Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgement

[Guest]

not one point raised by the howling mob caused me to doubt my suspicion of Israeli Government involvement.

What howling mob?

When any Neo Nazi appears on the forum it is to be expected (thankfully) that he or she is questioned about his or her beliefs and associations.

If JFK 'researchers' wish to propose that President Kennedy was assassinated by an international jewish conspiracy they are quite within their rights. I respectfully suggest that having done so they should expect both their motives and their evidence to be rigourously questioned. It is clear to me that our recently departed redneck could not cope with either process.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

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?

Infer what you like, Tim. As other members here well know already, facts, or their absence, have never stopped you from jumping to unsustainable conclusions before, so why start now?

Fact: I have studiously avoided reading this thread.

Fact: I have in my library a 1993 Wolfe Press edition of "FJ," which I purchased upon its release. It presently sits less than two feet from my right elbow.

Fact: I read it when I bought it and felt like I needed to take a shower.

Fact: I don't shy away from entertaining that Mossad played a role in the assassination, just as I'm prepared to entertain any hypothesis that is presented with a factual foundation.

Fact: I detected no such factual basis to "FJ." What I did detect was an overweaning desire by the author to stitch together bits'n'pieces of data that may or may not be related, all offered up in breathless purple prose, with all the intellectual honesty of a Gerald Posner.

Fact: As I've done here a number of times, I recommend that all persons interested in the assassination read everything on the topic, including "FJ." That doesn't mean I endorse anything; merely that I think adults are best served by drawing upon the widest possible range of information. I leave it to the intelligence of individuals to discern what is an agenda-driven book, and what is offered purely in a spirit of intellectual and historical honesty.

Fact: It is a gallingly low blow, even for you, to assume that because I do not rally to your defense on this thread I am in agreement with Piper. Since when does my absence from a thread constitute grounds for your baseless inference that I, too, am anti-Semitic? Is there a requirement that all members of the Forum must read all threads, post to all threads, or in their absence thereby be fairly labelled racist? If this is the level of "evidence' you endorse, you have surpassed my worst suspicions about your ability to reason, and about your willingness to use disgusting personal epithets toward those whose arguments you cannot fairly rebut.

Is there anything in the above that you do not understand?

[Mark Stapleton]

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

Len,

It interesting that those who expressed such outrage at Mr. Piper's theory about the assassination are silent about the incredible largesse granted to Israel by the American Government over many years.

Tim Gratz has conspicuously failed to respond to my post.

You're right that this matter should really be in the politics subforum but since this thread has already covered such a wide range of topics, I thought I might as well throw another one in.

[Len Colby]

Len,

It interesting that those who expressed such outrage at Mr. Piper's theory about the assassination are silent about the incredible largesse granted to Israel by the American Government over many years.

Tim Gratz has conspicuously failed to respond to my post.

You're right that this matter should really be in the politics subforum but since this thread has already covered such a wide range of topics, I thought I might as well throw another one in.

Perhaps they agreed with me that it would take the thread too far off topic or perhaps they didn't think they were knowledge enough to comment. Again I think you misunderstood what pissed everyone off. Instead of defending his thesis he insulted the forum as a whole, kept on throwing in new Jewish conspiracies and repeatedly accused other members of lying or as I said before he "shat on the forum".

Start the new thread and I'm sure you will get people to comment.

Remember Piper wasn't a victim, he intentionally antagonized people and left of his own volition.

Len

Edited February 20, 2006 by Len Colby

[Ron Ecker]

What gripes me the most about this thread is Piper's offer of free copies of his 6th edition. He made this offer after I had already shelled out 20 bucks plus shipping for a used copy of the 5th edition. And I only did that so that I could ask intelligent questions about the book. Then before I even receive the book he "opts out" of the forum.

Taken again! And friends wonder why I'm so paranoid.

[Mark Stapleton]

Len,

It interesting that those who expressed such outrage at Mr. Piper's theory about the assassination are silent about the incredible largesse granted to Israel by the American Government over many years.

Tim Gratz has conspicuously failed to respond to my post.

You're right that this matter should really be in the politics subforum but since this thread has already covered such a wide range of topics, I thought I might as well throw another one in.

Perhaps they agreed with me that it would take the thread too far off topic or perhaps they didn't think they were knowledge enough to comment. Again I think you misunderstood what pissed everyone off. Instead of defending his thesis he insulted the forum as a whole, kept on throwing in new Jewish conspiracies and repeatedly accused other members of lying or as I said before he "shat on the forum".

Start the new thread and I'm sure you will get people to comment.

Remember Piper wasn't a victim, he intentionally antagonized people and left of his own volition.

Len

Len,

Well I read all his posts and those of his correspondents and I don't agree that he did all those things. His book hasn't been dismissed by everyone and there appears to be a significant minority, including Mark Lane, who think he might be on to something. It's in its sixth edition, so obviously some people want to read it.

[Jeff Dahlstrom]

Forum Member's:

Has anyone emailed Piper to request a free copy of his book? Just curious about the intellectual curiosity of JFK researchers here.

I have to admit that after reading up to half way through chapter five, I'm still looking for substantiated hard evidence about Mossad invoilvement?

Has anyone read either of the two chapter's that Piper posted from his book for members to read as part of the substantial issues raised?

Jeff D.

[Mark Stapleton]

Forum Member's:

Has anyone emailed Piper to request a free copy of his book? Just curious about the intellectual curiosity of JFK researchers here.

I have to admit that after reading up to half way through chapter five, I'm still looking for substantiated hard evidence about Mossad invoilvement?

Has anyone read either of the two chapter's that Piper posted from his book for members to read as part of the substantial issues raised?

Jeff D.

I did Jeff. I mean I E-mailed Mr. Piper and requested a copy (offered to pay of course), and I read those attachments in the book review thread (excerpts from chapters 11 and 12). I noticed that when I downloaded the attachment, the latter had only had 3 downloads.

I don't think there'll be any hard evidence. Its a circumstantial case--just like every other theory about the assassination. There's never been any proof to back up any theory about the assassination and this one's no different, IMO.

[Len Colby]

. Again I think you misunderstood what pissed everyone off. Instead of defending his thesis he insulted the forum as a whole, kept on throwing in new Jewish conspiracies and repeatedly accused other members of lying or as I said before he "shat on the forum".

Start the new thread and I'm sure you will get people to comment.

Remember Piper wasn't a victim, he intentionally antagonized people and left of his own volition.

Len

Len,

Well I read all his posts and those of his correspondents and I don't agree that he did all those things. His book hasn't been dismissed by everyone and there appears to be a significant minority, including Mark Lane, who think he might be on to something. It's in its sixth edition, so obviously some people want to read it.

Mark I suggest you re-read both threads esp.the other one

I don't think many serious JFK scholars take him seriously. As for Mark Lane he seems to have gone over the deeped a long time ago. There's nothing wrong with a Jew being anti-Israel but you gotta wonder when one becomesone of the top cheerleaders for America's leading purveyor of anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and pro-Hilter litrature you have to wonder about self-loathing.

Len

Edited February 20, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Forum Member's:

Has anyone emailed Piper to request a free copy of his book? Just curious about the intellectual curiosity of JFK researchers here.

I have to admit that after reading up to half way through chapter five, I'm still looking for substantiated hard evidence about Mossad invoilvement?

Has anyone read either of the two chapter's that Piper posted from his book for members to read as part of the substantial issues raised?

Jeff D.

I thought about it but don't think he'd send ME a copy esp. since postage to Brazil is expensive. I'm not even comfortable giving him my address. If he was willing to send me a copy I'd probably get a PO Box.

I'm surprised you found his book (up to ch. 5) less than convincing, I thought you'd made up your mind already. As I already said I didn't find those 2 chapters very pursuesive. I was also surprised that more people hadn't downloaded the chapters

Len

[Mark Stapleton]

. Again I think you misunderstood what pissed everyone off. Instead of defending his thesis he insulted the forum as a whole, kept on throwing in new Jewish conspiracies and repeatedly accused other members of lying or as I said before he "shat on the forum".

Start the new thread and I'm sure you will get people to comment.

Remember Piper wasn't a victim, he intentionally antagonized people and left of his own volition.

Len

Len,

Well I read all his posts and those of his correspondents and I don't agree that he did all those things. His book hasn't been dismissed by everyone and there appears to be a significant minority, including Mark Lane, who think he might be on to something. It's in its sixth edition, so obviously some people want to read it.

Mark I suggest you re-read both threads esp.the other one

I don't think many serious JFK scholars take him seriously. As for Mark Lane he seems to have gone over the deeped a long time ago. There's nothing wrong with a Jew being anti-Israel but you gotta wonder when one becomesone of the top cheerleaders for America's leading purveyor of anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and pro-Hilter litrature you have to wonder about self-loathing.

Len

I've read both threads quite carefully but thanks for the gratuitous advice.

Maybe you're right in suggesting most researchers don't take him seriously. Maybe we should have a poll. In any case, Piper's book is in its 6th edition and if the sales figures he stated are accurate, then someone's reading it. Just because it doesn't get a lot of publicity in the mainstream press doesn't mean people aren't reading it. It seems that others are looking closely at this issue--Piper cited other recent books such as The Case against Israel and Bomb in the Basement. It's a little early to write him off, IMO.

I have no idea if Mark Lane supports MCP's theory, I'm only taking MCP's word for it. But if he does, that doesn't mean he's gone over the deep end. Lane's written books and made significant contributions to the public understanding of this case. What have you done?

Edited February 20, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Michael Collins Piper]

To: Ron Ecker . . . Please send me your snail mail address and I will not only send you a copy of the second printing of the sixth edition of FINAL JUDGMENT (which even includes items not appearing in the first printing) and I will also personally reimburse you the $25 you spent buying a copy of the fifth edition used. email me at: piperm2@lycos.com.

Re: Andy Walker's comment, on one of these three threads about how rotten I am, that I am "illiterate" because I used the term "a hysterical ethnic reaction" rather than "an hysterical ethnic reaction" (or words to that effect), I could easily say that it was a typographical error. It was not. I stopped for a moment and questioned whether "a" or "an" was appropriate. I settled with "a" and evidently—if the brilliant Andy Walker, the great humanitarian, is correct—I was wrong. But if I started judging people by their writings --- including Len Colby who has a lot of problems with punctuation --- I could really start ripping some people to pieces. But I accept the fact that hurried typing on the Internet, particularly when some one is frenzied to make a point (and I'm not talking about Len specifically here) that typos are inevitable.

I guess the bottom line is that this foul little bow-tied man, Andy Walker, is really stooping to the lowest gutter level of name calling by saying I'm illiterate.

Actually, I won an essay contest in high school, along with a fat little US savings bond, for writing a "Voice of Democracy" contest saying how wonderful Israel was and what a great role model it is for the United States. Obviously I knew by then what a crock that was, but I still got that fat savings bond.

Plus I had professor in college---rather well known and Jewish, I might add---who once asked me if he could keep a copy of one of my media content analysis papers because, as he said, it was probably one of the best ones he'd ever had from a student and he wanted to use it as a model for other students. I suppose it's still on file in his office.

But here I am trying to justify myself to this childish, and truly hysterical, ranting and raving by Andy Walker who makes even Len Colby look quite neutral, moderate or restrained.

[Ron Ecker]

To: Ron Ecker . . . Please send me your snail mail address and I will not only send you a copy of the second printing of the sixth edition of FINAL JUDGMENT (which even includes items not appearing in the first printing) and I will also personally reimburse you the $25 you spent buying a copy of the fifth edition used. email me at: piperm2@lycos.com.

Thanks for your generosity. My address has been sent.

Ron

[Tim Gratz]

Some interesting facts re RFK's support for Israel:

In 1968, Robert Kennedy ran for President on the Democratic ticket. In June 1968, he took his campaign to California. In fact, he won the Californian primary on June 5, 1968, the anniversary of the outbreak of the Six-Day War. Kennedy's staff requested a photo opportunity with Yitzhak Rabin, the Chief of Staff in Israel during that war and was then Israel's Ambassador to the U.S., to commemorate the day.

However, that photo opportunity never took place. On that evening, Kennedy was shot to death by a young Jerusalem-born Muslim named Sirhan Bishara Sirhan. As Rabin wrote in his memoirs: "The American people were so dazed by what they perceived as the senseless act of a madman that they could not begin to fathom its political significance."

What was its political significance? According to a report made by a special counsel to the L.A. County District Attorney's office, Sirhan shot Kennedy for his support of Israel, and had been planning the assassination for months. In an outburst during his trial, he confessed, "I killed Robert Kennedy willfully, premeditatedly, and with twenty years of malice aforethought." [Twenty years, of course, date back to Israel's declaration of nationhood in 1948.] In a notebook found in Sirhan's apartment, investigators found a passage written on May 18, 1968 at 9:45 AM: "Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated before 5 June 68."- the first anniversary of the beginning of the Six-Day War.

It is well known that Robert Kennedy, John's Attorney General and younger brother, was also one of the President's most trusted advisors. What isn't so well known is that it was a younger Robert Kennedy, fresh out of Harvard and reporting for the Boston Post, who was in Israel when she declared herself a nation, and through the early days of her War for Independence. The Kennedy brothers also went to Israel in 1951 on a seven-week congressional tour of the Middle East. They left with a further respect for the young country's willingness to "bear any burden" in pursuit of their dreams. It seems likely that President Kennedy saw in the young country the friend in the Middle East he had really been looking for-a friend worthy of the dreams of Camelot.

When Robert first met with Shimon Peres during the negotiations over the Hawk Missile purchase, the memory of Robert's 1948 visit was the first thing they talked about. The second was Israel's desire to break America's "elegant arms embargo." [3] It seems unlikely that Robert didn't exert at least some influence on Peres' behalf to allow Israel to acquire the Hawk. Others saw Robert's influence in this decision as something that Arabs of the world could do without-especially after the U.S. arms purchased by Israel helped it win the Six-Day War of 1967. If the young Kennedy was to be despised for helping to end the arms embargo as the Attorney General, how much more would he be a problem as the President?

When Yasser Arafat's Black September terrorist stormed the Saudi Embassy in Khartoum in March of 1973 and took US Ambassador Cleo Noel, Charge d'Affaires George Curtis Moore, and others hostage, Sirhan's release was one of their main demands. On March 2, 1973, after Nixon rejected that demand, Arafat was overheard and recorded by Israeli intelligence and the U.S. National Security Agency giving the code words for the execution of Noel, Moore, and Belgian diplomat Guy Eid, who were shot to death. James Welsh, a Palestinian analyst for the N.S.A., went public with charges of a cover-up of Arafat's key role in the planning and execution of these kidnappings and murders. (There is no statute of limitations on murder.) If Sirhan had acted independently of the P.L.O., why were they willing to kill Americans to try to gain his freedom?

From:

Michael D. Evans in The Berean Call This Week - June 15, 2004

[Tim Gratz]

Well let's see what Robert Kennedy's daughter had to say about her father's support for Isreal and why he was killed:

Intelligent, funny, personable, informed, and quick. That's how the audience felt about Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Honoring the late Marcia Stern, Saul and Stephen Stern annually sponsor a Memorial Sabbath at the JCMI and this year invited Townsend, a longtime friend.

Townsend, who was Maryland's first female lieutenant governor, admitted that her topic seemed a bit unrelated, but went on to punctuate her serious address with warm and humorous anecdotes about family.

"I might not be here if it weren't for Israel," said Robert Kennedy's eldest daughter. "My father had a crush on my mother's sister originally. Then his father decided he needed some experience as a journalist. He went to Israel to cover the War of Independence for the Boston Post in 1948, and when he returned, my aunt was engaged to someone else. So he married my mother."

Townsend said Robert Kennedy had been impressed with the strength of Jewish freedom fighters, seeing Israel as, "A truly great model for the birth of a nation in courage and dignity."

Townsend strongly backs her father's reasons for supporting Israel, for which, she stated, "He was killed." [Emphasis supplied.]

Like Robert Kennedy, Townsend supports Israel's "connection with the United States, as it really is a democracy and loves liberty."

"Because Israel loves liberty, it is a special friend to the United States," said Townsend, rephrasing a comment by Thomas Jefferson about France's love of liberty, making it a special friend to the United States.

Townsend said, "Under Clinton, a lot of time and energy went into building the kind of multi-cultural alliance needed. In 2001 we were very worried that the peace process would collapse in the Middle East. And it has.

"For Israel to survive, conditions among the people have to be solid enough that the country can turn and focus on economics."

Townsend was both optimistic and realistic in her assessment of Israel, noting how its citizens understand how both they and their descendents will have to continue fighting and dying for peace.

"The only country in the Middle East to build a democracy should be supported by America. We sometimes don't do as good a job at democracy as they do," she admitted, "and they are never sure of when they are going to be attacked. If Israel survives," she said, "so do we."

Source: Carol Glassman, Marco Island Sun Times, January 29, 2004.

You know, it strikes me if Mark S was truly interested in figuring out whether Israel had anything to do with the assassination of JFK or RFK, he could have searched and found this same information!