[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: JFK.jpg (298 KB, 1920x1080)
298 KB
298 KB JPG
Can we have a serious thread on the JFK assassination? Who do you think killed him? Was it just Oswald acting alone? The CIA? The Mafia? Israel? Johnson? Someone else?
>>
Whatever happened is not nearly as big a deal as Lindsey Graham getting blackmailed by Trump with gay tapes rn
>>
Lyndon Johnson was the shotcaller, the CIA planned it and provided Oswald to be set up as the patsy, while the Mafia did a lot of background infrastructure support and legwork. It was, dare i say, a daring synthesis.
>>
Considering he was succeeded by the first major pro-Israel pres, it's highly likely to be Mossad. JFK also had sympathies for Hitlerian ideology and was most likely woke on the JQ.

That being said, lots of people in the US wanted that man dead. On the right too.
>>
>>10517729
Lyndon Johnson had way more ties to the Mafia than he did to Israel at any point. He effectively ended everything the DOJ had going on La Cosa Nostra, which immediately turned into their Golden Age which lasted for almost 3 decades before it could be curbed effectively.
>>
>>10517681
Jackie
>>
File: 1p4d.jpg (148 KB, 872x1152)
148 KB
148 KB JPG
What did they mean by this?
>>
>>10517681
>serious thread
>immediately starts talking about retard conspiracy shit
>>
>>10517681
Definitely the Mafia
>>
Just because powerful organizations wanted JFK dead doesn't mean they actually killed him. It doesn't even really matter whether an organization or a lone wolf killed JFK, it's just a red herring to the real question of organizations benefiting from his death.
>>
>>10517972
>Just because powerful organizations wanted JFK dead doesn't mean they actually killed him
But they did, it has been conclusively traced to them as well. Just because the US media and the CIA gaslit everyone into agreeing with the narrative by literally inventing the use of term "conspiracy theory" as a pejorative, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
>>
>>10518010
>it has been conclusively traced to them
Prove it then
>>
>>10517681
The people/groups that wanted JFK dead are Allen Dulles, the CIA, Castro, Israel, LBJ. There's not evidence that Castro had a hand in it, even though he definitely had a motive. Allen Dulles definitely had a motive (JFK had fired him). The CIA had a motive (JFK has reportedly threatened to disband the CIA). Israel definitely had a motive (JFK wanted Israel to open up the Dimona reactor for inspections to make sure the Israelis weren't building nuclear weapons). LBJ definitely had a motive (he gets to become President). The fact that Dulles was made the chief investigator for the Warren Commission is a huge red flag. The fact that the supposed assassin was assassinated before investigated, tried, and convicted, is a huge red flag. The fact that the man who assassinated the supposed assassin was a Jew with mafia and Zionist connections is another huge red flag. The fact that LBJ had connections with the Jewish mafia in Texas and was sleeping with a Mossad agent is another huge red flag. I would believe almost any of the various "conspiracy theories" over the much less plausible official story.
>>
>>10517896
Because, as with 9/11, the official story is by far the least believable one.
>>
>>10517702
take your meds
>>
>>10518010
>the US media and the CIA gaslit everyone into agreeing with the narrative by literally inventing the use of term "conspiracy theory" as a pejorative
Yep. See this good short documentary:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/heb4TZSstPSs/
>>
>>10517702
If anyone was blackmailing Graham it was probably Mossad.
>>
>>10518057
>I would believe almost any of these vast, increasingly complex theories that require a level of secrecy not humanly possible over “it was one dude”
KEK

>>10518084
Why?
>9/11
“muh steel beams”
>>
>>10518054
type "Evidence of Revision pt 1" into your search bar and knock yourself out
>>
>>10518152
>muh conspiracy shilling documentary is PROOF
Bro...
>>
>>10518054
>>10518175
cope, dumb frogposter
>>
>>10518138
Compartmentalization (only a few people need to know the full scale of the operation) plus control of the media and the court system will keep any loose ends from becoming to widely known.

>"muh steel beams"
The fact that three towers, one of which wasn't even struck by a plane, collapsed into their own footprints at near-freefall speed exactly like controlled demolitions is fishy enough. But then combine that with the fact that Michael Chertoff, a dual citizen and son of a Mossad agent, ordered the immediate release of over 200 Israeli nationals that the FBI had arrested in the aftermath of 9/11 (some of these Israelis were caught with explosives in their possession), along with a whole host of other extreme implausibilities, and the official story put out by the Kean Commission that it was solely the work of 19 Arab hijackers with box cutters seems about as believable as a bedtime story for retarded children.
>>
>>10517681
It was clearly the mob.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Bolden#Allegations_of_a_%22Chicago_plot%22_to_assassinate_John_F._Kennedy
>>
>>10518057
You know that none of this is evidence of a group actually killing JFK, right? Even assuming everything you wrote was true, you just listed a series of connections, narrated as a potential conspiracy. Detailing motives and beneficiaries is not the same as proving involvement. For that, you would have to actually engage with the specific details of JFK's assassination (as in the event of the actual shooting, not contextual details of JFK's presidency).
>>
>>10518191
Don't forget Lucky Larry Silverstein and his huge insurance windfall. It's a good thing 9/11 was the one day he didn't eat lunch at the WTC. What a narrow escape and what an unexpected boon that $4.5B that was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wQXnycq1lM
>>
>>10518188
>reality and basic facts are an “arbitrary frame”
If all you can do is point to some conspiracy garbage without even being able to summarize its main points, you’ve conceded you’re a retard
That docu is 9 hours long. Give me the highlights or just one reason why I should believe it’s at all credible
>>
The Irishman movie said that the mob killed Kennedy. I'm too lazy to actually read something so i'll just believe that now.
>>
>>10518191
>plus control of the media and the court system
You’re right back to the “grand design” problem again. How do they maintain this “control”?
>one of which wasn't even struck by a plane
>by a plane
What is debris hitting it and an internal fire that went unchecked
And even so, that’s not evidence for some master plan. Bullshit claims require actual evidence to back them up, not just “well that’s possible because I say so, therefore it’s this much more complex and dubious thing”
>>
>>10517681
>Who do you think killed him?
No one.
>Was it just Oswald acting alone?
No.
>The CIA?
No.
>The Mafia?
No.
>Israel?
No.
>Johnson?
No
>Someone else?
No. Either old age or illness by now.
>>
>>10517681
Oswald's first shot hit the traffic signal; his second shot hit the JFK in the back and exited the front neck. In response to the first shot Secret Service Agent George Hickey picked up an AR15 prototype off the floorboard of the follow up car and proceeded too wheel around to engage Oswald in the second floor window. The motorcade came to a jerky stop and start again that caused Hickey to fall back in his seat and accidentally fire the third shot that hit JFK in the back of the head. The cover up after the fact to prevent the public from finding out the Secret Service actually accidently killed a president fits with all facts.
>>
>>10518278
Kek
>>
>>10518231
We're never going to get the evidence. If it hasn't been destroyed, it will be locked up forever and never released to the public. It's simply a matter of whether or not you believe the Warren Commission report. Does it sound plausible? If it doesn't, then you will have to go with what sounds more plausible. Means, motive, and opportunity. Does the CIA regularly assassinate people it deems a threat to it? Yes. Has Israel assassinated people who threatened to interfere in its development of nuclear weapons? Yes. Has the mafia ever been involved in murder for hire? Yes. Has LBJ ever been implicated in having opponents murdered? Yes. Did LBJ have connections to the Texas mafia? Yes. Did LBJ have an Israeli mistress who was a former Irgun member? Yes. Would all these people conspire to take out JFK? Probably. Did they? Probably. Can we prove it beyond reasonable doubt? No.

Do you believe the Warren Commission report's conclusions? If you don't, then what do you believe happened?
>>
>>10518290
>You’re right back to the “grand design” problem again. How do they maintain this “control”?
Ever hear of Operation Mockingbird? It's not a "conspiracy theory". It's documented fact.
>>
>>10518316
This is next level glownigger cope, holy shit
>>
>>10518290
>What is debris hitting it and an internal fire that went unchecked
Office furniture fires don't cause a building to collapse into its own footprint at near-freefall speed. You need to blow out all main support pillars simultaneously for that to happen. Building can collapse from fire, but not like that. That's controlled demolition. Want to know another odd discrepancy? Get a copy of the Kean Commission report and look in the index for WTC7. It isn't in there. There's not one word in the entire report about Building 7. That's because it was too difficult to explain away, so they simply pretended it didn't exist. Nothing suspicious about that, I suppose.
>>
>>10518350
>the CIA getting caught giving some money to one magazine is proof of a massive, highly controlled media system
>which, again, is somehow kept completely secret even though that’s not humanly possible
Take your meds, bud
>>
>>10518305
Kek. The plot thickens.

Sell that one to Hollywood.
>>
>>10518369
It sounds fishily like the "alternative" explanation for Huey Long's murder, too. Even more suspicious is that no autopsy was ever performed on Long.
>>
>>10518394
>Office furniture fires don't cause a building to collapse
How do you know that?
>You need to blow out all main support pillars simultaneously for that to happen
Not even remotely
>That's controlled demolition
How did they plant all those charges without anyone noticing? Do you know how much work goes into actual demolition work?
>there’s not one word about Building 7
Because it wasn’t part of the attack. It was just collateral damage
All this “yeah but” still isn’t evidence
>>
>>10518396
More than one magazine, anon. It's about having plants in the major newspapers and magazines, key people on their payroll.
>>
>>10518422
And all of them keep this a secret... why?
>>
>>10518415
>How did they plant all those charges without anyone noticing?
If you own the building, it would be a pretty straightforward thing to have the demolition team go in as ordinary workmen doing maintenance and close off those sections they're working on.

>Do you know how much work goes into actual demolition work?
Yeah, it takes weeks to carry out. That's why Lucky Larry's "pull it" story is so ludicrous. As if you could rig a building in one afternoon WHILE IT'S ON FIRE, and as if fire departments are responsible for rigging buildings for demolition.
>>
>>10518462
>why would people on the CIA payroll not want to tell everyone they're on the CIA payroll?
AYFS?
>>
>>10518476
>close off those sections they're working on
And when they’re done?
Demolition explosives can’t just be “covered up”, anon. Seriously now, do you know how much work goes into bringing down a building? This isn’t a weekend job where you cover up the charges with some plaster and then let the interns back into the room
>Lucky Larry's "pull it" story
The fuck are you talking about
>>
>>10517896
>the Lusitania
>the Maine
>the Gulf of Tonkin
>MKUltra
>Operation Mockingbird
>everything the CIA has done in Latin America

where do people get off on burying their head in the sand and pretending that this kind of shit doesnt happen sometimes? its not like were talking about lizard people or some dumb shit like that, these kinds of things demonstrably do happen throughout history.

maybe you people who dismiss all of this are just cowards who are afraid to be called crazy and get lumped in with /pol/tards and Q schizos. it's understandable because those people are the scum of the earth but youre just leaving a lot of ground open to them
>>
>>10518481
>the CIA can just bankroll all these people
>no one questions their bank returns (obviously they’re CIA too, right?)
>there’s people who get together and plan what will be said in the media, presumably everyday
>this all goes off without a hitch daily and they’re able to keep it secret
BUT OH WAIT, there was that magazine article they paid for!!!! The schizos found them out that easily, but no else is onto them, right? In fact, you’re the schizo for not believing this bullshit, right anon?
>>
>>10518503
>Lusitania and the Maine
So the CIA was pulling tricks before they even existed?
>Gulf of Tonkin
Not even remotely CIA-related
>MKUltra
Actual meme
>Mockingbird
“muh fake news”
>everything the CIA has done
Wow, can’t even narrow that one down, huh?
>>
File: kennedy 1595948505538.jpg (44 KB, 323x500)
44 KB
44 KB JPG
>>10517681
>Who do you think killed him?

The Jews. Kennedy was going to shutdown Israel's nuke program so they had him assassinated and this was proven when LBJ got into office and immediately gave Israel a blank check to do whatever the fuck they wanted and massively increased American aid.
>>
>>10518547
I'm clearly not talking exclusively about the CIA you coping retard, I'm talking about the history of widely believed stories in which the conspiracy theory was plausible and turned out to be true. The CIA isnt some omnipotent network capable of anything, but as an intelligence network they happen to have the job of doing a lot of the sketchier work of a superpower

And do you actually need me to list every instance of CIA involvement in dirty shit in Latin America and Africa? Brazil 1964? Bolivia 1971? Chile 1973?

CIA's bloody hands around the world supporting coups and funding right wing groups is not speculative whatsoever, it's well demonstrated history, if you're refusing to deal with that you clearly just don't want to acknowledge shit that challenges your cozy view of the world
>>
>>10518572
This, but they would have needed the CIA's OK before proceeding. I'm sure Dulles was OK with having the man who fired him snuffed. The CIA had an interest in seeing JFK gone.
>>
>>10517681
With rising nuclear tensions, JFKs stupid policy of intervention in SE Asia despite lessons from korea, along with the Cuban Missile crisis and attempted coup, it was decided among the CIA and KGB leadership that if left to remain president, JFK would create a nuclear annhilation event in a MAD scenario before 1970. Initially the plan was to use a publicized negative popular opinion campaign based around Kennedy's sexual exploits to force an impeachment. This same tactic would be used sucessfully against Bill Clinton for his fucking around during an OPEC crisis and a major destabilizing african war/genocide.

for this reason, Oswald: a former US marine sniper, who had spent time undercover in the USSR as a deniable communications link for the east and west for the CIA, was brought home and allowed access to the Secret service denaible security post. his wartime service earned him a spot as a counter sniper, and he was posted in the book building in that position.

During the presidential motorcades procession, Oswald, aware of the ongoing plan to oust Kennedy, became aware of a kgb shooter on the grassy knoll. Now apparent that the russians didnt trust the soft lock the US was placing on kennedy, the KGB was going to assassinate the president outright. Oswald understood that such actions, provocative as they were, would spart the same nuclear exchange hoping to be avoided. While trying to line up a shot on the KGB shooter, and aware of the infeasiblity of such an action due to a lack of a scope, and the crowding near the shooter, Oswald had only one option left.

Oswald shot JFK from the book building in order to try and make it seem like a domestic hit rather than an international. cassus belli. He was shot in revenge soon after by a local KGB agent acting in support of the initial killteam to prevent Oswalds testimony revealing the existence of the KGB team, not realizing Oswald had accepted his fate and would not have broken the story.
>>
>>10518604
>in which the conspiracy theory was plausible and turned out to be true
So that means all conspiracy theories are potentially true?
The Lusitania, Maine and Tonkin didn’t even have conspiracy theories associated with them
>And do you actually need me to list
No, I just like watching you get mad
>if you're refusing to deal with that
Not what I said. My point was that you’re associating non-conspiratorial shit (Maine) with literal memes (MKUltra) and actual historical events (Latin America, Africa) as being the same thing. The events in Latin America aren’t conspiracies anymore than Tonkin was. Bullshit used to mislead the public like Bush’s WMD’s? Sure. But not meme bullshit like MKUltra and (((Mockingbird)))
>>
>>10518529
>>the CIA can just bankroll all these people
Yes. A few key people in the major dailies and national periodicals.
>>no one questions their bank returns
Why would it be questioned? It's not as if the checks say "CIA" on them. They set up plausible sounding outfits and make up plausible-sounding cover stories.
>>there’s people who get together and plan what will be said in the media
It's generally understood among them what stories get killed, which ones get pushed, and which things get spun.
>>this all goes off without a hitch daily and they’re able to keep it secret
Once in a while someone spills the beans. Nothing ever happens, though.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/CIA%20Reporters/Item%2001.pdf
>>
>>10518640
>The Lusitania, Maine and Tonkin didn’t even have conspiracy theories associated with them
Yes they did. The Lusitania was LIHOP. The Maine was probably an accident that was used as a convenient excuse to scapegoat Spain. Tonkin was an attempted LIHOP but since that failed, they just hoaxed it into being.
>>
>>10518646
>A few key people
Name ‘em
>They set up plausible sounding outfits
Who? You’re back to the “grand design” shit, m8
>It's generally understood among them
How? What happens when someone disagrees? What if someone goes rogue?
>Nothing ever happens, though.
Almost like it’s because it’s a nothingburger
>>
>>10518640
>Bullshit used to mislead the public like Bush’s WMD’s? Sure.
I'm glad you are at least willing to acknowledge that. It's a start.
>>
>>10518667
>”””LIHOP”””
>conspiracy shit like MKUltra
Pick one
Was Pearl Harbor a “LIHOP” too?
>>
>>10518681
>at least willing to acknowledge that
Pffft
You’re so desperate for things to be a conspiracy it’s hilarious
>>
>>10518670
>Name ‘em
Joseph Alsop, Stewart Alsop, Ben Bradlee, James Reston, Charles Douglas Jackson, Walter Pincus, William Baggs, Herb Gold, and Charles Bartlett, to name a few.
>>
>>10518683
Just so you know, you are arguing with two different anons. I did not mention MK Ultra.

Yes, I think Pearl Harbor was probably a LIHOP.
>>
>>10518340
>Would all these people conspire to take out JFK? Probably. Did they? Probably. Can we prove it beyond reasonable doubt? No.
Here's where your logic breaks down, even assuming everything you said up to that point was true. Showing the likelihood of groups conspiring to kill JFK does not mean THE assassination attempt that actually succeeded was carried out by them. There's an implicit false assumption there, which is that all the groups and people you listed are the only ones who could have killed Kennedy (implicit because therefore one or more of them MUST be involved in the successful assassination). Yet if there were other enemies of Kennedy, he could too have been killed by them. You know full well Kennedy had far more enemies, so by presenting your case as likely you're just lying by omission. It could even be the case that every single group listed in this thread actually conspired another Kennedy but a second killed him.
>>
>>10518716
>Joe and Stewart Alsop
Both dead
>Reston
Dead
>Bradlee
Also dead
>Jackson
Definitely dead
Anon, I...
>>
>>10518631
this is hilarious
>>
>>10518722
>you are arguing with two different anons
Acknowledge that in your (you) then
>a LIHOP
And by this you mean what exactly?
>>
>>10518690
If they lied us into the Iraq War, what makes you think they haven't done it before? No, I don't think EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. But for the big stuff like waging a war, especially one that is obviously not in our interest, requires a little "help". And if you want me to give an example of a war I don't think was started by a false flag or a LIHOP, I'll say the Korean War. There was no equivalent of a Lusitania or a Tonkin and certainly not a 9/11.

There, Happy now?
>>
>>10518757
Do you really think the CIA pressured the Pentagon into the WMD allegations, or the other way around?
>>
>>10518734
You asked for names of journalists who were known to have been in the employ of the CIA. Do you imagine that the CIA suddenly stopped paying off journalists and editors at major dailies and national magazines? Who's being naive, Kay?
>>
>>10518757
>what makes you think they haven't done it before?
Not an argument or evidence that “””they””” have
>the Korean War
So “containment theory” wasn’t a LIHOP but Pearl Harbor was? Korea also wasn’t at all “in our interest”
Do you see the point I’m making, anon?
>>
>>10518726
Now you're reaching. BTW, I did mention earlier that Castro definitely had a motive. So far, I have not seen any evidence he was involved. But I wouldn't reject it out of hand. The people we do know who WERE involved, such as Jack Ruby, had strong mafia and Zionist connections.
>>
>>10518773
>who were known to have been in the employ of the CIA
Sure bud
How is it a secret psy-ops then? If anyone can find out X was in the CIA and the Media that’s a really poorly orchestrated operation
>>
>>10518770
They wouldn't need to pressure them. Both stand to benefit. The military-industrial complex LOVES wars. That's how they make their money.
>>
>>10518782
Containment Theory was their actual realpolitik reasoning, but not quite enough to galvanize a nation into war or have the international community hesitate in their condemnation of war
>>
>>10518801
>but not quite enough to galvanize a nation into war
Except they did with Korea and Vietnam
>or have the international community hesitate in their condemnation of war
Nobody opposed US intervention in Korea until after MacArthur fucked everything up
>>
>>10518794
And yet it still goes on and it works. Until I told you those names, you had no idea. And you probably are better informed than most normies. Most people don't know anything about the journalists who write or produce the stories they read or watch. If some writer at Rolling Stone writes an expose, how many will read it? A few thousand. How many will remember it? A few hundred, at best.

Plans don't have to be perfect. They just have to work more often than not.
>>
>>10518798
>the CIA stands to benefit from obvious lies

how's that? also, the record is quite clear about what happened with WMD in Iraq.
>>
>>10518782
>>what makes you think they haven't done it before?
>Not an argument or evidence that “””they””” have
It's called pattern recognition, anon. If someone routinely lies to you and rips you off, do you continue to trust him? It would be evolutionarily maladaptive to do so. The smart thing to do is to conclude that you're dealing with a sociopathic con man and stop believing the shit he tried to tell you.


>So “containment theory” wasn’t a LIHOP but Pearl Harbor was? Korea also wasn’t at all “in our interest”
No, containment theory wasn't a LIHOP. Yes, I think Pearl Harbor probably was a LIHOP. This shouldn't be hard to grasp, anon.
>>
>>10518789
>Now you're reaching
Do you even know what that word means?
>BTW, I did mention earlier that Castro definitely had a motive. So far, I have not seen any evidence he was involved. But I wouldn't reject it out of hand. The people we do know who WERE involved, such as Jack Ruby, had strong mafia and Zionist connections.
You are either purposefully ignoring what I wrote or failed to comprehend the point.
>>
>>10518846
>It's called pattern recognition
Lmao. Ok bud
>containment theory wasn't a LIHOP
Why? They’re based on the same principle - we retaliate after an attack
>>
>>10517681
Imagine believing they actually killed JFK. Clearly the assassination was faked.
>>
>>10518840
They got their war, didn't they? The liars were never charged, let alone convicted and sent to prison.. The MIC gets another lavishly funded war to engage in and the CIA has whole new playground to do the things they really love doing. Abu Ghraib was their baby. Can't do that at home. But in a war zone thousands of miles away with a demonized enemy? Sky's the limit.
>>
>>10518871
That's why the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 is my litmus test for all politicians.

Only Obama and Sanders passed. You and your parents didn't have to keep voting for the retards who allowed this.
>>
>>10518865
To what end?
>>
>>10518852
>Do you even know what that word means?
I do, yes.

>You are either purposefully ignoring what I wrote or failed to comprehend the point.
You said just because they had means, motive, and opportunity doesn't mean they actually did it, that someone else could have beaten them to the punch. Sure. But why the cover up? How do you explain Jack Ruby's connections? If some unconnected third party got there ahead of them, then that makes their job so much easier. There would be no need to snuff the assassin before he could be interrogated. There would be no need to put Dulles in there to hush things up and lead investigators off on side streets and into cul de sacs. It would just be a straightforward investigation and no need to keep the docs on it classified more than half a century later.
>>
>>10518903
>You and your parents didn't have to keep voting for the retards who allowed this.
We didn't. Stop assuming things about me.
>>
>>10518903
>You and your parents didn't have to keep voting for the retards who allowed this.
Based
>>
>>10518915
My point is, is pretty foolish to blame the CIA and Pentagon when we, the voters, keep voting these people in. Clearly, the American public is OK with whatever happened and it didn't take propaganda and psyops to convince us to keep voting these retards in.
>>
File: shadow-government.jpg (29 KB, 286x287)
29 KB
29 KB JPG
>>10518612
>This, but they would have needed the CIA's OK before proceeding.

Agreed. This was the beginning of the Shadow Government, where the security services call the shots by blackmailing our elected officials. Bush I was Director of the CIA, Vladimir Putin was a high ranking KBG officer and we can all see how the FBI/CIA/NSA/etc. fucked over Trump because he was an outsider who managed to get elected.
>>
>>10518929
You're right. Let's not blame the CIA and the Pentagon. Let's give them a pass and blame ourselves. I think we're done here, anon.

>>10518927
Don't samefag, anon. It's pathetic.

Yep, we're done here. Been fun, buddy.
>>
>>10518934
This. It was a coup d'etat. In broad daylight. And they got away with it.
>>
Imagine being the type of retard who voted for/supported George W Bush, then, 20 years later, spout retarded fantasies about the CIA and "deep state" you helped create.

Let's not pretend the people who put Bush into power are not EXACTLY the same people who voted for Trump because they were mad about the decisions they themselves made 20 years ago when voting. It's fucking pathetic.
>>
>>10518966
>Imagine being the type of retard who voted for/supported George W Bush, then, 20 years later, spout retarded fantasies
You gonna keep beating that straw man?

Time was when the left despised the CIA and called for it to be abolished. Now they go online to protect its reputation from "crazy right-wing conspiracy theorists". What a wacky world we live in now.
>>
>>10518945
>Don't samefag
Cope. Only retards think it takes “muh psy-ops” to convince Americans to vote against their own interest. That’s been obvious since ‘68 when everyone left Humphrey, the man who was against the war, out to dry and voted instead for Richard “I’ll keep fighting” Nixon. Even after the failures of ‘Nam were undeniable, what did our parents do? They voted for Reagan, Bush, and Dubya even after he started another ‘Nam in the Middle East. The american people are just fucking stupid anon. Simple as

>>10518966
/thread
>>
>>10518125
Graham must have so much compromising material on him that anyone could be controlling him. Mossad, CIA, hell even Trump himself could have the goods on him. Trump was, after all, a protege of Roy Cohn, who ran a blackmail operation involving politicians and underage male prostitutes.
>>
>>10518994
>you gonna keep beating that straw man
>read my straw man instead

lol. k.
>>
>>10518994
>the left despised the CIA and called for it to be abolished
Literally when
Leftie boomers ruined their own “peace” movement and then proceeded to vote for war hawks like Reagan and Dubya Sr. straight through Clinton’s “southern democrat” delusion to Dubya Jr.
Where were they when their boy Kerry ran in ‘04?
>>
>>10518966
>>10519009
>>>10518966
>/thread

Painfully obvious samefagging. Sad.
>>
>>10518966
This nigga knows
>>
File: (You).jpg (11 KB, 376x150)
11 KB
11 KB JPG
>>10519025
>>
>>10519030
>>
File: dubya 54543.jpg (837 KB, 2500x2109)
837 KB
837 KB JPG
>>10518966

I voted for Bush twice but the fact is that American elections are a choice between bad and worse, (for both sides) so we're screwed no matter who gets in the White House.

Trump was the last President truly chosen by the People and he only got in because the Powers That Be fucked up and never expected their hand-picked candidate (Hillary) wouldn't win, as literally everybody was saying she already had it in the bag.

The Shadow Government has since tightened it procedures, insuring someone like Trump will never actually win.
>>
>>10518966
>spout retarded fantasies about the CIA and "deep state" you helped create.
The deep state doesn't exist but they helped to create it?
>>
>>10519052
>Cheney’s face behind him
My sides have left this universe
>>
>>10519052
>muh Trump
Peak retard
>>
>>10519009
>They voted for Reagan, Bush, and Dubya
So why didn't Obama get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq? He had 8 years to do so, but he just got us in even deeper.
>>
>>10519052
That's a neat thought process, unfortunately it lacks any credible evidence.

What you call The Shadow Government, I simply call the Electoral College. Threadly reminder the GOP has won the popular vote one time since 1988.
>>
>>10519067
>if only you knew how bad things were
>>
>>10519089
The popular vote is irrelevant.
>>
>>10519052
>vote for a retard with bad policies
>rather than accept that your policies don't work, blame a shadowy conspiracy for forcing the government to implement the policies that you voted for and vehemently supported

the party of personal responsibility
>>
>>10518906
>I do, yes.
Then you should be able to distinguish a contradiction by exception from advocation of that specific exception. The point of the exception is to provide an example that could occur as a consequence of the general principles under which I took issue with your logic. You were supposed to recognize that the specific exception was possible, and this point, the mere possibility of the exception, provided a basis for reflection on the fundamentals of your argument.
>You said just because they had means, motive, and opportunity doesn't mean they actually did it
If "it" refers to the attempt that actually killed Kennedy, yes.
>that someone else could have beaten them to the punch.
As one specific exception which could have followed from those general principles. For example, another exception would be if they attempted to assassinate Kennedy before, but failed in one way or another, and a stranger succeeded. Yet another exception would be if they had the motives for attempt but did not attempt (not all motives lead to action). And yet another exception would be if they were not monolithic structures, in which we separate the individual agent from the organization.
>text after
You are finally engaging with the details specific to the death of Kennedy instead of contextual detours, which I take to mean you finally understood what I was saying. I'll follow on them in another post.
>>
>>10519085
In a word? Responsibility.
>>
>>10519085
>”just pull out bro”
Are you defending the people that got us in there to begin with?
I didn’t mention Obama because I know it’s the easiest way to filter retards like you who always, always go “WELL WHAT ABOUT OBAMA”. He was Kennedy-tier imo - as in, absolutely worthless
>>
>>10519085
The fact that he only named Republicans shows he's partisan. It's why he wants to pooh pooh the Tonkin hoax since that was the pretext a Democrat President used to get us into 'Nam.
>>
>>10519098
Based and Cheney-pilled
>>
>>10519113
Isn't that what you blame Nixon for? That he didn't pull out of Johnson's war?
>>
>>10519114
>to get us into 'Nam.
You’re right, we shouldn’t have used any reason at all and done it JFK’s way
Remember when Ike crushed Vinh’s hopes of coup’ing Diem by threatening to end all US-support in South ‘Nam and it didn’t start a pointless war? Real fucking shame Kennedy do the same instead of getting pushed around on the international stage like a toddler in a stroller
>>
>>10519113
>I didn’t mention Obama because I know it’s the easiest way to filter retards like you who always, always go “WELL WHAT ABOUT OBAMA”
Sure you did. Nice backpedaling.
>>
>>10518934
>>10518949
trump was a total dumbass. funny but retarded. and since were never going to have a proper govenment again he might as well stayed in. americans have completely deluded if they think this place will ever "change" for the better. itll keep going in the direction it has been for decades. ie; corrupt elected officials that are owned by/own themselves huge businesses who will say whatever/do whatever to keep profits high. doesn't matter what it is. the whole gov needs to be brought down, scorched earth. its so far beyond saving the traditional way. cause that way has been broken. so why not have a total buffoon as president? every day he says something else completely retarded and shows show fucking stupid a lot of americans are. it was great! but horrific and depressing but what can you do? just complain on mongolian knitting forums

jfk was total victim of some high level conspiracy. oswald was the patsy, as was the guy who shot him to wrap things up. that was the beginning of a new era for america, one that increased in shittyness once regan got in there, an era we've been stuck in ever since. and people honestly belive this is the best country to live in!! what a bunch of fucking morons, just shows how little people know about anything outside this shithole. fuck america, fuck americans, you got that NSA?
>>
>>10518966
yep my trump loving dad loved both Bushes, and on principle hates and commie liberals. thanks dad and people like you for destroying this country and turning me into a hopeless heroin addict as the only way to numb the pain. thanks a lot
>>
File: US trumpland.png (1 MB, 1600x870)
1 MB
1 MB PNG
>>10519078
>>10519089
>>10519100

Hey, I didn’t particularly care for the guy despite voting for him twice (I wanted Rand Paul) but the fact remains that Trump was an outsider who to everyone’s surprise, won the election and literally from Election Day 2016 onward, the ENTIRE System was stacked against him.

I remember talking to my buddy on election night and telling him Trump wasn’t going to get anything done, as even his _own party_ wanted him out. Sure enough, that’s exactly what happened.
>>
File: cheney4.png (340 KB, 433x379)
340 KB
340 KB PNG
>>10519120
Deep in your heart, you know he was right
>>
>>10519085
>America pulls out of Iraq in 2011
>Al-Maliki purges the Iraqi military and sends deaths squads after the Sunnis that had been supporting the government up that point
>ISIS shows up and beheads Americans on liveleak
>Obama absolutely refuses to send ground troops, uses drones and SOF to slowly bleed them out

>America is supposed to pull out of Afghanistan in 2014
>Afghans turn out to be completely unable to deal with the Taliban
>US is officially "out" but has to intensify aerial bombing to keep the Afghan government from collapsing
>Trump doubles down on the bombing, continues push towards a peace deal
>US doesn't want to 100% pull out without a peace deal, because the Taliban will overrun everything and let Al Qaeda back in and then we'll get 9/11'd again

The TL;DR is that Muslims are retarded and can't run countries
>>
>>10519132
>That he didn't pull out of Johnson's war?
Yes, because he sabotaged the peace talks that could have ended it and then wasted 4 more years there for nothing

>>10519142
>Nice backpedaling
Where did I say Obama doesn’t deserve any blame?
Seethe harder rightoids
>>
>>10519132
>>10519138
Reminder that it was Eisenhower who started US involvement in Vietnam.
>>
File: US clinton_archipelago.png (401 KB, 1600x952)
401 KB
401 KB PNG
>>10519158
>>
>>10519158
>was an outsider who to everyone’s surprise, won the election and literally from Election Day 2016 onward, the ENTIRE System was stacked against him.

So just like Obama?
>>
>>10519162
The hero we needed, but not the one we deserved
>>
>>10519143
Unfortunately, you are correct. We aren't going to vote our way out of this. Anyone who thinks we can is deluded. We will continue down this road until it all falls apart. This is the end of yet another corrupt empire. God only knows what comes after.
>>
>>10519158
People viewed him as an unqualified publicity whore who knew nothing about running a government, which turned out to be true.

The Republicans still gave him massive tax cuts and saved his ass in two impeachment trials, because he gave them so many votes. He just wasn't competent enough to take advantage of it.
>>
>>10519170
Based and Ike-pilled
The 1954 Geneva agreement is the real reason ‘Nam happened
>>
>>10519166
>Muslims are retarded and can't run countries
So we will run it for them, making sure that it remains a shithole that will never get its act together. It's pure coincidence that this is precisely what Israel has wanted for the longest time.
>>
>>10519185
>saved his ass in two impeachment trials
Imagine having your party this far in your back pocket and still fucking up as bad Trump did
MIGAtards will never recover from just how hilariously incompetent Trump was
>>
File: Jeri Ryan.jpg (1.66 MB, 1158x1539)
1.66 MB
1.66 MB JPG
>>10519177
> Obama
> an outsider

LOL, the Powers That Be got Jack Ryan’s divorce transcripts released for no reason except to fuck him over so Obama could win the election and they could later groom him for the Presidency.
>>
>>10519167
>Where did I say Obama doesn’t deserve any blame?
Omitting his name in the Hall of Shame is kind of a clue. But it's nice to see you're not going to try to defend him.
>>
>>10519200
>the Powers That Be
Lizard-people tier cope and delusion, anon
>>
>>10519170
Yes, he sent "advisers" there. But it was Johnson who sent in the troops.
>>
>>10519202
>Omitting his name in the Hall of Shame
I also omitted one Donald J. Trump and one James but I donmt
>>
>>10519207
It's telling that you have to use quotation marks around advisors. It's as if you know the term is bullshit.
>>
>>10519207
>he sent "advisers" there
>but they weren’t “troops”
Inhale the copium

>>10519212
Goddamn timers
Why aren’t you bitching about my omission of Trump, anon?
>>
File: baby-voting.gif (57 KB, 450x312)
57 KB
57 KB GIF
>>10519206
> American politicians are immune to corruption!
>>
Nice to see a JFK assassination thread get derailed into partisan bickering about recent Presidents and away from the CIA, Israel, and the Jewish mob. Mission accomplished, I guess.
>>
>>10519067
god i hate this motherfucker. those arabs had every right to fly planes into "the" american building. but next time target the senate when all those fuckers are in one building at one time. especially that dick mcconnell. make things extra spicy and use zyklon b or some crazy shit. surely they could get chemists in the states to make that shit and smuggle it into the building and boom there ya go. surprised it hasnt happened yet tbhf
>>
>>10519227
>If I use a strawman that will btfo him!
Nice selfie, anon
>>
>>10519230
>the CIA, Israel, and the Jewish mob.

All that's been addressed and we're discussing the effects of JFK being assassinated.
>>
File: shee.jpg (21 KB, 464x450)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
>>10517896
>>
>>10519214
Because they were military trainers as well who led South Vietnamese troops into battle. But those were career military people, not 19-year-old draftees straight from Perkasie and into the shit. There's a difference. Eisenhower was an asshole, but Johnson took it to a whole other level.
>>
>>10519224
>>but they weren’t “troops”
That's right. They were lifers who probably wanted to be there. If you can't see the difference between a few hundred of those and tens of thousands of teen-age conscripts, then I don't know what to tell you.
>>
>>10519250
>career military people, not 19-year-old draftees straight from Perkasie and into the shit.

So just like the last 20 years of war in Iraq?
>>
>>10519244
No, it has stopped being about that. This is now about rating the last twelve Presidents, which is about 30% of the threads on this board these days. It must be boring as hell for non-Americans. No wonder this board gets so little traffic. You can see it when the burgers go to sleep. This place becomes even deader.
>>
>>10519258
>just glossing over Kennedy’s role
What about the 11,000 “””advisers””” that were there by ‘63?
Kennedy giving into Vinh’s demand for a coup to take out Diem, the one Eisenhower said “fuck no” to and Johnson vehemently disagreed with as VP, as well as most of Kennedy’s Cabinet, is what turned Vietnam into the quagmire it became. The US lost all the bargaining power it had with the South once Diem was out of the picture
>>
>>10519234
>hose arabs had every right to fly planes into "the" american building.
Except they didn't actually do that.
>>
>>10519260
We've got more than a few hundred over in Iraq, anon. They got rid of the draft because it's the only way to keep these endless wars going. They definitely learned that lesson from Vietnam.
>>
>>10519319
>They got rid of the draft because it's the only way to keep these endless wars going
>they
Say his name, anon
>>
>>10519319
>They got rid of the draft because it's the only way to keep these endless wars going.

The draft is still with us though. Also, despite what your grandpa told you, it's likely he was drafted into WW2, not enlisted.
>>
>>10519289
That's why I never bought the Oliver Stone version of his assassination--that the MIC killed him because he was going to pull our military out of Vietnam. The idea that JFK was opposed to our involvement in Vietnam is absurd. He was killed for other reasons.
>>
>>10518906
>But why the cover up?
Classified files, the death of Oswald, death of Ruby, what are you referring to? Can you give a specific incident?
>How do you explain Jack Ruby's connections?
Some witnesses interpret Ruby's connections to the Mafia as minimal and some interpret them as significant. That Joe Campisi and his wife visited Ruby after he was arrested shows an undeniable connection to figures that were involved with the Mafia. Yet there's a logical fallacy lurking here: if it were wished for the trail to be covered up, whoever responsible would not wish their connections openly visiting Ruby after his murder of Oswald. Then you have only two options: either Campisi visited Ruby on his own initiative and the Mafia could not prevent him (which would throw Ruby's connections with the Mafia as an organizational context in doubt) or Campisi visited with the Mafia's consent (which would contradict that the Mafia wanted to cover this up). A possibility that could be true in either of these scenarios is that the Mafia is not monolithic, in which case the entire idea of ascribing responsibility to them becomes less relevant.
>If some unconnected third party got there ahead of them, then that makes their job so much easier. There would be no need to snuff the assassin before he could be interrogated.
This assumes your previous question, that they connected Ruby to kill Oswald. Since I already talked about that, let's assume it for the sake of argument. If they had planned to kill Kennedy, there is the possibility that their plans would be uncovered regardless of if they were behind the specifics or not. In the event they weren't, the simple discovery they planned to kill the President would already be incriminating, and provide the motivation to complicate investigation in a thousand directions such that the real one becomes harmlessly indistinguishable. Oswald was a storied man, and his death would tie up investigations into every detour of his life.
TBC
>>
>>10519334
N-n-n-no.
Kek
>>
>>10519339
You are obliged to register for selective service, but they haven't called anyone up since 'Nam, and for good reason: It would be the end of the endless wars & occupations. There's no need for them to relive that headache, not when you can just push economic policies that encourage young men without means to agree to join the service so that they can at least learn a skill and get some money for college which they would otherwise never be able to afford. Now we've got a "volunteer" military and draft riots are a distant memory.
>>
>>10519339
>despite what your grandpa told you, it's likely he was drafted into WW2, not enlisted.
Neither of my grandfathers fought. My paternal grandfather was a surgeon in a US military hospital. My maternal grandfather worked as a chemical engineer stateside developing a formula for artificial rubber, since the Japanese had seized all those rubber-tree plantations in Southeast Asia.
>>
>>10519350
>That's why I never bought the Oliver Stone version
Good on you, anon. Stone is a complete hack in every way possible.
>The idea that JFK was opposed to our involvement in Vietnam is absurd
Not only that, but he knew he couldn’t just pull out of ‘Nam anymore than Johnson could. If Kennedy had waited until after ‘64, as the “he would have pulled out” narrative claims, he would have destroyed the Democratic party from within and lost any chance of getting anything through Congress for the next 4 years. When Truman “lost” China to Mao after WWII the Republicans hounded him on it so hard that they won back both majorities in Congress. Johnson feared the same thing and so tried to work a “middle way”. Had Kennedy lived he would have been forced to do the same or, if he had pulled out, he would have been tarred and feathered to death and be remembered as a complete failure today
>>
>>10519194
We were chilling until Bush decided it would be a great idea to bring them a democracy.

It's dumb blaming anyone else when it was the policy of elected leaders, who the Republicans supported and actively worked to give more power.
>>
>>10519425
>We were chilling until Bush decided it would be a great idea to bring them a democracy.
You have to claim you're bringing them democracy and then stage some plausible-looking elections. How else are you going to justify the whole operation?

Our elected leaders are mostly puppets with little leeway or personal discretion. If you think Dubya was really running things...I mean, come on. He was a figurehead. Cheney and others were pulling the strings.
>>
>>10518316
This is what I think happened. A conspiracy to hide incompetence. >>10518369
I was called a glownigger last time I mentioned it as well.
>>
>>10519473
While certainly possible, it does come off as some secondary narrative to haul out when the primary narrative starts to unravel. Intelligence agencies always have contingency plans.
>>
File: rejected_his_message.jpg (68 KB, 600x600)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
>>10518966
>Let's not pretend the people who put Bush into power are not EXACTLY the same people who voted for Trump because they were mad about the decisions they themselves made 20 years ago when voting. It's fucking pathetic.

This is of course 100% true, and we might add the same person who also voted for "bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" McCain and ESPECIALLY worshipped Sarah-Fucking-Palin the boobtastic trial-run for Drumpf.

It's really nice that these people are waking up to the idea that being a lapdog for Likud isnt equitable and not in Americas best interests. It's too bad that they still havent learned how not to compulsively vote for a retard, every time.
>>
>>10518906
Continuing
There is also the question of Oswald's word on the matter. Oswald maintained that he was set up by bigger organizations than him, and denied every detail. Certainly if you believe that he was set up and start from there then everything against him is excused: the forged card was planted, the photographs were doctored, his package contained his lunch, he was haplessly eating lunch in the lounge and set up. But there's the rub, you work from the conclusion to the details. And yet if we were to accept Oswald's word and organizations of as much power as you, we must ask: were such organizations able to control the medium of Oswald's investigation? There are only two options: either they were, or they weren't.
If they were, then they either didn't feel threatened enough by Oswald's comments to prevent their publication or didn't realize he would deny it. If it's the former, they lack the motivation to kill Oswald. If it's the latter, they are mindbogglingly, indescribably retarded and this entire framework is in doubt. A third possibility is that they simply made up the interrogation, in which case it becomes very odd for them to make up testimony that a larger organization was behind the killing.
If they weren't, then we must wonder: how much power do they have? To get here, we've assumed they had enough power to kill the President, the fall guy, perhaps Ruby too. Yet they were unable to control the media, the politicians that doubt, and the police, which means the support they can rely on operate outside of them. They operate outside of the people who can order investigations, the people who can investigate, and the people that report on investigation. Yet they committed an act that would concern all three groups at the maximal extent imaginable, and secured an opportunity to kill Oswald within hours of the media climax on him, instead of during the window of time when he had no attention, no custody, and no interrogation.
TBC
>>
>>10519712
>the boobtastic trial-run
Kek
>>
>>10519782
There was a generation between LBJ and Biden though. Not 15 years.
>>
>>10519785
Yeah, I keked at that one, too. I can't stand Sarah "Tits" Palin. I wouldn't mind going back in time to 30 years ago and fucking her brains out, though.
>>
>>10519870
Then you're part of the problem. Stop voting for corrupt warmongering puppets.
>>
>>10519870
>Biden could have personally led the Congressional charge for starting the Iraq war and I would have still voted for him over the spray-tanned, balding joke of a “businessman” that was his counterpart
That shows how seriously you're affected by TDS.
>>
>>10519782
You'd be correct if you had said that many of the same people who voted for JFK & LBJ also voted for McGovern and at that point blamed Nixon for Vietnam.
>>
>>10519877
>Stop voting for corrupt warmongering puppets
Voting or not voting isn’t going to dismantle a century-old war machine, dipshit. I’m voting based on domestic policy not “muh moral superiority”

>>10519882
>TDS
Lmao. How’s that copium, anon? Trump still has time to “drain the swamp”, amirite?
>>
>>10519927
>Voting or not voting isn’t going to dismantle a century-old war machine, dipshit. I’m voting based on domestic policy not “muh moral superiority”
No, you're just an enabler who rationalizes his behavior for muh gibs. Stop feeding the beast.
>>
>>10519926
It's not really a partisan issue. The only solution is to stop buying into the con game.
>>
>>10519947
>you're just an enabler
Nothing I do effects international policy anymore than your actions do. I get that you want to pat yourself on the back because you claim the higher ground, but be real anon
>>
>>10519992
One person can't accomplish anything. But millions of people opting out and refusing to comply will have a big effect. You can either be part of the problem or be part of the solution.
>>
>>10520004
>millions of people
Let me know when that’s likely in a country where the national attention span doesn’t last longer than 3 days and I’ll be happy to join in
>>
>>10518906
Let us return to Oswald and Ruby. Oswald always hints bigger organizations were behind everything, but neglects to go into any great detail about them. He was being framed for killing the President of the United States! And he knew those organizations were powerful enough to kill JFK and frame him for it! If Oswald was clever enough to consistently distinguish questions of detail over a 12 hour interrogation so that he could be silent on them, I find it difficult to believe he was dumb enough to think he could not escape those same powerful organizations. Then we must conclude he had his reasons for remaining silent.
Could it have been fear of what they could do to his loved ones? Then why hint their involvement? Did he think wry hinting would be acceptable, from the organization that killed the president of the United States?
Could it have been to prevent a premature self-incrimination before getting a lawyer? Then again, why would he hint he knew and was so capable (particularly the claim he could show the photographs were forgeries)? Why would he think saying large organizations were involved and framing him would not be incriminating, but actually detailing those organizations would be? It would be understandable for a scared (but honest) innocent to say he was framed, but Oswald makes his claims with a confidence inconsistent with terror. Would a terrified lamb retort that he could show the photographs were forgeries, or that the interrogators knew as much as he did? Would a man wary of incriminating himself on specific details in general be willing to provide the specifics of where he was, what he was doing, what was in his bag, when Tippit was shot?
TBC
>>
>>10518906
But avoiding Oswald, let us turn to Ruby. Sometimes Ruby says he acted spontaneously, but he also provides (or seems to, through accounts) countless morsels of hinting he knew far more.
>After Oswald was shot, Grammer, who knew Ruby, and found the voice familiar at the time of the call, identified Ruby as the caller. Grammer remained convinced that Ruby's shooting of Oswald was "a planned event".[54][55]
>Archer said that Ruby looked him straight in the eye and said, "Well, I intended to shoot him three times."
>Ruby wrote: "Joe, you should know this. My first lawyer Tom Howard told me to say that I shot Oswald so that Caroline and Mrs. Kennedy wouldn't have to come to Dallas to testify. OK?"[53]:158[56][4]:353[48]
>In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Russell Lee Moore Knight said that Ruby held no bitterness towards Oswald
>During his testimony, Ruby teared up when talking about a Saturday morning eulogy for President Kennedy, but after composing himself, inexplicably said, "I must be a great actor, I tell you that."[34]:198–199[48]
>Ruby also remarked that "they didn't ask me another question: 'If I loved the President so much, why wasn't I at the parade?'" (referring to the presidential motorcade) and "it's strange that perhaps I didn't vote for President Kennedy, or didn't vote at all, that I should build up such a great affection for him".[61]:564–565[48]
>A year after his conviction, in March 1965, Ruby conducted a brief televised news conference in which he stated: "Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world." When asked by a reporter, "Are these people in very high positions, Jack?", he responded "Yes."[63]
TBC
>>
>>10519926
>of the same people who voted for JFK & LBJ also voted for McGovern
Voter turnout in ‘72 dropped by almost 6% compared to ‘68
>at that point blamed Nixon for Vietnam
As they well should have. His involvement in Cambodia is what kicked off the student protests that led to the Kent state shooting. Say all you want about who “started” ‘Nam, Nixon undeniably made it worse
>>
>>10520088
Remember the NeverTrump movement, where quite a few prominent Republicans endorsed Hillary? Remember how hardly any of them had his back in the stolen election? Not convicting him in his impeachment trials was pure party survival and had nothing to do with their opinion of him as a man.

>so what is your point?
My point is that millions of Trump voters no longer trust the Republican Party. They view it as the Democratic Party's twin brother, the pair of them being partners in evil. .Many of them have become permanently disillusioned with partisan politics and don't want to play that game anymore. I don't know what will happen. Maybe you're right and they'll forget about it come 2024. Or maybe this was the final straw and they've given up completely on elections. We shall see.
>>
>>10520169
>My point is that millions of Trump voters no longer trust the Republican Party.

These are the same retards who voted for George W Bush 15 years before Trump. As I posted earlier ITT. Who gives a fuck what they think?
>>
>>10520169
>pure party survival
In an effort to keep which voters? The anti-Trumpers?
>They view it as the Democratic Party's twin brother
That’s hardly a new development. As long as the GOP stays with Trump, even only in voicing their dissent like McConnell, they’ll stick with it. Plus, they have Hawley, Cruz, etc. who went to bat for Trump
The only people dropping out from the Republican party are anti-Trumpers, not his supporters
>>
CIA as revenge for getting rid of the Dulles brothers and to protect their own organization from being restrained. Bush Sr. was a key conspirator, high possibility of Israeli knowledge as well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gk9dXa31lk
>>
>>10518316
I thought this one was disproven, although I don't remember the evidence at all.
>>
>>10519052
>Trump was the last President truly chosen by the People
>loses the popular vote twice
>>
>>10520190
Many of them were, yes. But now some of them have started to wake up.

>Who gives a fuck what they think?
If there are tens of millions of them, both parties and the U.S. government cares what they think. If these tens of millions of them decide that there's no voting their way out of this rat-trap, then who knows what they'll do? The government will have good reason to be very worried.
>>
Corscian hitmen hired by Sam Giancana, but with the widespread approval of the Mutt feds and Mutt establishment, in part because JFK had been fucking literally everyone's wives, daughters and mistresses, that salty Irish devil
>>
>>10518906
>Dallas Deputy Sheriff Al Maddox claimed: "Ruby told me, he said, 'Well, they injected me for a cold.' He said it was cancer cells. That's what he told me, Ruby did. I said you don't believe that bullshit. He said, 'I damn sure do!' [Then] one day when I started to leave, Ruby shook hands with me and I could feel a piece of paper in his palm ... [In this note] he said it was a conspiracy and he said ... if you will keep your eyes open and your mouth shut, you're gonna learn a lot. And that was the last letter I ever got from him." In the note, Ruby claimed he was part of a conspiracy, and that his role was to silence Oswald.[65]
>Not long before Ruby died, according to an article in the London Sunday Times, he told psychiatrist Werner Teuter that the assassination was "an act of overthrowing the government" and that he knew "who had President Kennedy killed". He added: "I am doomed. I do not want to die. But I am not insane. I was framed to kill Oswald."[65][66][4]:341
From all of that, we can draw a couple conclusions about Ruby. If he was really involved as part of a grand conspiracy, he could not keep his mouth shut about it. If a powerful organization threatened him, he regularly failed to protect them. Which brings us to three simple questions:
1. If Ruby was bold enough to offer all this, why was he wary enough to avoid specific details about it?
2. If they could kill Oswald in days, why did it take years for them to kill Ruby?
...a. If Ruby's morsels and your framework are true, then JFK's killers would have only gotten more powerful after Oswald's death.
...b. If [...] true, then between Ruby and Oswald, Ruby was more egregiously in need of silencing.
3. If Ruby was such an open faucet, why was he the chosen one for the most high-profile murder since JFK? And if he was such an open faucet... see question 1
It's getting very late here, so I'm off to bed. But I think I've provided some food for thought.
>>
>>10520230
>>loses the popular vote twice
I mean, he may well not have.
>>
>>10520237
>conservatives stop voting because they're upset with the damage they've caused

nice.
>>
>>10520305
Well, depending on who and where you are, that might be cause for greater worry. When people stop believing and lose all hope in their system of government, things can get ugly.
>>
>>10520300
>But I think I've provided some food for thought.
You have indeed. Thank you, anon. I will copy these comments and keep them in mind when reading up on the JFK assassination case.
>>
>>10520301
>>he may well not have.
>they faked 8 million+ votes
Holy fucking cope
>>
>>10520317
>When people stop believing and lose all hope in their system of government, things can get ugly.

lol. americans have never really voted in large numbers. if anything, people are becoming MORE engaged with their government, as the last several turnouts prove.

Even with record high turnout, 1 in 3 of us still do NOT vote.
>>
>>10520299
>Voting for literally anyone that isn't Trump and "going Dem" are two different things.
If the GOP is going to do what you predicted and remain a pro-Trump party,, then yes, the anti-Trumpers will go Dem.

>Richard Spencer went anti-Trump because he realized Trump wasn't the white nationalist god-emperor he wanted
He still went Dem. When push came to shove, he sided with the most establishment candidate there was, a candidate who is DEFINITELY not the white nationalist god-emperor. But Spencer is probably a fed anyway. Still, I thought his defection was the silliest thing in this entire silly election season.

McConnell, Graham, et al might have voted to acquit Trump, but they fought his agenda every step of the way. Like I said, acquitting Trump was nothing more than a necessary move to keep the party together.
>>
>>10520337
This is purely anecdotal on my part, but I have never seen so many people so thoroughly disgusted and disillusioned as I did after the 2020 election debacle. For the first time I am hearing patriotic conservative types say that America no longer exists and that we are living under an occupation government. They are bitterly disillusioned and are hoarding food and ammunition. These people are dead serious. They're not crackpot types either. They're regular working-class types with homes and families of their own, real pillar-of-the-community types. I've been around a while and I've never seen it like this before.
>>
>>10520415
This is purely anecdotal on my part, but I have never seen so many people so thoroughly disgusted and disillusioned as I did after the 2016 election debacle. For the first time I am hearing patriotic liberal types say that America no longer exists and that we are living under an occupation government. They are bitterly disillusioned and are hoarding food and ammunition. These people are dead serious. They're not crackpot types either. They're regular working-class types with homes and families of their own, real pillar-of-the-community types. I've been around a while and I've never seen it like this before.
>>
>>10520431
Did these liberal types actually start hoarding food and ammo, though?
>>
>>10520415
>For the first time
Where were you during Obama?
>>
>>10520391
>his agenda
And that was... what exactly?
>>
>>10520444
There was a little bit of that during Obama, but as I said, it wasn't anything like what I've seen and heard lately. It has probably been building for a long time and this election might be the straw the broke the camel's back. Or not. We'll see.
>>
>>10520449
Build the wall, deport them all.
Don't start any new wars. Start bringing the troops home.
>>
>>10517729
>JFK also had sympathies for Hitlerian ideology and was most likely woke on the JQ.
Source?
>>
>>10520457
Imagine being middle class and spending your entire life voting for tax breaks for the wealthy, then 40 years later, when fuckall trickled down to you, you blamed Democrats and Mexicans.

They're fucking hopelessly lost and whatever actions they're taking now are unmoored from reality and not worth discussing. Especially in anecdotal form.
>>
>>10520496No, they blamed the GOP, too, it's just that the Democrats not only weren't any better but also openly hostile towards them. But don't worry, they've given up on either party. That should worry you. When tens of millions of people no longer believe they have any stake in they system, they are more difficult to control. When they finally chimp out, it won't be a bunch of neighborhood mom & pop shops burning down. It will be organized and very specific.
>>
>>10519350
(((Stone))) obfuscating the Jewish political angle
>>
>>10520644
>When tens of millions of people no longer believe they have any stake in they system, they are more difficult to control.

Explain slavery.
>>
>>10520644
Point is, perhaps they should look in the mirror. This is a representative democracy...
>>
>>10520771
>This is a representative democracy..
Princeton says we're a plutocratic oligarchy.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
>>
>>10520760
That is the ultimate goal: a slave society run by a tiny oligarchy in a technocratic neofeudal global estate. We'll see if these armed farmers and ex-military guys go gentle into that good night or not.
>>
>>10519143
finally. the truth
>>
>>10520771
>democracy
Oof
>>
>>10517681
Take your meds schizo. No one can even prove jfk existed let alone was assaininated
>>
>>10520760
Slavery required cooperation of a significant part of the population. In the US South there were lots of poor whites who racial privileges in return for support the rich big-time slave owners. Whites were either majority in some southern states, or else at least 30-40% of the population.

In places in the Americas without many whites they gave privileges to the mixed-race light-skins over the dark-skinned blacks, so they had a reason to support the system. They gave local-born creole blacks privileges over the ones brought from Africa. They gave some slaves higher positions and more privileges, so they had a reason to support the system. And so on.

When too many people stopped supporting slavery, the system fell apart. Examples- Haitian Revolution (elite slaves and free mulattoes turn against slavery), and Brazil (common population turns against slavery, slaves walk away from plantations, no one willing to stop them for the slave owners).
>>
>>10517709
The mob aspect is so overblown
It was Israel all the way
>>
>>10521204
based retard
>>
>>10518547
holy fuck we get it youre an alpahbet org nigger, now can you fuck off this board and go jack off to cuckold porn glowie
>>
>>10520489
His ass
>>
>>10517753
This.
>>
>no mention of king-kill 33 in the entire thread
http://whale.to/b/kennedy.html
http://whale.to/c/death_of_john_kennedy.html
http://whale.to/b/kingkill_33.html
>>
>>10518057
Because of retards like the two that have answered to you can the evil ones do the things they do.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.