Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Assassinations of the 1960s as Deep Events - Peter Dale Scott

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
reprehensor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-08 07:34 PM
Original message
October 17, 2008
by Peter Dale Scott

For over two years now I have been speaking and writing about what I call deep events. I mean by deep events the traumatic and unexpected episodes that recur periodically in US history and alter it, nearly always for the worse. These deep events can never be properly analyzed or understood, because of an intelligence dimension which results in a socially imposed veil of silence, both in the government and in the Mainstream Media.

The more that I look at these deep events comparatively, ranging over the past five decades, the more similarities I see between them, and the more I understand them in the light of each other. I hope in this paper to use analogies from the murder of JFK and 9/11 to cast new light on the murders of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy.1

I began this analysis in 2006 by comparing the JFK assassination with 9/11. I drew attention to over a dozen similarities, of which today I will be focusing on only four:

1) the remarkable and puzzling speed with which those in power identified what I call the designated culprits (Lee Harvey Oswald and the 19 alleged hijackers),

2) the self-incriminating trail allegedly left by the culprits themselves -- such as the bundle that James Earl Ray is said to have conveniently left in a doorway on his way to his car. Oswald was said to have carried a flagrantly falsified draft card identifying himself with the name A.J. Hidell, thus consolidating a link between himself and the Mannlicher-Carcano which had been ordered under that name.2 Even more spectacularly, Mohamed Atta was said to have left one rental car in the Boston airport, filled with boxcutters and other incriminating items; he then allegedly rented a second car and drove to Maine, where he packed bags with still more self-incriminating material.3

3) the CIA's withholding of relevant information about the designated culprits from the FBI, thus leaving the culprits free to play their allotted roles in Dallas and later on 9/11. I will say more about this.

4) the role of drug-trafficking in both JFK and 9/11 -- and indeed in virtually every major deep event since JFK, specifically including MLK, RFK, Watergate, the Letelier assassination, and Iran-Contra.

This hypothesis of an underlying continuity and similarity between JFK, 9/11, and intervening deep events suggests that we should look for some continuing and hostile force within our society to help explain them -- and not, as we have been encouraged, to blame them uniquely on external forces -- such as either Castro (in the case of Oswald) or angry Middle Eastern Muslims (in the case of 9/11). I want to suggest that this continuing force, though involving elements from the CIA and other intelligence agencies, should be sought primarily in the CIA's interface with mob elements, and particularly with what I have called the CIA's global drug connection.4

Continued...
http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20081027180954929
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
PatrickSMcNally Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-08 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. "primarily in the CIA's interface with mob elements"
One thing odd about this thesis is that Guiliani's record has involved some major mob-busting:

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

-----
Mafia Commission trial

In the Mafia Commission Trial (February 25, 1985November 19, 1986), Giuliani indicted eleven organized crime figures, including the heads of New York's so-called "Five Families", under the RICO Act on charges including extortion, labor racketeering, and murder for hire. Time magazine called this "Case of Cases" possibly "the most significant assault on the infrastructure of organized crime since the high command of the Chicago Mafia was swept away in 1943", and quoted Giuliani's stated intention: "Our approach...is to wipe out the five families."<33> Eight defendants were found guilty on all counts and subsequently sentenced on January 13, 1987 to hundreds of years of prison time.

Boesky, Milken trials

Ivan Boesky was a Wall Street arbitrageur who had amassed a fortune of about US$200 million by betting on corporate takeovers. He was investigated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for making investments based on tips received from corporate insiders. These stock acquisitions were sometimes brazen, with massive purchases occurring only a few days before a corporation announced a takeover.

Although insider trading of this kind was illegal, laws prohibiting it were rarely enforced until Boesky was prosecuted. Boesky cooperated with the SEC and informed on several of his insiders, including junk bond trader Michael Milken:

"Boesky admitted to numerous offenses and then turned state's evidence, primarily against Milken. He received a 3 1/2 year prison sentence and $100 million fine after admitting to the charges and reached a plea bargain with Rudy Giuliani... draw criticism because Ivan was allowed to unload his holdings before his indictment was officially announced, realizing profits from it before being convicted. Others considered the sentence and fine as being too light. But Giuliani and company was after a much bigger fish, namely Milken."<34>

In 1989, Giuliani charged Milken under the RICO Act with 98 counts of racketeering and fraud. In a highly-publicized case, Milken was indicted by a federal grand jury, and pleaded guilty to six lesser securities and reporting violations. He paid a total of $900 million in fines and settlements relating primarily to civil lawsuits and was banned for life from the securities industry.
-----

I'm not trying to imply that I like Guiliani. But, at least at face value, it's really hard to see him as someone involved in working with the mob specifically. So presumably Scott means to imply that Guiliani is out of the loop of any possible conspiracy? But don't most versions suggest that he was involved somehow? So how does Scott reconcile this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-08 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. How does the biggest crime family get to *be* the biggest crime family?
Easy.. they turn in, or kill off, their competition. It happens all the time. It's not a big secret...

When the biggest crime family controls elements of the government, there's really no stopping them...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatrickSMcNally Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-08 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. "How does the biggest crime family get to *be* the biggest crime family?"
Regardless, your statement is very different from Scott's thesis and is clearly in conflict with it. Scott very explicitly puts forward a thesis which places an accent on the classical Mafia, and attempts to trace its involvement all the way back to at least the 1960s as the key ingredient. What you're doing is throwing out Scott's thesis, arguing that the Mafia has been killed off as a competitor by someone else and therefore Scott's argument is wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. " One thing odd about this thesis is that Guiliani's record has involved some major mob-busting:"
Did you not understand the answer to your own implied question? You seemed to be asking why Rudy would prosecute mob figures if he was mobbed up himself...

" One thing odd about this thesis is that Guiliani's record has involved some major mob-busting:"

Maybe you should learn a little bit about organized crime before you try to discuss it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatrickSMcNally Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-08 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. "Maybe you should learn a little bit about organized crime ..."
Or maybe you should try figuring what Scott means by "organized crime" when he uses the term. In everything of his which I've seen he suggests the classical mob and tries drawing connections to such from the 1960s up to the present day. Of course Guiliani is not part of "organized crime" in that sense. He's worked energetically to put it out of business (even if one wishes to argue that he was only doing so to enable a new gang to take its place). The connection which Scott is attempting to draw breaks down in the face of that. You simply are debating how the term "organized crime" may be used, not the merits of Scott's thesis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-08 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Maybe you should figure out that I was replying to *you*, not the OP or Scott's thesis
You also said:

"I'm not trying to imply that I like Guiliani. But, at least at face value, it's really hard to see him as someone involved in working with the mob specifically."

I addressed that in my first reply to you. Some cops, and politicians, are as corrupt as they come. Have you ever seen a cop guard a load of cocaine being transported? I have.

Here's how it works: a cop is being paid off by a certain gang (mob). The gang has info on another gang invading their turf. They get their bought & paid for cop to bust the other gang.

If Rudy had ties to one mob outfit, it would benefit them to have him take down the other outfits, would it not?

All I'm attempting to do is show you that your statement "One thing odd about this thesis is that Guiliani's record has involved some major mob-busting:" .... isn't as "odd" as you think it would be...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatrickSMcNally Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-01-08 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. "I was replying to *you*, not the OP or Scott's thesis"
But I was specifically looking at Scott's thesis and my usage of the word "mob" was specifically meant to be commensurate with his own usage. Turning this into a debate about how the word "mob" can be used just takes us further away from Scott's argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-30-08 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. Ran thru it quickly -- love Scott -- one of those originally keeping after the '63
coup on US government -- and amazing how much these independent investigators accomplished!

Basically, the violent few among us who want to dominate can only do so thru violence.

And that's the way they do it --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-31-08 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. This doesn't make sense
Edited on Fri Oct-31-08 08:11 PM by noise
The CIA's concealing of information from the FBI about Oswald and the hijackers was necessary for the designated culprits to play their allotted roles in the deep events. In both cases the FBI later complained that the withholding of information was crucial in enabling the deep events to occur. It would be wrong to assume that the withholding of information, though deliberate, had the assassination and plane hijackings in mind. It is perhaps more likely that Oswald and al-Mihdhar were being protected by the CIA for some other operation -- possibly against Cuba (in the case of Oswald), or to penetrate existing al-Qaeda cells in the US (in the case of al-Hamzi and al-Mihdhar).

But someone in the CIA with knowledge of these sensitive files, and intent on a criminal deep event, could have used the sensitive identities of Oswald and al-Mihdhar as designated culprits in the plots, knowing that the CIA would be virtually coerced into cover-up because of the embarrassing manipulations of their files on these individuals.


How and why would someone at the CIA frame the institutional CIA in such a manner?

Why should we believe the CIA's secret, illegal operations were good faith pursuits? Are we to believe everything we've been told about 9/11 is bullshit? The CIA lied to cover for well intentioned CIA secret operations which were exploited by rogue CIA officials?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
10. Not deep enough. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 17th 2019, 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC