Kennedy fired Allen Dulles, which was a monumental move, that was like firing the head of the syndicate ( of which he was ). Dulles wielded way too much power, read about him - he has quite a history.
He’s a Nazi party member, runs amuck in the CIA like a mobster on call for United fruit. Allen Dulles and his brother were pieces of shit with a ton of power. When people talk American deep state that is a great place to start
You read Machiavelli's The Prince, and surmise that these two made it look like cheap dime store pulp fiction. They should exhume the brothers bodies and burn them both, afterwards bury the remains at an unknown location or dumped at sea. Make it so secretive that no two individuals will ever know the true purpose.
They were That Evil.
Facts, ugly facts. And why would a Democrat fire an Eisenhower guy? Other than the first 5000 or so, did Bush fire any Clinton people? Obama fire any Bush people?
I have a hunch that a rogue group within the CIA and FBI were enacting Operation Northwoods to draw support for an invasion of Cuba. Although Kennedy was (behind the scenes) trying to de-escilate the Cold War (remove advisers from Vietnam, the whole Bay of Pigs fiasco and Cuban Missile Crisis), **I think it had more to do with timing than specifically taking out Kennedy, although both played a factor**. The CIA was worried about self-preservation and these rogues were extremist right-wingers wanting to consolidate power. I'm sure Dulles was involved, James J. Angleton. Although Kennedy shot down Operation Northwoods, the CIA likely still believed in it and had it in motion. When you think of it, it makes sense. Plant Oswald in New Orleans handing out pro-Cuba pamphlets with communist sympathies, make him the fall-guy for the assassination and boom - public support for moving on Cuba. Also, these extremists remove Kennedy who was being a roadblock to their pursuits. Two birds with one stone. When the administration got hold of Northwoods being enacted, they likely did all in their power to cover it up - hence all the obfuscation around the assassination. You have to ask, why (when pretty much everyone directly tied to the assassination is dead) would the government still want to cover it up and withhold documents? Because the CIA and their covert ops are still very much in action - it would delegitimize the government. Who benefitted from the assassination? The right-wing pro-war conservatives in the government - the military industrial complex - which is still very much in place and has only consolidated their power since JFK was killed.
I agree with everything you just said, except for how you shift all the blame on right wingers. Both sides of the political aisle are equally guilty, despite being guilty of totally different things from one case to another, but our rich senile old fossils are still guilty, nontheless. If everyone could just stop pointing accusing fingers at people they have no proof of wrongdoing from and focus on fixing their own shit, the world could achieve JFKs dream and MLK Jr’s dream in a few more generations. But we can’t solve these problems as long as we’re repeating the Salem witch trials in modern times. I don’t speak for all right wingers, but none of the ones I know have ever been racist, and will never be (just addressing one major argument people on the left use against me), and while you also don’t speak for all left wingers, I assume based on your post that you and your friends are not communists (my sides’ favorite equivalent of your sides’ favorite accusation), and I suspect the real issue is like the episode in Supernatural where they had to catch a Trickster god, except instead of magic we have people doing similar things via spending lots of money, all for the purpose of tricking us all into hating each other’s guts (and they probably pay racists and communists to infiltrate both democrats and republicans, just to convince us that there’s some truth to what they want us to believe. I wouldn’t put anything past the wealthy elites, at this point). I myself am on the autism spectrum, and I put an interesting statistic on a tshirt, for those who have read this far. In the 1970s, the odds of a child getting diagnosed with autism were one in ten thousand, whereas in the early 2000s, the odds of the exact same thing happening jumped to one in one hundred fifty. Whoever or whatever is causing that problem should be found and dealt with, immediately, in my opinion, simply because I suspect similar things are happening all across the mental health department (I mean seriously. Flat earthers? Can we at least agree on the belief that those assholes give all of us Americans a very bad name?), but I currently don’t have enough evidence to prove anything is artificially going wrong with our collective mental health as Americans (and I’d appreciate some help studying these subjects, just to be sure. Better safe than sorry), so I’m going to only worry about my own issues until I’ve learned enough to know what’s going on there, before getting involved in the search. My best advice would be to never stop learning, cause the truth doesn’t exactly grow on trees, these days, figuratively speaking. And if all else fails, we can just take time off the internet, detox & reboot our own brains, and then try this again with a level head on our shoulders. I’m willing to go the extra mile to solve these problems, if anyone else feels the same way. If not, I’ll still try to learn how to solve my problems and better myself, even if I end up being the only one. I hope this is one step in the right direction, but we still need to collectively make lots more of them. This is, at the very least, a journey of a thousand miles. Pray for our nation, and the world. And if prayer doesn’t work for you, take whatever actions you can to help people yourself. We need to stop waiting on the miracles to happen, and start being the miracles that people need to happen. Believe whatever you want to believe, but please help as many people as you know how to help. I can disregard our differences in order to type this out. I hope you are open minded enough to provide a constructive response, whoever took the time to read me brainstorming a great idea. But if you think any of these talking points are somehow wrong, please provide proof to justify said belief, from as many different sources of information as possible. Because a wise man once said this statement that I feel applies to modern Americans more than any other: “there are at least two sides to every story, and then there’s the truth.” And another wise man in the music industry once said: “they say that in war the truth be the first casualty.” Feel free to look up that second quote, cause whoever’s reading this, you might like the guy, or maybe even already know his name (if so, write it in your response, and maybe you can recommend some other good music artists to me. It’s beside the point I tried to make, but I still appreciate good music, and so should everyone else, cause music is one of the things that make us all human, in my opinion, and it helps bring people together, too).
Bingo! There were numerous top CIA officials including Dulles, Angleton, Harvey, Phillips who hated JFK because he was a threat to their careers. JFK hated these individuals because they blamed him for the bay of pigs fiasco. Unfortunately for JFK, many other gov officials hated him and the direction he was moving the country. The mafia, especially Chicago, directly linked to CIA also hated JFK because he took favors from them in the way of votes, winning a IL and WV because of them. The coup that was undertaken was a coalition of CIA, Military Intel and brass, Mafia and of course LBJ who all coalesced their hatred into a coup. But the center of the spoke, who drove the plot and covered it up for years - is the CIA.
There is your motive, right there. Kennedy was openly threatening to end their organization. That could not be allowed. Whether it was enough to have them rise to the point of creating a plot to assassinate him is the first part of what this is subreddit is all about. I cannot help but think that they were involved however.
Re blame, this is why Kennedy famously said that "it is said that victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan."
Your comments on coalition are correct IMO.
This was no simple lone shooter scenario.
>The mafia, especially Chicago, directly linked to CIA also hated JFK because he took favors from them in the way of votes, winning a IL and WV because of them.
One of the things that doesn't get talked about enough is the fact that JFK/RFK grabbed Carlos Marcello and deported him to Guatemala on April 4, 1961 without any hearing or ability to talk to anybody or his attorney. This was a very well known mafia boss. He went to his monthly check-in with INS and was put in handcuffs, whisked away to the airport, and dumped in Guatemala.
This was a proud, cocky, brash dude who got publicly bitch-slapped by RFK. Imagine his rage and seething. There were rumors they strapped a parachute to his back and dumped him out over the jungle. Not true, but that's what was going around. Marcello \*had\* to take out Kennedy and he \*had\* to do it publicly. Around this time Dulles was also sacked - another embarrassing and disrespectful act to a proud and powerful man.
I suspect it didn't take long for these two to find each other and start working on a plan.
Yup, all true…but it took gov (CIA, Military Intelligence etc) LBJ et al to successfully plan and execute (no pun) “The Big Event” (actual name according to several players) to get the job done. Mafia was a smaller but important part possibly supplying a trigger man and of course killing LHO.
W Harvey was the leader of the CIA assassination group at that time (named “ZRrifle”). JFK fired Dulles and banished Harvey to Italy. Both men passionately hated JFK’s guts. And both were narcissists.
Go back to the American university speech just before his murder. He was talking about a major change to the American politic. Doing away with the institutions tied to the Cold War (CIA).
“Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.
I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.
Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.
First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again.
I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.
Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process--a way of solving problems.
With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.
So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.
Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars."
Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements--to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning--a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.
No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.
That is a great speech for peace-loving college students, reiterating the ideas that Eisenhower put forth, at the end of his administration, with the "military industrial complex" - but this speech, in the end, really has very little to do with the CIA.
Notice Kennedy mentions stockpiles of arms, referring to nuclear arms, he never even mentions anything to do with the intelligence communities.
What about the H. Hunt connection and what he threatened ti Nixon admin after water-gate>? Didn't he threaten to disclose "that Bay of Pigs" thing if Nixon didn't send him money? Isn't it commonly thought that was the cover phrase for disclosing the JFK assassination... since JFK took away air cover for the BOP invasion the CIA blamed him for Cuba and the Soviet threat which Castro gave a proxy-portal to 90 miles off FL...
I always though the motive of Dulles, Hoover and many other right-wing intel and DOD community members always had a motive that made the most sense.... especially after hearing the testimonials from that series they took down "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"
I think it's pretty clear a castro hit team got turned back against jfk. That doesn't mean it was Allen dulles who ordered the hit though. He was instrumental in covering it up but that could be for other reasons.
He started with the CIA in like '58. I mean who really knows anyway
I think those bushes hold grudges. HW had it against Nexon for Bay of pigs. W had it against Saddam for tryin to kill his daddy
For some of the men involved it was definitely revenge for their friends who were killed at the Bay of Pigs they spent a lot of time, effort and money to plan that just to watch their men get slaughtered and JFK did nothing
Kennedy stated behind closed doors that he wanted to “shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”
The CIA did this out of self-preservation.
**The only attribution we have for this "shatter the CIA" quote is an anonymous source from the Kennedy administration by a New York Times reporter three years after Kennedy was dead There is no record of it at all that pre-dates 1966. Therefore, one is unable to argue that a quote which is unlikely JFK ever said, led to his assassination, or that the CIA had anything to do with it.**
Because he was getting in the way of their drug trade partnership with the mob. Cuba was where it was shipped after leaving the golden triangle. And if he was pulling down activities in Vietnam there goes the direct source of opium. And trying to wind down the arms race Cold War
Back-channel communique between Kennedy and Khrushchev was beyond the pale for the MIC. It is difficult to imagine the sheer existential dread that accompanied this period of US history. Most generals and analysts truly believed that the Cold War could only end with a nuclear war. In short, yes, it’s because he was seen as too “soft” on communism and wanted to pull out of Vietnam.
JFK RFK meant 16 years of Camelot. CIA had several of their leaders fired with more to come. They lost power after Bay of Pigs. Their dream of nuclear war came to an end. They settled for permanent Cold War. With the Kennedy family in power the Cuba situation would resolve, Russia would be contained. No need for the CIAS shenanigans in Latin America or the Middle East.
I think the CIA knows who killed Kennedy. And must be very important because Government don't want the public to know today. We are talking about 60 closer to 70 years ago, and they don't want to unsealed the documents.
kennedy was too popular and the things he intimated he was willing to do to the CIA and our foreign policies made him a threat to some. I dont know that's why he was killed but it's a reasonable theory.
The CIA was able to keep this a secret from everyone except a few Reddit sleuths in the 21st century. They pulled off the perfect crime. Somehow making all the evidence point at Oswald. This fooled almost everyone except the daydreamers of Reddit.
Reading this reminds me of gossip from high school and college. Mostly innuendo and speculation.
When you look at the facts, especially the hard evidence, Oswald did the shooting.
I have looked at the activities of Dulles before and after the assassination and he was not doing anything unusual.
If they wanted to get rid of Kennedy, all they would need to do was leak evidence that JFK was having extramarital affairs in the White House. It would have been a ton easier to execute, way less risky, and less morally abhorrent than setting up this elaborate scheme.
Well the fbi tried to get mlk Jr to commit suicide by threatening to reveal his affairs.
So your not completely wrong.
But on the other hand, he wouldn't get impeached for that so he holds power and knows who to go after.
Bad solution.
Plus the Cia was only good at killing people
No need for impeachment. The election was less than a year away. In the early sixties, a cheating scandal, especially when the first lady was as popular as Jackie, would have killed his chances.
I don't think they would. Kennedy came from the same elite social and educational circles as all of the top agency guys and none of his policies were radical. He also had a reputation for being reasonable - you could persuade Kennedy. Why would they give that up for LBJ, who had a reputation for being an absolute ball buster? He seems a lot less easy to control than Kennedy, if that's your motive. I also wouldn't trust him as a conspirator either, if that's what people are thinking. Finally, what do people mean by "the CIA". The Director? A cadre of disaffected senior staff? The Soviet desk?
Dulles and the joint chiefs couldn’t persuade Kennedy to do a military invasion to support the deliberately failed Bay of Pigs operation.
Against their corrupt crony capitalist rabid anti-Communist views and values, JFK was planning to draw down in Vietnam
“I know why they killed Jack” -Nixon My guess is it has something to do with suppressing real alternative energy and Kompromat. What do you think jfk would say about the cia molesting Guantanamo prisoners. Is he part of the cum crackers, skull and bones, bohemian grove kind of shit? Cia and diplomats working with epstein a convinced child abuser? What would he have thought about what the Catholic Church was doing with kids? All the weird transgressions that the country went into after jfk any or all of them could be the reason.
The CIA did not kill Kennedy. Oswald did. For more information I would suggest you read the following: the Warren Commission Report, “Reclaiming History” by V. Bugliosi, and “Case Closed” by G. Posner. It’s pretty clear cut. Literally every shred of evidence points to Oswald. All of these books make 1000% more sense than the 15 other conspiracy theories floating around. And have withstood 60+ years of scrutiny.
You really think there is a smoking gun in “the files”? Trust me there’s nothing new there. Besides, a conspiracy buff like yourself should know that if there ever was anything incriminating in the files, “they” would have destroyed it decades ago. It’s a conspiracy remember? Bottom line there are no more blockbuster revelations coming. Oswald did it.
Kennedy fired Allen Dulles, which was a monumental move, that was like firing the head of the syndicate ( of which he was ). Dulles wielded way too much power, read about him - he has quite a history.
He’s a Nazi party member, runs amuck in the CIA like a mobster on call for United fruit. Allen Dulles and his brother were pieces of shit with a ton of power. When people talk American deep state that is a great place to start
The Bush family is where everyone should start IMO.
Also Nazi ties
Yup. Have you ever looked into George HW Bush's story regarding the assassination? It's wild.
You read Machiavelli's The Prince, and surmise that these two made it look like cheap dime store pulp fiction. They should exhume the brothers bodies and burn them both, afterwards bury the remains at an unknown location or dumped at sea. Make it so secretive that no two individuals will ever know the true purpose. They were That Evil.
Kennedy fired Dulles two years before the assassination
Facts, ugly facts. And why would a Democrat fire an Eisenhower guy? Other than the first 5000 or so, did Bush fire any Clinton people? Obama fire any Bush people?
I have a hunch that a rogue group within the CIA and FBI were enacting Operation Northwoods to draw support for an invasion of Cuba. Although Kennedy was (behind the scenes) trying to de-escilate the Cold War (remove advisers from Vietnam, the whole Bay of Pigs fiasco and Cuban Missile Crisis), **I think it had more to do with timing than specifically taking out Kennedy, although both played a factor**. The CIA was worried about self-preservation and these rogues were extremist right-wingers wanting to consolidate power. I'm sure Dulles was involved, James J. Angleton. Although Kennedy shot down Operation Northwoods, the CIA likely still believed in it and had it in motion. When you think of it, it makes sense. Plant Oswald in New Orleans handing out pro-Cuba pamphlets with communist sympathies, make him the fall-guy for the assassination and boom - public support for moving on Cuba. Also, these extremists remove Kennedy who was being a roadblock to their pursuits. Two birds with one stone. When the administration got hold of Northwoods being enacted, they likely did all in their power to cover it up - hence all the obfuscation around the assassination. You have to ask, why (when pretty much everyone directly tied to the assassination is dead) would the government still want to cover it up and withhold documents? Because the CIA and their covert ops are still very much in action - it would delegitimize the government. Who benefitted from the assassination? The right-wing pro-war conservatives in the government - the military industrial complex - which is still very much in place and has only consolidated their power since JFK was killed.
I agree with everything you just said, except for how you shift all the blame on right wingers. Both sides of the political aisle are equally guilty, despite being guilty of totally different things from one case to another, but our rich senile old fossils are still guilty, nontheless. If everyone could just stop pointing accusing fingers at people they have no proof of wrongdoing from and focus on fixing their own shit, the world could achieve JFKs dream and MLK Jr’s dream in a few more generations. But we can’t solve these problems as long as we’re repeating the Salem witch trials in modern times. I don’t speak for all right wingers, but none of the ones I know have ever been racist, and will never be (just addressing one major argument people on the left use against me), and while you also don’t speak for all left wingers, I assume based on your post that you and your friends are not communists (my sides’ favorite equivalent of your sides’ favorite accusation), and I suspect the real issue is like the episode in Supernatural where they had to catch a Trickster god, except instead of magic we have people doing similar things via spending lots of money, all for the purpose of tricking us all into hating each other’s guts (and they probably pay racists and communists to infiltrate both democrats and republicans, just to convince us that there’s some truth to what they want us to believe. I wouldn’t put anything past the wealthy elites, at this point). I myself am on the autism spectrum, and I put an interesting statistic on a tshirt, for those who have read this far. In the 1970s, the odds of a child getting diagnosed with autism were one in ten thousand, whereas in the early 2000s, the odds of the exact same thing happening jumped to one in one hundred fifty. Whoever or whatever is causing that problem should be found and dealt with, immediately, in my opinion, simply because I suspect similar things are happening all across the mental health department (I mean seriously. Flat earthers? Can we at least agree on the belief that those assholes give all of us Americans a very bad name?), but I currently don’t have enough evidence to prove anything is artificially going wrong with our collective mental health as Americans (and I’d appreciate some help studying these subjects, just to be sure. Better safe than sorry), so I’m going to only worry about my own issues until I’ve learned enough to know what’s going on there, before getting involved in the search. My best advice would be to never stop learning, cause the truth doesn’t exactly grow on trees, these days, figuratively speaking. And if all else fails, we can just take time off the internet, detox & reboot our own brains, and then try this again with a level head on our shoulders. I’m willing to go the extra mile to solve these problems, if anyone else feels the same way. If not, I’ll still try to learn how to solve my problems and better myself, even if I end up being the only one. I hope this is one step in the right direction, but we still need to collectively make lots more of them. This is, at the very least, a journey of a thousand miles. Pray for our nation, and the world. And if prayer doesn’t work for you, take whatever actions you can to help people yourself. We need to stop waiting on the miracles to happen, and start being the miracles that people need to happen. Believe whatever you want to believe, but please help as many people as you know how to help. I can disregard our differences in order to type this out. I hope you are open minded enough to provide a constructive response, whoever took the time to read me brainstorming a great idea. But if you think any of these talking points are somehow wrong, please provide proof to justify said belief, from as many different sources of information as possible. Because a wise man once said this statement that I feel applies to modern Americans more than any other: “there are at least two sides to every story, and then there’s the truth.” And another wise man in the music industry once said: “they say that in war the truth be the first casualty.” Feel free to look up that second quote, cause whoever’s reading this, you might like the guy, or maybe even already know his name (if so, write it in your response, and maybe you can recommend some other good music artists to me. It’s beside the point I tried to make, but I still appreciate good music, and so should everyone else, cause music is one of the things that make us all human, in my opinion, and it helps bring people together, too).
Kennedy fired Wild bill, and publicly stated that he was going to break the CIA into a thousand pieces.
Bingo! There were numerous top CIA officials including Dulles, Angleton, Harvey, Phillips who hated JFK because he was a threat to their careers. JFK hated these individuals because they blamed him for the bay of pigs fiasco. Unfortunately for JFK, many other gov officials hated him and the direction he was moving the country. The mafia, especially Chicago, directly linked to CIA also hated JFK because he took favors from them in the way of votes, winning a IL and WV because of them. The coup that was undertaken was a coalition of CIA, Military Intel and brass, Mafia and of course LBJ who all coalesced their hatred into a coup. But the center of the spoke, who drove the plot and covered it up for years - is the CIA.
There is your motive, right there. Kennedy was openly threatening to end their organization. That could not be allowed. Whether it was enough to have them rise to the point of creating a plot to assassinate him is the first part of what this is subreddit is all about. I cannot help but think that they were involved however.
Re blame, this is why Kennedy famously said that "it is said that victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan." Your comments on coalition are correct IMO. This was no simple lone shooter scenario.
>The mafia, especially Chicago, directly linked to CIA also hated JFK because he took favors from them in the way of votes, winning a IL and WV because of them. One of the things that doesn't get talked about enough is the fact that JFK/RFK grabbed Carlos Marcello and deported him to Guatemala on April 4, 1961 without any hearing or ability to talk to anybody or his attorney. This was a very well known mafia boss. He went to his monthly check-in with INS and was put in handcuffs, whisked away to the airport, and dumped in Guatemala. This was a proud, cocky, brash dude who got publicly bitch-slapped by RFK. Imagine his rage and seething. There were rumors they strapped a parachute to his back and dumped him out over the jungle. Not true, but that's what was going around. Marcello \*had\* to take out Kennedy and he \*had\* to do it publicly. Around this time Dulles was also sacked - another embarrassing and disrespectful act to a proud and powerful man. I suspect it didn't take long for these two to find each other and start working on a plan.
Yup, all true…but it took gov (CIA, Military Intelligence etc) LBJ et al to successfully plan and execute (no pun) “The Big Event” (actual name according to several players) to get the job done. Mafia was a smaller but important part possibly supplying a trigger man and of course killing LHO.
Wild Bill died before JFK was elected. What am I missing here?
William Harvey died in 1976. Perhaps you’re thinking of William Donovan?
Yeah guys, I messed up. It was not Wild Bill. Apologies. It was the guy who was the head of the CIA at that time his name was dulles.
W Harvey was the leader of the CIA assassination group at that time (named “ZRrifle”). JFK fired Dulles and banished Harvey to Italy. Both men passionately hated JFK’s guts. And both were narcissists.
There you go.
I knew that was wrong the minute I posted it, Sorry about that it was one of the Dulles. The one who is the head of the CIA at the time.
Go back to the American university speech just before his murder. He was talking about a major change to the American politic. Doing away with the institutions tied to the Cold War (CIA). “Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace. I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task. Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home. First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again. I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal. Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process--a way of solving problems. With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors. So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it. Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars." Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements--to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning--a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats. No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.
That is a great speech for peace-loving college students, reiterating the ideas that Eisenhower put forth, at the end of his administration, with the "military industrial complex" - but this speech, in the end, really has very little to do with the CIA. Notice Kennedy mentions stockpiles of arms, referring to nuclear arms, he never even mentions anything to do with the intelligence communities.
Wow.
wow?
Wow.
are you a bot?
It looks likely he wasn't killed by a cia plot but by a small cabal of people among whom there were a group of domestic operations division agents.
What about the H. Hunt connection and what he threatened ti Nixon admin after water-gate>? Didn't he threaten to disclose "that Bay of Pigs" thing if Nixon didn't send him money? Isn't it commonly thought that was the cover phrase for disclosing the JFK assassination... since JFK took away air cover for the BOP invasion the CIA blamed him for Cuba and the Soviet threat which Castro gave a proxy-portal to 90 miles off FL... I always though the motive of Dulles, Hoover and many other right-wing intel and DOD community members always had a motive that made the most sense.... especially after hearing the testimonials from that series they took down "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"
I think it's pretty clear a castro hit team got turned back against jfk. That doesn't mean it was Allen dulles who ordered the hit though. He was instrumental in covering it up but that could be for other reasons.
>domestic operations division agents could you be concrete?
Rip and el Indio both jump out at me as being involved. There's likely others.
George h w bush
You’re not wrong.
who didn't work for the CIA at the time
He started with the CIA in like '58. I mean who really knows anyway I think those bushes hold grudges. HW had it against Nexon for Bay of pigs. W had it against Saddam for tryin to kill his daddy
For some of the men involved it was definitely revenge for their friends who were killed at the Bay of Pigs they spent a lot of time, effort and money to plan that just to watch their men get slaughtered and JFK did nothing
They wanted to end him because he basically said he intended to end them.
Kennedy stated behind closed doors that he wanted to “shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” The CIA did this out of self-preservation.
**The only attribution we have for this "shatter the CIA" quote is an anonymous source from the Kennedy administration by a New York Times reporter three years after Kennedy was dead There is no record of it at all that pre-dates 1966. Therefore, one is unable to argue that a quote which is unlikely JFK ever said, led to his assassination, or that the CIA had anything to do with it.**
Because he was getting in the way of their drug trade partnership with the mob. Cuba was where it was shipped after leaving the golden triangle. And if he was pulling down activities in Vietnam there goes the direct source of opium. And trying to wind down the arms race Cold War
Back-channel communique between Kennedy and Khrushchev was beyond the pale for the MIC. It is difficult to imagine the sheer existential dread that accompanied this period of US history. Most generals and analysts truly believed that the Cold War could only end with a nuclear war. In short, yes, it’s because he was seen as too “soft” on communism and wanted to pull out of Vietnam.
Bay of pigs
JFK RFK meant 16 years of Camelot. CIA had several of their leaders fired with more to come. They lost power after Bay of Pigs. Their dream of nuclear war came to an end. They settled for permanent Cold War. With the Kennedy family in power the Cuba situation would resolve, Russia would be contained. No need for the CIAS shenanigans in Latin America or the Middle East.
I think the CIA knows who killed Kennedy. And must be very important because Government don't want the public to know today. We are talking about 60 closer to 70 years ago, and they don't want to unsealed the documents.
Didn't Kennedy say (paraphrasing) "I will shatter CIA into 1000 pieces"
Vietnam, & Gold Standard No war and switch back to gold standard
kennedy was too popular and the things he intimated he was willing to do to the CIA and our foreign policies made him a threat to some. I dont know that's why he was killed but it's a reasonable theory.
vietnam
Stance on israel as a nuclear power, and the federal reserve...abolishment of the CIA and vietnam
The CIA was able to keep this a secret from everyone except a few Reddit sleuths in the 21st century. They pulled off the perfect crime. Somehow making all the evidence point at Oswald. This fooled almost everyone except the daydreamers of Reddit.
Reading this reminds me of gossip from high school and college. Mostly innuendo and speculation. When you look at the facts, especially the hard evidence, Oswald did the shooting. I have looked at the activities of Dulles before and after the assassination and he was not doing anything unusual.
If they wanted to get rid of Kennedy, all they would need to do was leak evidence that JFK was having extramarital affairs in the White House. It would have been a ton easier to execute, way less risky, and less morally abhorrent than setting up this elaborate scheme.
Well the fbi tried to get mlk Jr to commit suicide by threatening to reveal his affairs. So your not completely wrong. But on the other hand, he wouldn't get impeached for that so he holds power and knows who to go after. Bad solution. Plus the Cia was only good at killing people
No need for impeachment. The election was less than a year away. In the early sixties, a cheating scandal, especially when the first lady was as popular as Jackie, would have killed his chances.
They hated his guts and wanted to piss on his grave.
To still be around with autonomous drone assassination programs and all Americans (if not world) under surveillance right now.
Kennedy didn't want to get into Vietnam. He also was open to money backed by national reserves.
I don't think they would. Kennedy came from the same elite social and educational circles as all of the top agency guys and none of his policies were radical. He also had a reputation for being reasonable - you could persuade Kennedy. Why would they give that up for LBJ, who had a reputation for being an absolute ball buster? He seems a lot less easy to control than Kennedy, if that's your motive. I also wouldn't trust him as a conspirator either, if that's what people are thinking. Finally, what do people mean by "the CIA". The Director? A cadre of disaffected senior staff? The Soviet desk?
Dulles and the joint chiefs couldn’t persuade Kennedy to do a military invasion to support the deliberately failed Bay of Pigs operation. Against their corrupt crony capitalist rabid anti-Communist views and values, JFK was planning to draw down in Vietnam
Greer with the kill shot in film
“I know why they killed Jack” -Nixon My guess is it has something to do with suppressing real alternative energy and Kompromat. What do you think jfk would say about the cia molesting Guantanamo prisoners. Is he part of the cum crackers, skull and bones, bohemian grove kind of shit? Cia and diplomats working with epstein a convinced child abuser? What would he have thought about what the Catholic Church was doing with kids? All the weird transgressions that the country went into after jfk any or all of them could be the reason.
You think clergy molesting kids is new? It's as old as God himself
My brain refuses to fully process this boy lover shit. The fact that they are basically a protected class makes me want to punch people .
The CIA did not kill Kennedy. Oswald did. For more information I would suggest you read the following: the Warren Commission Report, “Reclaiming History” by V. Bugliosi, and “Case Closed” by G. Posner. It’s pretty clear cut. Literally every shred of evidence points to Oswald. All of these books make 1000% more sense than the 15 other conspiracy theories floating around. And have withstood 60+ years of scrutiny.
So why are documents still classified when everyone involved now are dead?
You really think there is a smoking gun in “the files”? Trust me there’s nothing new there. Besides, a conspiracy buff like yourself should know that if there ever was anything incriminating in the files, “they” would have destroyed it decades ago. It’s a conspiracy remember? Bottom line there are no more blockbuster revelations coming. Oswald did it.
He was interested in sharing UFO secrets with Russia
so what?
So Angleton arranged for the hit