Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980
Mostly, I 've never felt it was Castro for most part, but our government.Kennedy was taking on the establishment of his day.Fired Dulles, opposed powerful Generals such as Lemay, was not for escalating Vietnam War and not friendly to the banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve.
|
Add to the above regarding Cuba: the loss of a revenue source for a lot of US Big Businesses (hotels, casinos, etc.), the loss of major revenue for organized crime (Mafia) from various criminal enterprises carried out in Cuba, the loss of the CIA's Latin American & Caribbean HQ and listening stations, the loss of off-shore money caches for some of the US wealthiest individuals...
The list of potential suspects or grouping of suspects is ever large; I somehow don't really think assassinating JFK was a very large priority, if at all, for Castro. The downside of any such action would have been so large and catastrophic to Cuba and its USSR handlers as to be a very sufficient deterrent. All Castro really had to do was to wait out the 1964 elections, see if JFK won or lost; if JFK won, then all he had to do was wait out his 2nd term and then deal with the next President; if JFK lost, then Castro would just have to deal with the new POTUS. So, basically, Castro really had to do nothing; actually doing anything proactively would have been counter-intuitive and counterproductive...
As with any of these sort of 'conspiracy' posits, they tend to fall apart when either logic is applied or the question of logistics is considered...
<O>