Jon G. Tidd Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Answer this question, and you have the perp. To answer Thomas Graves, I'll say it was to reverse JFK's Middle East policy. I'll say reversing JFK's Middle East policy served many interests. I may be out to lunch. James Douglass has written it was to reverse JFK's Viet Nam policy. JFK's death served many interests. Perhaps these interests overlapped. Again, I assert, determine why JFK was killed, and you have his killer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) Jon, I take it your posting of two identical threads is a symbolic way of saying that you fully support the "Two Oswald's" theory? Just kidding. --Tommy Edited August 3, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted August 3, 2015 Author Share Posted August 3, 2015 Tommy, I do support the two Oswalds theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) Tommy, I do support the two Oswalds theory. Jon, Unfortunately I know. Just-barely-close-enough "look alikes," from pubescence through martyrdom. --Tommy Edited August 4, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Answer this question, and you have the perp. To answer Thomas Graves, I'll say it was to reverse JFK's Middle East policy. I'll say reversing JFK's Middle East policy served many interests. I may be out to lunch. James Douglass has written it was to reverse JFK's Viet Nam policy. JFK's death served many interests. Perhaps these interests overlapped. Again, I assert, determine why JFK was killed, and you have his killer. Jon, I hate to ask this question because I might seem un-informed. But, what was the Middle East policy that they wanted to reverse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Tommy, I do support the two Oswalds theory. Does it make a difference if you support the two Oswalds theory? If Oswald was only a patsy, would it matter if there were two 'patsys'? Did they have two patsy's set up for each of the possible assassination cities, Tampa, Miami, Chicago, etc. or was it only for the Dallas scenario? Was either of the two Oswalds the patsy for a different city or just Dallas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Jim Marrs, in Crossfire, said an intelligent thing, and perhaps a useful thing: that JFK was killed not by a right-wing action, nor by a left-wing action, but by a centrist action, because of a coalescence of interests. Edited August 4, 2015 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Jon - that is a fair question. What change in policy towards the Middle East was desired by the anti-JFK plotters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Nice quote David. I think ultimately that the left/right model falls short of explaining many things. The 'strategy of tension' is divide and conquer. Having said that, I think the 'center' that Marrs refers to lies to the right of the center line. The 'center' means more simple those in power who find it advantageous to be seen and thought of as 'centrist' when it is clear they are for the most part greedy capitalists. We're the Bundy brothers centrist? Dulles? LBJ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Kennedy was, pro Nasser--reversing Dulles and EIsenhower and Nixon--and anti Saudi Arabia, anti the Shah. And he was adamant that Israel get no atomic weapons. He was working on setting up moderate to progressive democratic countries there, in order to prevent the Moslem fundamentalists from getting into power. This was going to pave the way for a settlement of the Palestinian problem in his second term. Every one of these policies was reversed by LBJ, and then smashed by Nixon and Kissinger. Then McCloy applied the coup de grace with the Shah getting into the USA and the Islamic fundamentalist revolution JFK feared and warned about taking place. Edited August 4, 2015 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) edit Edited August 7, 2015 by Karl Kinaski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 As for ME policy, ditto Jim Di's comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Kennedy was, pro Nasser--reversing Dulles and EIsenhower and Nixon--and anti Saudi Arabia, anti the Shah. And he was adamant that Israel get no atomic weapons. He was working on setting up moderate to progressive democratic countries there, in order to prevent the Moslem fundamentalists from getting into power. This was going to pave the way for a settlement of the Palestinian problem in his second term. Every one of these policies was reversed by LBJ, and then smashed by Nixon and Kissinger. Then McCloy applied the coup de grace with the Shah getting into the USA and the Islamic fundamentalist revolution JFK feared and warned about taking place. Fifty years later, do we know which was the 'right thing'? Was Israel getting nukes 'good' or 'bad'. Let's say that they(Israel) still exist. If they had not gotten nukes, would there still be an Israel? Anti- the Shah? I don't see how getting rid of the Shah has benefited Iran. Pro Nasser? Wasn't one of Nasser's goals the eradication of Israel? good or bad? setting up moderate to progressive democratic countries? Isn't 'progressive' code for 'communist'? coup de grace with the Shah getting into the USA? that didn't happen until 1979. All he did was get medical care. Iran was already deeply into the politics they still have. I'm not sure how anything that happened in Iran was related to the JFK assassination. The politics didn't change there for 16 years. Net change in Mid east was probably a plus, but in either case, I don't believe the Middle East political situation was a calculus in the assassination at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Kenneth Drew, The Middle East was a big deal during JFK's administration. JFK resisted Israel's request to be sold Hawk anti-aircraft missiles; pressed David Ben Gurion on the Dimona nuclear plant; and pressed David Ben Gurion to compensate Palestinians displaced in 1968. To say the least, Ben Gurion and his supporters here and in Israel were not happy. Ben Gurion resigned leadership of Israel in the summer of 1963. JFK was not anti-Israel, even though his dad Joe was fond of Hitler in the late 1930s. JFK wanted a balanced Middle East policy. JFK was especially concerned about nuclear proliferation. IMO, it's good to take Jim Di's comment here to heart. Edited August 4, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) Kenneth Drew, The Middle East was a big deal during JFK's administration. JFK resisted Israel's request to be sold Hawk anti-aircraft missiles; pressed David Ben Gurion on the Dimona nuclear plant; and pressed David Ben Gurion to compensate Palestinians displaced in 1968. To say the least, Ben Gurion and his supporters here and in Israel were not happy. Ben Gurion resigned leadership of Israel in the summer of 1963. JFK was not anti-Israel, even though his dad Joe was fond of Hitler in the late 1930s. JFK wanted a balanced Middle East policy. JFK was especially concerned about nuclear proliferation. IMO, it's good to take Jim Di's comment here to heart. Thanks for the response. I based my responses to the information in #10 one that JFK was Pro Nasser. if you are also saying that JFK didn't want him to get certain weapons, especially defensive weapons, then I'm not so sure you could sell that he was interested in Israel surviving. (JFK was a Catholic) I'm not for a Palestinian resolution, unless it's to give them an island in the South Indian ocean and not supply them with ships or airplanes. All Palestine is interested in is destroying Israel. Edited August 5, 2015 by Kenneth Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now