Jump to content

The Book That Demolishes "Final Judgment"


Tim Gratz
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I wrote:

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

I think those thoughts reveal a sick mind.

Robert responded (with his usual sarcasm):

Based upon what? Your vast experience with psychology and psychiatry?

Well, Robert, members can judge for themselves. By the way, do you think you need a degree in psychiatrity to judge someone bonkers if he went around calling himself Napoleon? Someone suggesting that if the world ended in a nuclear cataclysm it would at least solve the problems of poverty and malnutrition seems just as bonkers from my point of view. Perhaps, however, you see sense in that thought that I miss.

Re your other points, I think I have already demolished Piper.

For instance, as Andy first pointed out, he was a featured speaker at the so-called American Renaissance Conference organized and/or promoted by Stormfront. Yet he falsely claimed no association with the organization.

The ball, dear friend, is in HIS court. On several threads I have asked him to either endorse or renounce some of the more outrageous statements by his fellow fascists (eg Carto's lamenting Hitler's defeat in WWII, Black's outragous attacks on Martin Luther King, Jr., etc.) But so far he just ducks the issue. He did, however, say he was not at all uncomfortable sharing a platform with David Duke. I wouldn't want to be in the same room with that racist bigoted creep. How about you?

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote:

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

I think those thoughts reveal a sick mind.

Robert responded (with his usual sarcasm):

Based upon what? Your vast experience with psychology and psychiatry?

Well, Robert, members can judge for themselves. By the way, do you think you need a degree in psychiatrity to judge someone bonkers if he went around calling himself Napoleon? Someone suggesting that if the world ended in a nuclear cataclysm it would at least solve the problems of poverty and malnutrition seems just as bonkers from my point of view. Perhaps, however, you see sense in that thought that I miss.

Well, Tim, I grant you that if there's something you excel at, it's passing [final] judgement on others. It's just that where one might hope to see you tackle the contents of Piper's book, you've resorted instead to guilt by association, character assassination, uncredentialled psychoanalysis by remote viewing and critiquing the man's spelling. None of which has anything to do with his book, which it seems clear you've not even bothered to read. For a guy who regularly hectors others about not passing judgement on a book until one has actually read it, this is a hypocritial standard, intellectually dishonest and the mark of a cheap shot artist.

Re your other points, I think I have already demolished Piper.

Without even reading his book? Say, you are good, aren't you? Let's face facts. You've made certain assertions about Piper, and he has called you a xxxx because you've knowingly made assertions he claims are false. If you cannot be bothered to read the man's book before you you dismiss it, can we at least expect you to rebut the points that Piper has raised? If not, why not?

For instance, as Andy first pointed out, he was a featured speaker at the so-called American Renaissance Conference organized and/or promoted by Stormfront. Yet he falsely claimed no association with the organization.

The ball, dear friend, is in HIS court. On several threads I have asked him to either endorse or renounce some of the more outrageous statements by his fellow fascists (eg Carto's lamenting Hitler's defeat in WWII, Black's outragous attacks on Martin Luther King, Jr., etc.) But so far he just ducks the issue. He did, however, say he was not at all uncomfortable sharing a platform with David Duke. I wouldn't want to be in the same room with that racist bigoted creep. How about you?

No, I cannot say I'd much enjoy keeping company with lifelong Republican David Duke. Apparently, fellow members of his party don't all feel the same way, though, do they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert I find it rather interesting that you seem to rush to the defense of Communists such as Fidel and fascists such as Piper. Castro has murderered in the thousands and Piper's mentor laments the defeat of a man who murdered in the MILLIONS!

Why don'y YOU ask him whether he renounces the sick racism of Carto, Duke and Black, since he refuses to answer me?

And you must not READ what I post. I HAVE read most if not all of "Final Judgment". I know exactly what "facts" he bases his scenario on.

MORE LATERE-GOOTA RUN!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert I find it rather interesting that you seem to rush to the defense of Communists such as Fidel and fascists such as Piper. Castro has murderered in the thousands and Piper's mentor laments the defeat of a man who murdered in the MILLIONS!

Let's be clear about something: I haven't rushed to the defense of Castro or Piper. What I've done in Castro's case is to repeatedly point out for the benefit of others that the case you make against the Cubans is non-existent, and that all you do is regurgitate the script prepared by CIA. That it is baseless is clear to any schoolchild with a small modicum of mental acuity.

If my comments seem to be singularly directed to you, this is solely because you're the only member here whom I detect shilling for the Agency's unsubstantiated Castro-did-it fabrications. If I discerned that others did the same, I'd be onto them as well. I am not partial to the notion that contemporary history is written by the villains, so I will continue to do what I believe is my duty as a citizen of the world: attack the soft white underbelly of the bloated, arrogant, self-satisfied fabricators of modern history. If you're among that number, tough for you.

As for Piper, I cannot understand, for the life of me, why you think I have rushed to his defense. I have repudiated his book, and what I think is his purpose in writing it. Again, any schoolchild can understand that fact, which, nevertheless, seems to have eluded you.

What I do take exception to is when somebody hypocritically excoriates others for offering opinions on something that they haven't read, and then proceeds to do the very same thing himself. By all means, feel free to tear the book apart, and rebut the contents thereof. Please! Have at it.

But it is clear, despite your protests to the contrary, that you have not read the book, which illustrates to all present what a double standard is at work here. You resort to character assassination, guilt by association and any number of other cheap devices, in lieu of anything remotely resembling an informed rebuttal or refutation of the facts Piper claims to present.

The funny thing is, despite disagreeing with Piper's premise, I actually have far more respect for his efforts than I do for your own. For good or for ill, he has at least spent significant time fashioning a book that - apparently - continues to grow in size, presumably with new information added with each printing. I have enough faith in the free expression of thought in the marketplace of ideas to presume that the book - irrespective of size or revisions - will earn whatever opprobrium it may deserve.

Whereas, you, on the other hand, are perfectly satisfied to traffick in the unconfirmed, the discredited, and - worst of all to my mind - so-called "evidence" that you've never even seen, that you cannot begin to cite, that you don't even know exists. Whatever misinterpretations or mischaracterizations of which Piper may be guilty, at least he's gone down into the trenches and done his own heavy lifting. He does not, to the best of my knowledge, trade in third-hand gossip about photos that nobody's seen and that nobody's been able to locate.

Moreover, while you feign surprise and contempt for the alleged racism you detect in Piper's work - without having actually read it - you have registered here absolutely no qualms about one Gerry Patrick Hemming, who has in this very Forum railed against "beaners," "Jews," and God knows what else. [Not to mention his loathesome treatment of the female members of the Forum, whom he imagines as fellatio-happy groupie girls, or his aspersions cast against the sexuality of the men who disagree with him.] Again, the clear appearance of a double-standard. Hemming is perfectly entitled to resort to whatever racist, sexist, homophobic trailer-park, redneck crackery, so long as he, too, militates against Castro. So, please, let's drop the pretense that you are concerned with racism and poor manners. Had Piper written about how the Jews collaborated with Castro, you'd be brown-nosing him just as you've done with Hemming.

Why don'y YOU ask him whether he renounces the sick racism of Carto, Duke and Black, since he refuses to answer me?

I doubt that I'm much higher on Piper's Christmas card list than you are, Tim. In all likelihood, the only difference is that Piper would thank me for having bought a copy of his book, whereas your "scanning" of it in the Key West library didn't earn him a dime.

And you must not READ what I post. I HAVE read most if not all of "Final Judgment". I know exactly what "facts" he bases his scenario on.

Then why the conspicuous absence of rebuttals to what is offered in the book? Why the reliance on the polecat McCarthyist tactics that reduce you even further in the opinion of other Forum members. You know what they say: those who can't refute the message go after the messenger. In your case, you've not scored a body blow against either, largely because you bypassed the message entirely, and went directly after the messenger. But then, Uber-Republicans seem willing to stoop to any depths to prove to others just how "tolerant" and "inclusive" they are.

MORE LATERE-GOOTA RUN!!

This, from the self-same chap who chides others for their typos and equates spelling errors with mental illness. You might profit from re-reading the Bible you like so much to thump, old chap. My failing memory seems to recall something about "Judge not, lest ye also be judged [finally]."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert wrote:

What I've done in Castro's case is to repeatedly point out for the benefit of others that the case you make against the Cubans is non-existent, and that all you do is regurgitate the script prepared by CIA. That it is baseless is clear to any schoolchild with a small modicum of mental acuity.

As intelligent and articulate as Robert Charles-Dunne pretends to be, that statement in and of itself demonstrates nothing can be farther from the truth.

If the case against Castro was, as he put it, so "baseless" that its baselessness was clear to any schoolchild with a small modicum of mental acuity then presumably only those with a lesser mental acuity would be arguing it. That is clearly NOT the case. And Robert knows that.

If what he said was true, then Joseph Califano, Joseph Trento, Gus Russo and myself would either be mental lightweights or intellectually dishonest. I an quite convinced that Califano, Trento and Russo's intelligence equals (and perhaps exceeds) that of Charles-Dunne, and there is no reason whatsoever to suspect they do not honestly believe what they write.

Robert, do you claim Califano, Trento and Russo are idiots with intelligence less than schoolchildren? Your argument is facially absurd.

There is more evidence against Castro than there is against any other possible sponsor other than organized crime. Charles-Dunne just makes it go away by arguing he does not believe it because it was CIA-generated. I guess you could argue similarly that O. J. Simpson was clearly innocent if you operate under the premise that every single piece of evidence against him was forged or fabricated by the evil police force.

And if the case against Castro is so weak, why does Charles-Dunne waste his time constructing his admitedly often articulate (but erroneous) arguments against it? The fact that Charles-Dunne feels the need to jump in to regularly attack my arguments demonstrates that the case against Ccastro is not as weak as he pretends it is. Another analogy to the Simpson case: if the case against Simpson was so weak as his defenders claimed, he need not have engaged attorneys of the competence of Cochran and Sheck, any freshly graduated public defender could have got him off.

Piper admits he shares no embarrassment to share a platform with David Duke, the former head of an organization whose members killed helpless little black children. Yet Charles-Dunne feels it more important to attack ME than to attack Piper. IMO, that fact demonstrates that Charles-Dunne's moral compass must be hopelessly deviated due to his proximity to the north pole. It is NOT guilt by associate to ask Piper to eitrher endorse or renounce the views of the people with whom he regularly congregates.

Robert does make one point with which I agree: Gerry Hemming does on occasion use intemperate language. Based on my conversations with him, however, I am convinced he is neither a racist nor an anti-semite. Nevertheless, such language cannot be condoned whether it comes from persons with whose views I agree or disagree.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert wrote:

What I've done in Castro's case is to repeatedly point out for the benefit of others that the case you make against the Cubans is non-existent, and that all you do is regurgitate the script prepared by CIA. That it is baseless is clear to any schoolchild with a small modicum of mental acuity.

As intelligent and articulate as Robert Charles-Dunne pretends to be, that statement in and of itself demonstrates nothing can be farther from the truth.

Sadly for you, one cannot "pretend" to be intelligent and articulate; one either is, or is not. Again, something that wouldn't be lost on a schoolchild of average perception.

If the case against Castro was, as he put it, so "baseless" that its baselessness was clear to any schoolchild with a small modicum of mental acuity then presumably only those with a lesser mental acuity would be arguing it. That is clearly NOT the case. And Robert knows that.

There's certainly been no evidence for that contention on this Forum.

If what he said was true, then Joseph Califano, Joseph Trento, Gus Russo and myself would either be mental lightweights or intellectually dishonest. I an quite convinced that Califano, Trento and Russo's intelligence equals (and perhaps exceeds) that of Charles-Dunne, and there is no reason whatsoever to suspect they do not honestly believe what they write.

Well, if it's a choice between you all being mental lightweights or intellectually dishonest, I'd favour the former over the latter. It's impolite to call people dishonest, even when they clearly are, as a disbarred lawyer would no doubt know from first hand experience.

Robert, do you claim Califano, Trento and Russo are idiots with intelligence less than schoolchildren? Your argument is facially absurd.

But you don't even know what my face looks like, dear boy.

There is more evidence against Castro than there is against any other possible sponsor other than organized crime.

Then why have you been incapable of posting any. Sure, you refer often and ad nauseam to CIA reports that you've never actually seen; regurgitate from Russo and Trento what they regurgitate from CIA but don't include in their own book - hence, again, something you've never seen; and photographs you've never seen, so great is your own personal obsession with your personal bete noir, Fidel Castro. When do you plan on disclosing some of this "more evidence against Castro?" One is elated that you're no longer a lawyer, because with the level of "evidence" you stoop to providing, it was a miracle that you were ever called to the bar in the first instance. That you insist that others should likewise accept your invisible "evidence" is precisely why you have converted not a soul on this board, despite your having posted 20 times a day, every day since you've joined the Forum.

Charles-Dunne just makes it go away by arguing he does not believe it because it was CIA-generated. I guess you could argue similarly that O. J. Simpson was clearly innocent if you operate under the premise that every single piece of evidence against him was forged or fabricated by the evil police force.

Gee, ex-cousellor, how'd that case turn out for the LA PD and the prosecution? A no-brainer victory, was it?

And if the case against Castro is so weak, why does Charles-Dunne waste his time constructing his admitedly often articulate (but erroneous) arguments against it? The fact that Charles-Dunne feels the need to jump in to regularly attack my arguments demonstrates that the case against Ccastro is not as weak as he pretends it is. Another analogy to the Simpson case: if the case against Simpson was so weak as his defenders claimed, he need not have engaged attorneys of the competence of Cochran and Sheck, any freshly graduated public defender could have got him off.

With the obvious exception of yourself, which you demonstrate here daily. Why do I spend my time chasing your butt around this board? Let me count the ways. Because, as already stated, the villains should not be allowed to merchandise their version of modern history. Because your agenda is as clear as your "case" is worthless. Because it's fun to puncture the bubbles of the smug, the arrogant and the condescending. Because gaseous windbags beg to be deflated. And, because you're here, and I can.

Piper admits he shares no embarrassment to share a platform with David Duke, the former head of an organization whose members killed helpless little black children.

That's pretty harsh talk about the Republican party, coming from one of its members. Watch what you say, or Karl Rove will have you excommunicated. Or killed.

Yet Charles-Dunne feels it more important to attack ME than to attack Piper. IMO, that fact demonstrates that Charles-Dunne's moral compass must be hopelessly deviated due to his proximity to the north pole.

Assuming that I've properly translated that garble into English, one wonders why your proximity to Cuba hasn't turned you into a raving Commie bastard. You see, Timmy Boy, this is precisely the type of tripe that calls your credibility into question. When you cannot counter a point, let alone make one, you simply resort to the most feeble-minded attempts at comedy. It doesn't seem to be working out well for you.

It is NOT guilt by associate to ask Piper to eitrher endorse or renounce the views of the people with whom he regularly congregates.

I have every faith that the average adult can discern for him/herself what drove Piper to write his book. Assuming, of course, that they bother to read it, which seems to be more than you've actually done, innit, Timster? Gee, attacking books you've never actually read; publicizing "evidence" you've never actually seen.... quite the interesting pattern emerges from Mr. Moral Compass, dunnit?

Robert does make one point with which I agree: Gerry Hemming does on occasion use intemperate language. Based on my conversations with him, however, I am convinced he is neither a racist nor an anti-semite. Nevertheless, such language cannot be condoned whether it comes from persons with whose views I agree or disagree.

My, what large stones it must have taken for you to make this half-assed, grudging comment once you've already been called on your hyprocrisy. "Yes... my my and tsk tsk..." Where were those sentiments when the neanderthal was here and making those comments, Mr. Moral Compass?

Edited by Robert Charles-Dunne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

the villains should not be allowed to merchandise their version of modern history.

What a telling comment THAT was! The villains were not the Communist murderers (every bit as bad as Piper's Nazis) but the villains were those FIGHTING Communism.

Robert, you were on the wrong side of history.

The good guys (not the villains) won.

So why don't you get over it?

And history will be written by those on my side. Even the honest liberals are coming around to admit that. Witness the Richard Reeves interview on the Charlie Rose show last week, where Reeves, an admitted liberal Democrat, expressed his admiration for Ronald Reagan and what Reagan accomplished.

I hope you understand that little fact, and cry yourself to sleep tonight.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

the villains should not be allowed to merchandise their version of modern history.

What a telling comment THAT was! The villains were not the Communist murderers (every bit as bad as Piper's Nazis) but the villains were those FIGHTING Communism.

Robert, you were on the wrong side of history.

The good guys (not the villains) won.

So why don't you get over it?

And history will be written by those on my side. Even the honest liberals are coming around to admit that. Witness the Richard Reeves interview on the Charlie Rose show last week, where Reeves, an admitted liberal Democrat, expressed his admiration for Ronald Reagan and what Reagan accomplished.

I hope you understand that little fact, and cry yourself to sleep tonight.

Tim,

No, it's your post that is the most telling.

You've just proven that you percieve everything in terms of goodies and baddies. This is why you'll never be of any use in trying to establish who killed JFK. It's wired into your head that the baddies (as you percieve them) must have done it. You refuse to entertain any other possible outcome. Your objectivity is fatally compromised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's your post that is the most telling.

You've just proven that you percieve everything in terms of goodies and baddies. This is why you'll never be of any use in trying to establish who killed JFK. It's wired into your head that the baddies (as you percieve them) must have done it. You refuse to entertain any other possible outcome. Your objectivity is fatally compromised.

It is even worse than that. He actually supports the "goodies" and is willing to try and cover-up for them (CIA dirty-tricks campaigns, corrupt Republicans, anti-Communist death-squads, etc.) See for example his postings on Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iran-Contra, release of CIA documents, etc.

The current attacks on Michael Collins Piper is just an attempt to show that there are people around who are more right-wing than he is. Personally, I am not convinced. Based on what they have actually written on this Forum, Gratz seems to be to the right of Piper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's your post that is the most telling.

You've just proven that you percieve everything in terms of goodies and baddies. This is why you'll never be of any use in trying to establish who killed JFK. It's wired into your head that the baddies (as you percieve them) must have done it. You refuse to entertain any other possible outcome. Your objectivity is fatally compromised.

It is even worse than that. He actually supports the "goodies" and is willing to try and cover-up for them (CIA dirty-tricks campaigns, corrupt Republicans, anti-Communist death-squads, etc.) See for example his postings on Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iran-Contra, release of CIA documents, etc.

The current attacks on Michael Collins Piper is just an attempt to show that there are people around who are more right-wing than he is. Personally, I am not convinced. Based on what they have actually written on this Forum, Gratz seems to be to the right of Piper.

John,

I agree John. Tim just can't recognise the double standards he employs.

From what I've seen, Tim is less tolerant and more rabid than Piper, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

the villains should not be allowed to merchandise their version of modern history.

What a telling comment THAT was! The villains were not the Communist murderers (every bit as bad as Piper's Nazis) but the villains were those FIGHTING Communism.

Robert, you were on the wrong side of history.

The good guys (not the villains) won.

So why don't you get over it?

And history will be written by those on my side. Even the honest liberals are coming around to admit that. Witness the Richard Reeves interview on the Charlie Rose show last week, where Reeves, an admitted liberal Democrat, expressed his admiration for Ronald Reagan and what Reagan accomplished.

I hope you understand that little fact, and cry yourself to sleep tonight.

Tim, can you read? Not a damned peep from me about Commies or Nazis. Only about CIA, dear boy. So now, once again, for the remedial reader among us:

"What I've done in Castro's case is to repeatedly point out for the benefit of others that the case you make against the Cubans is non-existent, and that all you do is regurgitate the script prepared by CIA. That it is baseless is clear to any schoolchild with a small modicum of mental acuity.

If my comments seem to be singularly directed to you, this is solely because you're the only member here whom I detect shilling for the Agency's unsubstantiated Castro-did-it fabrications. If I discerned that others did the same, I'd be onto them as well. I am not partial to the notion that contemporary history is written by the villains, so I will continue to do what I believe is my duty as a citizen of the world: attack the soft white underbelly of the bloated, arrogant, self-satisfied fabricators of modern history. If you're among that number, tough for you."

Nazis and Commies didn't invent the Castro-did-it nonsense to which I referred, Tim. That was the handiwork of CIA, as any schoolchild with minimal reading skills would have discerned. If you're going to reply to the posts of other people here, would it be too much to ask that you first read and comprehend them? It would spare you the repeated indignity of having your irrelevant, non-sequitur replies brought to your attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point, dear sir, was that you apparently consider the villains of the last half of the twentieth century the CIA and the anti-Communists rather than the Communists.

I assume that was the thrust of your comment. Was it not? I assume you were not talking about letting Communists write history.

Of course there were CIA abuses which I have condemned. But the villains of the twentieth century were the Nazis and the Communists. Everyone knew before Piper appeared on the scene what an anti-Communist I was. My reaction to Piper should certainly demonstrate that I abhor the evils of totalitarianism, whether it is of the left ("Communism") or of the right ("Naziism"). And I think those labels are really not correct. I think it is as wrong to consider democratic leftists or even socialists as akin to Communists as it is to tar conservatives with being on the same "side" as fascism. I think the distinction should be between totalitarians of whatever stripe and democrats (with a small "d" of course).

Hitler and Stalin were evil men and I don't think one can call one more evil than the other if one butchered a few million more than the other.

What is also evil is to stand silent and not object to a person who laments that Hitler lost the second world war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point, dear sir, was that you apparently consider the villains of the last half of the twentieth century the CIA and the anti-Communists rather than the Communists.

I assume that was the thrust of your comment. Was it not? I assume you were not talking about letting Communists write history.

Were you to "assume" less and read for comprehension more often, you'd save yourself a world of hurt.

For example, you'll notice that the heading of this Forum indicates that it is devoted to studying the "JFK Assassination." Unless you feel that Moscow and Havana have thus far written the official "history" of that crime, your point is really quite moot, isn't it?

As I clearly spelled out for you, more than once, my use of the term "villains" was in reference to CIA, and its attempt to falsify history by implicating Castro as the crime's sponsor. While it is true that CIA has sought to falsify the received history of other events, let's just stick to the one historical event that is our topic at hand, and to which this Forum is dedicated, shall we? At no time did I say that CIA were the greatest villains of the 20th Century. That is your very own fruitcakery.

I note that no other Forum member has required this distinction to be drawn for them, let alone required it more than once. Hence, I can only assume that other Forum members understood the point made quite clearly. Why you don't understand plain English is your problem; please don't make it mine.

Of course there were CIA abuses which I have condemned. But the villains of the twentieth century were the Nazis and the Communists. Everyone knew before Piper appeared on the scene what an anti-Communist I was. My reaction to Piper should certainly demonstrate that I abhor the evils of totalitarianism, whether it is of the left ("Communism") or of the right ("Naziism").

Thing is, they used to burn books they thought were heretical. In order to determine what was heretical, some Commie or Nazi actually had to read the books. You've bypassed that very critical step, I see. Quite efficient, I must say; castigate the author for his politics, rather than actually read his book.

And I think those labels are really not correct. I think it is as wrong to consider democratic leftists or even socialists as akin to Communists as it is to tar conservatives with being on the same "side" as fascism. I think the distinction should be between totalitarians of whatever stripe and democrats (with a small "d" of course).

Fine. Question: did these "democratic leftists" and "socialists" and "Communists" and "conservatives" and "fascists" and "totalitarians" and "democrats" actually read the book that is the topic of this thread? It is clear that you have not. How does one arrive at the conclusion that a book - any book - can "demolish" another book, when one hasn't even read the book one seeks to "demolish?" Your bushwah gets sillier by the day, Tim. And the faster you type these attempts at face-saving, the wonkier your posts become.

Hitler and Stalin were evil men and I don't think one can call one more evil than the other if one butchered a few million more than the other.

Did either of them read Piper's book? Could we maybe get an informed opinion about it from them?

What is also evil is to stand silent and not object to a person who laments that Hitler lost the second world war.

Similarly, one is unimpressed by those who pretend to be JFK assassination researchers; who pretend to approach the topic impartially; who pretend to read the source material they nevertheless discourage others from reading; and who substitute attacks on an author's character for a reasoned response to what has been written.

The funny thing is, I have repeatedly stated my disavowal of the central premise in Piper's book. That doesn't mean I discount every detail it contains, nor does it mean that I would discourage other adults from reading it to make up their own minds if the book has any value. Despite stating these plain facts repeatedly, I am now the focus of attack for our Key West Coupon-Clipper contributor.

Apparently, others are willing to judge a book by its cover. Or its author. Or any other basis, save for actually reading the book itself.

Sadly, Tim, those who choose to argue from ignorance will achieve little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert wrote:

As I clearly spelled out for you, more than once, my use of the term "villains" was in reference to CIA, and its attempt to falsify history by implicating Castro as the crime's sponsor.

Sorry, Robert, you wrote "the villains", clearly implying that the people or organization to which you refered were the villains to the exclusion of all others.

And you are simply wrong in your point. The CIA never attempted to convince anyone that Castro did it. From day one, it was the official CIA line that Oswald acted alone. In fact, the CIA withheld from the WC the fact that it had been attempting to kill Castro, evidence that would have given Castro a motive.

Were there people in the CIA who believed that Castro did it? I think so. But that was not the CIA line. The evidence is clear that the CIA did not try to convince LBJ, JEH, RFK or any members of the WC that Castro did it. Moreover, the CIA ordered its staff in Mexico City to STOP investigating a possible Cuban involvement.

Robert also wrote:

Similarly, one is unimpressed by those who pretend to be JFK assassination researchers [and] . . .who substitute attacks on an author's character for a reasoned response to what has been written.

I am not attempting to substitute an attack on Piper's character for a reasoned response to his book. But the members deserve to know what an evil man he is. Moreover, his evil (his anti-Semitism) is relevant to the evaluation of his book because it indicates he may likely have decided the Jews did it because he hates Jews.

Robert also wrote:

The funny thing is, I have repeatedly stated my disavowal of the central premise in Piper's book. That doesn't mean I discount every detail it contains, nor does it mean that I would discourage other adults from reading it to make up their own minds if the book has any value. Despite stating these plain facts repeatedly, I am now the focus of attack for our Key West Coupon-Clipper contributor.

Robert, Piper is the focus of my attack, not you, so just relax. I have no reason to believe you are an anti-semite but I think anyone who is outraged by the evils of the Holocaust should be repulsed by the participation of Piper in this Forum, even if there are correct things in his book.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...