Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgement

[Michael Collins Piper]

I appreciate the interest of sincere folks, but as I indicated on the other thread established by John Simkin under the history books section, I am opting out of this.

It's rather boring reading about the holocaust and my views on the topic.

And Tim Gratz is such a disingenuous xxxx that he knows full well that I said that it was Gertrude Stein who once advocated Hitler getting the Nobel Peace Prize (according to the distinguished Jewish newspaper, FORWARD.)

Or maybe he's just plain ignorant and really can't read. I don't think so, however.

John Newman said Gerry Hemming's Interpen was a "sub-unit" of Sturgis' operation. Blame him. Not me. It was clearly quoted and clearly cited in FINAL JUDGMENT.

I suppose John Newman, distinguished professor and all that, is a xxxx and a Holocaust denier, too.

[Terry Mauro]

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

[Guest]

It's rather boring reading about the holocaust and my views on the topic.

You don't seem too bored with the topic in this picture

Odd company for someome uninterested by holocaust denial to keep don't you think?

[Ron Ecker]

Well, so much for my question about Rabin.

[Terry Mauro]

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.

[Terry Mauro]

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.

[Mark Stapleton]

Well, so much for my question about Rabin.

Exactly. I thought that was a good question, too. Maybe in thread in the book review section.

[Jeff Dahlstrom]

Well, so much for my question about Rabin.

Ron, Yitzhak Rabin's assassination is discussed on pages 417-420 in the 10th Appendix titled Israel's Dark Side of the Sixth Edition of Final Judgement. The primary point is, if Israeli's can discuss the assassination of their own leaders by Mossad, why not be open to JFK assassination by Mossad in the USA? Both of these forum threads on Mr. Piper's book demonstrate that this topic is NOT covered by the first ammendment in the USA and common courtesy is totally irrelavent for truth seekers when it comes to Israel's actions.

Jeff D.

[Ron Ecker]

Jeff,

My question was not about the Rabin assassination. It was about the presence of Rabin in Dallas. I find it very odd that a 700-plus-page book arguing Israeli complicity in the JFK assassination does not find Rabin's "visit" worth mentioning.

Ron

[Mark Stapleton]

I guess MCP is not really the debating type.

His views are controversial and cause ill feeling. By now he obviously knows where these debates end up.

It must be remembered that his theory is just a theory, offering no more than circumstantial evidence, not proof. Just like every other theory about the assassination.

The other questions raised are relevant, especially America's huge financial support for Israel. If this was more widely known by the American public, would the public still support this policy? What's the justification for such a policy? Is it in America's long term interests? Why don't Americans ask their Government to justify such a longstanding policy?

[Ron Ecker]

The other questions raised are relevant, especially America's huge financial support for Israel. If this was more widely known by the American public, would the public still support this policy? What's the justification for such a policy? Is it in America's long term interests? Why don't Americans ask their Government to justify such a longstanding policy?

I'm sure it partly has to do with Judeo-Christian religion. Bible-believing Christians still see Palestine as the "Holy Land," see Jews as God's "chosen people" (as most recently reiterated by Tim Gratz), and see the modern state of Israel as fulfillment of biblical prophecy that Israel would be restored. It naturally follows that Israel is to be supported. Otherwise God will get you.

[Len Colby]

Both of these forum threads on Mr. Piper's book demonstrate that this topic is NOT covered by the first ammendment in the USA and common courtesy is totally irrelavent for truth seekers when it comes to Israel's actions.

Jeff D.

Jeff I think you live a parallel universe with a different Ed. Forum and 2 different Piper threads. The First Amendment does not apply here because this is a private forum based in England. Piper however was granted free speech rights and basically shat on this forum. He revealed himself to be the bigot that he is and left because he choose too and is free to return until John or Andy say otherwise. Interestingly some of the most furious reactions to him didn't come from the Jewish/pro-Israeli members of the forum but from members that are neither. Even Mark seems to recognize that Piper has his head firmly implanted in his bowels.

His version of events of course will be that he was hounded out of here by the Jews and "Israel lobby" and you to for reasons unknown echo that "Twilight Zone" version of reality.

Len

Edited February 18, 2006 by Len Colby

[Mark Stapleton]

Both of these forum threads on Mr. Piper's book demonstrate that this topic is NOT covered by the first ammendment in the USA and common courtesy is totally irrelavent for truth seekers when it comes to Israel's actions.

Jeff D.

Jeff I think you live a parallel universe with a different Ed. Forum and 2 different Piper threads. The First Amendment does not apply here because this is a private forum based in England. Piper however was granted free speech rights and basically shat on this forum. He revealed himself to be the bigot that he is and left because he choose too and is free to return until John or Andy say otherwise. Interestingly some of the most furious reactions to him didn't come from the Jewish/pro-Israeli members of the forum but from members that are neither. Even Mark seems to recognize that Piper has his head firmly implanted in his bowels.

His version of events of course will be that he was hounded out of here by the Jews and "Israel lobby" and you to for reasons unknown echo that "Twilight Zone" version of reality.

Len

I never said that about Piper. He's controversial and forthright, that's what I said. Maybe he has witnessed the American Government's treatment of native Americans and compared that to the Government's especially favorable policy towards Israel, leaving him with a jaundiced view of American foreign policy.

I don't dismiss his theory about the assassination, not by a long stretch. Although he wasn't here long and didn't really address the assassination sufficiently, not one point raised by the howling mob caused me to doubt my suspicion of Israeli Government involvement.

And none of Piper's inquisitors can answer the question first raised by Jeff: What is the justification for the huge annual financial and military aid program for Israel ?

[Mark Stapleton]

The other questions raised are relevant, especially America's huge financial support for Israel. If this was more widely known by the American public, would the public still support this policy? What's the justification for such a policy? Is it in America's long term interests? Why don't Americans ask their Government to justify such a longstanding policy?

I'm sure it partly has to do with Judeo-Christian religion. Bible-believing Christians still see Palestine as the "Holy Land," see Jews as God's "chosen people" (as most recently reiterated by Tim Gratz), and see the modern state of Israel as fulfillment of biblical prophecy that Israel would be restored. It naturally follows that Israel is to be supported. Otherwise God will get you.

Ron,

I think you're right about that. I've been doing a little browsing to find out more about this issue. Some of the numbers are staggering:

* One third of all US foreign aid goes to Israel, depite the fact that Israel has only .01% of the world's population.

* From 1973 to 2003, Israel has cost the US about $1.6 trillion, more than $5,700 for every US citizen, depite the fact that Israel ranks 16th highest in income per capita--higher than countries such as Ireland, Spain and Saudi Arabia.

* According to Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington D.C., the cost of Israel's drawn out dispute with the Palestinians has cost more than twice that of the Vietnam War.

* US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East by about $5 billion, Stauffer estimates, which costs America about 70,000 jobs. The requirement that US aid be used to purchase US products is waived in the case of Israel, costing another 125,000 jobs.

* American financial and technical assisstance have helped Israel become a major weapons supplier. Domestic weapons manufacturers have complained about the Israeli lobby influencing Government decisions. In the 1980's the sale of aircraft to Saudi Arabia was blocked by Israel. One half of Israel's exports are weapons sales.

This seems to be an issue that gets insufficient space in the US media, IMO. I'll keep digging. The magnitude of the US sponsorship of Israel appears even greater than I had thought.

[Len Colby]

Even Mark seems to recognize that Piper has his head firmly implanted in his bowels.

I never said that about Piper. He's controversial and forthright, that's what I said. Maybe he has witnessed the American Government's treatment of native Americans and compared that to the Government's especially favorable policy towards Israel, leaving him with a jaundiced view of American foreign policy.

I don't dismiss his theory about the assassination, not by a long stretch. Although he wasn't here long and didn't really address the assassination sufficiently, not one point raised by the howling mob caused me to doubt my suspicion of Israeli Government involvement.

And none of Piper's inquisitors can answer the question first raised by Jeff: What is the justification for the huge annual financial and military aid program for Israel ?

Mark - I read too much into your comments. You said he's "not a debater" and that his evidence was "only circumstantial". Since I wasn't sure I said you "...seem(s) to recognize...". You refer to his critics as "the howling mob" and his “inquisitors” but don't criticize his atrocious behavior. He did of course provoke anger and I suspect that was intentional. I assume he realizes that his case is weak thus he prefers to have his critics focus in him and his controversial views than his evidence.

I propose that we (any interested forum members) read through the chapters he annexed and evaluate them on their merits. The last thing he wants is that people knowledgeable about the assassination find flaws in his research or analysis. This might even draw him back here. Hopefully if he comes back he will return 'toliet trained'. Also if any one finds other excerpts on the Web to post them here.

America's policy in the Middle East is an important issue but really should be debated in another thread. The most appropriate place would be "political conspiracies" but I suggest that a new section be added "politically controversies" for issues like this that don't fit into any of the existing categories in the "Controversial Issues in History" sub forum.

Len