Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgement

[Guest]

At the risk of reigniting the hysterical previous non-debate of Piper's thesis in Final Judgement from 8 months ago, please consider this thought provoking article written by Mark Glenn concerning "anti-semitism".

...But then again, maybe you’re not.

Thank you Jeff - always nice to start the day with a link to a site of such sickening and easy racism

[Peter McGuire]

At the risk of reigniting the hysterical previous non-debate of Piper's thesis in Final Judgement from 8 months ago, please consider this thought provoking article written by Mark Glenn concerning "anti-semitism". The points presented in this article, upon careful reflection, has lead me to the conclusion that I "might be anti-semitic".

Examine these points and ask yourself, if you might fall into the same category. After your reflection on these questions, then consider with as open a mind as possible whether Mr. Piper has presented a credible, well documented case explaining this still unsolved crime (JFK's murder).

Well put.

Let's stick to the contents of the book. The standard operating procedure of the conspirators has been to

discredit anything thrown their way. In this case it's the author is an anti-Semite. It is always something.

I spent five years of my life preparing to be a public school teacher. I received a BS in Music , but did not student teach or intern.

I remember my favorite teacher. His name was Ken Beighley and he was an Educational Psychology professor.

He was an educator.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Peter McGuire

[Mark Stapleton]

By reviving this thread Sid Walker certainly utilized his “Technique of Infamy” – starting two lies at once, and set people arguing which one is true.

Bill, I don't know why you had this crack at Sid. I don't think it was warranted.

Michael Collins Piper was nice enough to send me an early edition of his book, and later called me and talked about it on the phone.

My problems “Final Judgement” begin with its title. Everybody wants the last say in this. Final Judgement, Last Investigation, Case Closed, but its not over yet.

MCP’s book is accurate with the facts, well documented and easy to read, but like most “plot scenario” theories – regardless of whether it’s the mob, Castro, the KGB, the CIA or Oswald did alone, the approach to the problem is wrong.

It’s not enough to recognize that the crime was a conspiracy and the “footprints of intelligence” that make it a covert intelligence operation, the crime was still committed by individual men, and not by an acronym org or other unindictable entity, and can be solved by men to a more closer certainty.

As with all theoretical perspectives, only the facts that support the thesis are presented, while other, sometimes significant items are left out intentionally. While stacking all the facts to support your case is okay to win a forensic debate in school, it doesn’t work with history or investigation of a homicide.

Come on. Is he going to write a book where the facts which support his case are not presented--in the most persuasive manner. Every book on the assassination shares this trait.

I listen to Kinston Clark, English historian, author of The Critical Historian, when he says:

“The distortion produced by bias are potentially present in any attempt to write history. Sometimes the danger is obvious and menacing, sometimes it is covert, coming from unexpected angles and in not easily detected forms.

….Any interpretation which makes use of facts which can be shown to be false, or accepts as certainty true facts which are dubious, or does not take into account facts which are known, are at best, potentially misleading, and possibly grossly, and dangerously deceptive.

….It is the first task of the historian to review any narrative to find what links are missing altogether…where what is defective cannot be supplied by further research, it is an historian’s duty to draw attention to the fact so that men can know where they stand.

…Any historical conception which has not been adjusted to the most recent results will cease to be satisfactory.”

All the same I thought of a few items that support his theory of MOSAD involvement, but I don’t know if he used them in later editions. Alexander Zigler, a Polish Jew who worked for an American company in Argentina before moving to Russia, became Oswald’s supervisor at the Minsk Radio factory, set up Oswald’s meeting Marina and knew when Oswald was ready to return to USA. I suspect Zigler was either CIA or MOSSAD, but he just as easily could have been MI6. Fitting Ruby into the scenario is easy, Oswald is another matter.

I might be able to add a few items to the list.

Too much time is spent chasing Oswald around. Looking to Ruby's connections is more productive, IMO. Ruby was involved, whereas Oswald only might have been.

Of course Angleton was the liaison with the MOSSAD, but was also under the spell of Kim Philby.

The idea that Angleton was the mastermind of the Dealey Plaza operation was a case solidly laid out by Lisa Pease at a Dallas COPA a few years ago. I was almost convinced, but there's not enough evidence to take it to court.

The biggest problem is the purported motive for Israel to orchestrate the assassination, per Piper, in that JFK’s opposition to Israel obtaining the bomb just doesn’t hold water.

Bill, surely you jest. Nuclear reactors hold plenty of water. I think Israel's survival was in the balance. Have you read the nasty exchanges between Ben-Gurion and JFK? It's clear to me that Ben-Gurion believed JFK was a threat to Israel's survival. The holocaust the Jewish people endured was only two decades earlier and Ben-Gurion wasn't about to risk his nation's survival. He seemed very worried about the sudden emergence of the UAR in mid-63, a fact often neglected by researchers, with its rocket displays and security implications for Israel. JFK's pressuring of Israel, deadly serious pressure, about Dimona was the last thing Ben-Gurion needed at a point when he may have been losing his mind (judging by the tone of his letters). A major domestic scandal was also swirling around him at the time.

What does he have at his disposal? The world's most efficient intelligence agency, a trusted ally as American VP, extensive intelligence connections to the Corsican underworld, extensive intelligence connections within the US, willing patriotic participants within the American Jewish underworld, like Meyer Lansky, Mickey Cohen, and yes, Jack Ruby, powerful sympathisers within the US media and the knowledge that the US military brass, Hoover, texas oil, the Republicans and most of corporate America and any number of right wing fanatics in the south wanted to see Kennedy blown away. Strong evidence, I reckon.

ALL of the evidence indicates, at least to me, that the intelligence network behind the covert culprets of Dealey Plaza was domestic in nature, though Piper and I do agree, that those who took over the government in 1963 are still very much in control today.

And I have a degree in Secondary Education and certified to teach history.

BK

[Mark Stapleton]

My two cents on Piper and his theory... While he has successfully demonstrated that it is a possible theory, his theory is nowhere near as probable as a theory with the mob and anti-Castro Cubans at center stage. The speculation that Israel felt JFK's opposition to their having a bomb was worthy of a death sentence is basically unsupported, to my knowledge. Are there tapes of Israeli leaders discussing how best to kill Kennedy? Did credible sources admit their involvement to their families or personal attorneys? It seems clear that Piper's own feelings about Israel crept into his theory. This doesn't make his book unworthy of our attention. Like the Warren Report and Case Closed, and most every assassination-related book, however, one should read it with the understanding that it is slanted to fit an agenda.

I have yet to read it, but will do so when I stumble across a cheap copy.

Pat,

While I don't agree with your assessment of the theory, I welcome your participation as you seem to be able to discuss this most serious issue objectively, which unfortunately can't be said for certain other members.

You may be right that Piper's personal opinions crept into his theory, I'm not sure about that, but lumping it with the WC or Case Closed is unfair, IMO, especially since you haven't read it. For one thing, it contrasts markedly from those two in that it is an attempt to broaden the parameters of the debate, while the other two are clumsy attempts to close it down.

Insofar as tapes and admissions are concerned, of course there aren't--although former Israeli scientist Mordechai Vannunu has publicly claimed that Israel was involved. There was mob involvemnet, IMO, but not the type you are talking about. Jack Ruby, tied comprehensively to West Coast Jewish mobster Mickey Cohen shot LHO you know. He placed a call to Al Gruber before he did it.

Since no cohesive summation of the theory appears to exist on this thread, I undertake to do this for those unfamiliar with the theory. I won't place myself in a time frame straightjacket--I've made this mistake before--but I will post the major elements and indications which give the theory a credibility which, IMO, places it at the forefront of all the existing theories about what happened that day.

Mark

A fine post.

Your offer to summarize MCP's book for forum members is, I think, a great offer. Such a summary would be very useful.

One footnote. A few weeks ago, I saw a note from Israel Shamir via one of the email lists I subscribe to.

Shamir had been asked if Vanunu can be cited as a secondary, independent source on the theory of Israeli involvement in the JFK assassination.

This was his reply:

Yes, I've met Vanunu, and I forwarded him Piper, and he referred to this

paper [that is, Michael Collins Piper's book Final Judgment]. Vanunu is a wonderful man, but not an additional source.

I agree, Sid. Vannunu's statement can only be considered a footnote in establishing the efficacy of the case for Israeli complicity.

[Pat Speer]

At the risk of reigniting the hysterical previous non-debate of Piper's thesis in Final Judgement from 8 months ago, please consider this thought provoking article written by Mark Glenn concerning "anti-semitism".

...But then again, maybe you’re not.

Thank you Jeff - always nice to start the day with a link to a site of such sickening and easy racism

I agree with you on this Andy. I do not consider myself a "supporter" of Israel, by any means. Yet even the most cursory understanding of history should enlighten one enough to realize that the Glenn piece is completely twisted and hateful. If Piper's book is anything like that, I wouldn't make it past the first chapter. The implication that Jews conspired with Nazis in order to create the momentum for Israel is one of the most offensive things I've ever read. Still it's worth reading this kind of propaganda in order to determine the reasons for its creation... This piece was clearly designed to appease Christians, and convince them they have more in common with Muslims than Jews. In order to do this, it seeks to turn history on its head, and depict the historical persecution of Jews by Christians, as justifiable, in that Jews have dared think they were the chosen people (when we all know it's the Christians, wink-wink) and are today, as ever, secretly running the world. (I love the way it implicates The Last Temptation of Christ, a movie made by an American Catholic, into this vast Jewish conspiracy--what rubbish!!) Goebbels would have been proud.

[Guest]

At the risk of reigniting the hysterical previous non-debate of Piper's thesis in Final Judgement from 8 months ago, please consider this thought provoking article written by Mark Glenn concerning "anti-semitism".

...But then again, maybe you’re not.

Thank you Jeff - always nice to start the day with a link to a site of such sickening and easy racism

I agree with you on this Andy. I do not consider myself a "supporter" of Israel, by any means. Yet even the most cursory understanding of history should enlighten one enough to realize that the Glenn piece is completely twisted and hateful.

Thank you Pat.

I am not a "supporter" of Israeli foreign policy either but as a supporter of humanity I believe it is important to recognise and expose racism whenever it howls loudly in your ear, perhaps especially when those around you appear to be suffering from selective and racially motivated deafness.

You will of course note a link to Collins Piper on the same unpleasant website. I have to admit I haven't had the will or stomach to examine its contents just yet but I have a hunch as to what it might just be about

[Sid Walker]

At the risk of reigniting the hysterical previous non-debate of Piper's thesis in Final Judgement from 8 months ago, please consider this thought provoking article written by Mark Glenn concerning "anti-semitism".

...But then again, maybe you’re not.

Thank you Jeff - always nice to start the day with a link to a site of such sickening and easy racism

I agree with you on this Andy. I do not consider myself a "supporter" of Israel, by any means. Yet even the most cursory understanding of history should enlighten one enough to realize that the Glenn piece is completely twisted and hateful. If Piper's book is anything like that, I wouldn't make it past the first chapter. The implication that Jews conspired with Nazis in order to create the momentum for Israel is one of the most offensive things I've ever read. Still it's worth reading this kind of propaganda in order to determine the reasons for its creation... This piece was clearly designed to appease Christians, and convince them they have more in common with Muslims than Jews. In order to do this, it seeks to turn history on its head, and depict the historical persecution of Jews by Christians, as justifiable, in that Jews have dared think they were the chosen people (when we all know it's the Christians, wink-wink) and are today, as ever, secretly running the world. (I love the way it implicates The Last Temptation of Christ, a movie made by an American Catholic, into this vast Jewish conspiracy--what rubbish!!) Goebbels would have been proud.

The list that Jeff quotes from Mark Glenn is not the list I’d compile to make a similar point – but there would be considerable overlap.

To describe Mark Glenn – or his website – as ‘racist’ is obfuscation. It’s like invading a country illegally – then describing any armed opposition as ‘terrorism’.

Glenn’s perspective is far more universalist than the great majority of Zionists, who often have the chutzpah to present themselves as strong opponents of ‘racism’.

To view some real racism / exceptionalism / supremacism, check out websites of Zionist extremists such as Daniel Pipes, who enjoy considerable mainstream legitimacy.

The term ‘anti-Semitism’ is a misnomer introduced into the English language during the late 19th century. From the outset, the term has been consistently used to further the Zionist agenda.

Interestingly, it was deployed by early Zionists such as Herzl to rationalize and promote the need for a separate Jewish State. They often spoke of anti-Semitism’ in somewhat enthusiastic terms.

Given that many Jews at the time were nationalist (that is, pro-British, French, German etc) or internationalist in their perspective, a key initial task for Zionists was to weaken the assimilated value systems of a growing number of Jews.

This was the basis for a considerable amount of common interest and actual collaboration between some elements of the Zionist movement and the Nazi State. Such collaboration has been well documented – see for example Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators A Reappraisal.

Nazis and Zionists shared a common agenda: dislodging Jews from continental Europe. However, it appears that Hitler did not ultimately accept the Zionist goal of subjugating Arab rights in the Holy Land to those of Jewish settlers – and preferred to posit a ‘Jewish State’ in other locations.

Throughout the post 1945 era, use of the term ‘anti-Semitism’ has been relatively consistent.

It is now used to attack anyone perceived to threaten Jewish interests.

‘Anti-semitism’ has been successfully portrayed as a self-evidently horrible phenomenon, explicable only as a consequence of irrational hatred. Any ‘anti-Jewish’ views, it’s inferred and generally accepted, have no justifiable basis and are symptoms of mental or moral sickness.

This neatly obscures the fact that all religions, cultures and societies are and must be regularly subjected to external criticism. It is no longer feasible for anyone on this planet – or for any group - to live in total isolation. We share a planet. We need to be able to discuss significant issues with each other. Religion, culture, society, ethnicity and national behavior cannot be out of bounds. These are central themes in humanity’s common discussion.

Most of us on this forum live within a ‘western culture’. We expect that the religious beliefs and practices of Protestants, Catholics, Atheists, Hindus, Moslems etc are subject to open discussion and to criticism. We expect there will be similarly open discourse about (almost) all cultures, nations and ethnic groups.

Why the almost? It has to be there, because cleverly inserted into the mindset of modernity is the assumption/inference/allegation that ANY criticism of Jewish religion, history, culture and practices is out of bounds to legitimate discussion.

True, since the creation of Israel as a ‘Jewish State’ in 1948, there has not been an equal attempt to stifle all criticism of the Zionist nation and to apply the same exceptionalism to the State of Israel that’s applied to Jewish religion, history, culture or practices. Consequently, there’s continuing debate about whether one can be a critic of Israel without also being an ‘anti-Semite’. Most people baulk at such an automatic association – yet remarkably, it’s still a topic for debate.

Yet topics such as Jewish religion, history, culture and contemporary practices and behavior are subject to different implicit rules. These rules differ for Jews and non-Jews. They may be summarized fairly easily…

Jews may speak more frequently and openly on these topics and be more daring in their comments, but even they must also speak in generally positive terms. Otherwise… they are apt to be labeled ‘self-hating Jews’. We don’t hear much from ‘self-hating Jews’ on the mainstream media. Hardly anything, in fact.

Non-Jews must be more careful. Positive commentary about Judaica is, of course, acceptable – and welcomed. Criticial commentary is not.

I simply cannot recall ever listening to a BBC broadcast (radio or TV) that casts a critical eye on Jewish religion, society or culture. The closest is occasional coverage of Jewish fundamentalism within Israel.

The Jewish religion in its many forms and the practices and behaviour of its millions of followers worldwide is a significant historical and contemporary phenomenon. Yet, to my knowledge, it has never been the subject of critical commentary on this major broadcasting institution within the Anglo-Saxon world. When has there ever been a BBC debate about the Talmud and its contents? I don’t believe it’s ever happened.

The contrast with coverage of Christianity and Islam could not be stronger. Both these religions – and their followers – are subject with regularity to journalistic scrutiny. Fiery debates are permitted. BBC comedy regards these topics suitable for satire and parody. Yet implicit acceptance of ‘Jewish exceptionalism’ ensures the boot is NEVER on the other foot.

The accusation of anti-Semitism against people who seek even-handed discussion about history, religion, culture and practices – even when discussion is about Jews –is self-referential. Denial is impossible. Accusers construe any attempts to explain why even-handed discussion is indeed desirable as further evidence of the ‘disease’. Whoever said that pseudo-psychiatry is dead?

Back to the main topic of the forum – and this thread.

I believe that the Israeli State, in cahoots with a limited but very powerful international network of Zionists, had the motive and the means to carry out the assassination of JFK and to cover it up for several decades afterwards.

Other groups and networks may well have had the means and motive to murder President Kennedy 43 years ago – but could not have orchestrated a successful cover-up for so long.

The disappointing quality of the ‘rebuttals’ so far in this thread has done nothing to dissuade me from my conclusion that Michael Collins Piper’s Final Judgment essentially solves this crime, by elucidating the networks ultimately responsible for it.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Sid Walker

[Jeff Dahlstrom]

Back to the main topic of the forum – and this thread.

I believe that the Israeli State, in cahoots with a limited but very powerful international network of Zionists, had the motive and the means to carry out the assassination of JFK and to cover it up for several decades afterwards.

Other groups and networks may well have had the means and motive to murder President Kennedy 43 years ago – but could not have orchestrated a successful cover-up for so long.

The disappointing quality of the ‘rebuttals’ so far in this thread has done nothing to dissuade me from my conclusion that Michael Collins Piper’s Final Judgment essentially solves this crime, by elucidating the networks ultimately responsible for it.

Sid,

You have just encapsulated very succinctly in your post why considering that Israel's motive for self preservation by developing and possessing the awsome power of a nuclear weapon to fend off the massive might of all their hostile Arab neighbors. Ben Gurian clearly felt that JFK's opposition to Israel's research at Dimona, threatened the survival of his entire young nation.

The survival motive of an entire Jewish nation could be considered greater than the motives of revenge attributed to the mafia, Castro, Cubans, the CIA, Federal Reserve bankers, Texas oilmen, LBJ, Nixon, GHW Bush, etc. Your response was precisely the types of thoughtful analysis my quote from Mark Glenn was intended to elicit. Thank you.

Andy Walker,

I'm sorry to have caused you to "start the day with a link to a site of such sickening and easy racism". My hope was to diffuse the hysterical angry commentary the last time we discussed this book.

I happen to find all of Mark Glenns essays and books to be compelling and persuasive. He comes from a devout Christian of Lebanese heritage and only started writing a few (5) years ago. I'm impressed that you expressed a willingness to visit and read some of his other essays posted on his website www.crescentand cross.com.

Pat Speer,

Thank you for your comments and post about Mark Glenn's discussion of "anti-semitism". Do you find Sid Walker's discussion more compelling. I was personally impressed with Sid's post and analysis.

Jeff D.

[Pat Speer]

Andy Walker,

I'm sorry to have caused you to "start the day with a link to a site of such sickening and easy racism". My hope was to diffuse the hysterical angry commentary the last time we discussed this book.

I happen to find all of Mark Glenns essays and books to be compelling and persuasive. He comes from a devout Christian of Lebanese heritage and only started writing a few (5) years ago. I'm impressed that you expressed a willingness to visit and read some of his other essays posted on his website www.crescentand cross.com.

Pat Speer,

Thank you for your comments and post about Mark Glenn's discussion of "anti-semitism". Do you find Sid Walker's discussion more compelling. I was personally impressed with Sid's post and analysis.

Jeff D.

Jeff, what I found disturbing about Glenn's post was his blindness to his own blindness. Ditto Sid. Whenever someone talks about the "Zionist agenda" blah blah blah, as if there is some big conspiracy beyond wanting a homeland, financial security, and to be left alone--THE SAME THINGS EVERY OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE ON EARTH SEEM TO WANT-- I get a little queasy. Such an obvious and lame scapegoating of a relatively small number of people reeks of self-pity. "The world would have been super if those darned Jews didn't want a homeland." Yeah, right. What about every other darned group of people who ever wanted a homeland? Like those freakin' Americans who overthrew their King for lower taxes and gave an heroic face to revolution? What about the American agenda? What about the Aussie agenda? Yeah, let's get thrown out of our homeland for bad behavior and go to some isolated place where our only competition are some dingoes and some backwards natives and take their land and shoot the dingoes and natives alternately for sport?

As far as Israel's supposed motivation in killing Kennedy? Yes, I agree...Israel's will to survive was such that IF they felt their backs were against the wall and their ONLY chance for survival was nukes, and IF Kennedy was the SOLE obstacle to their getting nukes, they would have killed him. After lining up like sheep for Hitler, they'd understandably vowed "never again." However, NONE of these circumstances were true. Kennedy was not a true obstacle. They illicitly developed nukes and faked out the inspectors. I don't believe there is any indication Kennedy could have prevented that. But, more importantly, there was no pressing need for nukes at that instant in time. Some 4 years later, using only conventional weapons, Israel absolutely obiterated their hostile neighbors. Absolutely destroyed them. Mopped up the floor with them. IMO, only someone with an irrational hatred of Israel would believe that israel was so desperate for nukes in 1964 that they would kill an American President, and risk losing the support of their Ace-in-the-hole, the good will of the American people. Maybe you'd have to step into my shoes to understand why I think it's so ridiculous. I was raised Christian but went to school with a number of Jews. Fifty percent of my elementary school friends were Jews. I spent a lot of time in Jewish homes. American Jews are most often Americans first and Jews second. For the most part, they would no sooner harm America to save Israel than an Irish cop would harm America to help Ireland. They think of Israel as their homeland, not as their land. For Israel to harm an American president, it would be risking the good will of not only the American people, but, more specifically, the Jewish-American people. That is unrealistic. That anyone would think that Israel can be ruthless is one thing. That someone would write a whole book whose central thesis holds that Jews are unnecessarily ruthless, and wreckless, and that this nonsensical version of history makes more sense than a book as well-grounded in reality as Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, or Anthony Summers' Not in Your Lifetime, is another.

If someone would explain why Israel felt so incredibly desperate for nukes in 1964 that they would have no other option but to kill Kennedy, I'm willing to listen. How does Piper support that they had no alternative? Does he simply subscribe it to "bloodlust?"

Edited October 25, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Mark Stapleton]

Andy Walker,

I'm sorry to have caused you to "start the day with a link to a site of such sickening and easy racism". My hope was to diffuse the hysterical angry commentary the last time we discussed this book.

I happen to find all of Mark Glenns essays and books to be compelling and persuasive. He comes from a devout Christian of Lebanese heritage and only started writing a few (5) years ago. I'm impressed that you expressed a willingness to visit and read some of his other essays posted on his website www.crescentand cross.com.

Pat Speer,

Thank you for your comments and post about Mark Glenn's discussion of "anti-semitism". Do you find Sid Walker's discussion more compelling. I was personally impressed with Sid's post and analysis.

Jeff D.

Jeff, what I found disturbing about Glenn's post was his blindness to his own blindness. Ditto Sid. Whenever someone talks about the "Zionist agenda" blah blah blah, as if there is some big conspiracy beyond wanting a homeland, financial security, and to be left alone--THE SAME THINGS EVERY OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE ON EARTH SEEM TO WANT-- I get a little queasy. Such an obvious and lame scapegoating of a relatively small number of people reeks of self-pity. "The world would have been super if those darned Jews didn't want a homeland." Yeah, right. What about every other darned group of people who ever wanted a homeland? Like those freakin' Americans who overthrew their King for lower taxes and gave an heroic face to revolution? What about the American agenda? What about the Aussie agenda? Yeah, let's get thrown out of our homeland for bad behavior and go to some isolated place where our only competition are some dingoes and some backwards natives and take their land and shoot the dingoes and natives alternately for sport?

I know this thread will be laced with philosophical debate, but I would like to concentrate on the JFK case. It's an unsolved crime, hence every avenue should be examined.

As far as Israel's supposed motivation in killing Kennedy? Yes, I agree...Israel's will to survive was such that IF they felt their backs were against the wall and their ONLY chance for survival was nukes, and IF Kennedy was the SOLE obstacle to their getting nukes, they would have killed him.

I believe the answer is yes to all those questions. The entire Piper thesis depends on it. By spring of '63 JFK and Ben Gurion were at loggerheads, more seriously than ever. Piper quotes from Ben-Gurion's biographer Dan Kurzman:

"Lonely and depressed, Ben-Gurion felt strangely helpless. Leadership of Israel was slipping from his withered hands....Ben-Gurion began to show signs of paranoia. Enemies were closing in on him from all sides. A mere declaration by Egypt, Syria and Iraq in April 1963 that they would unite and demolish the 'zionist threat' threw him into near panic."

After lining up like sheep for Hitler, they'd understandably vowed "never again." However, NONE of these circumstances were true. Kennedy was not a true obstacle. They illicitly developed nukes and faked out the inspectors.

Wrong. Kennedy was the only obstacle. They could rely on LBJ to look the other way, which he did. He even looked the other way when the IDF attacked the USS Liberty in '67.

In mid-63, the Dimona reactor had not gone critical. That wasn't till two years later. Ben-Gurion, David Bergman and Shimon Peres had put in six years of painstaking wheeling and dealing since construction began in '57. JFK told them to end it or face serious consequences---'it could seriously jeopardise the relationship'. It can be argued that Israel would not have been able to fake out the inspectors had JFK lived.

I don't believe there is any indication Kennedy could have prevented that. But, more importantly, there was no pressing need for nukes at that instant in time. Some 4 years later, using only conventional weapons, Israel absolutely obiterated their hostile neighbors. Absolutely destroyed them. Mopped up the floor with them. IMO, only someone with an irrational hatred of Israel would believe that israel was so desperate for nukes in 1964 that they would kill an American President, and risk losing the support of their Ace-in-the-hole, the good will of the American people.

With respect, you're looking at it upside down. They mopped up the Arabs in '67 because they had the latest technology US weaponry, courtesy of LBJ. Had JFK lived, they might not have had that weaponry. The Irgun carried out assassinations and terrorist crimes in the 40's and 50's, and you're forgetting that they had many powerful allies in US Government, media, the military, the underworld and intelligence who also wanted JFK dead. It's not as difficult as you think, if you're smart.

Maybe you'd have to step into my shoes to understand why I think it's so ridiculous. I was raised Christian but went to school with a number of Jews. Fifty percent of my elementary school friends were Jews. I spent a lot of time in Jewish homes. American Jews are most often Americans first and Jews second. For the most part, they would no sooner harm America to save Israel than an Irish cop would harm America to help Ireland. They think of Israel as their homeland, not as their land. For Israel to harm an American president, it would be risking the good will of not only the American people, but, more specifically, the Jewish-American people. That is unrealistic. That anyone would think that Israel can be ruthless is one thing. That someone would write a whole book whose central thesis holds that Jews are unnecessarily ruthless, and wreckless, and that this nonsensical version of history makes more sense than a book as well-grounded in reality as Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, or Anthony Summers' Not in Your Lifetime, is another.

You're assuming that JFK could not have been assassinated by people purporting to be friends. That's unrealistic, IMO. Israel desperately wanted a closer alliance with the US, which they got right after JFK died. The Israeli leadership could see disaster for their nation unless they developed the nuclear deterrent and had access to modern conventional weaponry. Under JFK they could be guaranteed neither, but with LBJ they were confident of both.

Ben-Gurion was obsessed with the security of his country. All he has to do is remove one man. Admittedly, it was high stakes but look at the payoff. Some researchers say the best strategy is to search for the parties who benefitted most from the assassination. Israel was the biggest winner.

I know it's a concept that is profoundly disturbing but it's a strong possibility, IMO. History has shown that Israel is ruthless when dealing with enemies and Ben-Gurion's desperation in 1963 was definitely grounded in reality.

If someone would explain why Israel felt so incredibly desperate for nukes in 1964 that they would have no other option but to kill Kennedy, I'm willing to listen. How does Piper support that they had no alternative? Does he simply subscribe it to "bloodlust?"

[Jeff Dahlstrom]

Andy Walker,

I'm sorry to have caused you to "start the day with a link to a site of such sickening and easy racism". My hope was to diffuse the hysterical angry commentary the last time we discussed this book.

I happen to find all of Mark Glenns essays and books to be compelling and persuasive. He comes from a devout Christian of Lebanese heritage and only started writing a few (5) years ago. I'm impressed that you expressed a willingness to visit and read some of his other essays posted on his website www.crescentand cross.com.

Pat Speer,

Thank you for your comments and post about Mark Glenn's discussion of "anti-semitism". Do you find Sid Walker's discussion more compelling. I was personally impressed with Sid's post and analysis.

Jeff D.

Jeff, what I found disturbing about Glenn's post was his blindness to his own blindness. Ditto Sid. Whenever someone talks about the "Zionist agenda" blah blah blah, as if there is some big conspiracy beyond wanting a homeland, financial security, and to be left alone--THE SAME THINGS EVERY OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE ON EARTH SEEM TO WANT-- I get a little queasy. Such an obvious and lame scapegoating of a relatively small number of people reeks of self-pity. "The world would have been super if those darned Jews didn't want a homeland." Yeah, right. What about every other darned group of people who ever wanted a homeland? Like those freakin' Americans who overthrew their King for lower taxes and gave an heroic face to revolution? What about the American agenda? What about the Aussie agenda? Yeah, let's get thrown out of our homeland for bad behavior and go to some isolated place where our only competition are some dingoes and some backwards natives and take their land and shoot the dingoes and natives alternately for sport?

I know this thread will be laced with philosophical debate, but I would like to concentrate on the JFK case. It's an unsolved crime, hence every avenue should be examined.

As far as Israel's supposed motivation in killing Kennedy? Yes, I agree...Israel's will to survive was such that IF they felt their backs were against the wall and their ONLY chance for survival was nukes, and IF Kennedy was the SOLE obstacle to their getting nukes, they would have killed him.

I believe the answer is yes to all those questions. The entire Piper thesis depends on it. By spring of '63 JFK and Ben Gurion were at loggerheads, more seriously than ever. Piper quotes from Ben-Gurion's biographer Dan Kurzman:

"Lonely and depressed, Ben-Gurion felt strangely helpless. Leadership of Israel was slipping from his withered hands....Ben-Gurion began to show signs of paranoia. Enemies were closing in on him from all sides. A mere declaration by Egypt, Syria and Iraq in April 1963 that they would unite and demolish the 'zionist threat' threw him into near panic."

After lining up like sheep for Hitler, they'd understandably vowed "never again." However, NONE of these circumstances were true. Kennedy was not a true obstacle. They illicitly developed nukes and faked out the inspectors.

Wrong. Kennedy was the only obstacle. They could rely on LBJ to look the other way, which he did. He even looked the other way when the IDF attacked the USS Liberty in '67.

In mid-63, the Dimona reactor had not gone critical. That wasn't till two years later. Ben-Gurion, David Bergman and Shimon Peres had put in six years of painstaking wheeling and dealing since construction began in '57. JFK told them to end it or face serious consequences---'it could seriously jeopardise the relationship'. It can be argued that Israel would not have been able to fake out the inspectors had JFK lived.

I don't believe there is any indication Kennedy could have prevented that. But, more importantly, there was no pressing need for nukes at that instant in time. Some 4 years later, using only conventional weapons, Israel absolutely obiterated their hostile neighbors. Absolutely destroyed them. Mopped up the floor with them. IMO, only someone with an irrational hatred of Israel would believe that israel was so desperate for nukes in 1964 that they would kill an American President, and risk losing the support of their Ace-in-the-hole, the good will of the American people.

With respect, you're looking at it upside down. They mopped up the Arabs in '67 because they had the latest technology US weaponry, courtesy of LBJ. Had JFK lived, they might not have had that weaponry. The Irgun carried out assassinations and terrorist crimes in the 40's and 50's, and you're forgetting that they had many powerful allies in US Government, media, the military, the underworld and intelligence who also wanted JFK dead. It's not as difficult as you think, if you're smart.

Maybe you'd have to step into my shoes to understand why I think it's so ridiculous. I was raised Christian but went to school with a number of Jews. Fifty percent of my elementary school friends were Jews. I spent a lot of time in Jewish homes. American Jews are most often Americans first and Jews second. For the most part, they would no sooner harm America to save Israel than an Irish cop would harm America to help Ireland. They think of Israel as their homeland, not as their land. For Israel to harm an American president, it would be risking the good will of not only the American people, but, more specifically, the Jewish-American people. That is unrealistic. That anyone would think that Israel can be ruthless is one thing. That someone would write a whole book whose central thesis holds that Jews are unnecessarily ruthless, and wreckless, and that this nonsensical version of history makes more sense than a book as well-grounded in reality as Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, or Anthony Summers' Not in Your Lifetime, is another.

You're assuming that JFK could not have been assassinated by people purporting to be friends. That's unrealistic, IMO. Israel desperately wanted a closer alliance with the US, which they got right after JFK died. The Israeli leadership could see disaster for their nation unless they developed the nuclear deterrent and had access to modern conventional weaponry. Under JFK they could be guaranteed neither, but with LBJ they were confident of both.

Ben-Gurion was obsessed with the security of his country. All he has to do is remove one man. Admittedly, it was high stakes but look at the payoff. Some researchers say the best strategy is to search for the parties who benefitted most from the assassination. Israel was the biggest winner.

I know it's a concept that is profoundly disturbing but it's a strong possibility, IMO. History has shown that Israel is ruthless when dealing with enemies and Ben-Gurion's desperation in 1963 was definitely grounded in reality.

If someone would explain why Israel felt so incredibly desperate for nukes in 1964 that they would have no other option but to kill Kennedy, I'm willing to listen. How does Piper support that they had no alternative? Does he simply subscribe it to "bloodlust?"

Pat Speer,

Mark Stapleton's comments to your post highlighted in red above express my views on your points of concern. Let me just add that i felt fortunate to have one of four hundred copies of Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked. The original post at the beginning of this thread was a private email to Larry Hancock and John Simkin requesting clarification of why there was no public discussion of Mr. Pipers book in this Forum or Debra Conway's JFK Lancer Forum.

In my opinion, personal attacks on the author charging him with racism, bias, "anti-semitism", and "holocost denier" lead this currently very civil discussion away from a more comprehensive and critical evaluation of whether the state of Israel and their intelligence apparatus, the Mossad, could have had a motive to orchestrate and be active participants in the conpiracy with others to assassinate JFK.

In addition, the use of the charge of "anti-semitism" prevented many researchers and authors from even considering a role of Israel in the "crime of the 20th century". They would not like being attacked by US groups in America like AIPAC, ADL, JINSA for any cogent argument that Israel was part of the plot. It is very clear to me that actions and behaviors of the governments of countries like America and Israel are not a true reflection of all of the people and citizens ruled by those governments (or religions and beliefs). For example, the current actions of my government in the Middle East (Iraq and Afghanistan) are not the actions that I personally agree with or support. I'm certain that all the citizens of Israel would not have supported assassination of JFK by the leaders of their government.

The motto of the Mossad, "Wage War by Deception", seems to be appropriate to consider by responsible researchers seeking the truth about who killed John F Kennedy in 1963. The charges of "anti-semitism" acted to provide a cover to block responsible discourse on one group of the possible perpetrators of the crime committed 43 years ago. This thread is one possiblity of many other conspiracy theories based upon the facts we know today under the overall heading "JFK Assassination Debate".

Thank you for expressing your views clearly and rationally, Mr Speer. Another thank you to Mark Stapleton, Sid Walker, and Andy Walker.

Jeff D.

[Sid Walker]

If someone would explain why Israel felt so incredibly desperate for nukes in 1964 that they would have no other option but to kill Kennedy, I'm willing to listen. How does Piper support that they had no alternative? Does he simply subscribe it to "bloodlust?"

Pat

Mark Stapleton's thorough response to your latest post leaves me free to pick up only on your strange last paragraph.

Piper does not argue that Israel had 'no alternative' to murdering JFK.

Most sane people believe there is always an alternative to murder.

Unfortunately, that fact does not prevent all murders.

Murderers do not always see things in the same light.

By 1963, the Zionist leadership and Israel's 'security agencies' had established quite a substantial track record in the murder of foreign leaders (or the threat of it) - and in false flag operations that sought to pin the blame for atrocities on other parties.

Lord Moyne and Count Folke Bernadotte were both victims of assassination. James Forrestal's death remains deeply suspicious - and many leads in that case point to Israel.

We also now know that Ernest Bevin had been a target while British Foreign Secretary.

For an early Zionist attempt to frame perceived enemies in the Arab world one need look no further than the Lavon affair. Forgotten ancient history? Not in Israel. Only last year, Israeli President Moshe Katsav presented surviving perpetrators of this horrible crime with letters of thanks.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Sid Walker

[Guest]

Lord Moyne and Count Folke Bernadotte were both victims of assassination. James Forrestal's death remains deeply suspicious - and many leads in that case point to Israel.

We also now know that Ernest Bevin had been a target while British Foreign Secretary.

For an early Zionist attempt to frame perceived enemies in the Arab world one need look no further than the Lavon affair.

Forgotten ancient history? Not in Israel. Only last year, Israeli President Moshe Katsav presented surviving perpetrators of this horrible crime with letters of thanks.

Does it ever worry you Sid that a large number of sane people regard you as obsessively and deeply anti Semitic??

[Sid Walker]

Lord Moyne and Count Folke Bernadotte were both victims of assassination. James Forrestal's death remains deeply suspicious - and many leads in that case point to Israel.

We also now know that Ernest Bevin had been a target while British Foreign Secretary.

For an early Zionist attempt to frame perceived enemies in the Arab world one need look no further than the Lavon affair.

Forgotten ancient history? Not in Israel. Only last year, Israeli President Moshe Katsav presented surviving perpetrators of this horrible crime with letters of thanks.

Does it ever worry you Sid that a large number of sane people regard you as obsessively and deeply anti Semitic??

It would worry me more, Andy, if I felt compelled to resort to name-calling, in response to reasoned arguments and documentation presented by opponents in debate.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Sid Walker

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Does it ever worry you Sid that a large number of sane people regard you as obsessively and deeply anti Semitic??

Earlier on this thread I expressed the view that since Michael Collins Piper was relying on Jim Garrison's phoney case in his puerile efforts to link Israel to the JFK assassination, then he (Piper) had founded an organization of suckers (not all of whom are necessarily anti-Semites, it should be said).

While Mr. Andrew Walker and I may disagree about football, I suspect that our views on the JFK assassination may be capable of reconciliation. I predict that one day Mr. Walker will finally accept that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy, though not one that resembles the theories of either Mr. Garrison or Mr. Piper.

Edited October 26, 2006 by J. Raymond Carroll