• 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

Banned
D
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
742
For those who think the 911 Commision was impartial, please read the wikipedia entry on Philip Zelikow.

The Exucutive Director of the commission is an expert in creating "public myths". 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.

So, as an aside, thats three Pearl Harbour references before 9/11.
 
you didn't happen to write those parts of the wikipedia entry, did you?
 
That bit of the Wikipedia article:

In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow
Click to expand...
 
Wait, the article actually states:
In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”
Click to expand...
It seems he was actually stating this as a warning, not as a "hey guys, this sounds like fun!" i.e. "veritable wish list for the neo cons"

Your thoughts?
 
I never trust any reference from an encyclopedia that is open for all to submit info on.

That said, Phil Zelikow was not one of the panel, he was the director of the commission. He is probably more impartial thatn Alex Jones or James Fetzer is on the CT nutwing side of things.

The Exucutive Director of the commission is an expert in creating "public myths". 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...

Please give a reference for the above statement, or I will assume it is your opinion and nothing more. If it is from the Wiki article, than it is a good example of the crap that goes on that site.

TAM
 
Last edited:
Hmm, sorry, scratch that. Something odd here... [goes to investigate]
 
Last edited:
So what in that wikipedia article would make anyone think he's biased? The article he wrote in Foreign Affairs simply makes him sound very smart about politics.
 
My mistake, the Wikipedia quote was accurate (apologies to whoever added it!). The original is at http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19981...rophic-terrorism-tackling-the-new-danger.html (first 500 words only)

However, that article is based on the complete report that you'll find at http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/visions/...PHIC TERRORISM: ELEMENTS OF A NATIONAL POLICY , and that isn't well represented by the Wkipedia snippet. They're more concerned about "nuclear, biological, chemical, and cyber threats" in general, for instance, than hijackings (even 9/11-style).
 
Docker said:
For those who think the 911 Commision was impartial, please read the wikipedia entry on Philip Zelikow.

The Exucutive Director of the commission is an expert in creating "public myths". 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.

So, as an aside, thats three Pearl Harbour references before 9/11.
Click to expand...

I gave a briefing at OBC in 1998 in which I talked about Pearl Harbor repeatedly. The only possible conclusion is that I must be involved! :eek:
 
And of course there is the "Pearl Harbor" reference that says a President needed a terrorist attack in order to gain public support for involvement in a foreign conflict.

No, not Bush, I meant this newsgroup post from 1993:

Our government blew up the World Trade Center to gather American
support for intervention in the Yugoslavian war. I am almost entirely
convinced of this. I present my evidence for your perusal.


MOTIVE: Pres. Clinton has been in favor of military intervention in the
Bosnian conflict since last Summer, when he suggested bombing raids,
and the possible use of ground forces. The American peopl oppose
getting involved in this war, where there has been ethnic strife for
500 years. We all oppose what is happening there, but think the
Europeans should be responsible first and foremost for keeping their
own house in order. Pres. Clinton needs to gather the support of the
American people before such intervention can be backed by the people
and the Congress. He needs a "Pearl Harbor" type incident to sway our
opinions about intervention there. Hence, an alleged terrorist
explosion is staged, causing minimal damage to people and property,
with maximal public impact.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/bi...read/2f115d9fb52ea8e4/53027c21f6923748?lnk=st
Click to expand...
 
T.A.M. said:
I never trust any reference from an encyclopedia that is open for all to submit info on.


TAM
Click to expand...

TAM I have seen debunkers using wikipedia numerous times, including Mark Iradian in Screw Loose Change. The double standard in the evidence you will accept is very telling
 
CurtC said:
So what in that wikipedia article would make anyone think he's biased? The article he wrote in Foreign Affairs simply makes him sound very smart about politics.
Click to expand...

My point is, his expertise is in creating public myths, not finding truth.
 
There's nothing wrong with using information from Wikipedia, as long as it's double- and triple-checked. Docker, you took a statement completely out of context. Please explain why.
 
JamesB said:
I gave a briefing at OBC in 1998 in which I talked about Pearl Harbor repeatedly. The only possible conclusion is that I must be involved! :eek:
Click to expand...

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
 
Gravy said:
There's nothing wrong with using information from Wikipedia, as long as it's double- and triple-checked. Docker, you took a statement completely out of context. Please explain why.
Click to expand...

How was it out of context? His expertise is creating "myths". What a perfect choice after Henry Kissenger backed out.

New investigation please.
 
DOCKER:

Show me one incidence, and quote it, where someone on this site, a debunker, has used Wikipedia as PROOF against the "inside job" theory. If you do, I will state for the record, that it is a weak piece of evidence. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, where anyone may contribute "facts". How strong can that be. The evidence is weak, by virtue of the system the encyclopedia uses to gather its information.

When it comes to 9/11 I NEVER trust Wikipedia alone.

As Gravy has said, if the quote from Wiki has been cross verified from a legitimate source, than it will carry SOME weight.

I am still waiting for the reference for the quote I made note of above.

TAM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom