudes have no problem already accessing them. Why go further and give him and his ilk a legup here?

I wish you would be more specific in your posts and not make wild rants.

You have a problem with a Forum member and Mr. Piper communicating by phone? Why? Do you also wish to have phone contact banned?

For your information, I am interested in what Piper has to say about JFK. I resent you trying to determine what I may or may not hear. It probably will be a xxxxfight, judging by the extraordinary invective and animosity being whipped up by you and Tim. As far as I am concerned, Tim has slipped over the edge on this one. Looks like you are right behind him.

Consider the following quote: "I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."

—Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to cabinet member Shimon Peres, October 3rd, 2001, as reported on Kol Y'Israel radio.

This quote is a fabrication. See here.

Here is another from Mr. Sharon: "We are Judeo-Nazis, and why not? If your nice, civilized parents, rather than writing books about their love for humanity had instead come to Israel and killed six million Arabs, what would have happened? Sure, two or three nasty pages would have been written in the history books, and we would have been called all sorts of names, but we would be here today as a people of 25 million! What you don't seem to understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it."

—Ariel Sharon, 1982

As is this one. See here. The quote debunked on this page is somewhat different, but it is given the same date and repeats key phrases and a sentence.

The only source I can find for the Fulbright quote is on neo-Nazi and militant Islamic sites. It looks just as phony as the two Sharon quotes.

Its this sort of stuff that lead me to take a second look at my original position on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I want to stick primarily to the JFK assassination aspect of this thread but (briefly digressing), I would suggest you also consider the following comments, from a book called "Iron Wall, Israel and the Arab States" by Israeli historian Avi Schlaim. These quotes are from Moshe Dayan, arguably Israel's greatest soldier and also a former Defense Minister in the Israeli Government. In an interview in 1976, he describes how the confrontation with the Syrians began in 1967:

Never mind that (when asked if the Syrians initiated the war from the Golan Heights). After all, I know how at least 80% of the clashes there started.

We would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarised area, and we knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. Then we would use artillery and later the Air Force also, and that's how it was.

I did that, and also Laskov and Chara (Zvi Tsur, Rabin's successor as Chief of Staff). Yitzhak did that, but it seems to me the person who enjoyed these games was Dado (David Elzar, OC Northern Command, 1964-1969). (Iron Wall pp. 236-237).

Moshe Dayan also had this to say about Israel's relationship with America:

Our American friends offer us money, arms and advice. We take the money, take the arms and decline the advice. (Iron Wall, p.316)

I welcome your research into these areas, Owen.