Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

12 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Harry

Would Russia spend millions and risk nuclear war to protect a revolution that was not communist?

The historical record indicates Cuba's domestic policies are rooted in communism. Many of those policies were instituted after Che was killed. 

In Mar 1960 the US begin training guerrillas in the canal zone of Panama to invade Cuba.The US could not accept a communist government 90 miles from it's shore and Cuba exporting communist revolution to Latin America.

The US believed it was dealing with a communist regime in Cuba. 

George,

The following is my opinion.  

You basically ignored what Harry Dean shared with you.  Fidel Castro was not a Communist in 1959-1960.  That was the point.  Harry Dean supported Fidel Castro in 1959-1960 -- and so did the CIA, and so did non-CIA mercenaries like Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Frank Sturgis and countless other pro-American activists.

Harry Dean is sharing historical data with us -- which is very valuable, in my opinion.   It was Che Guevara that pulled the Cuban Revolution to the Radical Left, and Fidel Castro simply didn't have enough help.  

While many people remember only two leaders of the Cuban Revolution (Fidel and Che) the historical fact is that there were three, since we must count Camilo Cienfuegos, who was the actual troop leader who first took Havana.  He was a Republican, and fiercely opposed to Communism.  

Tragically, Cienfuegos died in an airplane crash later in 1959 -- and many suspected foul play by Che Guevara.

With the tides of history moving as they did -- and with too few extending a helping hand to Fidel Castro before the Reds overwhelmed him -- the pathos of history killed Camilo Cienfuegos, and sent Harry Dean running to the FBI for cover.  

This is all part of the official FBI record.  What is not yet revealed in the FBI record is the alleged reporting that Harry Dean offered to the FBI from September 1963 to March 1964 regarding the role of the Minutemen in the JFK assassination.  

Jason Ward is gradually revealing many never-before-publicized FBI records on this Forum thread.   I am floored by his brilliant labor.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

Che died in 1967. Why didn't Castro slowly roll back Che's communist agenda in Cuba after Che died if Castro was not communist and was coerced by Che to implement communist policy in Cuba? Che was probably more radical than was Castro but the rift between them had more to do with exporting communist revolution to Latin America and not communist agenda for Cuba. Castro believed the best method of uplifting the poor of Cuba was through communist policy in Cuba. When he took steps to implement communist policies he effectively became a communist.

In early 1960 the US began to train Cuban guerrillas to invade Cuba. This was the start of what eventually became the Bay of Pigs invasion. By early 1960 Eisenhower realized Castro must be removed from power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

George,

The following is my opinion.  

You basically ignored what Harry Dean shared with you.  Fidel Castro was not a Communist in 1959-1960.  That was the point.  Harry Dean supported Fidel Castro in 1959-1960 -- and so did the CIA, and so did non-CIA mercenaries like Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Frank Sturgis and countless other pro-American activists.

Harry Dean is sharing historical data with us -- which is very valuable, in my opinion.   It was Che Guevara that pulled the Cuban Revolution to the Radical Left, and Fidel Castro simply didn't have enough help.  

While many people remember only two leaders of the Cuban Revolution (Fidel and Che) the historical fact is that there were three, since we must count Camilo Cienfuegos, who was the actual troop leader who first took Havana.  He was a Republican, and fiercely opposed to Communism.  

Tragically, Cienfuegos died in an airplane crash later in 1959 -- and many suspected foul play by Che Guevara.

With the tides of history moving as they did -- and with too few extending a helping hand to Fidel Castro before the Reds overwhelmed him -- the pathos of history killed Camilo Cienfuegos, and sent Harry Dean running to the FBI for cover.  

This is all part of the official FBI record.  What is not yet revealed in the FBI record is the alleged reporting that Harry Dean offered to the FBI from September 1963 to March 1964 regarding the role of the Minutemen in the JFK assassination.  

Jason Ward is gradually revealing many never-before-publicized FBI records on this Forum thread.   I am floored by his brilliant labor.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul - Did you say here that the FBI record suggests that Che pulled Castro into Communism?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

No problem appreciate the effort. I am super busy today. I'll tune in tomorrow morning.

 

Hi Paul,

1. I am providing evidence in response to your point above in this thread that you've heard of cover stories used by government agents that would hide their involvement in a conspiracy.   In my study of 2017 released documents, the government makes a record of their cover stories judiciously.  See below for a cover story created for Lucien Conien, for example.  In other words, if there was a cover story, there is written evidence of a cover story.   Because of the mass speculation in the JFK murder, I discount most guessing ("circumstantial evidence") and choose not to use it much myself - in view of massive government records documenting everything they do.

2. The second document below is from a 1963 review of the Cuban situation given to Kennedy I believe.  The snippet I highlight reveals the CIA's assessment of Cubans - even so, they continued to give them money.   I offer this as evidence to anyone who thinks the CIA would hire Cubans to do anything important.

regards

Jason

 

1 - CIA cover stories are documented:

Screen_Shot_2017_10_07_at_6_23_01_PM.png

Lucien_p_2.png...

 

 

2. The CIA's opinion of Cubans as CIA operatives:

 

CUBANS_POOR_AGENTS.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason

I agree the CIA wouldn't use anti-Castro Cubans for an operation in which success was important.

That is why I've always believed the plotters would not involve anti-Castro Cubans in a plan to kill Kennedy except in a very limited capacity. Some were trusted, i.e., Antonio Veciana, but the majority ... no.

The CEO of the assassination plot employed professionals to kill Kennedy. Although success is not 100% insured no matter who is employed, the success rate is the highest if professionals are used. And no one entity could employ pros to kill Kennedy except the CIA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, George Sawtelle said:

Jason

I agree the CIA wouldn't use anti-Castro Cubans for an operation in which success was important.

That is why I've always believed the plotters would not involve anti-Castro Cubans in a plan to kill Kennedy except in a very limited capacity. Some were trusted, i.e., Antonio Veciana, but the majority ... no.

The CEO of the assassination plot employed professionals to kill Kennedy. Although success is not 100% insured no matter who is employed, the success rate is the highest if professionals are used. And no one entity could employ pros to kill Kennedy except the CIA.

Hi George,

JFK was killed by those without easy or regular access to the president.

There is no reason and every risk for the CIA to propose a big messy circus like Dallas with dozens of photographers and 100s of witnesses in place.  No, the success rate is "not highest if professionals are used," as you suggest - the success rate is highest when a 100% certain method is used with zero chance of failure that doesn't rely on dozens of helpers like Dallas.

If the CIA wants anyone in official Washington killed, a poison, a pill, a silent and delayed death of many different kinds then available... is much more effective and less risky than the fireworks of the Dallas fiasco.  

See the case of Alexander Litvinenko.  

Killing someone in the way of Dallas is the work of desperation and the work of those without access to the president, neither of which describe the CIA.  IMO.

George, if the CIA did it, you would be watching football or reading a novel and there would be no discussion of the JFK assassination.  This was a big sloppy near-disaster.

 

regards

 

Jason

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to post
Share on other sites

If, as has been often suggested, that there was a plan to blame the hit on a Communist Conspiracy, then the most likely candidates for a second or alternate set of shooters, would be Cubans. The myth being here parlayed, that there are no trustworthy Cubans, is silly, and racist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

If, as has been often suggested, that there was a plan to blame the hit on a Communist Conspiracy, then the most likely candidates for a second or alternate set of shooters, would be Cubans. The myth being here parlayed, that there are no trustworthy Cubans, is silly, and racist.

Whether the Cubans are trustworthy or not is irrelevant, what is important is what the CIA thought of the Cubans.

The evidence of CIA and administration opinion of the Cubans as untrustworthy and useless for secure operations is posted above.  Where is your evidence that the administration and CIA thought highly of Cuban operatives and believed them trustworthy enough to engage in operations vital to CIA secrecy?

The Cubans are not a race, btw - and we in 2017 showing the 1963 CIA criticism of the Cubans is not racism.

The communications traffic is massive of CIA and FBI staff complaining that the Cubans are useless for covert purposes and do not know the meaning of operational security, but we will wait for you to post documents showing that the CIA thought otherwise and hired Cubans for anything that remained secret or successful.

 

Jason Ward

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to post
Share on other sites
   2 hours ago,  Michael Clark said: 

If, as has been often suggested, that there was a plan to blame the hit on a Communist Conspiracy, then the most likely candidates for a second or alternate set of shooters, would be Cubans. The myth being here parlayed, that there are no trustworthy Cubans, is silly, and racist.

Jason Said,

Whether the Cubans are trustworthy or not is irrelevant, what is important is what the CIA thought of the Cubans.

The evidence of CIA and administration opinion of the Cubans as untrustworthy and useless for secure operations is posted above.  Where is your evidence that the administration and CIA thought highly of Cuban operatives and believed them trustworthy enough to engage in operations vital to CIA secrecy?

The Cubans are not a race, btw - and we in 2017 showing the 1963 CIA criticism of the Cubans is not racism.

The communications traffic is massive of CIA and FBI staff complaining that the Cubans are useless for covert purposes and do not know the meaning of operational security, but we will wait for you to post documents showing that the CIA thought otherwise and hired Cubans for anything that remained secret or successful.

 

Jason Ward

 

 

Jason, I was talking about the shooters who killed Kennedy and the people who backed them. I think it's silly to make a claim that "Cubans don't understand security" and could not be counted on for an operation when we're talking about a handful of people. They managed to secure their nation and keep Castro alive and their island secure for nearly 60 years with no coups or any assassination attempts. That kind of speaks for itself. Regarding racism, you'll have to work with me when I characterize American attitudes towards a population of Catholic, Spanish speaking and perhaps largely dark or swarthy, as a racist attitude. I would likewise characterize attitudes towards the Italian Mafia, Jewish Americans and perhaps Irish Americans similarly. That is my working definition here, for your convenience.

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

Whether the Cubans are trustworthy or not is irrelevant, what is important is what the CIA thought of the Cubans.

 

 

Jason Ward

And, to be sure, what the CIA thought of their capabilities, or how you choose to parse that out, is only important if you are considering a CIA-did-it, or CIA-did-it with Cubans case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason

The killers of Kennedy wanted to humiliate him and his family (the family of mom and dad and his brothers and sisters, not his family with Jackie). They wanted to shoot him down like a dog in the street. They hated Kennedy with a passion for what he had done to them. That little Kennedy he thought he was a god. A poison pill wouldn't do.

They had everything planned to the last detail but they couldn't control everything.

They couldn't keep Zapruder from filming.

They didn't plan on a missed shot that caused the injury to Tague.

Those two unforeseen events caused the CIA to scamble to save their lone gunman theory. They invented the SBT which of course is ridiculous. But they were able to plant enough plausible deniability which still stands today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:
. They managed to secure their nation and keep Castro alive and their island secure for nearly 60 years with no coups or any assassination attempts. That kind of speaks for itself.
 

Michael, "they" managed no such thing.

In US government eyes, the Cubans sat by and watched as one dictator took over for another, and then stood by passively as they were ruled by authoritarian regimes for the ENTIRE 20th century.   At all times a superpower 90 miles away was more than willing to pay and help them turn to democracy.  Yet they did nothing.

They are still doing nothing today, and still distrusted by the same CIA-military types as in 1963.

The Cubans were and are not trusted by the CIA or the military-industrial complex then or now; they do not even choose to govern themselves.  This does not preclude individual Cubans from isolated trusted roles, but the documentary evidence makes clear every administration since Eisenhower has disrespected the Cubans and found employing them in any way -covert or overt- pointless.  

As you suggest, it is relevant mainly to any talk of a CIA-did it or CIA-did-it-with-Cubans CT; but this ridiculous Cuban-centric nonsense has been swirling around for 50 years in opposition to the facts.  The Cubans had no big problem with JFK, and even if they did, they were powerless themselves and mistrusted by the CIA such that they could have no important role in the assassination.

 

Jason

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:
I would likewise characterize attitudes towards the Italian Mafia, Jewish Americans and perhaps Irish Americans similarly. That is my working definition here, for your convenience.

Michael, take it up with the CIA please; don't shoot the messenger.

Link to post
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...