Terry Mauro
-
Posts
1,791 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Terry Mauro
-
-
Here's the url below:
-
The government is (rightly, I am afraid) assuming that the only mechanism that can prevent this from becoming a reality is 'an irate American public,' which begs the question, is there anything that can outrage the American public into gasp, protesting?
The generation of the 1970's antiwar activists would look at our culture and probably think that 'we deserve whatever we get,' and I tend to agree.
***********************************************
"The generation of the 1970's antiwar activists would look at our culture and probably think that 'we deserve whatever we get,' and I tend to agree."
Throw in the anti-nuke, as well as the Civil Rights activists of the 1960's, and I'd say 'you got that right,' Mr. Howard! BTW, my addressing you as Mr. Howard, is in no way meant to be sarcastic. It's a matter of being able to distinguish you from the rest of the "Roberts" in the membership of this forum. I hope you don't mind?
-
John wrote:
One of the things that has always puzzled me is that if Lyndon Johnson was behind the plot to kill Kennedy, there are probably some FBI or CIA documents around that provides evidence to back this up. Therefore, why have Republican administrations not ordered the release of these documents?
Well, John, that would then lead to the conclusion that LBJ did not do it, wouldn't it?
Of course you all know that I do not believe Johnson, or anyone high in the FBI or CIA did it, but I think it can be safely said that if anyone so situated was smart enough to plan the dastardly deed he was also smart enough to ensure there were no incriminating documents sitting in any government files.
I do not think the successful planner of the "crime of the century" merited mention on the TV show "The World's Stupidest Criminals".
************************************************
"Of course you all know that I do not believe Johnson, or anyone high in the FBI or CIA did it, but I think it can be safely said that if anyone so situated was smart enough to plan the dastardly deed he was also smart enough to ensure there were no incriminating documents sitting in any government files."
For all we know, and for how it appeared to me, Johnson was merely another tool, and possible scapegoat for the people whose interests mattered more than some political stooge's, which is what I believe LBJ was.
Look to Wall Street, if you want the orchestrators of this royal scam. The Granddaddy of the American Oil Industry was/is Rockefeller, coupled with his transportation import/export crony and head of the largest financial house on that same-said Street, Morgan. Wrap it all up with your very own corporate law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, and the well-positioned Allen Dulles, heading up the show to do your bidding and you have the cornerstone from which to launch all of your affairs, be they financial investments, oil leases, interstate/international commerce, and even murderous coup d'etats, domestic and otherwise. Who else would have the resources at their fingertips, the financial means to hire the best and to cover their tracks? Brown/Root/Halliburton were merely Texas-based extentions of this empire. You can hash all the myriad collection of minor and not-so-minor connections involved, as well as the off-shore exploitative holdings of United Fruit and Freeport Sulphur, but where do they all originate from? Where are all the deals formulated and cut? Wall Street. Who has the money to hire the best of the professionals? Wall Street. Trust me when I tell you this, anything originating out of its interstate/international offices be it New York or London, look upon any other points on the globe from which to lay down their drilling, clear-cutting, or mineral and ore stripping, and that includes Chicago, Houston [Dallas is laughable], and L.A., as mere outback or rural backwater extensions from which to exploit resources. Anything or anyone else, is merely chump change.
Get your heads out of the sand, because Wall Street is the real power station behind anything the CIA could ever afford to pull off, or the FBI, for that matter.
"I have believed for years that the U-2 incident was an important event for Kennedy on his road to the White House. Being privy to the type of information that was available to Johnson in his position of power in the Senate, Johnson may have been easily led to "jump on the bandwagon" of the person (Kennedy) who had been "selected" to be the next President by the power elite. Johnson may also have realized that if Kennedy stumbled along the way this group of the "power elite" would have a reliable hand at hand to turn to.
This would be especially true if some of the same caliber of people that were suggesting him for the Vice-Presidendcy were amoung the group that had the ability to stage the U-2 incident."
Follow the yellow-brick [cobblestone] road.
-
Or, could it possibly be that T.G. might be more amenable to the "Left's" side of the spectrum than originally thought? If I happen to treasure the jewels of wisdom I'm able to glean from both of your parleys, who's to say T.G. might not be above gaining insight, as well? Conservative progressivism, per chance?
Terry, do you think T. G. is showing insights here?
*****************************************************
I thought the Arbenz topic had been pretty much answered by R.C.D. Who needed to have it brought up again? If T.G. pisses you off so much, why not throw him off? It's your forum.
And, not to change the subject, but I remember a friend of mine by the name of Don Jeffries, being given the heave-ho from this forum by you, for expressing his views on that incarcerated nazi up in Canada. Don was making a case for freedom of speech for this holocaust denier, and questioning Canadian law makers choice for incarceration as opposed to deportation. A similar case to that of Mark Stapleton's concerning the assertions of Michael Collins Piper's regarding the Israeli Mossad's possible complicity in the assassination. Jeffries was polite, never raised a cuss word, or appeared to become beligerent in the presentation of his premise. What was up with that? There seems to be an awful lot of baiting going on in this forum.
-
FOCUS | William F. Buckley: It Didn't Work
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022506Z.shtml
"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes - it is America." William F. Buckley explores the violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq, finding that the "troublemaker in the middle" who is propelling the clash is the interfering United States.
__________________________________________________
It Didn't Work
By William F. Buckley
The National Review
Friday 24 February 2006
"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes - it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that "The bombing has completely demolished" what was being attempted - to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.
Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.
The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans.
The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elucidates on the complaint against Americans. It is not only that the invaders are American, it is that they are "Zionists." It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others' throats.
A problem for American policymakers - for President Bush, ultimately - is to cope with the postulates and decide how to proceed.
One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom.
The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.
This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail - in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism.
Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.
He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies.
Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.
*********************************************************
"The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism."
Why not? The "shrine of American idealism" is nothing more than a pillar of salt, lost on the neocon economic philosophy of greed established in the 1980's, culminating in all its "global" glory in the 1990's, and morphing into the out-sourcing monster presently devouring the American manufacturing and industrial base in the 21st Century.
-
Members might be interested in this exchange that shows that Rowley lied when he testified before the Warren Commission. What is more, he lied about the Chicago assassination attempt, the incident that got Abraham Bolden sent to prison for six years.
James J. Rowley, interviewed by Leodis Matthews for the House Select Committee of Assassinations (19th September, 1978)
Leodis Matthews: At the time you made that assignment to Inspector Kelley, did you give him any specific instructions of what he should do when he reached Dallas?
James J. Rowley: I did not speak to him, but I am quite sure that Deputy Chief Paterni did. Paterni told him to take charge of the investigation, which was also my thought at the time we decided to send him there.
Leodis Matthews: Soon after Inspector Kelly arrived in Dallas and began his investigation, you received a communique through the mail, an office report, indicating that there had been a Chicago investigation of some Cubans?
James J. Rowley: I did not get that.
Leodis Matthews: Mr. Rowley, let me just call your attention to JFK F-419, a document I believe that I have supplied you earlier.
James J. Rowley: Yes.
Leodis Matthews: Have you had occasion to read through that report?
James J. Rowley: Yes, sir.
Leodis Matthews: That report indicates that you received it shortly after the assassination. It was entitled, "Possible Involvement by Quentin Pino Machado in a Conspiracy to Assassinate JFK." Did you review that report?
James J. Rowley: I do not think I reviewed that report. I did not see my initials on it, so therefore I have to assume I did not review it.
Leodis Matthews: I also call your attention to JFK F-422, a document which you also have in your possession, entitled, "Chicago Investigation of Cuban Groups Alleged To Be Involved in the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy." Do you have any recollection of having received and reviewed that report?
James J. Rowley: I think my initials are on that report which would indicate that I did read it, but I have no immediate recollection.
Leodis Matthews: Did you receive any report about the agents' performance in Dallas?
James J. Rowley: We did receive reports from time to time on Dallas, but which specific report are you referring to?
Leodis Matthews: Well, did you receive a report indicating how the agents had performed at the time that the shooting episode occurred in Dealey Plaza?
James J. Rowley: The report indicated that they performed adequately under the circumstances. The action of Agent Clint Hill, that he was attempting to take some action, is indicative of the agent's response.
Leodis Matthews: Did you play any role in supervising the investigation itself?
James J. Rowley: No, sir.
Leodis Matthews: I want to call your attention to what has been marked as JFK F-423, "Secret Service Organizational Chart," off to your right. In your opinion, would the Service have been organized in substantially the same manner in November of 1963?
James J. Rowley: Yes.
Leodis Matthews: Would Mr. Kelley's position on the chart have indicated that he had authority in the field office to direct that the agents conduct whatever investigation he felt was necessary?
James J. Rowley: Yes, sir, he had that authority...
Leodis Matthews: When the Warren Commission was established, you selected Mr. Kelley to be the liaison person?
James J. Rowley: Yes, sir.
Leodis Matthews: Why did you make that selection?
James J. Rowley: Why? Because it was a natural selection, inasmuch as he was in Dallas to conduct the investigation, and would be familiar with what might be required by the Warren Commission, and therefore would be of great assistance to them.
Leodis Matthews: As Chief of the Secret Service, did you ever make any attempts to meet with the person in charge of the FBI and formulate a strategy for investigation?
James J. Rowley: I did meet with Mr. Hoover and, we reaffirmed the longstanding cooperative relationship between our two agencies.
Leodis Matthews: Did you have any input on a strategy of investigation for the Warren Commission?
James J. Rowley: I think we did prepare something for the Warren Commission. Specifically I do not recall, but I have in the back of my mind such a report.
Leodis Matthews: Mr. Kelley has already testified to some exhibits I would like to identify for the record which you have a copy of: of JFK F-414, of JFK F-415, of JFK F-416, JFK F-417, and JFK F-418, a series of reports which his testimony has indicated involved the Secret Service investigation of the Cuban plot to assassinate the President. Were you aware of those reports during the course of the Warren Commission investigation?
James J. Rowley: No, I have no recollection of them.
Leodis Matthews: Do you have any recollection of having reviewed those documents?
James J. Rowley: No, sir. You mean at that time, or recently?
Leodis Matthews: At the time that the documents were generated.
James J. Rowley: No.
Leodis Matthews: Did you work out any agreement as to which files would be supplied to the Warren Commission?
James J. Rowley: That was left up to Inspector Kelley, since he was the one most familiar with what documents. In fact, he was directed to comply with all the requests that were made by the Commission to the Secret Service for reports...
Harold E. Ford: You mentioned a minute ago to the counsel that you met with the Director, Mr. Hoover, and in talking with him, did you ever discuss the line of investigation and the exchange of intelligence?
James J. Rowley: That was worked out right after the assassination, Mr. Congressman, but we already had their cooperation to the extent that they were able to provide us with intelligence information prior to that time.
Harold E. Ford: You mentioned earlier that you assigned Inspector Thomas Kelley.
James J. Rowley:Yes, sir.
Harold E. Ford: To Dallas for the investigation. Again for the record, why did you assign Mr. Kelley, dispatch him to the Dallas-Fort Worth area?
James J. Rowley: I assigned Mr. Kelley because he was the nearest inspector to Dallas at that time. As I explained previously since time was of the essence, I wanted to send an inspector as quickly as possible, and Mr. Kelly was the closest one. One of the responsibilities of an inspector is to do precisely what Mr. Kelly did in Dallas, direct the investigation and the activities.
Harold E. Ford: Was he there to investigate who may have been involved in the assassination or to review the performance of the Secret Service in connection with the assassination?
James J. Rowley: He was there to become involved in the investigation to determine the facts surrounding the assassination.
Harold E. Ford: Mr. Rowley, you testified before the Warren Commission June 18 of 1964. At that time in your testimony you were asked by Senator Cooper the following questions, and I quote: "Do you have any information based upon any facts that you know based upon any information given to you by persons who claim to have personal knowledge that there were persons engaged in a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy." And your response was, "I have no such facts, sir." He then asked you the following additional question, and I quote:
"I address the same question as to whether you have any information that the killing of President Kennedy had any connection with any foreign power." Your response was, and I quote: "I have no such information."
We have heard testimony from Mr. Kelley indicating that there were assassination plots investigated by the Secret Service in early 1963. Were you aware of those investigations at the time of your testimony before the Warren Commission?
James J. Rowley: I would have to look at the reports themselves, Mr. Congressman, to see whether my initials were on them. In the reports that you speak of, it was established that there was not any activity directed against--or of interest to us as it affected the President of the United States.
Harold E. Ford: Going back to the first question, you said, "I have no such facts, sir." " The second question you also said, I have no such information." I am asking now, were you aware of those investigations at the time you appeared before the Warren Commission?
James J. Rowley: Well, if I made that statement, then I was not aware of those facts.
Harold E. Ford: I would like counsel to give the witness JFK F-416, F417, F-418, and ask the witness whether his initials appear upon the face of these reports.
James J. Rowley: Yes, sir.
Harold E. Ford: Chief Rowley, why did you not call it to the Warren Commission's attention back in 1964 when you appeared before the Commission?
Chief Rowley. This information at the time was handled either by the PRS or through Mr. Kelley, and I can only assume, Mr. Congressman, that these reports were furnished to the Warren Commission.
Harold E. Ford: The reports in your hand were reported?
James J. Rowley: That is right. It was an ongoing investigation, as I see it, in which case there would be a relationship with the FBI and the CIA, and in the ultimate I would think that the report itself would establish whether or not it affected the safety of the President of the United States.
Harold E. Ford: But you had initialed these reports or documents prior to the June 18, 1964 appearance before the Warren Commission; is that correct?
James J. Rowley: That is correct, sir.
****************************************************
Great subject, John. Great information from Palomara, Bernie.
The kind of stuff you can really sink your teeth into.
-
John, yes, I read that with amusement. Some of the documents they are reclassifying seem absurd. It is either pathetic or funny. I understand there are still civil war era records that remain classified.
Would those be the ones that explain why Ms. Surratt and her fellow conspirators were hanged, despite the history books teaching that Booth acted alone? Would those be the ones implicating Secretary Stanton in a much wider plot than has heretorfore been acknowledged; the ones suggesting that persons in the US government arranged to have the President killed while his Vice President and entire cabinet were to be set upon or sequestered elsewhere? God knows, they should be kept classified. Were those kind of documents given wider prominence, why, they might actually incline people to wonder aloud if the same thing happened in Dallas, while Kennedy's own cabinet was sequestered elsewhere.
There are many possible reasons why FBI or CIA documents could remain classified. The "operations Northwoods" documents probably should have remained classified, the scenarios seriously discussed therein are scary.
Then, by all means, shut your eyes and click your heels three times, Dorothy, all the while wishing real hard that the scariness goes away. Nothing worse in a democracy than actually knowing what kind of foul and dastardly deeds your own government gets up to. Wouldn't want that "scary" word to spread, would we? Just think what an informed populace might do!
Here is just one scenario: what if there was in fact a plan to "stage" an assassination attempt on JFK and blame it on Castro, a plan hijacked by the conspirators. What would it do to the agency involved should proof of such a scheme be revealed?
Now just how would those "conspirators" be aware that there was such a "staged" assassination attempt planned, in order to "hijack" it? Surely, that would have been a very closely held secret, and very few persons would be aware of it. Are you suggesting that somebody within the US government was loose-lipped in the wrong quarters? Or are you suggesting that somebody within the US government arranged for that "hijacking?" By God, we might actually be making some progess with our recalcitrant "researcher" after all!
Or what if Oswald was in fact a CIA or military intelligence agent? Then documents might need to remain classified lest they prove that, previously, our government lied to us.
Oh, Lord, who is this Key West radical who dares suggest that he and his fellow citizens might actually be lied to by their own government? Does he not realize his government is in the hands of honourable men? Does he dare suggest that somebody within that government would ever stoop to employing, for any purpose, a semi-literate, maladjusted Marxist Marine malcontent? Why, the next thing you know, this Key West firebrand will have the temerity to suggest that somebody within the US government was responsible for killing Kennedy and using this Oswald chap as a scapegoat.
These conspiracy theorists just get nuttier every day, don't they?
****************************************************************
"Here is just one scenario: what if there was in fact a plan to "stage" an assassination attempt on JFK and blame it on Castro, a plan hijacked by the conspirators. What would it do to the agency involved should proof of such a scheme be revealed?"
"Now just how would those "conspirators" be aware that there was such a "staged" assassination attempt planned, in order to "hijack" it? Surely, that would have been a very closely held secret, and very few persons would be aware of it. Are you suggesting that somebody within the US government was loose-lipped in the wrong quarters? Or are you suggesting that somebody within the US government arranged for that "hijacking?" By God, we might actually be making some progess with our recalcitrant "researcher" after all!"
"Or what if Oswald was in fact a CIA or military intelligence agent? Then documents might need to remain classified lest they prove that, previously, our government lied to us."
"Oh, Lord, who is this Key West radical who dares suggest that he and his fellow citizens might actually be lied to by their own government? Does he not realize his government is in the hands of honourable men? Does he dare suggest that somebody within that government would ever stoop to employing, for any purpose, a semi-literate, maladjusted Marxist Marine malcontent? Why, the next thing you know, this Key West firebrand will have the temerity to suggest that somebody within the US government was responsible for killing Kennedy and using this Oswald chap as a scapegoat."
"These conspiracy theorists just get nuttier every day, don't they?"
Yes, R.C.D. Could there be such things as miracles, after all?
Or, could it possibly be that T.G. might be more amenable to the "Left's" side of the spectrum than originally thought? If I happen to treasure the jewels of wisdom I'm able to glean from both of your parleys, who's to say T.G. might not be above gaining insight, as well? Conservative progressivism, per chance?
-
Thanks to tutorials from Tim C. and Frank A., I now know how to click on the thingamajiggy and make the old whatsits evaporate. As a result, below should be some CIA docs of interest.
They disclose that CIA at no point made mention of salvaging democracy from a power-mad Commie leader who slew his chief electoral opponent. On the contrary, CIA's mission was to overthrow a government under whose agrarian land reforms "large Guatemalan landholders and the United Fruit Company would be victimized." Yet, all Arbenz wanted from United Fruit was for them to pay their fair share of taxes [heaven forbid!], and that it sell to the Arbenz regime the land that it allowed to lie fallow solely to keep it from the hands of its own commercial competitors, thereby giving it a monopoly control of the means of production.
By pretending that its concern for United Fruit's right to continue generating unfettered profits was really a concern about the effect of Commies on the geo-political landscape, CIA could rationalize overthrowing this democratically elected government and even assassinating those who stood in the way.
In a different thread, a Pollyanna-ish post from Tim Gratz asked if CIA had ever actually overthrown a democratically elected government, and then insisted this one wasn't actually democratically elected because Francisco Javier Arana had been assassinated prior to the election. That may be a concern to Tim today, though he's yet to substantiate the claim, but it surely wasn't a concern for CIA. One can xxxxx through all the various declassified docs and find nary a mention of either Arana, or any characterization that the Arbenz regime was illegitimate because of Arana's death.
************************************************************
"On the contrary, CIA's mission was to overthrow a government under whose agrarian land reforms "large Guatemalan landholders and the United Fruit Company would be victimized." Yet, all Arbenz wanted from United Fruit was for them to pay their fair share of taxes [heaven forbid!], and that it sell to the Arbenz regime the land that it allowed to lie fallow solely to keep it from the hands of its own commercial competitors, thereby giving it a monopoly control of the means of production.
By pretending that its concern for United Fruit's right to continue generating unfettered profits was really a concern about the effect of Commies on the geo-political landscape, CIA could rationalize overthrowing this democratically elected government and even assassinating those who stood in the way."
I am so ashamed to be an American, I'm ready to ex-patriate to Cuba.
Aren't there any international laws against the tactics employed by the CIA and the United Fruit Company? What about these large Guatemalan landholders? How were they able to acquire this property, by ancestral occupation, or by eminent domain? And, the CIA documents are outrageous! Were there no international monitors in place to oversee what was about to transpire? No international tribunals in effect to address plans of premeditated murder about to be carried out against a democratically elected government official in a foreign country, by U.S. employed mechanics? No laws to protect the sovereignty of a nation-state? Am I the only one appalled by this blatant act of aggression perpetrated against the democratically elected government and the people of Guatemala? Corporate profiteering, piracy, and murder, allowed to be bought and paid for with the taxes of, and [to add insult to injury] in the name of, the people of the United States?
No fork jabs Terry, just a thumbs up!!******************************************
Yippee!!!
-
His avoidance of the members' pointed questions should've been taken for what it was, "blowing smoke out his ass". Which is how another member of this forum has taken to castigating an opponent of his regarding the Zapruder Film of that thread.
Terry,
Just curious who do you think is "blowing smoke out his ass" on the Z-film debate?
Len
*********************************************
To tell you the truth Len, I was attempting to use that expression as an example of how threads may eventually fall into deterioration when posters of opposing views begin using metaphors as a way of describing what they perceive to be their opponent's ineptitude at explaining their methodology, especially coming from the photographic analysis sector of the assassination. And, let me make this perfectly clear that I'm in no way trying to absolve myself of being guilty of the very same said tactics, either. As far as whom I think is "blowing smoke out his ass", I believe most of us, not all, but a sizable grouping, could be held accountable if we took the time to scrutinize our assertions and responses, especially when taken in the heat of battle. I specifically omitted using "in the heat of debate" because once we've resorted to slinging barbs and arrows such as the proverbial, "blowing smoke out his ass", there's no longer any viable form of debate taking place. As I stated yesterday to John Simkin, as well as in a couple of other threads, I'd prefer to educate myself by observing the techniques employed while observing Gratz and Dunne in action. I don't need the ulcers brought on by the Zapruder free-for-all, anymore. So, you can stick a fork in me. I'm done.
-
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?
*********************************************************88
"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."
But, that was the beauty of the art. Convincing someone of the other possibilities, yet bringing the correct observations into view. The word here is "correct" which I believe R.C.D. to be masterful at this task. As I stated in another thread, I foolishly believed that we somehow could all reach a common ground through the art of constructive debate exhibited by R.C.D.'s rebuttals and corrections of Gratz's perceptions, with the distinct possibility of a positive response or understanding eventually emanating from Gratz's position. When Gratz expounds about Castro, I can't believe anyone could actually take him seriously, but if people find him to be so annoying and irritating, why not choose to enable the "IGNORE" function this forum has provided for that specific purpose. Personally, yet foolishly, I had believed that Gratz was simply "that-fascist-everybody-just-loved-to-hate", and found him to be alot more amusing and witty, than an actual perceived threat, pest, or annoyance. His avoidance of the members' pointed questions should've been taken for what it was, "blowing smoke out his ass". Which is how another member of this forum has taken to castigating an opponent of his regarding the Zapruder Film of that thread.
And, as I've stated to Robert Howard in another thread. Since my outside studies have bitten into the amount of time I used to be able to spend going over the threads here, at The Education Forum, I've voluntarily chosen to limit my opinions, if not keep them to myself, in order to avoid any more alarmed observations, of which a few of my friends have pointed out to me, seemed as "unwarranted support" of Tim Gratz.
So carry on without my verbal input, my friend. Apparently it will be greatly appreciated.
-
Terry, I would have thought someone your age would have something better to do than to give me grief that I didn't know Shanet had posted to the Forum lately. I would apologize, but frankly I think youve made this into a real event, which I think is pathetic. But I do apologize if anyone has suffered through the trauma of the resurrected post.
Talk about pathetic, here's Robert bringing back a thread from last summer to continue to prosecute the Shanet Clark brouhaha, caring ever so much about Mr. Clark while at the same time demonstrating overtly that he hasn't just missed that "Shanet had posted to the Forum lately," but has missed Shanet's numerous posts generally. It's a shame that Robert further needed to turn this so-called "real event" of his own making into an opportunity to add even more insult to injury, this time targeted at Terry Mauro.
T.C.
Yeah, well if that dribble you just wrote is your reality then you are a sick SOB, clown.
First, you are putting words in my mouth and presuming to divine my intentions in the process. If you powers of comprehension were better, you might notice that I already stated why I added to this post, and it was not to 'prosecute the Shanet Clark brouhaha' that I was not even aware of in the first place.
Second, Terry makes an insulting remark about my not noticing that Shanet had posted over the last few months, I defend myself, and you start in on me. Have you ever made a mistake? Would you like it if somebody started attacking you over it? Hopefully you would not like it, and neither do I.
I would add that this xxxx really galls me, I mean if you have personal problems, don't take it out on me, go kick your dog. If everybody is in a f****** uproar over adding to this thread. The solution is simple. Stop posting!
*****************************************************
"But I do apologize if anyone has suffered through the trauma of the resurrected post."
Then, maybe I should apologize for not understanding your intentions in the first place, R.H.
But then again, it's been brought to my attention by a few of my friends, that my support of Tim Gratz is inappropriate, to say the least. It's a shame since apparently my current outside studies have not afforded me the time I normally used to have, to peruse the forum in the depth I had been accustomed to in the past. And, I suppose this led me to assume that we were all on par with one another on the LBJ/Cheney thread, which I picked up on, a couple of days back. Therefore, shame on me to ever become so naive as to expect any of us to ever be able to get along, see eye-to-eye, nor be able to work together in any form or assemblance of cohesiveness. In the future, I'll remember to keep my opinions to myself, and lose any pollyanna hopes of learning via comparative/diversive analysis.
Thank you.
-
Len,
My post #94 addresses your question in which I urged all participants in this thread to be honest, open minded, and willing to consider the possibilty that Piper may be right about Mossad/Israeli involvement in JFK's murder. There is a post in this thread that discusses one library's being barred from ordering copies of "Final Judgement" due to objections from the ADL, but Mr. Piper himself may be able to address the question of why his book is so difficult to find in America.
As for Zionist control of American foreign policies in the Middle East, I would recommend "Neoconned" and "Neoconned, Again" which are collections of articles from very reputable researchers including some authors that are retired from the CIA and responsible military services. You might also look at Mr. Piper's "High Priests of War". My question and suggestion for Len, Tim, and the others that are so upset about hearing the comments from an author like Mr. Piper is to obtain for yourselves a copy of this book and read what he says so you can more intelligently respond to the author's evidence.
The Neoconservatives that have hijacked the Republican party have aligned themselves with the motives and policy directives of Israel from my perspective. Their policy objectives and position papers were written for Benjamin Netanyehu. The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was advocating war in the Middle East since early in the 1990's and includes Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby, Jeb Bush and a large cast of like minded characters in control of our policies and on the Boards of Directors of our major defense contractors.
The question is why does the United States provide Israel $5-$6 Billion in aid and weapon systems (including nuclear weapons that are considered "safe for civilians") and now we consider witholding $250 Million for the Palestinians when Hamas wins a democratic election in their country or territory? Who knows how many private donations are raised in the US for Israel, and why do we have dual citizenship status with Israel and not with any Arab countries? Terrorism is coming from both sides of this Arab-Israeli question and it seems to me that we have a double standard here in America towards the Middle East.
When I studied the Middle East at Stanford, my primary professor was Christina Harris, a Deputy Secretary in the State Department when Israel was recognized by the US, and another that was the curator of the Middle East collection at the Hoover Intitute of War Revolution and Peace. The hysteria in this thread about anti-semitism was not the issues we considered. The issues were to find compromises that would allow two different religions (plus Christians) to live side by side and stop the violence and terrorism from both sides. At that time (class of '68), we were not waging pre-emptive war in East Asia and sabre rattling with pending nuclear attacks on Iran to control oil and shipping lanes.
Again, I have not read Mr. Piper's book and would recommend that all members of this Forum posting their comments here, obtain a current copy (Sixth Edition) to discuss with the author when he is able to address all concerns of this discussion. Drop the labels and consider the thesis and evidence presented. I know for some, that is a tall order. As far as I have been able to determine, the assassination of JFK is still not a solved crime, and it is far from clear to me why a "banned book" on the subject should be discounted for reasons unrelated to it's merits.
Jeff D.
*********************************************
"The question is why does the United States provide Israel $5-$6 Billion in aid and weapon systems (including nuclear weapons that are considered "safe for civilians") and now we consider witholding $250 Million for the Palestinians when Hamas wins a democratic election in their country or territory?"
More like 11 billion in 1994 from what I was reading back then. I'm sure it's closer to 20 billion today, accounting for inflation.
-
Ron, most emphatically, the New Testament does NOT blame the crucifixion of Jesus on the Jews.
Anti-Semites interpret it that way and have through the ages.
The Jews were and remain God's chosen people. THAT is what the Bible teaches.
Who killed Jesus?
I did, Ron, for He had to die to pay the sacrifice for MY sins. The true "Ultimate Sacrifice".
***************************************************
"Who killed Jesus?
I did, Ron, for He had to die to pay the sacrifice for MY sins. The true "Ultimate Sacrifice"."
But, I thought He died for the sins of the Jews. At least, that's what they taught us in Catholic School.
-
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?
*******************************************************
"Wonder why he is more concerned with defending Castro than he is with defending Israel? Or can we infer he agrees with Piper?"
Come on now, T.G. Give him a chance to get home from work. After all, he might be out of town on business, or having to make some kind of a deadline. Besides, he puts alot of thought into his postings. Quite methodical, and very accurate. Someone I'd hope we'd all be learning a thing or two from.
Anyway, in due time. So, don't get your skivvies in an uproar just yet. Remember, you two guys are role models, and excellent ones, at that.
Sincerely and very truly yours,
LaFemme Nikita
-
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.
****************************************************
"Lansky tried to emigrate there late in his life but the Israeli Government rejected his application."
Yeah, maybe his money was no longer considered "legit" enough for the newly acquired ambiance Israel attained once they reached the status of "just another nuclear power player".
This thread has definitely peked my interest, so I'm heading back to page 4, following this brief foray through a couple of the other threads. It's so nice having a day off, even if I'm suffering through one of the worst asthma attacks I've had in years. I do get a chance to play catch-up, though. But, what a way to have rate a day off.
-
Shanet Clark has made 75 posts since acknowledging that it was "wrong" to state that Tim Gratz was a part of the manipulation of Arthur Bremer. Shanet is not a weak sister who needs his cause championed; he's an honorable gentleman who took responsibility for himself and moved on. Resurrecting his apology/departure in order to advance a vendetta against Tim Gratz demeans Shanet as well as Tim.
T.C.
**************************************************************
"Resurrecting his apology/departure in order to advance a vendetta against Tim Gratz demeans Shanet as well as Tim.
T.C."
Exactly. Because weren't we all just on the Cheney post yesterday? You, me, T.G., Dawn, and Stephen? So, unless I'm back-peddling dangerously close to the Twilight Zone, I could've sworn we were all yukking it up about Cheney over on that recent thread.
I didn't mean to stir up anything, I just didn't remember seeing any posts by Shanet in quite a while, and I always liked him. Geez**************************************************
"I just didn't remember seeing any posts by Shanet in quite a while, and I always liked him. Geez"
And, he posted right up behind you and T.C., Mr. Howard.
Shanet Clark Yesterday, 03:03 AM Post #15
Super Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1220
Joined: 13-October 04
From: Atlanta, Dekalb Co., Georgia, USA
Member No.: 1708
Cheney admits to "one beer"......... Tim Carroll is right,
this looks like a classic juvenile cover up.......
--------------------
Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1900
-
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!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
In the past I made some references to Tim Gratz.
I disavow all of them and apologize to Mr. Gratz.
He is a scholar and a gentleman and I meant him no harm.
This will be my final posting in the forum.
Shanet Clark.
But Robert, that thread was from July 2005? Where did he post that he's leaving, in February 2006? Am I missing something here?It is of course this incident that began my conflict with Tim Gratz.
*******************************************************
"It is of course this incident that began my conflict with Tim Gratz."
But, I still don't understand why this thread was resurrected? I was under the impression that Shanet was still posting on the forum, as of February 2006.
-
I guess we're stuck with some of it. Personally I find the left right concept a bit offputting. There was a poll some weeks ago that the results of are grouped here (but with an orientation and labeling that I prefer. Just about all were grouped around Ghandi.
*********************************************************
"Just about all were grouped around Ghandi."
And, I couldn't think of a more finer human being. Right up there with JFK, MLK, and those who've paid the price for freedom of the human spirit.
"Find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground. Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down."
-
Argues facts not in evidence. Ex-counsellor, here's the way it works. When you make the assertion, you offer the proof. You don't get to simply pretend that the case has already been made, and then extrapolate from there. I have given you the name of the "main opponent" you claim was murdered by Arbenz. Perhaps from that first clue, you could actually Google up a prima facie case. Unless and until you can do so, please cease and desist from this hair-splitting bullxxxx about what constitutes a "legitimate" government. I mean, for God's sake, by your rule of thumb, Richard Nixon's election wasn't legitimate because somebody killed his "main opponent" Bobby Kennedy.
___________________________________________
Robert,
Great post. Unfortunately, this seems to be Gratz's modus operandi whenever he feels on the defensive, which, given his untenable position and his apparent need to try to "convert" others to his way of thinking, is understandably (and frustratingly) all too often.
FWIW, Thomas
___________________________________________
********************************************************
"whenever he feels on the defensive, which, given his untenable position and his apparent need to try to "convert" others to his way of thinking, is understandably (and frustratingly) all too often."
But, seriously Thomas. I don't think T.G. exhibits any need to try to "convert" others to his way of thinking. After all is said and done, I haven't really noted any vitriolic outbursts, nor any overly condescending verbal abuse coming from his quarter. In fact, I've learned quite a bit from reading the exchanges between T.G. and Robert Charles Dunne. They're both truly gifted in the art of debate. It's an education in, and of, itself. Wouldn't you agree?
___________________________________________________
Hi Terry,
OK, they are both "truly gifted in the art of debate," but they are different. Robert is a true debater whereas I would put Gratz in the category of a smooth-talking salesman. Gratz is always saying things like "Of course,..." or "Clearly,..." or "You do, do you not...?" or "You would agree, would you not...?" Jeez, reminds me of Joseph McCarthy asking someone on TV, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" LOL
I do think Gratz is trying to "convert" others to his way of thinking on this Forum. Otherwise, why would he post so goshdarn often?? Hell, I know when someone is trying to "convert" me. One of my relatives is a Bircher and when I was younger that person was continually trying to get me to "see the light," so I know what a "converter" does-- they just keep hammerin' away! It's their "mission" in life, their "calling," if you will.
I've never accused Gratz of "vitriolic outbursts" (that I can remember). I just don't like his slippery tendency of making an assertion without offering proof of that assertion modus operandi (see Robert's post #7 again, if necessary) coupled which the above-mentioned "McCarthey" style and the fact that he posts so damn often and, as John says in post #14, he often suggests or even claims that those who disagree with him on this Forum are anti-American or unpatriotic.
I think Gratz is here to stay, however. He seems to enjoy being on the defensive....
FWIW, Thomas
___________________________________________________
*******************************************************
"I do think Gratz is trying to "convert" others to his way of thinking on this Forum. Otherwise, why would he post so goshdarn often?? Hell, I know when someone is trying to "convert" me. One of my relatives is a Bircher and when I was younger that person was continually trying to get me to "see the light," so I know what a "converter" does-- they just keep hammerin' away! It's their "mission" in life, their "calling," if you will."
Nah, I don't think he's trying to convert anybody to anything. He's simply stating his case, yet welcoming all comers to challenge it, possibly in the event their point of view might coincidentally change his, if anything. Who knows, maybe we'll be able to find a common ground on Simkins' forum from which to alter the course of party politics, by brain-storming our way to a greater "democratic republic" coalition, of sorts?
"I've never accused Gratz of "vitriolic outbursts" (that I can remember). I just don't like his slippery tendency of making an assertion without offering proof of that assertion modus operandi (see Robert's post #7 again, if necessary) coupled which the above-mentioned "McCarthey" style and the fact that he posts so damn often and, as John says in post #14, he often suggests or even claims that those who disagree with him on this Forum are anti-American or unpatriotic."
I never meant to say that you accused Gratz of "vitriolic outbursts", I was merely drawing an analogy between T.G.'s and R.C.D.'s excellent debating skills, as opposed to some of the other debaters on the different threads of the assassination section of The Education Forum, myself included. Remember the Foster threads? I'm excessively guilty of extreme vitriolic outbursts, when presented with blatant stupidity! Whereas, T.G. and R.C.D. exhibit exceptionally well-constructed, thoroughly researched data, and counter one another with equal adeptness. At least, it appears that way, IMHO. I'm also of the impression that T.G. sometimes laces his statements with quite a bit of drollery, and if one isn't aware of the subtley of his humor may, in fact, take it as an affrontery. This is how I've come to understand T.G., and therefore changed my approach, as well as, support of him. Whenever he's been countered for calling someone anti-American, or unpatriotic, I have to laugh because I don't take it seriously. And, when he's been called out for buffoonery, I consider that even more laughable. I really believe he takes it all in stride, and still remains a gentleman. Plus the fact, there are far less worthy, possibly more insidious, and even dangerous individuals lurking on the internet, and on this forum, than T.G., IMO.
-
FWIW some of ... My opinions on a choice to take the stance against Tim in general as any sort of credible argument against Tims stand on Piper and anti semitism fails to make a significant distinction or analysis that recognises that it's not unusual for reactionaries to take essentially progressive positions on individual issues. Where they do so it must be applauded.
Further applauding same should not be seen as a general endorsement.
BTW I have noted over time a gradual change in a number of people including myself that comes from participation here and should not be, sans evidence, written off as opportunism.
This episode has allowed Tim to do what I think is sane, and I am not surprised of Tim being capable of it, namely :
"The above is not the only political matter that I was wrong on, but perhaps the most significant.
And Terry I agree that many socialists do indeed care for the betterment of people of all races in all countries in the world, a noble concern that all should admire."
This is progressive and should be noted.
The ability to see the subtle distinctions are important in this investigation.(IMO)
***************************************************
"This is progressive and should be noted.
The ability to see the subtle distinctions are important in this investigation.(IMO)"
It sure would be neat if we could all meet on a common ground of progressivism whilst blurring the distinctions between our socialistic vs fascistic, conservative vs liberal, right vs left, democratic vs republican, lines of battle. I specifically omitted "communism" which I believe to be a bastardized version of the "left" line of philosophy much as I view "nazism" as a bastardized hybrid of the "right" attempting to pass itself off as a sheep-dipped [for lack of a better metaphor] version of Mussolini's and Hitler's "brown-shirted" brigades.
-
I do try to admit when I have been proven wrong and do try to learn from history. I think back in 1964 I was correct that LBJ was a crook, although I never thought that he had murdered JFK, and I am still a sceptic on whether he was involved. But I do given LBJ credit for passing the civil rights legislation of the 1960s which were of great benefit to our society.
It is of course easy to admit to mistakes made 40 years ago.
I do believe that John's posts demonstrate a distinct anti-American bias and I am not the only one who has reached that conclusion.And the absence of any information in your Forum on the evils of Communism and the KGB is interesting.Now I have answered your smears about being anti-American and pro-Communist, are you willing to admit mistakes you have made today?
***********************************************************
"Now I have answered your smears about being anti-American and pro-Communist, are you willing to admit mistakes you have made today?"
I'd pretty much call it a draw, so far.
-
Although Cheney was using an Italian rifle, the comparisons with the Kennedy assassination stop there. Cheney was clearly a lone guman (but not a "nut") with no ties to either the CIA or the DGI.
A letter writer in the NY Times raised what I thought was an interesting point. Since hunting accidents do happen, why did the SS allow Cheney to participate in what can be a dangerous sport?
******************************************************
"A letter writer in the NY Times raised what I thought was an interesting point. Since hunting accidents do happen, why did the SS allow Cheney to participate in what can be a dangerous sport?"
Especially, since he's proven to be an even poorer marksman than LHO!
He shouldn't be able to own a hunting license, let alone carry a gun.
-
Shanet is a very, very thorough and articulate person concerning his posts to the Forum in the past. Apparently he 'left the Forum' before or around the time that I joined.
Shanet you need to come back because if you don't you are going to miss out on what promises to be the most interesting period, of the Forum's history.
Come back Shane(t)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*************************************************
"Shanet you need to come back because if you don't you are going to miss out on what promises to be the most interesting period, of the Forum's history.
Come back Shane(t)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
But Robert, that thread was from July 2005? Where did he post that he's leaving, in February 2006? Am I missing something here?
Was the assassination planned in 1960? Johnson as Vice President.
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Terry Mauro
*****************************************************
"That is why I think Lee Harvey Oswald was set up as an assassin. I believe he was involved in a plot to kill Castro and Robert Kennedy knew about this. Therefore, he had no option but to go along with the cover-up."
I also believe that to be a very distinct possibility. Although, I am not so sure Wallace made it to Dealey Plaza, simply because I don't think the shooters were home-grown good ol' boys, to begin with. That would be equivalent to "crapping where you eat," and I don't think any of Wall Street's Tejas contingency could afford to leave a toilet paper trail that obvious, back to the killing field. I could be wrong, but then again, maybe not.