• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Philip Zelikow, impartial?

Docker said:
No that is not my conclusion. I just think its very odd that before 9/11 at least three government related references are made to a new pearl harbour facilitating a positive change, including a direct reference to the twin towers.

Then, since 9/11, we have repeated references to 9/11 as an opportunity.

I am not claiming its hard evidence. Its circumstantial, just like the case against Bin Laden
Click to expand...

Would anyone like to respond to the post I made above?
 
Docker said:
I do see the difference, but it isnt the only instance. We have The Grand Chessboard mentioning pearl harbour and saying america needs "a truly massive threat" to acheive its geostrategic imperatives. And now, this business with Zelikow.
Click to expand...
Ah, Brzezinski's 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard" again. Funny how CTs will only ever quote the italicized section below (from pages 24-25) and will never, ever, include the context. Why is that, Docker?

The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The engagement of the United States in the Cold War was initially endorsed more reluctantly, until the Berlin blockade and the subsequent Korean War. After the Cold War had ended, the emergence of the United States as the single global power did not evoke much public gloating but rather elicited an inclination toward a more limited definition of American responsibilities abroad. Public opinion polls conducted in 1995 and 1996 indicated a general public preference for "sharing" global power with others, rather than for its monopolistic exercise.


Because of these domestic factors, the American global system emphasizes the technique of co-optation (as in the case of defeated rivals—Germany, Japan, and lately even Russia) to a much greater extent than the earlier imperial systems did. It likewise relies heavily on the indirect exercise of influence on dependent foreign elites, while drawing much benefit from the appeal of its democratic principles and institutions. All of the foregoing are reinforced by the massive but intangible impact of the American domination of global communications, popular entertainment, and mass culture and by the potentially very tangible clout of America's technological edge and global military reach.


Cultural domination has been an underappreciated facet of American global power. Whatever one may think of its aesthetic values, America's mass culture exercises a magnetic appeal, especially on the world's youth. Its attraction may be derived from the hedonistic quality of the lifestyle it projects, but its global appeal is undeniable. American television programs and films account for about three-fourths of the global market. American popular music is equally dominant, while American fads, eating habits, and even clothing are increasingly imitated worldwide. The language of the Internet is English, and an overwhelming proportion of the global computer chatter also originates from America, influencing the content of global conversation. Lastly, America has become a Mecca for those seeking advanced education, with approximately half a million foreign students flocking to the United States, with many of the ablest never returning home. Graduates from American universities are to be found in almost every Cabinet on every continent.
Click to expand...

That's right, Friends rules!

The Zelikow "business" was to mention that the 1993 WTC bombing could have had a Pearl Harbor-like effect, had it gone according to the terrorist's plan.

Please do not take quotes out of context like this.
 
Gravy said:
Ah, Brzezinski's 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard" again. Funny how CTs will only ever quote the italicized section below (from pages 24-25) and will never, ever, include the context. Why is that, Docker?



That's right, Friends rules!

The Zelikow "business" was to mention that the 1993 WTC bombing could have had a Pearl Harbor-like effect, had it gone according to the terrorist's plan.

Please do not take quotes out of context like this.
Click to expand...

The entire book has the context of occupying the Middle East. I have taken nothing out of context
 
Docker said:
The entire book has the context of occupying the Middle East. I have taken nothing out of context
Click to expand...
Yes, you took the Pearl Harbor quote out of context, as I just demonstrated.
 
Gravy said:
I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

I heard the opposite, all mouth.

Somebody said that essentially these people on JREF find out what their opinion is when you tell them what their opinion should be. I can't comment because I don't know you.
 
bob_kark said:
Wrong?

Show me any available evidence that proves or even insinuates that Philip Zelikow is an expert at creating myths. I'll wait right here for you.
Click to expand...

How about you show me he is an expert in understanding myths, that was the assertion you made.
 
Docker said:
Your clearly not interested in a debate. I wish I hadn't bothered
Click to expand...
Look, if you want to be taken seriously, don't do this:

Say that Zelikow is a mythmaker
Then say that you didn't say that Zelikow is a mythmaker
Then immediately term Zelikow a mythmaker again.

If you don't expect to be called out on things like that, boy, are you in the wrong place.
 
Wow.

Even from read the wikipedia snippet, it's very clear his comments are not saying what the OP claims they are saying. And yet we learn they were ALSO taken out of context.

Awesome.

These CTers are getting lazy.

-Gumboot
 
Docker said:
I heard the opposite, all mouth.
Click to expand...
You're welcome to

A) Provide an example of a discussion I've been involved in where I did not provide evidence to support my statements, or

B) Find out by debating the issues.
 
Gravy said:
You're welcome to

A) Provide an example of a discussion I've been involved in where I did not provide evidence to support my statements, or

B) Find out by debating the issues.
Click to expand...

A) i cant since I dont know you

B) my attempt at debate so far have just drawn sarcasm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom