Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgement

[Mark Stapleton]

So, even before Piper is a memeber he phones another memeber who post's his position on Jews. And it's based on bullxxxx as shown by the links.

This will inevitably turn into a xxxxfight and a dissemination of his views. It already has. And you want him as a member???

Obviously those who are interested in his attitudes have no problem already accessing them. Why go further and give him and his ilk a legup here?

I wish you would be more specific in your posts and not make wild rants.

You have a problem with a Forum member and Mr. Piper communicating by phone? Why? Do you also wish to have phone contact banned?

For your information, I am interested in what Piper has to say about JFK. I resent you trying to determine what I may or may not hear. It probably will be a xxxxfight, judging by the extraordinary invective and animosity being whipped up by you and Tim. As far as I am concerned, Tim has slipped over the edge on this one. Looks like you are right behind him.

An interesting take on my post.

What do you think Mark. Do I want to ban phone contacts?

You as well as myself and anyone who reads the posts know the answer to that.

You suggest I do, Why?

________________________________

What power do I have to determine what enters your ears?

John is clear as to where the power resides as to who joins or doesn't join this forum.

________________________________

I find Pipers comments extremely inflammatory.

I think Tim happens to be right on this one, and would be quite pleased if you would characterise me as already having gone over the edge on this one. Way over. What Tim or anyone else chooses is up to them.

My position on membership for Piper is no. His situation takes precedence over the assassination.

Others are in contact with him and can state his position. That's fine with me.

And an interesting take on my post.

You seem to be annoyed that Piper communicated with Jeff Dahlstrom on the phone. If not, why did you mention it in your inflammatory post?

In your previous posts you have made comments such as "filth" and "perversion repulsive to humanity". Your strong opinions on anyone who denies the holocaust are duly noted. Ramping up the tone with each post only indicates to me that you border on fanaticism yourself. FWIW, someone who denies the holocaust is to be pitied, not burned at the stake. In any case, Piper is not here to discuss such issues--remember?

Tim is trying to make a case that listening to Piper's views on the assassination sullies the memory of holocaust victims. I disagree and consider the JFK assassination to be a separate issue. Tim wants the two issues to be linked permanently. However, Tim and yourself don't run the Forum--fortunately, IMO.

Question is, if Piper is allowed to discuss the assassination here, are you and Tim going to allow this man to state his case concerning the assassination. If not, then you are proving that you have no intention of abiding by the umpire's verdict.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, I must disagree with John Dolva. "Filth" is too good a word for anyone who downgrades the significance of the slaughter of 1,500,00 (plus of course) people.

Piper does not belong on this Forum.

Here is where he properly belongs:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/

Members of that organization like Piper.

I do not understand how you can countenance social intercourse with a man who defends mass murder.

You wrote:

Question is, if Piper is allowed to discuss the assassination here, are you and Tim going to allow this man to state his case concerning the assassination. If not, then you are proving that you have no intention of abiding by the umpire's verdict.

Mark, if John S. overrules Andy's objection to Nazi members, I think John D., Len and I are powerless to stop him from posting. That does not however mean that we have to have any interaction with the beast.

Here is the ironic thing. If JFK was killed by Americans, it is possible he was killed by racists. People who welcome Piper's views. It's a heck of a lot more likely JFK was killed by Piper's "bedmates" than that he was killed by the Mossad.

Edited February 14, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[John Dolva]

Where is my annoyance?

I noted it, and further, that Jeff posted illfounded quotes, prewsumably as argument for Pipers inclusion. Those quotes, apart from being false, had nothing to do with the assassination, but sets the tone.

I wouldn't support martyring Piper. As someone who knowingly does what he does I don't pity him either.

He is not here. Except through mouthpiece. And that product is not assassination related.

What Tim does, your interpretation of what he does, and his response is nothing to do with me.

Me don't run the forum? hmmm

"is allowed to discuss the assassination" "allow him to state his case" what do you think I think I am?

I don't get it.

I have opinions. You have opinions.

So what?

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark, I must disagree with John Dolva. "Filth" is too good a word for anyone who downgrades the significance of the slaughter of 1,500,00 (plus of course) people.

Piper does not belong on this Forum.

Here is where he properly belongs:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/

Members of that organization like Piper.

I do not understand how you can countenance social intercourse with a man who defends mass murder.

You wrote:

Question is, if Piper is allowed to discuss the assassination here, are you and Tim going to allow this man to state his case concerning the assassination. If not, then you are proving that you have no intention of abiding by the umpire's verdict.

Mark, if John S. overrules Andy's objection to Nazi members, I think John D., Len and I are powerless to stop him from posting. That does not however mean that we have to have any interaction with the beast.

Here is the ironic thing. If JFK was killed by Americans, it is possible he was killed by racists. People who welcome Piper's views. It's a heck of a lot more likely JFK was killed by Piper's "bedmates" than that he was killed by the Mossad.

Your opinions on Piper's apparent denial of the holocaust are duly noted. What are you going to say if Piper presents a reasonable case for Mossad/IDF involvement in JFK's assassination?

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, I know what his case IS. I have READ not SKIMMED his book.

His case for Mossad involvement is not reasonable for several of the reasons I (and Scott) have already posted. The fact that he claims Mossad used Corsican hit men is sufficient in itself to dismiss his entire thesis.

And all it is is a scenario based on MMO. As an assassination researcher far more talented than you once noted, a cui bono analysis is the wrong way to solve the assassination. Not only is anti-Semitism wrong, it is also morally wrong, IMO, to imply participation in the assassination by a person or group solely because the person or group had MMO. Might as well start a thread on whether Jackie did it. Then we can post all the info on the women with whom Jack had affairs. So we've now dirtied up both Jack and Jackie. What does that accomplish?

[Mark Stapleton]

Where is my annoyance?

I noted it, and further, that Jeff posted illfounded quotes, prewsumably as argument for Pipers inclusion. Those quotes, apart from being false, had nothing to do with the assassination, but sets the tone.

I wouldn't support martyring Piper. As someone who knowingly does what he does I don't pity him either.

He is not here. Except through mouthpiece. And that product is not assassination related.

What Tim does, your interpretation of what he does, and his response is nothing to do with me.

Me don't run the forum? hmmm

"is allowed to discuss the assassination" "allow him to state his case" what do you think I think I am?

I don't get it.

I have opinions. You have opinions.

So what?

In your post #159 you seem a bit annoyed to me. Now you say you weren't annoyed? Maybe I read it wrong. I don't really care anyway.

You say you would ban Piper from joining the Forum to discuss the assassination because, in your opinion, this "special case" takes precedence over possible further discovery of the underlying factors surrounding the death of JFK. That's fine. I disagree and am glad the decision is not yours to make. What's so hard to understand there? hmmmm?

When I ask that you allow Piper to discuss the assassination and state his case, I'm referring to him being allowed to outline his case without being barraged with questions about the holocaust. My meaning isn't really that hard to fathom, John.

I'm quite happy to leave it at that because this discussion with you just seems to be travelling in ever diminishing circles.

[Tim Gratz]

Mart, there is an old saying, perhaps appropriate here, that one is known by the company he keeps. I also note that you were one of the biggest defenders of Astucia (whatever his real name was).

Edited February 14, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[John Dolva]

In your post #159 you seem a bit annoyed to me. Now you say you weren't annoyed? Maybe I read it wrong. I don't really care anyway.

You say you would ban Piper from joining the Forum to discuss the assassination because, in your opinion, this "special case" takes precedence over possible further discovery of the underlying factors surrounding the death of JFK. That's fine. I disagree and am glad the decision is not yours to make. What's so hard to understand there? hmmmm?

When I ask that you allow Piper to discuss the assassination and state his case, I'm referring to him being allowed to outline his case without being barraged with questions about the holocaust. My meaning isn't really that hard to fathom, John.

I'm quite happy to leave it at that because this discussion with you just seems to be travelling in ever diminishing circles.

Look, Mark. If I had any say in running the forum, I doubt it would last even one hour. So I agree %100 with you there.

_____________________

post 159

"So, even before Piper is a memeber(sic) he phones another memeber(sic) who post's his position on Jews. And it's based on bullxxxx as shown by the links.

This will inevitably turn into a xxxxfight and a dissemination of his views. It already has. And you want him as a member???

Obviously those who are interested in his attitudes have no problem already accessing them. Why go further and give him and his ilk a legup here?"

There was no annoyance as you suggest in the first place, so there is no 'so now you say..'

_____________________

another misrepresentation:

"in your opinion, this "special case" takes precedence over possible further discovery of the underlying factors surrounding the death of JFK."

Where did you get that from?

MY OPINION on Piper is quite simple.

He should not have personal voice on this forum. The unfortunate thing is the virtual impossibility to seaparate his partiality. And it's that partiality I object to. And that objection applied overrides a call for him to have voice.

There are other mouthpieces for him here who appear quite willing and able to voice his position.

Should there be shown a Mossad involvement? Subtract Piper from the equation, sure, why not?

[Tim Gratz]

In a thread on the Holocaust, Andy Walker said:

Shame Don hasn't got time to investigate any of the material presented to him which challenges the spurious nonsense that is Holocaust denial or uncovers the fascist agendas of those who peddle these lies..... predictable, but a shame nonetheless.

[John Simkin]

We seem to have gone off topic with this thread. Maybe these issues should be discussed here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6125

[Tim Gratz]

Respectfully, John, showing that Piper is an anti-Semite is not "off topic".

For one thing it reveals his bias.

If it was a question of his eyewitnessing a murder suspect, and he happened to pick out a Jew over possible Gentiles, would his prejudice against Jews not be subject to cross-examination by the defense attorney? Of course it would.

And re refering this to Freedom of Speech, of course Piper has the right to spew his vitriol, so long as it does not incite violence. But that does not give you the obligation to give him a forum to spread his hatred any more than it compels me to break bread with him. A defender of the Holocaust should be shunned by all moral men.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Quote Adolf Hitler.. The only way our movement could have been stopped, is if our political oponents had realised at an early stage how serious we were, and had stamped on us with full force.

Quote Leon Trotsky..If you cant familiarise a facist with the truth, familiarise his head with the pavement..

Song lyric Elvis Costello..There are some words, that arent allowed to be spoken..

[Tim Gratz]

GREAT post, Stephen!

Although clearly I do not condone violence against Piper or skinheads, it is dangerous to give a man of Piper's views a Forum, particularly because he is a literate, intelligent man. It amazes me that the JBS in 1964 or 1965 had more sensitivity to this issue than John apparently does in 2006. The JBS was not interfering with Oliver's freedom of speech by refusing to let him publish in its magazine.

The reason why some libraries may not carry Piper's book is because they recognize him for what he is.

Edited February 14, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Guest Stephen Turner]

This is just my personal belief, as a libiterian socialist John believes in allowing all a say,and possibily hoisting themselves on their own petard as a result. This to has merit. Lets all try not to fall out about this, after all, I know of noone on this forum who holds, or supports facist views..

[Jeff Dahlstrom]

Forum Numbers:

There are approximately 2,400 posted threads on this Furum. There are 12 pages already on this thread (Piper's "Final Judgement"). Only 8 other threads are 12 or more pages in length, and not one word yet from the author of the thesis that the Mossad/Israel was involved in killing JFK. It might be a better discussion if more commentators had actually read Piper's thesis. I would feel better, if I had read the book, to judge whether it has merit or deserves consideration. I respect that Tim has at least read the book (1994 version?).

I provided those quotes from Ariel Sharon and others in answer to Len's pressure to acknowledge accepting his statement summarizing my views and Piper's views as extreme, hateful, and racist. They were quotes that I thought were true and relavent.

I do not personally know Mr. Piper, he was kind enough to respond to an email (a forward of my original email to John S. that started this discussion) and a telephone message which was provided to John Simkin in this thread, yesterday. Anyone here can call him just like I did. He has answers to many issues discussed here, like why is his book is not widely available in libraries and some main stream book stores. I am not Mr. Piper's advocate or mouthpiece in any way. I have read his book "High Priests of War" which addresses the Neoconservative Zionist movement in our government which has taken over the Republican party which I now disavow, taking the US into an ever widening war in the Middle-Far East. I also recently subscribed to the online version of the AFP, partly because I'm not satisfied with the news provided by my mainstream media. I used to be "Hannitized" and a "Ditto Head". Not anymore, my eyes are wide open and I want answers, not lies, propaganda, and distortions of the truth.

Mr. Piper has been reading this discussion and will endeaver to address anyone's opinions about JFK's assassination and who he thinks was responsible based upon his research as opposed to anti-Israeli bias, as soon as his membership is processed and he is capable of posting his thoughts, evidence, and opinions about what is known and not known.

I am not promoting his book, I just want to read what he says, and would hope that more members of this Forum knew what precisely he has written to challenge his facts, and/or thesis.

Jeff D.