• 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:
Uncanny. Your like a young Groucho Marx
Click to expand...

What's odd is you keep on attacking me when a more important audience is making a fool out of you.


You need to know when to pick your battles.
 
Gravy said:
You've now said four times that Zelikow should not have been on the Commission because he's a mythmaker.

Now show us the myths he's made, or withdraw the claim. That's how it works around here. It's put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

Your not an administrator Gravy. I'll let them tell me how it goes. He is totally unsuitable for the commission in my opinion. You can have yours.
 
Docker: Here's some free advice.

Take a step back and take a deep breath.

Decide what the claim is you want to make against Zelikow, then articulate the claim and support it with evidence. If you think he is impartial, find evidence to support the claim, present it, and a link to the source. Another approach is to find evidence in the report of bias. Again, you would need articulate your claim and support it with evidence.

I've broken down your opening post into your two claims.:
Docker said:
The Exucutive Director of the commission is an expert in creating "public myths".
Click to expand...
My first response is "So what"? I believe you are attempting to refute his credibility, but haven't provided any supporting evidence. This first claim is useless.

Docker said:
He also wrote an article in 1998 saying the destruction of the towers would be a new pearl harbour and provide a veritable wish list for the neo cons.
Click to expand...
You have been shown that you have completely taken the pearl harbor comment out of context. Yet you have refused to respond, that's not a good way to gain credibility.
 
Garb said:
What's odd is you keep on attacking me when a more important audience is making a fool out of you.


You need to know when to pick your battles.
Click to expand...

Are you watching a different thread to me?

So you admit the intention on this forum is to gang up and make fools out of people? Nice. Well you wont do it to me chaps. Hard cheese and all that
 
Docker said:
I abandoned the thread on ISI because people were merely taking the piss and accusing me of folowing Alex Jones blindly, a man I never mentioned.
Click to expand...
Listen to me, Docker. You were repeatedly asked to provide evidence to back your claim of the "biggest smoking gun." You were unable to do so.

I strongly suggest you look at the posts made on these forums by CTs pdoherty76 and TruthSeeker1234. You are behaving exactly like them.

You will always be asked to support your claims with evidence here. Always. Clear enough?
 
DavidJames said:
Docker: Here's some free advice.

Take a step back and take a deep breath.

Decide what the claim is you want to make against Zelikow, then articulate the claim and support it with evidence. If you think he is impartial, find evidence to support the claim, present it, and a link to the source. Another approach is to find evidence in the report of bias. Again, you would need articulate your claim and support it with evidence.

I've broken down your opening post into your two claims.:My first response is "So what"? I believe you are attempting to refute his credibility, but haven't provided any supporting evidence. This first claim is useless.

You have been shown that you have completely taken the pearl harbor comment out of context. Yet you have refused to respond, that's not a good way to gain credibility.
Click to expand...

So far this forum does not seem like a place I would like to be credible in.
 
Docker said:
Are you watching a different thread to me?

So you admit the intention on this forum is to gang up and make fools out of people? Nice. Well you wont do it to me chaps. Hard cheese and all that
Click to expand...

I never said that. But just because it isn't the intention does not mean that isn't what is happening to you.

Would you like to continue this irrelvant discussion so you can act like a big guy over the internet or do you want to go back to the topic at hand?
 
Gravy said:
Listen to me, Docker. You were repeatedly asked to provide evidence to back your claim of the "biggest smoking gun." You were unable to do so.

I strongly suggest you look at the posts made on these forums by CTs pdoherty76 and TruthSeeker1234. You are behaving exactly like them.

You will always be asked to support your claims with evidence here. Always. Clear enough?
Click to expand...

And if I refuse to do so? Am I thrown out of the forum?

I have read the 911myths chapter on the ISI. They did not adequately refute the sources they cited. They danced around the issues. I simply would like to see Mahmood questioned by the relevant authorities. Is that too much to ask?
 
Garb said:
I never said that. But just because it isn't the intention does not mean that isn't what is happening to you.

Would you like to continue this irrelvant discussion so you can act like a big guy over the internet or do you want to go back to the topic at hand?
Click to expand...

How am I acting the big guy?

Is that your picture by the way? If thats how you represent yourself on the interbnet then I think I need say no more.
 
Docker said:
Your not an administrator Gravy. I'll let them tell me how it goes. He is totally unsuitable for the commission in my opinion. You can have yours.
Click to expand...
You came here requesting a debate. I'm telling you how it works. You won't be banned for expressing your opinions, but opinions are not evidence and will sway no one here. I don't give a damn what you think about 9/11 conspiracy theories. I give a damn about what evidence you bring to the table.

If anyone disagrees with me, and thinks that opinions are valid as evidence, they will speak right up.
 
Docker said:
How am I acting the big guy?

Is that your picture by the way? If thats how you represent yourself on the interbnet then I think I need say no more.
Click to expand...

You attacked me outright. Then you proceeded to attack after I had tried to diffuse the situation. Seems like you have an agenda on trying to resort to personal attacks to make me look bad. Even though you are ignoring the debate you started to begin with.

What other attacks do you have for me?
 
Docker said:
I couldnt care less. They could try diplomacy with their pal pakistan.
Click to expand...


Yes I can see that working.

"Dear Pakistan. We think people in your government were involved in 9/11. Please hand them over."

"Dear US. Sure, no problem. Who would you like?"

:rolleyes:

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
So essentially Docker has read a statement "my area of expertise is Adolf Hitler" and translated that as "I am Adolf Hitler".

Awesome. Keep up the good work.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
He's comparing the Wiki aricle that states:

Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,”
Click to expand...
Which caused you to believe he was a "myth maker"

To someone stating "my field of expertise is Adolf Hitler," and you believing that they were in fact Adolf Hitler. He's not calling you Adolf Hitler.

Did you seriously misunderstand that or are you playing games?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom