Jump to content
The Education Forum

The CIA Did Not Do It!


Recommended Posts

At the risk of bolstering my reputation as an apologist for the CIA (and I certainly am not an apologist for the CIA of the early sixties)--- by the reasoning of John Simklin, the CIA is exonerated from any role in the assassination.

Because, on another thread, John used the reasoning below to dismiss the theory that the assassination was organized by the Mafia:

The Mafia had good reason to hate the Kennedys. However, it was no way in their interests to have the brothers assassinated. They knew that if the plot was discovered, it would have meant the end of the Mafia in the United States.

Certainly the same reasoning applies to the CIA. If its plot was discovered, the CIA would have been abolished. And note it would be much easier for Congress to eliminate the CIA than it would be for the DOJ to "end" the Mafia. And, come to think of it, wasn't the Justice Department under RFK trying to "end" the Mafia anyway?

Of course the point of this post is to point out the error in John's reasoning. No one participates in a killing expecting to be "discovered"; else, there would be far fewer killings.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OK, Tim...and this little exercise in blowing smoke is meant to distract us from WHAT other event or discussion that's getting into some serious territory right about now? Your thread is a distraction, a diversion...just wish I knew what you were trying to steer us away from, because that's where we probably SHOULD be looking.

Actually, if the perps were discovered, it would mean the end of WHOMEVER they were...CIA, Mafia, whatever. But in a high-stakes game such as this, either (1) the results had to be worth the price to the perps, or (2) the perps had to be in a position--or have confederates in a position--to assure that the lid never came off.

Or both of the above.

Scenario (1) makes the Castro plot become reasonable. Scenario (2) makes a government "inside job"--whether it be CIA, MIC, or other agencies, operating alone or in concert--become a possiblilty. But I don't think EITHER scenario makes a mob hit any more probable.

My instincts tell me I should've left this smokescreen alone, and instead I should've been seeking the "man behind the curtain." But for now, I'll walk awhile on Tim's "yellow brick road." [Just remember, the Scarecrow actually IS a "straw man."]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, Tim...and this little exercise in blowing smoke is meant to distract us from WHAT other event or discussion that's getting into some serious territory right about now?  Your thread is a distraction, a diversion...just wish I knew what you were trying to steer us away from, because that's where we probably SHOULD be looking.

I expect it is the thread on Young Americans for Freedom. The one where Tim cannot remember the political policies of this YAF.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4437

Concerning my theories on the Mafia and the CIA. Yes, you can apply the same criteria to both organizations. I therefore do not believe that the Mafia or the CIA ordered the assassination of JFK. What I do believe is that some middle-ranking CIA officers (David Morales and Rip Robertson) were involved in the assassination.

I also believe that some, if not all, high-ranking CIA officials were involved in the cover-up. Mainly because they discovered that their own agents and CIA assets were involved in the assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, the fact that you seem to be implying that there might be something to the implication in Sprague's book just enfuriates me. It just further demonstrates the damage done to me on this forum by its adoption of that book,

John, please take note!

With respect to your substantive comments, Mark, I think both of the points you make are lucid. Either the conspirators did it because in their mind there was enough at stake to risk it, or the conspirators were confident of avoiding punishment because they thought they could control the investigation. And I think the next point you reach, that those assumptions lead to a possible Castro scenario or to an internal assassination plot, also seem logical.

It is also possible, is it not, that the conspirators thought they could ensure a cover-up because they had sufficient material to "blackmail" both LBJ and RFK?

I certainly think that Ruby's murder of LHO demonstrates mafia involvement at some level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, it is nice that we finally agree on something!

Do you believe it? And I must say since John does indeed use his same reasoning to rule out CIA institutional involvement, then I ought to withdraw my criticism of the reasoning since it is indeed consistent.

If I am wrong about Castro, then I think the next most likely scenario is the one you brought up in your post. It makes sense to me.

I know that James thinks rogue CIA agents such as Morales originated the plot and then involved Rosselli to supply the money (and perhaps some shooters).

I think it would have gone the other way: that the plot originated with the Mafia and Rosselli, knowing how much Morales hated JFK, involved him to muddy the waters, and to accomplish just what you suggested: a cover-up by the CIA.

Of course, I think the CIA also did the cover-up to avoid the exposure of its involvement in assassination plots, plots not ONLY against Castro.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Ronald Reagan famously said:

There he goes again!

I think it most annoying and unreasonable for someone to try to GUESS at someone's motive in making a post. Mark, how would you like it if I implied you were on Castro's payroll since all your efforts seemed designed to discredit me?

I do not believe I have EVER tried to assign a motive to another's postings. I believe (until proven otherwise) that all posts made on this Forum are the sincerely held belief of the poster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, the fact that you seem to be implying that there might be something to the implication in Sprague's book just enfuriates me. It just further demonstrates the damage done to me on this forum by its adoption of that book,

Now, let's see exactly what I said:

OK, Tim...and this little exercise in blowing smoke is meant to distract us from WHAT other event or discussion that's getting into some serious territory right about now? Your thread is a distraction, a diversion...just wish I knew what you were trying to steer us away from, because that's where we probably SHOULD be looking.

...and...

My instincts tell me I should've left this smokescreen alone, and instead I should've been seeking the "man behind the curtain." But for now, I'll walk awhile on Tim's "yellow brick road." [Just remember, the Scarecrow actually IS a "straw man."]

Tim, it is YOU who is obsessing about the Sprague material; I just thought it odd that you would take the discussion on the forum in this direction for no apparent reason. So if you think that my comments are in any way connected to the Sprague statement, you're obviously more paranoid than even I would've thought.

Actually, Tim, I'd have never connected this with the Sprague allegation UNTIL you brought it up...I was giving you more credit than that. Are you now saying I was wrong to do so? I'd have never connected a merely diversionary thread with the Bremer/Wallace allegations, except for the fact that YOU led me there just now, Tim.

Now I'm beginning to wonder WHY you thought I was alluding to that...because I can't, in my wildest dreams, make that connection from the words that I used.

But I won't threaten to sue you for attempting to put those words in my mouth and sully my reputation on the forum, because I can't discern your intent. Hell, I can't even discern how you made the leap, much less what your intent was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you tell me, Mark, what other discussion do you think I was attempting to direct attention away from?

And as I noted above how in the heck do you presume to know my thought processes?

I think impugning another poster's motive is quite offensive, and uncalled for.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect to your substantive comments, Mark, I think both of the points you make are lucid. Either the conspirators did it because in their mind there was enough at stake to risk it, or the conspirators were confident of avoiding punishment because they thought they could control the investigation. And I think the next point you reach, that those assumptions lead to a possible Castro scenario or to an internal assassination plot, also seem logical.

...followed by...

As Ronald Reagan famously said:

There he goes again!

Schizophrenia rears its ugly head once again. While I'm not a doctor, I have been exposed to persons with diagnosed mental disorders with some degree of regularity...which leads me to suggest:

Ask about lithium...soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now this guy Knight presumes to render a psychological diagnosis of me?

This is insane! (A joke, for those of you not ---- enough to catch it.)

Mark, I can object to your impugn my motives while otherwise agreeing with the points you made in response to my post, can I not?

You think a person who agrees with some but not all of what you say is insane?

All I can do is shake my head,

It is no wonder some people think this Forum is getting to be nothing but a joke!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you tell me, Mark, what other discussion do you think I was attempting to direct attention away from?

I have no idea...that's why I was asking the question.

And as I noted above how in the heck do you presume to know my thought processes?

I don't presume to know your thought processes...which is exactly what I meant when I said:

Now I'm beginning to wonder WHY you thought I was alluding to that...because I can't, in my wildest dreams, make that connection from the words that I used.

...and...

...I can't discern your intent. Hell, I can't even discern how you made the leap, much less what your intent was.

Read the words, Tim...read the words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think a person who agrees with some but not all of what you say is insane?

There's a difference between what I described and insanity. At NO time did I say you were insane. Nor did I say that about persons on Prozac or antidepressants or other medications, including lithium. I don't claim to have the qualifications to judge anyone sane or insane, and unless you have a medical degree you haven't mentioned, neither do you.

So please cease and desist this game of putting words in my mouth. I said exactly what I said, and not what you think I'm trying to say between the lines. Maybe that's just something lawyers do, attempting to twist and wring meanings out of statements that were never in there to begin with. I'm beginning to believe it may have been a lawyer, rather than a comedian, who originated the question, "Have you finally stopped beating your wife?"

As I said: Read the words, Tim...read the words.

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark wrote:

At NO time did I say you were insane. Nor did I say that about persons on Prozac or antidepressants or other medications, including lithium. I don't claim to have the qualifications to judge anyone sane or insane, and unless you have a medical degree you haven't mentioned, neither do you.

But only a few minutes before he wrote the following:

Schizophrenia rears its ugly head once again. While I'm not a doctor, I have been exposed to persons with diagnosed mental disorders with some degree of regularity...which leads me to suggest:

Ask about lithium...soon.

Well, Mark, schizophrenia is a recognizable mental order according to the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual-IV (the diagnostic "bible" of mental orders used by psychiatrics and psychologists). If I had a copy of the DSM-IV with me I could give you an exact reference to it as a type of "personality disorder".

The other day you were baking a big, big deal that I had the temerity of using the illogic of certain statements made on this forum to question the intellectual ability of the posters. In response to your objections, I made what I thought was a conciliarity post.

And now you call me, or clearly imply, that I am a schizonphrenic? I guess you consider it less of an insult to question someone's mental health than to question their intelligence.

Well, I will no longer question your intelligence. There is no need for me to do so. People can look at the recent posts on this thread and draw whatever conclusions they deem appropriate.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of bolstering my reputation as an apologist for the CIA (and I certainly am not an apologist for the CIA of the early sixties)--- by the reasoning of John Simklin, the CIA is exonerated from any role in the assassination.

______________________

OH boy, here we go again!!!

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now this guy Knight presumes to render a psychological diagnosis of me?

This is insane! (A joke, for those of you not ---- enough to catch it.)

_________

HaHaHa

You still have not ans. my ques. :What is it you actually DO for a living?

dm

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...