Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgement

[Michael Hogan]

Interestingly, there is a public monument honoring Angleton in Tel Aviv.

According to Victor Marchetti, "Angleton's plaque turned out to be made, not of bronze, but of cardboard. Nor was the setting particularly flattering to Israel's late benefactor: the trees and plaque were at the edge of a garbage dump." Note that the source of this information is not a Zionist site but one Sid (and perhaps Jeff) would approve of – the virulently anti-Semitic Holocaust denying IHR . [/font]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p305_Marchetti.html

Here is the full quote from Marchetti about Israel from Len's source:

When I was in the agency, the Mossad was generally not trusted. There was an unwritten rule that no Jews could work on Israeli or near Eastern matters; it was felt that they could not be totally objective.. There was a split in the agency, however, and Israel was not included in the normal area division, the Near Eastern Division. Instead it was handled as a special account in counterintelligence. The man who handled that account, James Jesus Angleton, was extremely close to the Israelis. I believe that through Angleton the Israelis learned a lot more than they should have and exercised a lot more influence on our activities than they should have.

For his trouble, James Angleton, who died last year, was honored by the Israelis, in the way that the Israelis customarily honor their Gentile helpers. They decided to plant a whole forest for Angleton in the Judean hills, and they put up a handsome plaque in several languages, lionizing Angleton as a great friend of Israel, on a nearby rock. Israeli's intelligence chiefs, past and present, attended the dedication ceremony. Later on, a television reporter of my acquaintance sought out Angleton's memorial during an assignment in Israel. After some difficulty, he was able to locate it, but something seemed odd about it. On closer inspection, Angleton's plaque turned out to be made, not of bronze, but of cardboard. Nor was the setting particularly flattering to Israel's late benefactor: the trees and plaque were at the edge of a garbage dump. My friend's British cameraman put it best "This guy sold out his country for the bloody Israelis, and this is the way they pay him back!"

[Len Colby]

Hi Michael,

Is there any way you can edit your previous post. It looks like you're quoting me when in fact it was something written by Andy, which is somewhat confusing and, I'm sure, unitentionally misleading.

Many Thanks

Gary

My apologies Gary. I'm not sure how that happened.

It happen because you were sloppy and were too lazy to have proof read your post.

Interestingly, there is a public monument honoring Angleton in Tel Aviv.

According to Victor Marchetti, "Angleton's plaque turned out to be made, not of bronze, but of cardboard. Nor was the setting particularly flattering to Israel's late benefactor: the trees and plaque were at the edge of a garbage dump." Note that the source of this information is not a Zionist site but one Sid (and perhaps Jeff) would approve of – the virulently anti-Semitic Holocaust denying IHR . [/font]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p305_Marchetti.html

Here is the full quote from Marchetti about Israel from Len's source:

When I was in the agency, the Mossad was generally not trusted. There was an unwritten rule that no Jews could work on Israeli or near Eastern matters; it was felt that they could not be totally objective.. There was a split in the agency, however, and Israel was not included in the normal area division, the Near Eastern Division. Instead it was handled as a special account in counterintelligence. The man who handled that account, James Jesus Angleton, was extremely close to the Israelis. I believe that through Angleton the Israelis learned a lot more than they should have and exercised a lot more influence on our activities than they should have.

For his trouble, James Angleton, who died last year, was honored by the Israelis, in the way that the Israelis customarily honor their Gentile helpers. They decided to plant a whole forest for Angleton in the Judean hills, and they put up a handsome plaque in several languages, lionizing Angleton as a great friend of Israel, on a nearby rock. Israeli's intelligence chiefs, past and present, attended the dedication ceremony. Later on, a television reporter of my acquaintance sought out Angleton's memorial during an assignment in Israel. After some difficulty, he was able to locate it, but something seemed odd about it. On closer inspection, Angleton's plaque turned out to be made, not of bronze, but of cardboard. Nor was the setting particularly flattering to Israel's late benefactor: the trees and plaque were at the edge of a garbage dump. My friend's British cameraman put it best "This guy sold out his country for the bloody Israelis, and this is the way they pay him back!"

The question at hand was the supposed memorial to Angleton, a cardboard "plaque" and some trees at the edge of a garbage dump are exactly a special honor. It is not at all surprising that someone addressing a group of Holocaust deniers would say Angleton did what the Israeli's wanted.

Len, I welcome your involvement in this thread. But encourage you to try and avoid unnecessary labels. I suspect that part of the attraction of readers to Piper is that reading his book is so upsetting to others--this gives the impression there is more substance to his work than one would otherwise suspect.

The only label I attached to Piper (recently) is "intellectually dishonest" and it true that he bragged here about misrepresenting his views to win an essay contest. As for Jeff and Sid, Even you were offended by his obnoxious post and Sid has constantly flouted his bigotry.

By denouncing Piper and his supporters as bigots, you, in effect, create a marketable angle for a book that, in fact, probably deserves to die a slow death, like Russo's book blaming it all on Castro, and that other book blaming it all on Madame Nhu.

I don't think "little ole me" has that much impact. With all due respect (I think you are one of the most clear headed members of this forum) Dukakis and Kerry tried that strategy and look where it got them and us. It reminds me of people making] a point of not mentioning Chapman's name after he shot Lennon in order to deny him the fame he sought. Jeff and Sid aren't bigots because they like Piper's book, they like it because they are bigots. Perhaps I'm being to harsh on Jeff, perhaps. Maybe making that post was just a bad call by one severely misinformed person quoting another. Sid oh the other hand has continuously made his prejudices quite clear his seeming praise of Hitler / backhanded Holocaust denial on this thread being the latest example.

Len

Edited October 28, 2006 by Len Colby

[Michael Hogan]

The question at hand was the supposed memorial to Angleton, a cardboard "plaque" and some trees at the edge of a garbage dump are exactly a special honor. It is not at all surprising that someone addressing a group of Holocaust deniers would say Angleton did what the Israeli's wanted.

No, the real question at hand was the poor quality of your research. And I use that term loosely.

Marchetti's complete quote speaks for itself, and simply indicates the weaknesses of your arguments and to what absurd lengths you will go to "rebut" something, your reliance on links that don't support your claims, and your propensity to quote totally out of context to paint a misleading picture.

I could easily cite many more cases of the above, but I rather like it when you call me a cop out.

Plus, I've already learned that careful readers can see the same shortcomings in your posts that I see.

It happen because you were sloppy and were too lazy to have proof read your post.

It happen? Proofread is one word. Want the link to Merriam-Webster?

[Guest]

It happen? Proofread is one word. Want the link to Merriam-Webster?

Who sounds like an overbearing school teacher now Mr Hogan?

Proceed with a civil tongue in your head if you please or you will not proceed at all.

[Michael Hogan]

It happen? Proofread is one word. Want the link to Merriam-Webster?

Who sounds like an overbearing school teacher now Mr Hogan?

Proceed with a civil tongue in your head if you please or you will not proceed at all.

You don't frighten me. Nothing that I have posted has been uncivil. If you want to continue to be petty and vindictive, do whatever you feel you must. But I refuse to be intimidated by the "likes of you."

[Pat Speer]

It happen? Proofread is one word. Want the link to Merriam-Webster?

Who sounds like an overbearing school teacher now Mr Hogan?

Proceed with a civil tongue in your head if you please or you will not proceed at all.

You don't frighten me. Nothing that I have posted has been uncivil. If you want to continue to be petty and vindictive, do whatever you feel you must. But I refuse to be intimidated by the "likes of you."

Michael, outside of his being a liberal English schoolteacher who wishes there were more schoolteachers and less "theorists" on HIS forum, I am having trouble identifying what the "likes of Andy" are? Please illuminate...

As far as Angleton, I've read that there is more than one memorial to Angleton in Israel, not because he served Israel, but because he symbolized U.S./Israeli cooperation during the Cold War. It is rarely mentioned that Angleton had the Mossad account because Mossad had a number of valuable sources behind the Iron Curtain, particularly in Poland. Khruschev's speech in which he denounced Stalin, which was used for propaganda purposes by the West, came courtesy a Mossad source in the Polish government.

Edited October 28, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Guest]

It happen? Proofread is one word. Want the link to Merriam-Webster?

Who sounds like an overbearing school teacher now Mr Hogan?

Proceed with a civil tongue in your head if you please or you will not proceed at all.

You don't frighten me. Nothing that I have posted has been uncivil. If you want to continue to be petty and vindictive, do whatever you feel you must. But I refuse to be intimidated by the "likes of you."

How utterly charming you are not.

I am merely attempting to manage this forum in accordance with its aims.

What you are trying to do is more of a mystery.

[Michael Hogan]

Michael, outside of his being a liberal English schoolteacher who wishes there were more schoolteachers and less "theorists" on HIS forum, I am having trouble identifying what the "likes of Andy" are? Please illuminate...

Sure Pat. See posts #345 and #346 of this thread.

Edited October 28, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Guest]

Michael, outside of his being a liberal English schoolteacher who wishes there were more schoolteachers and less "theorists" on HIS forum, I am having trouble identifying what the "likes of Andy" are? Please illuminate...

Pat

I do not have a problem with "theorists" but yes I would like to witness more teachers using this "Teacher's Forum".

What wears out my patience is the fatuous relativism which results in a conclusion of "conspiracy" before any proper analysis of the evidence has occurred.

I am also concerned that the very notion of conspiracy leads the 'patient' to some quite disturbingly false and deeply anti social conclusions - see Sid Walker's and Mark Stapleton's international jewish conspiracy for one marked example.

Not a new idea chaps, less still an enlightening one.

[Michael Hogan]

The question at hand was the supposed memorial to Angleton, a cardboard "plaque" and some trees at the edge of a garbage dump are (not) exactly a special honor.

From William Hood, former Senior CIA Official:

.....As it happened, I attended the memorial service for Angleton in Israel. Two monuments were dedicated, huge stones with engraved bronze plaques. One is on a hillside, a few miles from Jerusalem and the scene of a major ballet in the early days. The other is in a park near the Kind David Hotel in Jerusalem. The various ceremonies were attended by the surviving chiefs of Israeli intelligence, and various public figures. A future prime minister dedicated one monument.

Streets have been named for wartime spies and resistance fighters, others have been honored on postage stamps, but I know of no country that has given such public recognition to a foreign intelligence officer.

http://www.thefinalphase.com/Angleton%20My...ANGLETONS_WORLD

It is not at all surprising that someone addressing a group of Holocaust deniers would say Angleton did what the Israeli's (sic) wanted.

From Cold Warrior, the biography of James Jesus Angleton by Tom Mangold (Page 362)

I would like to place on the record, however, that Angleton's closest professional friends overseas, then and subsequently, came from the Mossad -- the Israeli intelligence-gathering service and that he [Angleton] was held in immense esteem by his Israeli colleagues and by the state of Israel, which was to award him profound honors after his death.

[Len Colby]

No, the real question at hand was the poor quality of your research. And I use that term loosely.

Marchetti's complete quote speaks for itself, and simply indicates the weaknesses of your arguments and to what absurd lengths you will go to "rebut" something, your reliance on links that don't support your claims, and your propensity to quote totally out of context to paint a misleading picture.

You can put whatever spin on it you wish; I quoted Marchetti in response to Greg's comment that the Israeli dedicated a memorial to Angleton. It is not at all surprising that a disgruntled ex-CIA agent, with ties to anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli groups (No, not necessarily the same thing. See http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-09.html ) would when addressing a group of Holocaust revisionists (a group at the time run by Piper's BTW) say that Angleton was in Israel's pocket a point I didn't dispute anyway. The full quote was there to see for anyone who could have been bothered to click the link which I fully expected people to do. The rest of the quote was not relevant IMO.

"Nothing that I have posted has been uncivil."

Oh yeah, you are the epitome of civility.

You are sloppy, careless, and lazy.

I never thought I'd be saying this, but more and more Jack reminds me of the kid in the playground that sticks his chin out and says "hit me," and when the bully obliges him, goes running to the principal.

When the principal doesn't do anything, the kid goes back the next day and sticks his chin out again.

"your reliance on links that don't support your claims…"

Funny, this coming from the guy who on more than one occasion has been unable to find a quoted passage on a linked page. You criticized the quality of my research but I've never seen any of yours. As a teacher I don't look very favorably at the maxim "those who can't do teach" closer to the truth is "those who can't do criticize those who can"

Seemingly unable to make of your own points on the subjects debated here the vast majority of your posts are:

a) mere links to and/or quotes from webpages with little or no commentary.

criticism of other people's posts, possibly motivated by your jealously of people who unlike you are able to do their own research.

I'm not normally one to 'blow my own horn' but various members of this forum have commented favorably on my contribution here for example:

- Josiah Thompson author of Six Seconds in Dallas has praised by research on more than one occasion.

- John Simkin said of me "I have always found him to be a polite and able opponent" http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=65623

- Ron Ecker wrote "I must say that the extent of your 9/11 research is impressive. Do you do this for a living? (How?) Are you planning to write a book, or are you in the process? If not, I think you should. I for one would like to read it. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=ST&f=209&t=8046&hl=book&view=findpost&p=76193

Jack White called my post where I pointed out that he had totally misidentified the point of impact and flight path of flight 77 into the Pentagon "a mass of meaningless crap" but then was forced to admit he was wrong and I was right, funny you didn't admonish him for starting a thread based on his poor research.

Your criticism of my research is nearly always unfounded:

- On at least two occasions you said or implied my links didn't contain the quoted passage but they did.

- You complained once that the linked page was too long as if were my fault or if there were any way I could have linked directly to the quote.

- More recently I said "According to one researcher it (a Virginia Department of Transportation traffic camera pole) was 60 feet tall" and you complained that the person I quoted was merely an internet researcher who was presumably told this by someone at the VDoT and confirmed it with a Jack White like "photo study".

-On another occasion you complained that a link in a page I linked was no longer working but people like Jack, John McCarthy and Peter Lemkin make all sorts wild erroneous claims which they don't provide documentation for or if they do provide links their sources don't provide any documentation but you say nothing.

I'm sure if one wanted to nitpick the research done by any member of this or any other forum one could find things to criticize. I said this before about a specific thread but now I'll apply it to the whole forum, I'll refrain from responding to you idiotic nitpicking in the future. Doing so is a waste of my time and tends to take the involved threads of on tangents. You strike me as a petty frustrated old man.

...careful readers can see the same shortcomings in your posts that I see.

I believe I see similar shotcomings

Yeah right Peter. That's pretty rich coming from you who continuously makes claims you are unable document (pools of molten steel were found in WTC 7, the Pentagon had anti-aircraft missiles etc). Care to site any examples? If you can do so on the appropriate threads. You believe all sorts of nonsense.

"You are a kneejerk reflex D-bunk-er"

Projection Peter? "You are a kneejerk reflex" conspiracy theory believer no theory is too ridiculous or implausible for you to buy into. Actually on more than one occasion I have stated the conspiracy theories which I believe to be true or probably true.

Len

[Ron Ecker]

I just came across these interesting questions by Israeli writer Barry Chamish:

"Remember the Samson Option? That no Israeli city could be attacked by the air because WE had nuclear weapons. So where was the option while Haifa was emptied last July? Is it true Israel never had nuclear weapons, or is it true Israel's leaders no longer protect their people."

Not having nuclear weapons, but simply claiming to have them, would save a lot of money and be quite a clever trick. (Clever, that is, until it comes time to use them.)

But if it's all been a big bluff, they unfortunately failed to tell Kennedy beforehand.

[Mark Stapleton]

I found a good general overview of the nuclear angles of the US-Israeli relationship here:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm

There's also a recent book on the subject written by Warren Bass, a summary of which can be found here:

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=17-0195165802-4

For anyone willing to pay a subscription or membership fee, you can apparently read excerpts of Bass's book at these sites:

http://jch.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/3/413

That was the book Tim Gratz was spruiking earlier on this thread. He even started a separate thread on it. Members can evaluate its worth for themselves:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6174

http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/...09.4/br_75.html

Be careful, though: Bass is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. (Whether he's a Jew or not, I don't know.) I looked all this up as I was interested in reading the correspondence between Kennedy and Ben-Gurion (of which I only found Kennedy's letter to Eshkol). I would agree that the subject bears further investigation, but typically it's hard to even want to consider anything where racist/anti-Semitic agendas are being served. Maybe Piper needs better promoters....

Mark Stapleton: "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."

Very reasonable, but then any extended discussion of Australia's background (history) might reveal too much that Australians have in common with Americans (and Canadians), wouldn't it? As in, white racist supremacy attitudes and genocidal policies against "the natives" (and other minorities)? That would tend to work against the larger argument that the world is under the heel of the evil, Jew-infested United States. Odd how Piper and others have "broken new ground" in revealing potential Mossad ties to JFK's murder when an American might say the ground's barely been tilled investigating Nativist/racist angles. But as I once remarked to someone, is it possible to investigate an entire society?

No-one's trying to investigate an entire society. I'm looking at the geopolitical realities surrounding America's relationship with Israel which may have contributed to their participation in Kennedy's assassination.

"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.'"

Your previous point about the establishment of the UAR not often being mentioned might be important, if it weren't for the fact that the UAR experiment was kaput in Kennedy's first year in office.

Daniel, you are right about the UAR. It was a short lived federation between Egypt and Syria (1958-1961). After the breakup of the federation, Egypt retained the name UAR and used it interchangably with 'Egypt'. I must be acronym challenged.

The event which spooked Ben-Gurion was on April 17, 1963, when Egypt, Syria and Iraq signed, in Cairo, an Arab Federation Proclamation calling for a military union to bring about the liberation of Palestine. (Cohen, p.119).

Cohen goes on to describe how BG reacted...."Foreign Minister Golda Meir and the ministry's senior staff did not share BG's alarm. BG, however, launched into what his biographer calls an 'unprecedented diplomatic campaign', alerting fifty world leaders to the gravity of the new situation in the ME."

On 25 April BG wrote a seven page letter to Kennedy...BG compared the liberation of Palestine to the Holocaust: "The liberation of Palestine is impossible without the total destruction of the people in Israel, but the people in Israel are not in the hapless situation of the six million defenceless Jews who were wiped out by Nazi Germany".

Cohen adds that BG's new campaign upset many of the senior staff at the Foreign Ministry. This is based on interviews conducted by Cohen with Shimshon Arad (then head of the US Department at the Foreign Ministry), and Gideon Rafael (then Deputy Director of the Foreign Ministry), in summer 1994. The substance and tone seemed exaggerated, or in senior diplomat Gideon Rafael's words, 'hysterical'. Ambassador Harman and his deputy Mordechai Gazit in Washington, were even more critical of and frustrated with BG's actions.

"In February 1958 [Gamal Abdul] Nasser revealed that Egypt and Syria had formed a union of their two countries, and that the United Arab Republic (UAR) had been born. Nasser was declared president of the UAR, and Cairo was established as its capital. In March Yemen, then a monarchy, joined in a separate federation with Egypt, and this arrangement was called the United Arab States. Nasser was now eager to press for broad-scale Arab unity under his leadership.... But all was not clear sailing. Syria broke from its federation with Egypt in September 1961; Yemen dissolved its union in December of that year." (From "Arab Socialist Union," in Lawrence Ziring's The Middle East Political Dictionary, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, CA, p. 182.)

"Nasser...judged the Baath [party of Syria] to be a threat to his program of Arab unity, and in 1959-60 he ordered the party banned. This was a serious blow to the Baathists, who were instrumental in bringing about the merger with Egypt. In 1961, Nasser increased tension between Cairo and Damascus by calling for the centralization of all commercial and industrial activity. Later that year Syria's regional cabinet was abolished, and a UAR government largely replaced the Syrian government. The Syrian Baathists, sensing the loss of their program and power, rebelled. Elements of the Syrian Army took Egyptian army chief Hakim Amer (Nasser's key official in Syria) prisoner, and ordered the other Egyptian officers to leave the country. Nasser yielded quickly to the Syrian putsch, and the union between Egypt and Syria was dissolved." Ibid., p. 187.

In essence, then, Ben-Gurion apparently over-reacted to pan-Arab rhetoric about something which never materialized and which had already failed once. [The Iraqi Baath Party, by the way, was behind the revolution that overthrew Qassim later in 1963, setting up the Revolutionary Command Council (from which eventually emerged the dictatorship of Saddam Hussain); the revolt against Qassim was in part over the question of Iraq's becoming part of what some apparently felt was Nasser's "empire."] It seems from your quoted source that Ben-Gurion clearly was beset by depression and bouts of paranoia. But it seems to be extrapolating/speculating too much that this was all about the Ben-Gurion/JFK tension (US-Israeli relationship). If it is accurate that Kennedy was interested in supplying Israel with mucho conventional arms, with the proviso that Israel should not build nuclear weapons, one explanation for Ben-Gurion's mental straits could be that he was caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place --- there may have been other forces outside his control who were insistent on a nuclear capability, that this was something that would be developed no matter what he (or JFK) wanted. Ben-Gurion would also seem to have had other problems (like the domestic political corruption issues) that help account for his depression. Kennedy followed a similar attempt at an even-handed policy as Eisenhower did where the Arab-Israeli conflict was concerned; but then it's convenient to neglect to mention that Johnson held back assisting the Israelis in 1967 because CIA analysts convinced Johnson et al that the Israelis would wipe the floor with the Arabs (about which CIA was right). The really strong, overt support of Israel on the part of the US began during the Nixon Administration; this seems to me more likely the result of necessities inherent in the "Nixon Doctrine" than anything else.

Here you've made assumptions which aren't supported by the evidence.

JFK wasn't interested in supplying Israel with 'mucho weapons' in return for co-operation on Dimona. In 1962, he had sent Myer Feldman to Israel to craft a deal that would tie the US supply of air defence Hawk missiles to Israeli concessions on the Palestinian refugee problem--not Dimona. The Skyhawk jet deal was signed off on LBJ's watch. The quid pro quo for LBJ's arming of Israel was ostensibly concessions on Dimona via AEC inspections. Those sham inspections, as we now know, were not really concessions at all---but Israel's quota of offensive weapons was secured nonetheless. The fact that LBJ was also considering direct US help for Israel in its war with the Arab states only strengthens the case for LBJ being the father of Israel's arming for war. Under LBJ, Israel got the weapons and they kept Dimona.

Military aid to Israel increased dramatically during LBJ's administration. (I haven't got the numbers handy but I could dig them up unless someone else has them handy). It has never really stopped. One third of all US foreign aid goes to Israel.

Kennedy's diplomatic strategy of 'arm's length' relations with all ME nations was designed to maintain good relations with those ME nations. This makes sense if your main concern is US foreign policy. He wasn't about to arm anyone in the region with the firepower to start a war.

Pat Speer: "...Kennedy was not a true obstacle. [The Israelis] illicitly developed nukes and faked out the inspectors."

Mark Stapleton: "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.

"Kennedy was the only obstacle." That's a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you agree? Assuming you wouldn't, how do you justify such an assertion?

It's not a stretch, it's a fact. Construction of the all important nuclear reprocessing plant was continuing with French assisstance even after DeGaulle's public announcement of a new French nuclear policy vis-a-vis Israel. JFK knew this and was determined to see the Dimona project abandoned. BG's two pronged strategy of securing both nuclear and conventional weapons was being threatened on both counts by one man.

"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."

It can be argued, but President Kennedy obviously wasn't Superman (his brains were blown out), so it's doubtful that even He could have kept a sovereign nation from developing nuclear weapons if that was their intent. This is the main problem with the thesis: President Kennedy did all that he could against nuclear proliferation; the Israelis and the Chinese developed nuclear capability during President Johnson's administration... Therefore President Johnson was amenable to if did not in fact facilitate the Israeli's gaining nuclear capability? Does the same hold true for President Johnson vis-a-vis Communist China? How much evil can we ascribe to Lyndon Johnson? And was it not so much Johnson per se as the Jews who "controlled" Johnson?

You don't seem to understand that JFK's positon was to halt nuclear proliferation. This means admitting no more new members into the nuclear club. He was also concerned with China and India but he understood that Israel was where he could use the most leverage to show that he was serious. Israel and JFK knew that without US aid, they were alone in the region. JFK's pledge to intervene in the event any ME agression provided no comfort to BG--he wanted Israel to be able to counter force with force (and an option for a rainy day).

JFK's mindset was influenced by the CMC, imo. The spectre of nuclear war had spooked him to such an extent that he became a hardliner on this issue (see my post on NSAM 231--#21 of this thread). Israel discovered that they could not cut any kind of deal or compromise with JFK on this, like they had done with De Gaulle. The events of '62 had changed JFK and hardened his anti-nuclear resolve. By '63, there was no bargaining on Dimona. Kennedy was telling Israel to get rid of it or the relationship was in jeopardy. Moreover, tying limited arms sales to progress on the Palestinian issue meant both elements of BG's security strategy might be stymied.

Had JFK lived, Israel would have had to abandon Dimona. I believe BG ultimately decided he was an enemy of Israel.[/color]

Pat Speer: "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."

Mark Stapleton: "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."

Once again, it seems that only Saint JFK stood in Israel's evil way. But see the information in the links I posted above: JFK was interested in selling plenty of high technology conventional weaponry to the Israelis (it's good for business, improves the balance-of-payments, etc). The argument is very interesting, of course, because it might mean that those who have a definite anti-Semitic agenda want to use the prestige and legacy of John F. Kennedy in a way that ultimately disgraces John F. Kennedy: making him into a mythic being who could do no wrong and who had to be eliminated because the Jews wanted it so.

No, Kennedy was interested in only limited arms sales to Israel--with strings attached.

Mark Stapleton: "...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."

Ben-Gurion's desperation in 1963 appears to have been grounded in mental health issues (depression), not so much in "reality." It is extraordinarily simplistic to say "all Ben-Gurion has to do is remove one man." And Israel got a closer alliance with the US "right after JFK died"? Also extraordinarily simplistic.

Mark Stapleton: "This book contains eighteen chapters of varying length, ten appendix dealing with a wide variety of additional topics such as the possible nuclear alliance between Israel and China, the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and the possible link between George Bush senior and the assassination, over a thousand reference footnotes, an extensive bibliography, a section outlining new revelations (here Piper argues that just prior to going to press, he recieved a 119 page anonymously written document which 'buries the tired old myth that Dallas was a clique of anti-Semitic, white Anglo-Saxon Protestant oil plutocrats', but in fact the city and state was a Jewish stronghold and a centre of fundraising and arms smuggling on behalf of the Zionist cause, dating back to the 1940's), and a Q & A section at the back. He's thrown just about everything in."

But that's a good way to cover all the bases, limit debate, and (above all) appear to be convincing in your presentations. Overwhelm the reader with so much information that they largely assume that everything written amounts to a tremendous amount of substance because of the tremendous amount of volume. Cf. the Mel Ayton Method

"here Piper argues that just prior to going to press, he recieved a 119 page anonymously written document which 'buries the tired old myth that Dallas was a clique of anti-Semitic, white Anglo-Saxon Protestant oil plutocrats', but in fact the city and state was a Jewish stronghold and a centre of fundraising and arms smuggling on behalf of the Zionist cause, dating back to the 1940's"

John Dolva: "Anonymous...It would have to be wouldn't it. Once a revisionist..."

Mark Stapleton: "Maybe you're right, John. What kind of town was Dallas in 1963?"

I can't speak for John, obviously, but I'd say he might have in mind the (to some) obvious fact that the influence of the Klan and similar likemindeds was extremely prevalent throughout the American South in the era.

From a probationary member

Edited October 29, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Mark Stapleton]

No, the real question at hand was the poor quality of your research. And I use that term loosely.

Marchetti's complete quote speaks for itself, and simply indicates the weaknesses of your arguments and to what absurd lengths you will go to "rebut" something, your reliance on links that don't support your claims, and your propensity to quote totally out of context to paint a misleading picture.

You can put whatever spin on it you wish; I quoted Marchetti in response to Greg's comment that the Israeli dedicated a memorial to Angleton. It is not at all surprising that a disgruntled ex-CIA agent, with ties to anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli groups (No, not necessarily the same thing. See http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-09.html ) would when addressing a group of Holocaust revisionists (a group at the time run by Piper's BTW) say that Angleton was in Israel's pocket a point I didn't dispute anyway. The full quote was there to see for anyone who could have been bothered to click the link which I fully expected people to do. The rest of the quote was not relevant IMO.

"Nothing that I have posted has been uncivil."

Oh yeah, you are the epitome of civility.

You are sloppy, careless, and lazy.

Michael's comments were quite tame when compared with some of the things you have called Jack White. Don't lecture anyone about civility.

I never thought I'd be saying this, but more and more Jack reminds me of the kid in the playground that sticks his chin out and says "hit me," and when the bully obliges him, goes running to the principal.

When the principal doesn't do anything, the kid goes back the next day and sticks his chin out again.

"your reliance on links that don't support your claims…"

Funny, this coming from the guy who on more than one occasion has been unable to find a quoted passage on a linked page. You criticized the quality of my research but I've never seen any of yours. As a teacher I don't look very favorably at the maxim "those who can't do teach" closer to the truth is "those who can't do criticize those who can"

Seemingly unable to make of your own points on the subjects debated here the vast majority of your posts are:

a) mere links to and/or quotes from webpages with little or no commentary.

criticism of other people's posts, possibly motivated by your jealously of people who unlike you are able to do their own research.

I'm not normally one to 'blow my own horn' but various members of this forum have commented favorably on my contribution here for example:

- Josiah Thompson author of Six Seconds in Dallas has praised by research on more than one occasion.

- John Simkin said of me "I have always found him to be a polite and able opponent" http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=65623

- Ron Ecker wrote "I must say that the extent of your 9/11 research is impressive. Do you do this for a living? (How?) Are you planning to write a book, or are you in the process? If not, I think you should. I for one would like to read it. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=ST&f=209&t=8046&hl=book&view=findpost&p=76193

Talk about selective quoting. These are not the only things John Simkin and Ron Ecker have said about you, are they?

I think your contributions are of marginal value at best.

Jack White called my post where I pointed out that he had totally misidentified the point of impact and flight path of flight 77 into the Pentagon "a mass of meaningless crap" but then was forced to admit he was wrong and I was right, funny you didn't admonish him for starting a thread based on his poor research.

Your criticism of my research is nearly always unfounded:

- On at least two occasions you said or implied my links didn't contain the quoted passage but they did.

- You complained once that the linked page was too long as if were my fault or if there were any way I could have linked directly to the quote.

- More recently I said "According to one researcher it (a Virginia Department of Transportation traffic camera pole) was 60 feet tall" and you complained that the person I quoted was merely an internet researcher who was presumably told this by someone at the VDoT and confirmed it with a Jack White like "photo study".

-On another occasion you complained that a link in a page I linked was no longer working but people like Jack, John McCarthy and Peter Lemkin make all sorts wild erroneous claims which they don't provide documentation for or if they do provide links their sources don't provide any documentation but you say nothing.

I'm sure if one wanted to nitpick the research done by any member of this or any other forum one could find things to criticize. I said this before about a specific thread but now I'll apply it to the whole forum, I'll refrain from responding to you idiotic nitpicking in the future. Doing so is a waste of my time and tends to take the involved threads of on tangents. You strike me as a petty frustrated old man.

...careful readers can see the same shortcomings in your posts that I see.

I believe I see similar shotcomings

Yeah right Peter. That's pretty rich coming from you who continuously makes claims you are unable document (pools of molten steel were found in WTC 7, the Pentagon had anti-aircraft missiles etc). Care to site any examples? If you can do so on the appropriate threads. You believe all sorts of nonsense.

"You are a kneejerk reflex D-bunk-er"

I agree with Peter Lemkin.

Projection Peter? "You are a kneejerk reflex" conspiracy theory believer no theory is too ridiculous or implausible for you to buy into. Actually on more than one occasion I have stated the conspiracy theories which I believe to be true or probably true.

Len

[Michael Hogan]

You can put whatever spin on it you wish; I quoted Marchetti in response to Greg's comment that the Israeli dedicated a memorial to Angleton.

In the context of the discussion you were attempting to downplay Angleton's importance to Israel. You wanted to give the impression that Angleton's plaque was made of cardboard and was next to a garbage dump. Your ultimate source was an unnamed British televison journalist that told Victor Marchetti.

See the quote by Senior CIA Official William Hood that said:

.....As it happened, I attended the memorial service for Angleton in Israel. Two monuments were dedicated, huge stones with engraved bronze plaques. One is on a hillside, a few miles from Jerusalem and the scene of a major ballet in the early days. The other is in a park near the Kind David Hotel in Jerusalem. The various ceremonies were attended by the surviving chiefs of Israeli intelligence, and various public figures. A future prime minister dedicated one monument.

Streets have been named for wartime spies and resistance fighters, others have been honored on postage stamps, but I know of no country that has given such public recognition to a foreign intelligence officer.

Several times you have asked me to post examples of your poor research. Your rambling post and failure to respond is the precise reason I don't do it more often.

The full quote was there to see for anyone who could have been bothered to click the link which I fully expected people to do. The rest of the quote was not relevant IMO.

Maybe you should revise your expectations. People grow weary of clicking links, searching for one or two sentences on a page, only to find that it wasn't on point anyway. The rest of Marchetti's quote was certainly relevant. Again, you were downplaying Angleton's importance to Israel and Marchetti makes exactly the opposite point.

Oh yeah, you are the epitome of civility.[/size]

You are sloppy, careless, and lazy.

That's the best you can do? Taken in the context it was written, my comment was accurate. Contrast that to what you wrote about Jeff Dahlstrom:

"Though the author made a couple of legitimate points it was on the whole it was (sic) a vile bigoted pile of xxxx and anyone who would see fit to post it approvingly on a forum is one as well. You are bigot (sic) by any objective definition."

You criticized the quality of my research but I've never seen any of yours.

I've never claimed to be a researcher. That doesn't preclude me from challenging your claims.

Seemingly unable to make of your own points on the subjects debated here the vast majority of your posts are:

A: mere links to and/or quotes from webpages with little or no commentary.

B: criticism of other people's posts, possibly motivated by your jealously (sic) of people who unlike you are able to do their own research.

I've never criticized the research of John Simkin, Rex Bradford, James Richards, Ron Ecker, Pat Speer, Mark Valenti, Wim Dankbaar, Robert Charles-Dunne, Larry Hancock, Robert Howard, Lee Forman, Bill Kelly, Sid Walker, Mark Stapleton, Owen Parsons or any of the many other informed and intelligent researchers here. They are legitimate researchers. You, on the other hand, are fair game. I don't criticize those that offer informed opinions, information, or ideas even when they differ from my own.

But when I see members that are uniformly adversarial, often uninformed, constantly intolerant of the views of others, and when they routinely dismiss things they don't even understand, and when they make reflexive reactions to anything and everything that doesn't coincide with their tightly-held and narrow-minded concepts, then I feel comfortable in criticizing their findings.

Your criticism of my research is nearly always unfounded

Of course it is.

I'm sure if one wanted to nitpick the research done by any member of this or any other forum one could find things to criticize.

See my comment on Forum researchers above. If you want to include yourself in that group, go ahead.

I said this before about a specific thread but now I'll apply it to the whole forum, I'll refrain from responding to you (sic) idiotic nitpicking in the future. Doing so is a waste of my time and tends to take the involved threads of (sic) on tangents.

You're the one that refers to Jack White and his Apollo threads when your spelling and syntax are questioned. As you mentioned above, your tortured and selective responses to my criticism are what take the threads off on tangents. I'm sure many will be grateful if you can keep your word.

You strike me as a petty frustrated old man.

You might have two out of three right. That's much better than your normal batting average.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Michael Hogan