JFK & deep state connection

[dilbert firestorm]

looks like George H Bush is connected to the JFK assassination.

the video raises some interesting facts about JFK.

apparently there were 2 false flag ops JFK refused to approve, one was the cuban false fag, the other was the Vietnam false flag which was later initiated under LBJ.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

apparently there were 2 false flag ops JFK refused to approve, one was the cuban false fag, the other was the Vietnam false flag which was later initiated under LBJ.

What does this mean?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

What does this mean?

he might have been killed because of that.

[LexusLover]

Vietnam, No.* Cuba, Yes.

And since you've "gone there" IMO there is a connection to Watergate.

*Eisenhower effectively started the U.S. involvement in SE Asia, and JFK did not know about it until after he was sworn into office (the "transition" process was "flawed"). Johnson's early connection was the tie-breaking vote in the Senate to deny the French request for the use of one of our low-yield atomic shells to end the French stalemate in S.E.Asia. Had either one of those men taken a different path we probably would not have been entrenched in that nightmare of a politically run military operation.

It's take until Trump for that "attitude" to change.

When JFK was killed old man Bush was in the oil business in West Texas.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Vietnam, No.* Cuba, Yes.

And since you've "gone there" IMO there is a connection to Watergate.

*Eisenhower effectively started the U.S. involvement in SE Asia, and JFK did not know about it until after he was sworn into office (the "transition" process was "flawed").

that parts true, however, once he became aware of it.

To get more involved in Vietnam required a motive to justify further troop increases and funding from Congress, a false flag op was needed; something JFK refused to approve.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

that parts true, however, once he became aware of it.

To get more involved in Vietnam required a motive to justify further troop increases and funding from Congress, a false flag op was needed; something JFK refused to approve.

JFK did "approve" of the activity in S.E. Asia once he knew of it.

We had a military and "contract" presence in S.E. Asia. Just like now "we" did a lot of shit "off the books" and that's what was on going. The carrier group (the same one McCain was stationed in but before his deployment) flying sorties off S.E. Asia remained on station and continued on even after JFK knew about it. Was it in the "news"? No. Casualties were reported as "accidental deaths." He knew it was ongoing and didn't stop it.

May 1961 - Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson visits President Diem in South Vietnam and hails the embattled leader as the 'Winston Churchill of Asia.'

May 1961 - President Kennedy sends 400 American Green Beret 'Special Advisors' to South Vietnam to train South Vietnamese soldiers in methods of 'counter-insurgency' in the fight against Viet Cong guerrillas.

The role of the Green Berets soon expands to include the establishment of Civilian Irregular Defense Groups (CIDG) made up of fierce mountain men known as the Montagnards. These groups establish a series of fortified camps strung out along the mountains to thwart infiltration by North Vietnamese.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...ndex-1961.html

(Everyone seems to want a "link" ... they weren't around then!)

When JFK took office there were already about 8500 U.S. personnel in the area training and fighting....with air cover.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

JFK did "approve" of the activity in S.E. Asia once he knew of it.

We had a military and "contract" presence in S.E. Asia. Just like now "we" did a lot of shit "off the books" and that's what was on going. The carrier group (the same one McCain was stationed in but before his deployment) flying sorties off S.E. Asia remained on station and continued on even after JFK knew about it. Was it in the "news"? No. Casualties were reported as "accidental deaths." He knew it was ongoing and didn't stop it.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst...ndex-1961.html

(Everyone seems to want a "link" ... they weren't around then!)

When JFK took office there were already about 8500 U.S. personnel in the area training and fighting....with air cover.

I'm not disputing that point about a small amount of u.s. personnel in Vietnam, something he already knew.

you seem to be missing the point. this is about increasing troop levels over what was on the ground in Vietnam. I don't think JFK had any plans to actually increase troop levels in Vietnam, something people inside military circles were pushing to do. This is what led to the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

getting funding for troop increase from Congress was rather dodgy at that time. this was where LBJ comes in after JFK's death.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I'm not disputing that point about a small amount of u.s. personnel in Vietnam, something he already knew.

you seem to be missing the point. this is about increasing troop levels over what was on the ground in Vietnam. I don't think JFK had any plans to actually increase troop levels in Vietnam, something people inside military circles were pushing to do. This is what led to the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

getting funding for troop increase from Congress was rather dodgy at that time. this was where LBJ comes in after JFK's death.

When you say JFK "already knew" ... when did he "already know"?

1. What you are dicing is geography. You are saying:

"on the ground in Vietnam"!

2. The number of U.S. personnel in the S.E. Asia fluctuated and were under stated ... .just like few knew we had 8500 +/- (including JFK who did not know) on the ground in S.E. Asia (notice I keep saying S.E. Asia and you keep saying "Vietnam"! ... that's substantially different) plus a carrier group running sorties (weather permitting). On any given day JFK couldn't tell you how many we had on the ground in S.E. Asia within 500 ..

3. If you (or anyone else) actually "believes" troop levels in S.E. Asia was a motivation for JFK's assassination then one would have to believe some other fantasies. First the "charts" you see are "Vietnam" only ... and only shows about 1000 when JFK took office, which was increased over that first year to 3x that many. By the time he was killed in November 1963 there were about 15,000 (15x increase) IN VIETNAM.

For someone resisting increasing troops he sure was doing a good job!

Remember: That was "Vietnam"! We had servicemembers elsewhere .... hopping back and forth.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

When you say JFK "already knew" ... when did he "already know"?

1. What you are dicing is geography. You are saying:

"on the ground in Vietnam"!

2. The number of U.S. personnel in the S.E. Asia fluctuated and were under stated ... .just like few knew we had 8500 +/- (including JFK who did not know) on the ground in S.E. Asia (notice I keep saying S.E. Asia and you keep saying "Vietnam"! ... that's substantially different) plus a carrier group running sorties (weather permitting). On any given day JFK couldn't tell you how many we had on the ground in S.E. Asia within 500 ..

3. If you (or anyone else) actually "believes" troop levels in S.E. Asia was a motivation for JFK's assassination then one would have to believe some other fantasies. First the "charts" you see are "Vietnam" only ... and only shows about 1000 when JFK took office, which was increased over that first year to 3x that many. By the time he was killed in November 1963 there were about 15,000 (15x increase) IN VIETNAM.

For someone resisting increasing troops he sure was doing a good job!

Remember: That was "Vietnam"! We had servicemembers elsewhere .... hopping back and forth.

0. after JFK became president and was informed of it. you said it!

1. nitpick - Vietnam is now 1 country. (I know its N/S Vietnam originally) I'm geographically lazy! LOL!

2. skipped

3. not a problem with increasing troop levels for a president, but funding can be a problem if it goes over 50,000. this is where you need support from congress & the public over the increasing escalation in Vietnam with American troops. People start asking some very uncomfortable questions on why they are increasing troop levels in Vietnam. I think JFK's optics were that the increases maybe problematic up to a certain point. Besides, at that point in time, they were calling them "advisors", rather than combatants. Its a PR problem.

[dilbert firestorm]

guess what...

we're the only ones debating this... and that is funny!!!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

guess what...

we're the only ones debating this... and that is funny!!!

I'm not rally "debating" the issue with you. But you do make some statements that distort the facts and I'm not suggesting that is intentional.

For instance: You make the statement "he already knew" and that begs for a follow up clarification, because he didn't know when he was sworn. IMO that is highly critical given the NECESSITY of a transition of "power" to a new President. Look what happened to Bush and look what happened to Trump. Those failures are not in the best interests of the United States of America.

FYI: It's difficult to get special funding for projects that "don't exist"!

That situation is a far cry from providing motivation to kill a POTUS.

As far as Vietnam vs. S.E. Asia et al that's not "knit-picking"!

Just ask John Kerry when he "mis-identified" the country in which he claimed to have serve on one of his "missions" on "the river." And it does make a difference. Example: How many U.S. military and para-military personnel are in the various countries South of the U.S. border?

Do you see any "funding" being passed to support those operations?

I'm familiar with the "mission creep" in S.E. Asia. We've had the same in the Middle and Far East. If you go back in the legislative history you will discover a change in "policy" regarding POTUS authority from Congress to address military activities short of declared war. That was Post-Vietnam.

It's not "knit-picking" to examine an issue based on facts at the time as opposed to 20-20 hindsight and Monday morning quarterbacking.

IMO the Kennedy-Cuban issue serves as a far better motivation for his killing than an alleged desire to increase troop strength in S.E. Asia (or Vietnam proper). That's why I mentioned "Watergate" as being connected to the Kennedy killing.

Fast forward to the current events on FBI/Intelligence activities as an example of covering turds in the sand pile. If you were around and aware of the details of Watergate and the revelations from the hearings, then compare that to today's activities, but not in the same way the MSM wants the general public to perceive it, but from the standpoint of internal intelligence activities within this country.

[Yssup Rider]

Who’s pitching and who’s catching?

[WTF]

Is the vast military industrial complex that Ike warned us about part of the Deep State? It sure looks like Ike was right...they look to be buried deep up Trumps ass! ....along with our resident Trumpers. And here all along I thought bambino just wanted a thumb massage up there.



.