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

New investigation please.
Click to expand...
Docker, Pearl Harbor has been the US benchmark for surprise attack/wakeup call/military retaliation since the day it happened. In what way is Zelikow creating a myth?
 
Docker said:
How was it out of context? His expertise is creating "myths". What a perfect choice after Henry Kissenger backed out.

New investigation please.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand. His expertise is in how these myths are created, not in actually creating them. BIG difference.
 
Gravy said:
Okay, you've made a claim. Now present your evidence to support it.
Click to expand...
I have presented my evidence. It is circumstantial admittedly, but so is the evidence against Bin Laden.

I would say that the things we know about Zelikow make him inelligible for the enquiry. A subjective opinion possibly but all I would like is a truly independent inquiry.

Incidentally, I dont think we are going to get one.
 
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.
Click to expand...
You are aware that the PNAC document was about how to allocate peacetime military spending, in part to avoid a surprise attack, aren't you? It was really, truly, not a published plan to kill thousands of Americans. See the difference?
 
Gravy said:
Docker, Pearl Harbor has been the US benchmark for surprise attack/wakeup call/military retaliation since the day it happened. In what way is Zelikow creating a myth?
Click to expand...

Im not suggesting he is making myths but, if I was choosing a commission panel, it would be lawyers, diplomats, scientists and judges. Not myth-makers
 
Docker said:
I have presented my evidence. It is circumstantial admittedly, but so is the evidence against Bin Laden.

I would say that the things we know about Zelikow make him inelligible for the enquiry. A subjective opinion possibly but all I would like is a truly independent inquiry.

Incidentally, I dont think we are going to get one.
Click to expand...
Define "truly independent." We started a thread for CTs a few days ago, asking what their independent investigation would consist of. None of them responded, so I'd be very interested to read your thoughts on that.
 
Gravy said:
You are aware that the PNAC document was about how to allocate peacetime military spending, in part to avoid a surprise attack, aren't you? It was really, truly, not a published plan to kill thousands of Americans. See the difference?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Docker said:
Im not suggesting he is making myths but, if I was choosing a commission panel, it would be lawyers, diplomats, scientists and judges. Not myth-makers
Click to expand...

You are aware that most of the "panel" were lawyers, etc...right?

TAM
 
Docker said:
Im not suggesting he is making myths but, if I was choosing a commission panel, it would be lawyers, diplomats, scientists and judges. Not myth-makers
Click to expand...
actually i would say someone whos expertise is "making myths" as you say would probably be the best person to seperate myth from fact, as im sure he can spot them a mile away

and how does a diplomat "find truth?"

and you really think lawyers have anything to with truth?
 
Gravy said:
Define "truly independent." We started a thread for CTs a few days ago, asking what their independent investigation would consist of. None of them responded, so I'd be very interested to read your thoughts on that.
Click to expand...

Independent for me would be:

1) not appointed by the government

2) A mixture of different political persuasions

3) No members having served in a recent Government or with major ties to them

4) A mixture of great legal minds and relevant experts, e.g. military, aviation, law enforcement

5) No business ties to relevant interests e.g. oil
 
defaultdotxbe said:
actually i would say someone whos expertise is "making myths" as you say would probably be the best person to seperate myth from fact, as im sure he can spot them a mile away

and how does a diplomat "find truth?"

and you really think lawyers have anything to with truth?
Click to expand...

He isn't just a myth maker, apparently he has a special interest in searing those myths into the public choice. Id take a lawyer or a judge over that any day.
 
your 3 and 4 are almost mutually exclusive

name one military expert you would put on your panel that does not have ties to any recent administration
 
Docker said:
He isn't just a myth maker, apparently he has a special interest in searing those myths into the public choice. Id take a lawyer or a judge over that any day.
Click to expand...

He is not a mythmaker! If you would read my previous post, you would see that his expertise is in how myths are created not in creating the myths!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom