Jump to content
The Education Forum


Recommended Posts

Well let's follow fellow historian Peter Dale Scott's example instead.

Scott is not a historian in the professional sense. He is an English professor, described on his own website as "a poet, writer, and researcher." That said, Scott certainly stands head and shoulders over the "historian" Dallek.

John Simkin is an example of a historian worthy of the name. Though "historians" like Dallek may not be expected to be experts on human anatomy, it shouldn't be asking too much of them to know the difference between the human neck and back (and what a difference it makes in the JFK case).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, Terry.

"My thinking: Justice, at this late date, has nothing to do with throwing anyone in jail, but everything to do with revealing the truth and using it, to the best of our abiities, to make certain that the system will be cleansed."

How can that possibly work in our favor, when the assassination itself, was to ensure a free ride on the backs of American taxpayers for the likes of such criminals as the Bush family, elitist wannabes such as the Reagans, the neocons who've managed to outsource our whole economy to The Third World, leaving our industrial base all but vacated and decaying in Detroit, Ohio, Upstate New York, Pennsylvania, and the Midwest. Corporate down-sizing of our healthcare system with the loss of jobs and no reasonable facsimile set in place to catch the rest of us who've been all but disenfranchized and left to fall through the cracks. This was all part and parcel of the royal scam in the form of a coup d'etat on 11-22-63 from which we've now been left to reap the grapes of wrath just so those of the fortunate 15 percentile may revel in the spoils of the war that's been allowed to be waged against the American Middle Class for the last 40 years. How can a system be expected to be cleansed when it continues to be run, and to a certain degree, guided by, the progeny of the very perps who called for the assassination, or sat idly by while watching it happen?

"I'm willing to give a pass to everyone, from the prime movers to the mechanics, who will come forward and tell the truth."

By the time they decide to come forward, they'll be on their deathbeds, and barely lucid enough to make any sense. Did you think Hunt was going to come clean at the eleventh hour? I didn't. The only thing he had in mind was to muddy the waters even further, advancing no one's cause but his own, and that of his collaborating cohorts.

"It is more important to disempower the killers of John Kennedy than to disembowel them."

I don't realistically see anything like disempowerment ever being realized by anyone who is even remotely cognizant of the deliberate mechanizations set in place both politically and socially as a result of the assassination. Nor, do I expect anyone born during, or after the event to be able to relate the present economical conditions facing this nation as being a direct result or culmination of the events of 11-22-63.

"And hate begets hate."

As does ignorance beget the same.

I suggest we make tracks for Cuba before the Sugar-Honey-Iced-Tea hits the fan.

Okay Terry,

The shared purpose of this and my "Amnesty" post is to get us to consider and answer the question: How do we define and effect justice in the JFK assassination case?

Further: How much closer to justice are we now than we were when John Kennedy's head exploded?

But wait, there's more: What will satisfy us? When will our job be done? Realistically.

Another one: How many divisions do we have?


Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychologically, its easier to address an 'enemy' when you depersonalize them. Rationalizing a point of view as "conspiracy theory" serves to depersonalize, allowing for more brutalized behavior. For example, the Vietnamese communists became VC, making it easier to fight (and eliminate) that enemy. So, labelling those who question the historical record (i.e. WC) simply as "conspirasists" somehow depersonalizes and discredits, in much the same way. Its the same simplification of democrats versus republicans, as if we all are capable of being reduced to such a model. The world cannot simply be divided into/described as lone-nutters and conspirasists. In reality, the thinking person challenges and probes, and is much more complex...they see facts and relevance to both sides of the debate. And the truth lies somewhere in between. Sorry for the philosophizing, but it seemed to be analogous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...