The Book That Demolishes "Final Judgment"

[Len Colby]

Also see my Post #300 in the "Final Judgment" thread regarding the closeness of JFK to one of the founders of the State of israel.

It appears Mr. Piper was unable to defend his views on this Forum. He has probably returned to the Storm Front organization, the members of whom are so rabidly anti-Jewish they will uncritically accept his nonsense.

Tim - I haven't seen any signs that Mark is anti-Jewish let alone rabidly so. Nor am I sure that he has "uncritically" accepted his thesis, I only think he is trying to establish that as Pat said Israel had possible motive.

Len

[Guest]

It appears Mr. Piper was unable to defend his views on this Forum. He has probably returned to the Storm Front organization, the members of whom are so rabidly anti-Jewish they will uncritically accept his nonsense.

Indeed the portly Piper can be seen HERE enjoying some quite revolting company

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/calendar.p...-5-20&e=205&c=1

[Len Colby]

It appears Mr. Piper was unable to defend his views on this Forum. He has probably returned to the Storm Front organization, the members of whom are so rabidly anti-Jewish they will uncritically accept his nonsense.

Indeed the portly Piper can be seen HERE enjoying some quite revolting company

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/calendar.p...-5-20&e=205&c=1

Piper is an utter hypocrite he said on this forum that racism should be shunned and yet he is a featured speaker at a Stormfront event along with David Duke, Kevin Alfred Strom and other racist hate mongers like his boss.

So far we’ve seen that he is a hypocrite, intellectually dishonest (self confessed), prone to make baseless accusations, a Holocaust denier, probably anti-Semitic and if not racist himself tolerant of racists enough to work and hang out with them for 25 years.

Mark, Jeff and Ron you might find his thesis plausible but do you really want to defend Piper as being anything more than human refuse? If so why?

Len

[Len Colby]

Tim,

The sale of the Hawk missiles was tied to Israeli concessions on the Palestinian refugee problem. In mid-August 1962, JFK sent Myer Feldman to Israel to craft the deal*--why didn't Mr. Bass mention this?

Then, according to the fawning reviewer, Bass attributes no role in the sale to the Jewish Lobby! You must be joking. In fact, the Jewish Lobby is "overated" and the author devotes an entire section to this, entitled "Overated Jewish Lobby"! I give the author credit for a keen sense of humor.

Are you going to drown us with this stuff?

*From "Israel and the Bomb"--Avner Cohen, Columbia University Press, 1998 ISBN 0-231-10483-9: The conversation between Ben-Gurion and Feldman is recorded in an outgoing Foreign Ministry cable to the embassy in Washington, dated 20 August 1962 (ISA, FMRG 3377/7. Also, Myer Feldman interview by author 10 June 1992, 14 October 1994 and 14 July 1997.

Mark

Please elaborate on the Hawk missile deal - what were the "Israeli concessions on the Palestinian refugee problem"?

When were the missile delivered? I've read the deal was made Aug. '62 and delivery was made in '63 in a few sources on the Net but none of them mention when Israel took possession of them. If JFK was so upset about Dimona why didn't he suspend delivery?

For Piper's book to be plausible the situation would have had to have reached a "breaking point", i.e. that Kennedy was threatening Israel with sanctions so severe if it did not comply immediately and completely, that it would have had sufficient motive to organize the assassination.

Other than some threatening letters which didn't mention any specific repercussions what signs are there that Kennedy had threatened to, was close to or had even contemplated taking such an action? If he was on the verge of such a move what haven't we heard about it from any of Kennedy's biographers or advisors?

I don't think the "Jewish lobby" was very powerful at the time. If it was the US would have sold arms to Israel long before 1962 and without it being part of a deal concerning the refugees. You've put your self in a bit of a Catch-22, if the Jewish lobby was so powerful back then what action would Kennedy have dared taken that would have been prejudicial enough to give Israel sufficient motive to get involved in such a risky venture? After the disastrous Lavon and Israel Beer affairs is hard to believe Israel would risk it's very existence except under extreme circumstances.

Lavon affair – In 1954 Israeli agents bombed three targets in Egypt in an attempt to dissuade the British from giving up control of the Suez Canal. No one was killed or injured and damage was minor but when the agents were caught it was a diplomatic disaster for Israel. The operation was ordered by the head of military intelligence it is unclear if anyone higher up approved it. Pinhas Lavon, the defense minister was accused of involvement. The leader of the operation was arrested in 1957 for trying to sell secret information to the Egyptians. Many suspected that he was already working with them in 1954 and that Egyptian intelligence knew about the bombings before they happened.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...tory/lavon.html

Israel Beer who had been a close friend of and advisor to Ben Gurion was arrested in 1961 for selling top secret information to the Soviets. He had been spying for the Russians since at least before the Suez campaign in 1956. The fact that he wasn't circumcised led some to believe he wasn't even Jewish.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...raphy/Beer.html

Is it plausible that only a few years after such high level 'moles' were caught that any country would under take such a high risk operation? Why would the CIA risk getting them involved?

Len

Edited February 23, 2006 by Len Colby

[Guest Stephen Turner]

FWIW, I think Mr Piper has left the biulding. Hopefully it should now be possible to debate his book, free from his corrosive presence.

[Mark Stapleton]

Tim,

The sale of the Hawk missiles was tied to Israeli concessions on the Palestinian refugee problem. In mid-August 1962, JFK sent Myer Feldman to Israel to craft the deal*--why didn't Mr. Bass mention this?

Then, according to the fawning reviewer, Bass attributes no role in the sale to the Jewish Lobby! You must be joking. In fact, the Jewish Lobby is "overated" and the author devotes an entire section to this, entitled "Overated Jewish Lobby"! I give the author credit for a keen sense of humor.

Are you going to drown us with this stuff?

*From "Israel and the Bomb"--Avner Cohen, Columbia University Press, 1998 ISBN 0-231-10483-9: The conversation between Ben-Gurion and Feldman is recorded in an outgoing Foreign Ministry cable to the embassy in Washington, dated 20 August 1962 (ISA, FMRG 3377/7. Also, Myer Feldman interview by author 10 June 1992, 14 October 1994 and 14 July 1997.

Mark

Please elaborate on the Hawk missile deal - what were the "Israeli concessions on the Palestinian refugee problem"?

When were the missile delivered? I've read the deal was made Aug. '62 and delivery was made in '63 in a few sources on the Net but none of them mention when Israel took possession of them. If JFK was so upset about Dimona why didn't he suspend delivery?

For Piper's book to be plausible the situation would have had to have reached a "breaking point", i.e. that Kennedy was threatening Israel with sanctions so severe if it did not comply immediately and completely, that it would have had sufficient motive to organize the assassination.

Other than some threatening letters which didn't mention any specific repercussions what signs are there that Kennedy had threatened to, was close to or had even contemplated taking such an action? If he was on the verge of such a move what haven't we heard about it from any of Kennedy's biographers or advisors?

I don't think the "Jewish lobby" was very powerful at the time. If it was the US would have sold arms to Israel long before 1962 and without it being part of a deal concerning the refugees. You've put your self in a bit of a Catch-22, if the Jewish lobby was so powerful back then what action would Kennedy have dared taken that would have been prejudicial enough to give Israel sufficient motive to get involved in such a risky venture? After the disastrous Lavon and Israel Beer affairs is hard to believe Israel would risk it's very existence except under extreme circumstances.

Lavon affair – In 1954 Israeli agents bombed three targets in Egypt in an attempt to dissuade the British from giving up control of the Suez Canal. No one was killed or injured and damage was minor but when the agents were caught it was a diplomatic disaster for Israel. The operation was ordered by the head of military intelligence it is unclear if anyone higher up approved it. Pinhas Lavon, the defense minister was accused of involvement. The leader of the operation was arrested in 1957 for trying to sell secret information to the Egyptians. Many suspected that he was already working with them in 1954 and that Egyptian intelligence knew about the bombings before they happened.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...tory/lavon.html

Israel Beer who had been a close friend of and advisor to Ben Gurion was arrested in 1961 for selling top secret information to the Soviets. He had been spying for the Russians since at least before the Suez campaign in 1956. The fact that he wasn't circumcised led some to believe he wasn't even Jewish.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...raphy/Beer.html

Is it plausible that only a few years after such high level 'moles' were caught that any country would under take such a high risk operation? Why would the CIA risk getting them involved?

Len

Len,

Yeah, that looks like good research you've done. I'm on a learning curve myself so I'm by no means an expert. Also remember that many documents relating to this are classified or incomplete (parts missing), including files of the IAEC, Ministry of Defense, Prime Ministers papers on nuclear issues and minutes of Cabinet meetings. The author of Israel and the Bomb acknowledges that his is an incomplete work.

On your points, I don't know what the specific concessions were or when the missiles were delivered. I don't know whether these factors impact on the premise but I may be wrong. As I stated on the "Final Judgement" thread, the missiles were ostensibly the quid pro quo for:

A. Israel's agreeing to the policy of inspections and

B. The 1962 discovery of Israel's missile gap vis-a-vis the UAR.

On your other points, I think you're underestimating the tone of JFK's letters to Ben-Gurion and Eshkol. There were several exchanges and the language become more direct each time. Most commentators I have read (including MCP) say the tone and content went beyond accepted diplomatic protocol and I must agree. Israel viewed it as an intrusion on their sovereignty and from what I'm discovering about Israel there was broad bipartisan agreement on issues of national security and no party dissention. These issues were discussed by special commitees formed by DBG and were not discussed in the Knesset or in public or the press. JFK was deadly serious and a collision was apparent unless a circuit breaker was found. One reason put forward by Cohen for JFK's hardline position on Dimona was that the Cuban Missile Crisis had spooked him badly and he immediately determined that nuclear weapons should not continue proliferating full stop. A nuclear transfer agreement, which called on nuclear nations not to transfer nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states and for non-nuclear states not to manufacture them, similar to the one first put to the UN by Ireland in 1958, was JFK's aim in early to mid 1963 and it was the forerunner to the NTBT with the Soviets in August '63. JFK was almost obsessed with non-proliferation and his position was not negotiable.

It should also be noted that all these negotiations were hidden from the public in both countries.

You should really get Cohen's book and post your opinions. I'd be keen to hear them.

Your point about Israel not taking such a risk doesn't wash, IMO. Somebody took a risk, didn't they? Israel took bold risks in the past. They defied the US over withdrawal from the Sinai during the Suez crisis long after Britain and France backed down. The Lavon affair you mentioned was the result of a failed covert operation by Israel against British and US installations in Egypt in July 1954. They sunk the USS Liberty in 1967. They took risks. And the risk is reduced when you can make your presence opaque.

Edited February 24, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Tim Gratz]

Len, in response to your Post #16, I wrote that the members of Stormfront were rabidly anti-Jewish and uncritically accepted Piper's views. I am not sure why you apparently believe I was applying those judgments to Mark S.

Andy, in response to your post of the Stormfront meeting, it was quite instructive to see photos of Mr. Collins with his Nazi friends. Thanks for the post.

[Tim Gratz]

From the ADL web-site, here is more informtion on the conference that Andy Walker first pointed out to us in his post above:

During the weekend of May 20-22, 2005, racist activists from the United States and Europe gathered for a conference in New Orleans sponsored by David Duke, former Klan leader and current head of the white supremacist European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO). Duke, one of the leading propagandists of anti-Semitism in the United States and Europe, where his anti-Semitic book Jewish Supremacism is sold, made anti-Jewish hatred a focus of the conference. In an ad promoting the gathering, Duke stated that European Americans are currently facing [their] "greatest crisis in history," and blamed an alleged ongoing "genocide" against every "White nation on earth" on "massive immigration" and "the worldwide power of Jewish supremacism." Duke also blamed Jews in the Bush administration for the Iraq war and causing the deaths of American soldiers.

Duke is one of the few recognizable faces left on the racist right in the United States, which has seen some of its most notorious leaders die or be incarcerated in the last few years. Joining Duke at the conference were numerous white supremacist leaders, including Kevin Strom from the neo-Nazi National Vanguard; Willis Carto, publisher of the anti-Semitic publications, American Free Press and The Barnes Review; and Don Black, who runs Stormfront, the longest-running white supremacist site on the Internet. In addition, members of extreme-right parties in Europe, including Nick Griffin, chairman of the British National Party (BNP), and Vavra Suk, secretary of NationalDemokraterna, a far-right party in Sweden, were scheduled to attend.

Last year, Duke held a similar conference in New Orleans after he was released from prison for tax and mail fraud convictions. The result of last year's conference was "The New Orleans Protocol," which stated that "nationalists" from different countries would agree to treat each other with respect, maintain a "high tone" in arguments and renounce violence. However, in the year since that statement was released, the white supremacist movement has experienced bitter factional infighting. David Duke is trying once again to establish himself as the leader who can unite the various factions on the racist right and play a major role in guiding the white supremacist movement in the United States.

Scheduled speakers included:

U.S. speakers

David Duke: Perhaps America's most infamous racist, David Duke was instrumental in the Klan resurgence of the 1970s, and is currently head of the white supremacist European American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO). He has been a frequent political candidate, and has made public appearances in recent years in Russia, Europe and the Middle East. Duke's messages typically include conspiratorial depictions of Jewish power and alleged Jewish hatred for non-Jews, a combination he refers to as "Jewish supremacism."

Dr. Edward Fields: Active since the late 1940s in white supremacist and anti-Semitic groups, Fields is known for having collaborated with notorious racist bomber J.B. Stoner (recently deceased). His crude writings continue to circulate widely. He still publishes the hate-filled newspaper The Truth At Last, and in 2003 joined the National Alliance.

Willis Carto: Now in his 70s, Carto is one of the most influential American anti-Semitic propagandists of the past 50 years. He has been associated with nearly every significant far-right movement in the country. In 2001, both Carto and his organization Liberty Lobby were bankrupted after Carto lost a long court battle with the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust denial organization (which broke with him in 1993). His now-defunct publication, The Spotlight, which had been the most widely read publication on the fringe right, folded and reemerged under a new title, American Free Press, in August 2001. Carto also publishes The Barnes Review, a Holocaust denial publication.

Kevin Strom: Strom was a leader in the neo-Nazi National Alliance for 20 years until his expulsion from the group in April 2005. He is now one of the driving forces behind the National Vanguard, a group formed that same month by former members of the National Alliance. Strom, who delivered the National Alliance's weekly American Dissident Voices radio broadcasts, is now airing radio shows under the auspices of National Vanguard. He also runs the National Vanguard Web site.

Don Black: Black, a Florida-based former Klansman and long-time friend of Duke's, became known world wide for creating Stormfront, the first major white supremacist Web site in 1995.

Bob Whitaker: An "independent" right-wing author, Whitaker has his own Web site and an Internet radio program. In his writings he decries the ills of today's society, and expresses racist views.

Michael Collins Piper: A reporter for the American Free Press, a conspiracy-oriented, anti-Semitic publication published by Willis Carto. Piper has also written several books promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including claims that the Mossad was involved in the John F. Kennedy assassination, and that Israel and the American pro-Israel lobby control U.S. foreign policy. He also claims Israel was implicated in the events of 9/11. In 2003, he lectured on anti-Israel and anti-Semitic themes (including the alleged truth of The Protocols of Zion) in the United Arab Emirates at the invitation of the Zayed Center.

Speakers from abroad:

Nick Griffin: Head of the British National Party (BNP), a far-right party in Great Britain that attracts neo-Nazis, Griffin has been convicted in Great Britain for inciting race hatred and has denied that the Holocaust took place. When Griffin joined the BNP in 1995, he began to edit The Rune, an anti-Semitic quarterly.

Lady Michele Renouf: Renouf is an Australian-born former model and author, and a controversial member of London's elite society. She has expressed virulent anti-Semitic views, espoused Holocaust denial, and is devoted to the cause of David Irving, a prominent Holocaust denier. She regularly appears on white extremist Web sites such as Stormfront and Vanguard News Network.

Paul Fromm: A Canadian white supremacist, Fromm is a recurring presence at U.S. gatherings of neo-Nazis and is a contributing editor to the Holocaust denial publication The Barnes Review. Fromm runs the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE), a group that advocates on behalf of white supremacists and Holocaust deniers.

Vavra Suf: Suf is the secretary of the Nationaldemokraterna (National Democratic Party), a far-right party in Sweden.

Pedro Varela: Owner of a bookstore in Barcelona, Spain, that sells books on National Socialism and Holocaust denial, Varela hosted Duke at his bookstore in March 2005, which resulted in Duke, Varela and the audience reportedly being attacked by anti-racist activists.

[Tim Gratz]

Re the Mossad killed JFK: Well, anything is possible.

But here is the irony. Consider the probabilities. IMO it is 10,000 times more probable that JFK was killed by racists (who share the phiosophy of Piper's friends in the Stormfront organization) than it is that JFK was killed by Piper's "enemies", the Jews!

Edited February 24, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Michael Collins Piper]

Tim Gratz is a xxxx, an eggregious shameful xxxx.

He says Piper has undoubtedly returned to Stormfront.

Piper has never been a member of Stormfront.

Piper has never posted on Stormfront.

Piper HAS BEEN CRITICIZED on Stormfront.

Gratz has lied and said that "most" of FINAL JUDGMENT was posted on the Internet some years ago.

That is a lie. Tim Gratz is a xxxx.

An introductory chapter, the index, and maybe the foreword were posted many years ago.

Tim Gratz is a xxxx in that he says Piper never mentions the Hawk sales to Israel. Piper does mention it.

If Gratz actually had a copy of FINAL JUDGMENT he would know that.

Tim Gratz is a xxxx, a pathological xxxx, a distorter.

When I have the time for serious "give and take" with serious people on this forum, who are not liars like Gratz, I will be up here to do so, but more and more it becomes apparent to me that I simply cannot waste my time dealing with a xxxx like Tim Gratz.

As for Len Colby, I was fully prepared to send him a free copy of FINAL JUDGMENT until he made the asinine remark that he was "afraid" to give me his address. That just goes to show what gutteral levels my critics will stoop.

For Len Colby (who is evidently in Brazil) to suggest that somehow I could (or would) endanger his life is pretty perverse.

I'm here to tell everybody that I am the one who should be afraid to give MY address.

I am the one whose life was publicly threatened by Irv Rubin and his pal Earl Krugel of the Jewish Defense League (later both taken into custody on terrorism conspiracy charges and now both dead in prison).

I've stared Jewish extremism in the face---threatened by a Jewish terrorist---and it's ugly. Damned ugly.

And I vow that I will spend the rest of my life fighting Jewish extremists and their Christian extremist allies. These are the lunatics that are forcing us toward the Armageddon they dream about.

Maybe we should let Israel keep its nuclear weapons and simply pray that they exercise the Samson Option and blow the whole world up with them.

It sure would solve the problems of poverty and disease and malnutrition, wouldn't it?

[Tim Gratz]

Consider the last few paragraphs of Piper's last post.

I think those thoughts reveal a sick mind.

And what is almost as bad is he puts an extra "g" in egregious!

Edited February 25, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

In a previous post on this thread, Len Colby wrote:

Mark, Jeff and Ron you might find his thesis plausible but do you really want to defend Piper as being anything more than human refuse? If so why?

So far, none have answered Len's excellent question. Gentlemen, you might also want to read the thread "The Friends of Michael Collins Piper" to see just how foul are the men with whom Piper associates.

[Len Colby]

On your other points, I think you're underestimating the tone of JFK's letters to Ben-Gurion and Eshkol. There were several exchanges and the language become more direct each time. Most commentators I have read (including MCP) say the tone and content went beyond accepted diplomatic protocol and I must agree.

No offense but I don’t think you or Piper are qualified to make such a determination, how familiar are either are either of you with secret diplomatic exchanges? Piper is a bigoted, intellectually dishonest, hypocrite with an “ax to grid” so any analysis he makes is suspect. Who are the other commentators? Since Kennedy hadn’t threatened any specific sanctions it’s hard to believe this disagreement would have been sufficient motive to assassinate him. Many other motives have been suggested for the assassination but in most of those JFK had taken or had indicated he would take specific action (pull out of Vietnam etc). If Kennedy was considering any immediate action it’s odd that none of his advisors or biographers have written about it and that there isn’t any documentary evidence other than the letters.

You should really get Cohen's book and post your opinions. I'd be keen to hear them.

I’ll probably pick up a copy when I’m back in the US but that won’t be until July or August.

Your point about Israel not taking such a risk doesn't wash, IMO. Somebody took a risk, didn't they? Israel took bold risks in the past. They defied the US over withdrawal from the Sinai during the Suez crisis long after Britain and France backed down. The Lavon affair you mentioned was the result of a failed covert operation by Israel against British and US installations in Egypt in July 1954. They sunk the USS Liberty in 1967. They took risks. And the risk is reduced when you can make your presence opaque.

What doesn’t wash are your comparisons. IIRC Israel, Britain and France all withdrew from the Sinai and Suez Canal more less simultaneously in March '57, but even if you’re correct Ben-Gurion did eventually give in to US pressure without getting any concessions from Egypt and this doesn’t come anywhere close to assassinating the President of the US. The Lavon affair doesn’t compare either it involved a few bombs that only caused minor property damage.

As for the USS Liberty, you are obviously less familiar with the case than I am because the ship wasn’t sunk. The US and Israel have always maintained the attack was a case of mistaken identity which fits the evidence. No realistic motive has ever been given as to why the Israelis would intentionally attack a US warship during the Six Day War. The fact that the Israelis eventually cut off the attack, informed the US what had happened and offered to participate in the rescue operations don’t fit with an intentional attack scenario. The US told the Israelis that they didn't have any warships in the area and the Navy told the Liberty not to approach the coast (though it seems they didn't get the message) and an Egyptian ship had shelled the Israelis the day before.

The 2 moles that Israel had recently caught also make it very unlikely that the Israelis would risk getting involved. If they had not been caught both probably would have involved in an operation of that magnitude. They would have to consider the possibility that their was still an unidentified double agent amongst their ranks. For that very reason I’m sure that the CIA etc would have been very leery of working with the Israelis.

The risks for the other suspects was different than for the Israelis because in the case of the former the risks were merely personal and didn’t imply the destruction of the very country they were supposedly trying to save. More so than for the other ‘suspects’ the risks were high and motive was vague.

It’s Carnival now and my city has one of the best in the World so I won’t be posting much till Wednesday.

Len

[Tim Gratz]

Len wrote:

It’s Carnival now and my city has one of the best in the World so I won’t be posting much till Wednesday.

Lucky guy!! Enjoy!!

P.S. Excellent post, as usual.

Edited February 25, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Consider the last few paragraphs of Piper's last post.

I think those thoughts reveal a sick mind.

Based upon what? Your vast experience with psychology and psychiatry? When did you lose your licence to practise medicine?

And what is almost as bad is he puts an extra "g" in egregious!

Welll, striinnngg himm upp. The upside of chastizing others for their spelling, grammar and syntax is that you get to condescend toward others and puff up your own ego. The downside is that others just might turn around and draw attention to the veritable book's worth of your own similar errors. They're called 'typos,' Tim.

When can we expect you to deal with the actual content of MCP's post - you know, rebut his allegations that you've knowingly misstated any number of facts about him - rather than critique his typing?

Not that I'm holding my breath awaiting this post, mind you. You excel at making unsubstantiated statements and then abandoning the cause, or even the thread, once it's pointed out just how very wrong your assertions have been.