Israel,LBJ and the JFK assassination

[Mark Stapleton]

Final Judgment’s case in this regard is principally built on the key significance of Meyer Lansky as the real power player in American organized crime in the 1950s and 1960s, the superior of Giancana, Roselli, Marcello, Mickey Cohen, Mickey Weiner, Moe Dalitz, Frank Costello, and others previously mentioned as participants in the Kennedy conspiracy. quote]

Which is completely untrue. Lansky was subservient to the Genovese family. He was not the boss of Trafficante, and had a close confidant, Jimy Alo, look over Lansky's interests FOR the Genovese family.

THis comes from wiseguys' mouths not mine.

Also he did not die rich, nor did he die powerful. HIs 'power' in the underworld was being eclipsed by the 1960's.

BTW- another good book on Jewish gangsters is Rich Cohen's TOUGH JEWS- a great account of the Lower East side guys like Kid Twist Reles.

Scott,

Are you saying Lansky died poor? Didn't he offer the Israeli Government ten million bucks to allow him to emigrate in the 70's?

Lansky subservient to Genovese? Laughable. Genovese spent the last decade of his life in jail. Some believe Lansky helped put him there.

Politics of Heroin - I guess we could ask McCloy - he has Lansky being first to Havana. Trafficante 'assumed responsibility' for Lansky's interests in Havana and Miami.

I have never seen anything about Lansky being subservient to the Genovese family - would you mind sharing a reference?

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/mafia/luciano.html

Can't copy and paste from this site. Worth reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Anastasia

However, Genovese dared not move against Anastasia and his real target, Costello, because of Meyer Lansky, one of the highest ranking and most powerful members of the National Crime Syndicate. Lansky and Genovese were long-standing enemies, with disputes dating from the 1920s, and Genovese could not make a move for power without Lansky's support.

Anyone know the names of the Israeli journalists Ruby allegedly met with? Was Ruby a Zionist? If Ruby is really a hardcore Zionist, and I see no reason to believe otherwise, it would make a great deal of logical sense to me.

- lee

I think it's a safe bet he was fiercely Zionist. Cohen was and Jack looked up to him. To me it's obvious.

Good question re the journalists, Lee. It's a very hard topic to nail. Were they (if the story is true) "journalists". I wonder.

On the Genovese thing, I've always been under the impression that the 'big four'--Luciano, Lansky, Costello and Seigel--started out together. Two Italians and two Jews. I'm willing to be corrected but I've not read anything contradicting this. Luciano became leader of the New York mafia but didn't interefere in non competing jurisdictions, enhancing his underworld popularity. Genovese was Luciano's 2ic and from the beginning was disliked by the other three and Luciano himself, according to his bio. I can't see how the other three would accept Genovese as the boss once Luciano went to prison. It's daft.

Hi Mark - they could in a rewrite of history from an Italian perspective.

Thought the same thing on the journalists - with the assumption that 'journalists' were used as a cover frequently.

On the Liberty - As with anything else, more than likely there is more to the story. I would recommend studying the damage done to the ship before drawing any conclusions. If there are any photos of the before and the after, I'd like to see them.

- lee

Hi Lee,

I agree on all counts.

Of course Jewish mobsters, especially Lansky, had immense influence. They were also politically active on the issue of Israel, as your quote from Mickey Cohen's own bio illustrates. Those attempting to shield the likes of Lansky--and by extension, Israel--from suspicion in regard to the assassination always seem to employ the tactic of citing the Italian mafia as being solely responsible for wielding underworld power and influence. The fact that Arnold Rothstein was able to fix the World Series way back in 1919 disproves it from the start.

Re the Liberty, you offer sound advice. The trail of events can be tailored to suit the reader, depending on which sites or books you want to read. Getting bogged down in an arduous debate about the Liberty will only sidetrack the thread.

In addition to Israel's motive and the emerging suspicion of their possible role, one thing that leads me to suspect Israel is the point raised by Mark Wilson in his initial post. Namely, it was the Government and the media which sponsored the coverup and has attempted to justify the WC's absurd conclusions for so many years. Therefore, when the Government and the media, as the main sponsors of the coverup, attempt to discredit and destroy certain alternative theories--even to the extent of banning books--my suspicious nature tells me these theories must be too close for comfort for those who wish the issue would go away.

[Owen Parsons]

You sure know where to find articles to support your ideas. The one by Dr. Gil-White is the most intriguing, IMO. For all these years it appeared to me that America's words and actions indicated they were strong allies, even protectors of Israel. Blow me down, now I find out that the US foreign policy has been pro-PLO all along!

Of course, it's hard to suspend disbelief for too long. It gives me a headache.

U.S. words indicate support of Israel, not actions (and lets not forget the aphorism "actions speak louder than words"). This is achieved by redefining the terms and boundaries of the debate. Being explicitly anti-Israel won't fly with most Americans, as that would be just a little too, you know, blatantly Nazi-esque. I suggest you actually confront Gil-White's documented facts, rather than voicing your disbelief (with nothing to back it up). These articles, by the way, are not things I just found to "support my ideas," rather, they have shaped my thinking on the issues.

Let's start with just the two I have already brought up: Why did the United States rescue the PLO from Lebanon, and then why did they browbeat the Israelis into participating in the Madrid peace talks (with the goal of getting the PLO back into the Occupied Territories) by threatening withdrawal of financial aid? If the U.S. was truly pro-Israel, they would have let the PLO (which was still seen then for the terrorist organization that it actually is) be exterminated, thus ending their supposed "resistance" to Israeli occupation (how interesting that in the PLO's original charter, before the Six Day War, when Israel gained Gaza and the West Bank, they explicitly disavow any interest in these areas, which were then occupied by Arab states and the living conditions were worse than they became under Israeli control).

Also, do you still hold that the Palestinian leadership is not responsible for the living conditions in the territories that they have actually been running for over a decade now?

Re the Liberty, you offer sound advice. The trail of events can be tailored to suit the reader, depending on which sites or books you want to read. Getting bogged down in an arduous debate about the Liberty will only sidetrack the thread.

In addition to Israel's motive and the emerging suspicion of their possible role, one thing that leads me to suspect Israel is the point raised by Mark Wilson in his initial post. Namely, it was the Government and the media which sponsored the coverup and has attempted to justify the WC's absurd conclusions for so many years. Therefore, when the Government and the media, as the main sponsors of the coverup, attempt to discredit and destroy certain alternative theories--even to the extent of banning books--my suspicious nature tells me these theories must be too close for comfort for those who wish the issue would go away.

When has the government banned books on the Liberty? I haven't seen it, but feel free to help me here.

I have, however, seen many former government and intelligence officials alleging a deliberate Israeli attack. This includes Richard Helms(!), who has something of a reputation for dishonesty when it serves state interests, lying about the CIA's own reports; and this from the same auto-biography in which he trotted out the official line on the Kennedy assassination and again defamed Garrison. Also, we find NSA men like Oliver Kirby and former NSA directors like William Odom implicating Israel and lying about their own intercepts, which have recently been released. You can see all of these instances trotted out on the front page of the "USS Liberty Memorial" website, where they proudly state the following:

"AMERICAN LEADERS SUPPORT USS Liberty SURVIVORS

The Israeli government, the AntiDefamation League, and

certain notorious apologists for Israel insist that the attack was

a tragic accident and that the US government accepts that assertion.

Not so. Virtually every knowledgeable American official with

the lone exception of Robert McNamara is on public record

calling the attack deliberate and the Israeli story untrue.

Here are a few of those American leaders."

This amount of official support seems to me to be unprecedented in cases of real conspiracies.

You also speak of "Israel's motive" to attack the ship, but do not provide said motive. Please do so. Motive for the attack has always been one of the (very) weak points in the case for conspiracy.

Let's engage in a real debate here. I have continually cited sources; you have been waving your hands and avoiding issues, seemingly only because you have a prior belief in Israeli villainy and U.S. complicity in said villainy. I started out with this position also (Norman Finkelstein used to be one of my favorite "experts" on the conflict), but reexamined my position and changed. You might not do this, but at least try to support and back up your pronouncements.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Mark Stapleton]

A few points.

Firstly, you've misread my reply to Lee. I'm referring to Piper's book being banned, not books on the Liberty being banned. Do you deny the US Government has tried to silence Piper?

Secondly, being anti-Israel is not my intention. In pointing out, quite correctly, that Israel gained from the assassination, and that Mossad has form in regard to subversive activities and has been supported in these endevours by the Israeli leadership, I'm making a case for Israel's complicity in the assassination. According to you, being explicitly anti-Israel won't fly with most Americans. I don't see how you can speak for most Americans, but my intention is to highlight the truth about America's policy towards Israel and the Middle East generally. If this makes me explicitly anti-Israel, I'll have to live with such a label but I don't agree with it.

If you want to start a thread about whether or not US policy has favored Israel or the PLO, then I'll be happy to participate in that debate. However, you know that such an issue is not the subject of this thread. I'm eager to see how you can justify the argument that US policy has favored the PLO over Israel. It will take more than simply cherry-picking dubious articles sympathetic to such an absurd claim--you might have to place the argument into some kind historical context. I'd like to see that. BTW, how many times has the PLO leadership been invited to Washington for discussions?

I don't need to list lots of sites which agree with my views in order to justify my arguments. They'll go nowhere if not backed by common sense. I'm happy to debate you on these issues tangential to the main issue (ie. Israel's involvement in the assassination). Just start the thread. I'm keen to see how far out on a limb you will go.

[Owen Parsons]

A few points.

Firstly, you've misread my reply to Lee. I'm referring to Piper's book being banned, not books on the Liberty being banned. Do you deny the US Government has tried to silence Piper?

Ah, I see. I did indeed misread your reply. Anyway, yes, I do deny that Piper's book has been banned by the U.S. government. This is an assertion that he likes to make but I haven't seen it backed up. Provide some examples.

Secondly, being anti-Israel is not my intention. In pointing out, quite correctly, that Israel gained from the assassination, and that Mossad has form in regard to subversive activities and has been supported in these endevours by the Israeli leadership, I'm making a case for Israel's complicity in the assassination. According to you, being explicitly anti-Israel won't fly with most Americans. I don't see how you can speak for most Americans, but my intention is to highlight the truth about America's policy towards Israel and the Middle East generally. If this makes me explicitly anti-Israel, I'll have to live with such a label but I don't agree with it.

Last I heard, polls show that most Americans support Israel. Gee.

Anyway, I speak of the U.S. government's motivation in saying what it doesn't actually mean, not the anti-Israel views of private citizens. You've done some misreading of your own.

If you want to start a thread about whether or not US policy has favored Israel or the PLO, then I'll be happy to participate in that debate. However, you know that such an issue is not the subject of this thread. I'm eager to see how you can justify the argument that US policy has favored the PLO over Israel. It will take more than simply cherry-picking dubious articles sympathetic to such an absurd claim--you might have to place the argument into some kind historical context. I'd like to see that. BTW, how many times has the PLO leadership been invited to Washington for discussions?

I don't need to list lots of sites which agree with my views in order to justify my arguments. They'll go nowhere if not backed by common sense. I'm happy to debate you on these issues tangential to the main issue (ie. Israel's involvement in the assassination). Just start the thread. I'm keen to see how far out on a limb you will go.

More hand waving. Dr. Gil-White cites all his sources, which are all quite credible. I look forward to seeing your non hand waving efforts in this thread I have just started: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6577

Let's see who comes out looking the most absurd. I prefer dealing with facts, not some arbitrary definition of "common sense."

Edited April 17, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Len Colby]

JFK vs. the Federal Reserve was also as important a factor as any, as history shows in the Lincoln assassination......the Federal Reserve has strong ties to Israel,to say the least

So you're saying the Jews control the banking system so they whacked JFK and Lincoln because they were a threat to that control? Is that what you were getting at or did I miss read you?

Yeah you and Piper are right, we killed Lincoln and JFK and RFK and MLK jr. we killed Christ too! Happy Easter!

What do you know about the Lincoln assassination that we don't?

What role did the Federal Reserve which was created in 1913 have in the Lincoln assassination 48 years earlier?

What are the Federal Reserve's "strong ties to Israel"

At the end of the day on 11/22/63 until now,Israel would dictate the policies to the United States.

i tend to agree with Piper's general theory on the landscape of how Israel has progressed militarily and in the United States policies since 1963.Bottom line,they call the shots...look no further than the United States waging and threatening war today on Israel's worst blood enemies

So Israel controls the US government?

You do realize that Afghanistan was never a threat to Israel and while Iraq was it was also a threat to all it's neighbors. Do you have any evidence that the US invaded Iraq at the behest of Israel?

....the whole 9 yards from the USS Liberty to Jack Abramoff and everything in between.

What does Abramoff have to do with the US's Middle East policy or did you mention him just because he's Jewish?

with the build up Israel has had since 1963 why havent more people at least pointed out the coincidence of the time line with the assassination of JFK?

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/mossadandtheassassination.htm

""how about some numbers? In Kennedy's last fiscal budget year of 1964, Israeli aid was $40 million. In LBJ's first budget of 1965, it soared to $71 million, and in 1966 more than tripled from two years earlier to $130 million! Plus, during Kennedy's administration, almost none of our aid to Israel was military in nature. Instead, it was split equally between development loans and food assistance under the PL480 Program. Yet in 1965 under the Johnson administration, 20% of our aid to Israel was for the military, while in 1966, 71% was used for war-related materials.

Continuing in this same vein, in 1963 the Kennedy administration sold 5 Hawk missiles to Israel as part of an air-defense system. In 1965-66, though, LBJ laid 250 tanks on Israel, 48 Skyhawk attack aircrafts, plus guns and artillery which were all offensive in nature. If you ever wondered when the Israeli War Machine was created, this is it! LBJ was its father.""

The article does not provide any citations to back it's claims. If you want to offer this kind of evidence you'll have to do better

Edited April 17, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

In addition to Israel's motive and the emerging suspicion of their possible role, one thing that leads me to suspect Israel is the point raised by Mark Wilson in his initial post. Namely, it was the Government and the media which sponsored the coverup and has attempted to justify the WC's absurd conclusions for so many years. Therefore, when the Government and the media, as the main sponsors of the coverup, attempt to discredit and destroy certain alternative theories--even to the extent of banning books--my suspicious nature tells me these theories must be too close for comfort for those who wish the issue would go away.

Mark - It sounds an awful lot to me that you are saying:

1) The Goverment and media are responsible for the cover up.

2) The Goverment and media are controlled by Jewish Zionists.

3) The Government and media are covering for the assassins because they have something to hide.

4) thus Jewish Zionists are probably responsible for the assassination

You said 1 and 3 explicitly, 2 and 4 were implicit. Please elaborate.

What evidence do you have that the US goverment banned "Final Judgement" or any other books?

Len

Edited April 17, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Mark Wilson's favorite site about the assassination incredibly features an article by Edgar J. Steele an infamous white supremacist and anti-Semite and true to form he let his true beliefs shine through in his article.

"Jennings' invocation of the now ritual, semi-religious "holocaust" shows just who is in charge, and makes clear on which side of this issue all right-thinking Americans are expected to land.

Members of this list think for themselves, fortunately.

John F. Kennedy was a good man, an individual thinker and a courageous individual. He would have proven to be a great president, despite the tragedy that his civil rights program has become. He was the last of a breed. "

http://john-f-kennedy.net/nightmareonelmstreet.htm

Do these views reflect the webmater's? Since he (or she) posted the article on his (or her) site without a disclaimer I would imagine so.

The wisdom of Edgar J. Steele

Jews, themselves, were responsible for Adolf Hitler. There is a pattern to Jewish tyranny in country after country, you know….Hitler was the response to the pre-World-War-II Jewish takeover and pillaging of Germany, similar to how Jewish robber barons recently gutted Russia.

May 15, 2005

Jews are right about anti-Semitism being a disease, you know, just as fourteenth-century Europeans were right about the nature of bubonic plague. However, just as with bubonic plague, American Jews seem not to have identified the Jewish Plague's real carriers. But you and I know who they are. Anti-Semitism is a disease. You catch it from Jews.

May 15, 2005

Wherever blacks are congregated in America, one observes the manifestation of their inherited behavioral response patterns, directly traceable to the behavior to be observed in African blacks. Realizing that America's black problems are rooted in African culture goes a long way toward explaining the black-on-white race war being waged in the streets of America, the rapes, the murders, the violence, the short-term outlook, the single-parent families and so on.

May 7, 2005

So, what color are Jews? Jews are the color of avarice and greed. Jews are the color of deception, manipulation and the lust for power. Jews are the color of dishonesty, selfishness and heartlessness.

May 7, 2005

Join me, won't you? Boycott products advertised with black actors and models. Make a statement: If you see black, don't go back. Boycott TV shows and movies with black actors. Send the message that we are fed up: If we see black, we don't go back. Cancel your subscriptions to newspapers and magazines that push black articles, columnists and advertisements into your face. There are plenty available that don't. Not coincidentally, those that don't promote blacks are the same ones that actually tell the truth about other things, too. Tell them when you cancel: If we see black, we don't go back.

Feb. 27, 2005

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/steele.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=steele

Edited April 18, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

on a semi related note....today on Chris Matthew's Hardball,they discussed the Nixon tapes where Nixon and the reverand Billy Graham had a conservation where Nixon said the Jews dominated the media and Graham said the stranglehold must be broken or the country would go down the drain,a comment he later apologized for....These tapes were more than 30 years ago and less than 10 years from when JFK was killed.

What are you driving at?

[Len Colby]

Aljazeera.com (how's that for an unbiased source?) has a series of articles on 9/11...security at Logan was run by an Israeli-owned company.

Ron can back the claim that"security at Logan was run by an Israeli-owned company." with a source other that Aljazeera?

[Mark Stapleton]

A few points.

Firstly, you've misread my reply to Lee. I'm referring to Piper's book being banned, not books on the Liberty being banned. Do you deny the US Government has tried to silence Piper?

Ah, I see. I did indeed misread your reply. Anyway, yes, I do deny that Piper's book has been banned by the U.S. government. This is an assertion that he likes to make but I haven't seen it backed up. Provide some examples.

Secondly, being anti-Israel is not my intention. In pointing out, quite correctly, that Israel gained from the assassination, and that Mossad has form in regard to subversive activities and has been supported in these endevours by the Israeli leadership, I'm making a case for Israel's complicity in the assassination. According to you, being explicitly anti-Israel won't fly with most Americans. I don't see how you can speak for most Americans, but my intention is to highlight the truth about America's policy towards Israel and the Middle East generally. If this makes me explicitly anti-Israel, I'll have to live with such a label but I don't agree with it.

Last I heard, polls show that most Americans support Israel. Gee.

Anyway, I speak of the U.S. government's motivation in saying what it doesn't actually mean, not the anti-Israel views of private citizens. You've done some misreading of your own.

If you want to start a thread about whether or not US policy has favored Israel or the PLO, then I'll be happy to participate in that debate. However, you know that such an issue is not the subject of this thread. I'm eager to see how you can justify the argument that US policy has favored the PLO over Israel. It will take more than simply cherry-picking dubious articles sympathetic to such an absurd claim--you might have to place the argument into some kind historical context. I'd like to see that. BTW, how many times has the PLO leadership been invited to Washington for discussions?

I don't need to list lots of sites which agree with my views in order to justify my arguments. They'll go nowhere if not backed by common sense. I'm happy to debate you on these issues tangential to the main issue (ie. Israel's involvement in the assassination). Just start the thread. I'm keen to see how far out on a limb you will go.

More hand waving. Dr. Gil-White cites all his sources, which are all quite credible. I look forward to seeing your non hand waving efforts in this thread I have just started: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6577

Let's see who comes out looking the most absurd. I prefer dealing with facts, not some arbitrary definition of "common sense."

Dr. Gil-White cites all his sources. So what? He chooses his sources and then applies his own interpretation on historical events, marking them as positive, negative or mixed, apparently according to how he believes the US should have acted. What weighting scale does he apply? Also, he cites what he believes are injustices against the state of Israel but his references to Israeli injustices against Palestinians during the same periods seem remarkably scarce. He's not a hand waver, is he? Anyway, that's all for the other thread. Put the link to the article on the thread and let the insanity begin. If you can prove that US policy has been pro PLO and anti-Israel, I will declare you the finest debater I have encountered. Don't hold your breath.

Er, yes I know that the polls show most Americans support Israel. But do the polls show that by (quite legitimately) arguing the case for Israel/Mossad's possible involvement, this makes me "explicitly anti-Israel"? That's your opinion, not the opinion of "most Americans".

The most reliable source for determining whether Piper's book was banned would be Piper himself, I guess. I'll E-mail him and ask. I don't believe he'll relish the prospect of returning to the Forum himself after the hostile reception he recieved the first time.

Anyway, the thread goes on. Your aggressive pursuit of those who dare suggest Israeli involvement seems to have frightened some people off. Not everyone, though. I've still got a few things to say. Thank goodness for freedom of speech, eh.

[Owen Parsons]

Dr. Gil-White cites all his sources. So what? He chooses his sources and then applies his own interpretation on historical events, marking them as positive, negative or mixed, apparently according to how he believes the US should have acted. What weighting scale does he apply? Also, he cites what he believes are injustices against the state of Israel but his references to Israeli injustices against Palestinians during the same periods seem remarkably scarce. He's not a hand waver, is he? Anyway, that's all for the other thread. Put the link to the article on the thread and let the insanity begin. If you can prove that US policy has been pro PLO and anti-Israel, I will declare you the finest debater I have encountered. Don't hold your breath.

Of course he applies his interpretation to historical events. We all do, especially on this forum.

Anyway, I will be more than happy to discuss supposed Israeli injustices toward the Palestinians in the thread. I think you will find that, despite what the PLO or Hamas might say (or various "left-wing" writers), there have been very few.

Er, yes I know that the polls show most Americans support Israel. But do the polls show that by (quite legitimately) arguing the case for Israel/Mossad's possible involvement, this makes me "explicitly anti-Israel"? That's your opinion, not the opinion of "most Americans".

I never said you were "explicitly anti-Israel" for tying the Mossad in with the Kennedy assassination, I said the government doesn't voice an "explicitly anti-Israel" view because it goes against American public opinion. What are you going on about?

I don't find Piper to be a reliable source on anything, as he is a proven Holocaust denier.

Edit: And maybe the reason some people have been "frightened off" is because they can't back up their opinions. I have noticed that Mark Wilson has made himself scarce, but then he cites sites that propagate holocaust denial and racism (and not just against Jews), as Len Colby has shown, and says that the "Jews" control the media. I'd be a bit embarassed too. Its unbelievable.

And please don't pull out the free speech card. My arguing a case does not prevent you from doing the same.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Mark Stapleton]

Dr. Gil-White cites all his sources. So what? He chooses his sources and then applies his own interpretation on historical events, marking them as positive, negative or mixed, apparently according to how he believes the US should have acted. What weighting scale does he apply? Also, he cites what he believes are injustices against the state of Israel but his references to Israeli injustices against Palestinians during the same periods seem remarkably scarce. He's not a hand waver, is he? Anyway, that's all for the other thread. Put the link to the article on the thread and let the insanity begin. If you can prove that US policy has been pro PLO and anti-Israel, I will declare you the finest debater I have encountered. Don't hold your breath.

Of course he applies his interpretation to historical events. We all do, especially on this forum.

Anyway, I will be more than happy to discuss supposed Israeli injustices toward the Palestinians in the thread. I think you will find that, despite what the PLO or Hamas might say (or various "left-wing" writers), there have been very few.

Er, yes I know that the polls show most Americans support Israel. But do the polls show that by (quite legitimately) arguing the case for Israel/Mossad's possible involvement, this makes me "explicitly anti-Israel"? That's your opinion, not the opinion of "most Americans".

I never said you were "explicitly anti-Israel" for tying the Mossad in with the Kennedy assassination, I said the government doesn't voice an "explicitly anti-Israel" view because it goes against American public opinion. What are you going on about?

I don't find Piper to be a reliable source on anything, as he is a proven Holocaust denier.

Yes, I appreciate your offer to discuss the injustices (alleged or otherwise) perpetrated by the Israelis on Palestinian targets but I'm asking why Dr. Gil-White doesn't mention them in his lengthy piece? Alleged injustices by both sides should be analysed in an even handed article shouldn't they? His article is peppered with references to attacks allegedly made against Israel but mentions nothing of Israel's on Palestine. Anyway, it will be interesting discussing the matter. I'll address future comments about it to that thread.

Your original quote in post #47 was that being explicitly anti-Israel won't fly. Of course it won't. Being explicitly anti-Iceland or anti-New Zealand won't fly either. There's no point. Why would the US Government needlessly voice anti-Israel sentiments? A very confusing comment even when attempting to contrast the US Government's words and actions. Over to the other thread with this also. Better still, forget it altogether.

On Piper, I disagree. I believe he's got a strong argument.

[Mark Wilson]

Mark - It sounds an awful lot to me that you are saying:

1) The Goverment and media are responsible for the cover up.

2) The Goverment and media are controlled by Jewish Zionists.

3) The Government and media are covering for the assassins because they have something to hide.

4) thus Jewish Zionists are probably responsible for the assassination

You said 1 and 3 explicitly, 2 and 4 were implicit. Please elaborate.

What evidence do you have that the US goverment banned "Final Judgement" or any other books?

Len

hi Len.i'm not going feed into to your loaded analysis of my statements other than to say the case of the JFK assassination is still an unsolved case.it's my opinion that Israel has quietly obtained much power in many areas since 11/22/63 and i refuse eliminate Israel as a possible suspect because it's my opinion theyve benefited greatly and has had the means to participate in the cover up.

Jews are no more responsible for the actions of sinister elements in the Israeli government,Mossad, or other radical Zionist movements than myself or any other American is responsible for the fascist,imperialist agendas of George W. Bush and company.The overwhelming majority of people all over the world, of all different religions and races only want their families to live in peace and according to what their culture's call for and there are,unfortunately, others that promote war, violence, and other corruptions...

[Owen Parsons]

How amusing. Prior to this you spoke of the "Jews" and "Israel" as if they were one and the same.

[Mark Wilson]

How amusing. Prior to this you spoke of the "Jews" and "Israel" as if they were one and the same.

oh really? what's amusing is how you continue to dodge the context of this thread and your persistence to insinuate i have a problem with Jews and that i'm an anti semite rather even once adress the theory of this topic.