Eighteen People killed in Paris Shootings

[Peter]

I heard about the possible use of chemical weapons on CBS News around noon today. Seriously, why would you ridicule me about the mode of operations of terrorists?

[Selene]

I heard about the possible use of chemical weapons on CBS News around noon today. Seriously, why would you ridicule me about the mode of operations of terrorists?

Precisely because you, when confronted said "the possible use of chemical weapons" which, is different from "will."

The reason why these "CBS" "experts" are saying this is because ISIS has announced that they now have a chemical/biological section of the Caliphate which is funded and doing R & D work on developing new chemical/biological agents.

That is why.

A...

[Peter]

If there is evidence then why assign me a tin foil hat? It makes you look like a fool.

[Selene]

FYI Peter:

US intelligence officials believe Islamic State (ISIS) is using chemical attacks in both Iraq and Syria, an official stated to international media on Thursday night.

"They're using mustard (gas)," the individual stated to BBC on condition of anonymity. "We know they are."

"We've seen them use it on at least four separate occasions on both sides of the border - both Iraq and Syria."

Intelligence believes that ISIS has manufactured the mustard gas, not taken stores of the weapon leftover from Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime. Assad was accused of using sarin gas on Syrian citizens in 2013; his chemical stockpile was, allegedly, fully eradicated earlier this year

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/200594#.Vk4XK7-XHIU

[Selene]

If there is evidence then why assign me a tin foil hat? It makes you look like a fool.

Will versus possible use is my point.

And great ad hominem response there Peter...

Wanna try that "my mother wears combat boots?"

A...

[Peter]

Adam wrote: Wanna try that "my mother wears combat boots?"

You started it, you stupid bastard, by a deceitful, knowingly false slur, and now you are trying to dig out of your mental and moral morass, by trying to assign a slur to me. You are a personally dishonest ass hole.
Peter.


New York Times, Monday, Nov. 16, 2015: "BRUSSELS -- The French authorities have concluded that Abdelhamid Abaaoud, a 27-year-old Belgian man who has fought in Syria for the Islamic State, was the mastermind of the Paris terrorist attacks."

Franco-Belgian yet cosmopolitan in culture, Abaaoud's great-grandfather, Anselmus Aaster, opened the first chocolate shop on the Rue des Bouchers, Brussels. Abaaoud claimed to be a distant relation of the 17th-century Baroque artist, Philippe de Champaigne, who painted Cardinal Richelieu eleven times ...

Ann Coulter wrote: Give me a break, New York Times. The Paris terrorists were 100 percent Middle Eastern, although most were born in Muslim ghettos in Europe.

After 50 years of the most backward, dysfunctional cultures pouring into the civilized world, the media are forced to blatantly lie to us whenever immigrants attack: This has nothing to do with refugees! Ismail Omar Mostefai is "a Frenchman."

Ismail is "French" in the same way that Caitlin Jenner is a "woman." That doesn't mean we can draw no conclusions about the relative strength of men and women, even though a "woman" won the decathlon at the 1976 Olympics.
end quote

[Peter]

George is a good guy but I want to step on Murray a bit more. Hence the letters at the bottom. Rothbard wrote a lot of good stuff but he was also a cockroach.
Peter

From: BBfromM@aol.com
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: ATL: Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 06:04:37 EST

Ellen Lewitt wrote me off-list, asking some questions about Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, and saying I might send my reply to Atlantis if I wished. Here is my reply:

<< You asked if the rumor -- about Ayn Rand telling Murray Rothbard he must divorce his wife because she was religious -- was untrue. It was totally untrue. I was present at each of the (very few) meetings between Ayn Rand and Murray, and no such thing ever happened. Besides, it would have been totally out of character for her: she never told one spouse what he or she ought to do with regard to the other spouse.

To answer your other questions: Murray was never at all close with Ayn Rand. Despite his writings to the contrary, he met with her only a few times -- because she disliked him from their first meeting. When I later interviewed him for THE PASSION OF AYN RAND, he spoke to me about their meetings, clearly acknowledging that this -- that they met only a few times -- was true; obviously, he knew that I knew the truth, and that he could not pretend with me. I have the entire interview on tape.

Murray did not leave of his own choice. He had written an article (I forget for which publication) in which he clearly plagiarized my Master's thesis on the subject of free will -- that is, he used my arguments without giving me credit for them. Nathaniel asked him to rectify this, perhaps in a letter to the editor of the publication; he would not have had to admit to plagiarism, but could say something to the effect that he had neglected to credit me. He refused, denying the obvious fact that he had plagiarized me -- and we ended
our relationship with him.>>
Barbara

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" atlantis@wetheliving.com Subject: ATL: Re: Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:23:16 -0600

Greg Johnson wrote:
"On the question of whether Murray Rothbard plagiarized from Barbara Branden's MA thesis, Peter Reidy writes that the "old debbil Kant had used it [the argument given by Nathaniel Branden and credited by him to Barbara, to wit that determinism is self-refuting] about 150 years earlier, and Brand Blanshard presented it in "The Nature of Thought" before anyone in the Rand circle." I do not, however, think that this is a relevant point, for two reasons.

"First, when I read the essay in question long before hearing about the plagiarism charges, I was struck that not only were the ideas the same as those expressed by Nathaniel Branden (I did not know their connection to Barbara at the time), but they were FORMULATED in almost exactly the same words. I do not have access to the essay now, so I cannot check the citation, but as I recall, it was entitled "The Mantle of Science" and was published in a volume called SCIENTISM AND THE STUDY OF SOCIETY."

Rothbard's article, "The Mantle of Science," was published in the anthology *Scientism and Values* (ed. Schoeck and Wiggins, Van Nostrand, 1960). Two of the relevant passages run as follows:

"If we are determined in the ideas we accept, then X, the determinist, is determined to believe in determinism, while Y, the believer in free will, is also determined to believe in his own doctrine. Since man's mind is, according to determinism, not free to think and come to conclusions about reality, it is absurd for X to try to convince Y or anyone else of the truth of determinism. In short, the determinist must rely, for the spread of his ideas, on the nondetermined, free-will choice of others, on their free will to adopt or reject ideas. ...In fact, if our ideas are determined, then we have no way of freely revising our judgments and of learning truth -- whether the truth of determinism or of anything else.

"Thus, the determinist, to advocate his doctrine, must place himself and his theory outside the allegedly universally determined realm, i.e., he must employ free will. This reliance of determinism on its negation is an instance of a wider truth: that it is self-contradictory to use reason in any attempt to deny the validity of reason as a means of attaining knowledge. Such self-contradiction is implicit in such currently fashionable sentiments as 'reason shows us that reason is weak,' or 'the more we know, the more we know how little we know.'" (pp. 161-2)

Murray originally got these arguments from Barbara Branden's dissertation, but he didn't want to use a Randian source because, this being intended as a scholarly article, he felt that such a cite would appear disreputable. Thus, as Greg noted, he went searching for other sources that provided similar arguments. The irony is that he chose Thomistic texts, such as those by Phillips and Toohey, that had no more academic respectability than an Objectivist source would have had.

Unfortunately, Murray pulled a similar stunt with his book, *The Ethics of Liberty.* The original manuscript had many citations to the legal scholar Randy Barnett. But later, after Murray and Randy had an ideological split of sorts --one stemming from a paper ("Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market") that I delivered at a Princeton conference in 1978 -- Murray deleted many (though not all) of the references to Randy in the published version of his book.

Instead, Murray hired a friend of mine to comb scholarly journals in an effort to find other cites that could be substituted for Randy's. My friend delivered the goods, and Murray used these references without even consulting them.

Greg wrote:
"Aside from the fact that he was "getting even" with Rand and the Brandens for calling him a plagiarist, I am sure that he thought--in a social metaphysical vein--that these would be more "respectable" citations than the MA thesis of Barbara Branden. Apparently Rothbard was so morally confused that he did not realize that this was tantamount to an admission of plagiarism. After all, one is a plagiarist if one does not cite the actual source of one's ideas. It does not matter if this source was not the originator of the idea in question. And one is still a plagiarist if one cites other works that were NOT where one learned the idea in question.'

In my opinion, it is a moot question whether it is technically plagiarism not to cite the source from which one originally learned an idea, when that selfsame idea was advanced by others *prior* the source in question. As other posters have pointed out, Objectivists were not the first to advance the argument that strict determinism is self-contradictory and therefore self-refuting. (Indeed, this has been a fairly common argument throughout the history of the free-will debate.) I can think of circumstances where it would be proper *not* to mention such a source -- for instance, if one learned of an idea by reading a general history of philosophy and then went back and consulted the original philosopher -- but in this case there is no good reason why Murray should not have cited Barbara's dissertation. His behavior was best extremely petty at best, as was his later treatment of Randy Barnett.

On a different but related issue -- I had a similar reaction to the fact that Ayn Rand deleted Nathaniel Branden from her dedication in later (post-split) printings of *Atlas Shrugged.* I faced a similar situation with my first book, *Atheism: The Case Against God,* which was dedicated, "To Diane, for the tender moments." By the time the book went to press, however, Diane and I had undergone a bitter split and were barely on speaking terms. Thus, in one of my less-than-tender moments, I considered omitting this dedication altogether, since it seemed so incongruous at the time. But I decided to let it stand, reasoning that the dedication reflected a past relationship and that to delete it would have been to falsify history, in effect.

This was the right thing to do, and I have never regretted that decision.
Ghs

[Selene]

Adam wrote: Wanna try that "my mother wears combat boots?"

You started it, you stupid bastard, by a deceitful, knowingly false slur, and now you are trying to dig out of your mental and moral morass, by trying to assign a slur to me. You are a personally dishonest ass hole.

Peter.

Very good refutation Peter.

By the way, how are those Cowboys doing?

A...

[Selene]

BAGHDAD (AP) -- The Islamic State group is aggressively pursuing development of chemical weapons, setting up a branch dedicated to research and experiments with the help of scientists from Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the region, according to Iraqi and U.S. intelligence officials.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ISLAMIC_STATE_CHEMICAL_WEAPONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-11-19-11-54-05

FYI Peter...

A...

[Brant Gaede]

A nuclear weapon used by NATO, France, or Russia in a sparsely populated area against military targets has several moral advantages. Many civilians from those Isis controlled areas are already refugees and gone from the blast zone. The enemy, civilian cohabiters and abettors, within the nuclear weapon’s range, will be killed. No Americans or allies will be killed.

The enemy not within that range will not be killed.

Talking about the advantages of a weapon like that is like a duck talking about the advantages of oil over water. It's nonsensical. Worse, you didn't even say over what?

Yeah. Let's talk about using nuclear weapons against a two-bit enemy whose strength is only significant from third-party suppliers like Turkey and by virtue of a gigantic power vacuum created by the fecklessness of the Obama Administration if not the 2003 Bush invasion.

That's what we need so much, a country nuking world. I'll bomb you, now you--or your revenge seeking cousin--bomb me. Oil money, earned from Americans driving their cars to WallyWorld, will pay for a lot of the deadly insanities, just as it already has.

--Brant

[Peter]

Brant wrote: That's what we need so much, a country nuking world. I'll bomb you, now you--or your revenge seeking cousin--bomb me. Oil money, earned from Americans driving their cars to WallyWorld, will pay for a lot of the deadly insanities, just as it already has.
end quote

When and if they get them, they will nuke us regardless of what we do. That’s my point. Killing them is not insanity. It is the most rational thing we could do. After an initial contact with other people, like the American Indians, we recognize individual rights in others when they recognize our rights too. But what if the Islamist's actions and intentions are to kill you no matter what? What do we owe them? Nothing. Kill them all. Bloomberg Business just wrote about the failed U.S. policy to stop Isis oil from flowing. Very good article though short. It also explains how they steal hundreds of millions by making the citizens of Syria, and Iraq pay protection money. General Patton could handle the destruction of facilities, trucks and enemy personnel with one division by conventional means, in a week, tops.

I will admit I am reacting a bit emotionally when I suggest using nuclear weapons but remember who will come running to the noise, if a chemical bomb is detonated in NYC - police and firefighters. The City may be uninhabitable for some time. A nuclear weapon used in Syria can be relatively small, precise and forever. No more oil will flow from that landscape. Seriously Brant, if you were following orders and were preparing to head into isis territory but instead the general said we will soften them up first with a nuke would you think that was outrageous? I don’t. Our soldiers and sailors at the end of WWII cheered when they heard about the bomb, though they were not too wise about the dangers of radiation or uraniums half life.

We have had the means to stop their murderous ways for some time yet we do not use it. Once again, it does not matter what we do - so why not just kill them in the best way possible?
Peter

[Wolf DeVoon]

For comparison they had a full set of Abaaoud's fingerprints on file from where? How many fingers were matched? How many fingers did the corpse have in good enough condition to examine and match? I thought they were working on a DNA match?

French politicians are so eager to crow, I think I'll wait for ISIS to confirm or deny.

[Brant Gaede]

ISIS could care about that? Only if their boy shows up in Syria and then only to crow.

Saying you got someone when you haven't works after a long time from the insult and you want to do something else besides look for him.

--Brant

what do we have for Ben Laden?--nothing

[Brant Gaede]

Brant wrote: That's what we need so much, a country nuking world. I'll bomb you, now you--or your revenge seeking cousin--bomb me. Oil money, earned from Americans driving their cars to WallyWorld, will pay for a lot of the deadly insanities, just as it already has.

end quote

When and if they get them, they will nuke us regardless of what we do. That’s my point. Killing them is not insanity. It is the most rational thing we could do. After an initial contact with other people, like the American Indians, we recognize individual rights in others when they recognize our rights too. But what if the Islamist's actions and intentions are to kill you no matter what? What do we owe them? Nothing. Kill them all. Bloomberg Business just wrote about the failed U.S. policy to stop Isis oil from flowing. Very good article though short. It also explains how they steal hundreds of millions by making the citizens of Syria, and Iraq pay protection money. General Patton could handle the destruction of facilities, trucks and enemy personnel with one division by conventional means, in a week, tops.

I will admit I am reacting a bit emotionally when I suggest using nuclear weapons but remember who will come running to the noise, if a chemical bomb is detonated in NYC - police and firefighters. The City may be uninhabitable for some time. A nuclear weapon used in Syria can be relatively small, precise and forever. No more oil will flow from that landscape. Seriously Brant, if you were following orders and were preparing to head into isis territory but instead the general said we will soften them up first with a nuke would you think that was outrageous? I don’t. Our soldiers and sailors at the end of WWII cheered when they heard about the bomb, though they were not too wise about the dangers of radiation or uraniums half life.

We have had the means to stop their murderous ways for some time yet we do not use it. Once again, it does not matter what we do - so why not just kill them in the best way possible?

Peter

I've no objection to killing them. I do have objection to use of nuclear weapons, especially emotionally. Dropping those two bombs on Japan was complete cold-blooded calculation.

To top it off you finish by suggesting nukes doing what conventional bombs can do.

If you think "body count" warfare wins wars--well, maybe. So can stupid warfare--like the North beating the South to a pulp with minimal brain power and maximum fire power.

--Brant

load on Sunday and fire all week (said of the repeating rifle)

[BaalChatzaf]

I've no objection to killing them. I do have objection to use of nuclear weapons, especially emotionally. Dropping those two bombs on Japan was complete cold-blooded calculation.

It sure did the trick, didn't it. Two weeks later the Japanese folded. War over.

[Wolf DeVoon]

what do we have for Ben Laden?--nothing

It would have been far better to capture OBL alive, try fairly and convict (?) him of something, instead of a mafia hit -- which is precisely what French special forces did in St. Denis. No effort to capture any high-value suspects. Even the term "suspect" used in press reports was inappropriate to describe a military operation with grenade launchers and 5,000 rounds of machine gunnery. I know the French declared a state of emergency and suspended civil rights. That doesn't make it right to eliminate people like a banana republic or communist dictatorship.

Too much talk about World War Three, a ridiculous granfalloon for counter-terrorism as a police problem.

[Selene]

Are we next?

I think there is about a 60% chance of no.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Are we next?

I think there is about a 60% chance of no.

Thanks for rescuing that question, which I deleted in rewrite. 60% is pretty scary, little margin for error.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-19/trump-open-id-badges-special-database-muslims-were-going-have-do-unthinkable

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/french-lawmakers-debate-extending-state-of-emergency/2015/11/19/bf3a1f9e-8e41-11e5-934c-a369c80822c2_story.html

[Brant Gaede]

Are we next?

I think there is about a 60% chance of no.

Thanks for rescuing that question, which I deleted in rewrite. 60% is pretty scary, little margin for error.

Yes. It's very close to 61% and 39%.

My think is Ben was killed years before and "killing" him was a good PR victory and put a bow on a wrapped up box.

I wonder who the poor schmuck was they dumped into the ocean?

--Brant

[Selene]

Looks like some actual journalism broke out here:

Elite French firearms teams fought a ferocious seven-hour battle with terror suspects in a cramped apartment block. They stormed the flat in Saint-Denis following intelligence that it was being used as a hideout by the masterminds behind the Paris massacres and that the fanatics inside were plotting another atrocity. Chris Greenwood, Emily Kent Smith and Josh White detail how the bloody drama unfolded:

04.00: Police stream into Saint-Denis where they believe terror mastermind Abdel Hamid Abaaoud is holed up. They were led there by monitoring Hasna Ait Boulahcen, a French-born woman cousin of Abaaoud. They also believe that on-the-run terrorist Salah Abdeslam and a ninth attacker are among five fanatics present.

04.15: Hundreds of police marksmen, supported by military units, surround an apartment block at 8, Rue du Corbillon.

04.25: Officers from counter-terrorist unit RAID storm the building. Bullets ricochet off surrounding properties as they are met with a hail of gunfire. An explosion rocks the neighbourhood. Several officers are wounded.

Nabil Guerram, 36, who lives nearby, says: 'I was woken with a start at 4.20am by the sound of extremely heavy gunfire. My children were crying. There was non-stop fire for 20 to 25 minutes, then calm, then it started up again for a very long time.'

05.00: Police dog Diesel is killed after she is sent in to check for suspects. A witness says she was 'blown to pieces' in a hail of bullets.

A woman who lives on the floor below hides in her bathroom but there are so many explosions she fears the ceiling is going to collapse. She said she heard gunfire, screaming, and people shouting 'shoot, shoot'. She said she ran away clutching her baby.

05.30: A helicopter arrives overhead and 25 minutes later a motorcade carrying dozens of French soldiers, followed by ambulances and fire engines are seen racing towards the flat. Surrounding roads are sealed off.

Neighbour Caroline Chomienne says she was woken by shooting, adding: 'The firing got louder and it was still going on after an hour. There was a firefight. There was shooting everywhere, but also bomb explosions.'

05.45: Residents run for their lives. Omar Dati, a 17-year-old student, said: 'It was like a warzone. We didn't know where to run.'

06.27: Sporadic gunfire continues to be heard, and terrified residents are warned to stay indoors. Schools remain closed and public transport is shut down.

07.00: Jawad Ben Dow, the apartment's landlord, tells how he let 'two men from Belgium' use it for a few days as a favour, saying: 'A friend asked me to put up two of his friends for a few days. I said there was no mattress.

'They told me, 'It's not a problem'.' They just wanted water and to pray. I was asked to do a favour, I did a favour. I didn't know they were terrorists.'

07.30: Siege enters its third hour and seven blasts rock Saint-Denis. Visibly nervous police officers reveal several colleagues have been injured in the close-quarters fighting.

07.45: Up to 20 people, including children, are evacuated from the apartment block.

07.50: One man said he thought he would die when the shooting started and hid under his bed with his young son. 'I was afraid,' he said. 'My son heard and he was crying a lot. I tried to calm him down but he was crying. The police arrived and they said, 'Get out quick! This building is going to blow up'.'

08.00: Police block roads leading to Saint-Denis, shining green lasers at anyone to stop them coming too close.

09.00: A woman – believed to be Ait Boulahcen – detonates a suicide belt as she pretends to give herself up. Witness Christian, 20, said the street was showered in body parts after a deafening explosion at a window.

He said: 'I heard a woman shouting 'Help, help, help me!' The police asked her to identify herself and to show herself. She showed her hands but she didn't reveal her face. They shouted at her, 'Keep your hands in the air!' They told her, 'We're going to shoot'. The shooting resumed. Suddenly there was an enormous explosion. It was probably the woman who blew herself up.'

08.30: Police confirm that a man has also been killed, believed to have been shot by one of their snipers. It is not known if Abaaoud is dead or alive. Two further police officers are injured. Explosives used by police cause an entire floor to collapse within the building.

09.00: Prosecutors announce three arrests. A man and a woman were also arrested nearby.

09.30: Police believe one last suspect remains in the apartment.

10.34: A man, naked from the waist down, and wearing a bloodied T-shirt is dragged from the building. No gunfire had been heard for two hours.

11.10: Manhunt for at least one suspect continues, as French police confirm another arrest, taking total to eight.

11.25: Further explosions as police use flash bang grenades to distract anyone left inside the apartment.

11.43: After a cabinet meeting at the Elysee Palace, the government declares the seven-hour operation at an end.

13.00: Body parts are found amid the rubble outside the building which will be subjected to DNA analysis to see if they are Abaaoud.

Photographs emerge showing the force of the explosions blew window frames clean out of the walls. Sources later claim Abaaoud was killed in the battle'.

14.25: A resident, who hid with her young son, said: 'The helicopter lit up my living room. I had to talk to someone... I came out when they said it was over.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325180/Two-fingers-world-Pictured-Europe-s-female-suicide-bomber-booze-loving-extrovert-nicknamed-Cowgirl-love-big-hats.html#ixzz3s3BwD8TB

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325180/Two-fingers-world-Pictured-Europe-s-female-suicide-bomber-booze-loving-extrovert-nicknamed-Cowgirl-love-big-hats.html

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't know where to put this, but I also don't want to give it too much exposure. It's more of a rant than some kind of movement. So here looks like as good a place as any.

Lindsay Perigo over at SLOP now has a six-point plan for "saving of western civilisation" (see here). It includes declaring a religious war on Islam, yada yada yada.

But the real boneheaded part is forcibly removing Obama from office and throwing him into Gitmo. Just to make sure people understand what he means, he clarifies in a post.

He means a military coup to take over the US government. Exact quote:

It has to be a military coup. That's why I said in my essay, it's the Generals who must step up.

Well, that certainly is the "Objectivist" way to make sure the Paris massacre doesn't happen again: turn America into a military dictatorship.

And to think people who self-identify as formal Objectivists consider this bonehead to be some kind of Randian intellectual.

No wonder the non-fiction side of Objectivism grows mainly through charity, not free market sales.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

They might be able to use the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.

--Brant

none of it will happen

when an idiot claims to be an expert . . .

[Selene]

Maybe we can send him a copy of:

The screenplay was written by Rod Serling based on the novel of the same name by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II, published in September 1962.[2]

Great movie.

This is Wiki, so I have not checked the following section:

President Kennedy had read Seven Days in May shortly after its publication and believed the scenario as described could actually occur in the United States. According to Frankenheimer in his director's commentary, production of the film received encouragement and assistance from Kennedy through White House Press Secretary Pierre Salinger, who conveyed to Frankenheimer Kennedy's wish that the film be produced and that, although the Pentagon did not want the film made, the President would conveniently arrange to visit Hyannis Port for a weekend when the film needed to shoot outside the White House.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_in_May

A...

[Selene]

According to Thurston Clarke,

Knebel got the idea [for the novel] from an interview with Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay shortly after the Bay of Pigs. LeMay was still furious with Kennedy for refusing to provide air support for the Cuban rebels, and after going off the record accused him of cowardice. Knebel also found inspiration in a 1962 conversation with Secretary of the Navy John Connally. With LeMay's remarks fresh in his mind, Knebel had turned the conversation to the military's unhappiness with the president. Connally acknowledged that some of his admirals disliked taking orders from teh New Frontiersman, and felt that they could express themselves politically. Later in the Conversation Connally mused that the atomic bomb had created the conditions in which "the U.S. might unwittingly be laying the groundwork for a military dictatorship." (JFK's last Hundred Days, 2013 p.95)

Kennedy read Seven Days in May when it was published and it struck a chord. His private conversations at the time indicated that he himself had considered the possibility of a military coup and, on one occasion, even went so far as to name some generals at the Pentagon who he thought "might hanker to duplicate fiction" (Bergquist and Tretick A Very Special President, 1965, p.15). It is likely to have played on his mind all the more when, in 1963, he, like President Lyman in the novel, embarked on negotiations with the Russian Premier (over the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty) and then had to battle to persuade both Congress and the military of its good sense.

http://independenthead.blogspot.com/2013/10/seven-days-in-may-by-knebel-and-bailey.html

[Brant Gaede]

Those were the days my friend

I thought they'd never end--

And then Kennedy was shot