• 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?

How about you show me he is an expert in understanding myths, that was the assertion you made.
Against your assertation that he was a myth creator to which you provided zero evidence. Name one myth he created. State where you even came up with this. Oh wait, I think I know, wikipedia:

Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,” which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. In the United States, beliefs about the formation of the nation and the Constitution remain powerful today, as do beliefs about slavery and the Civil War. World War II, Vietnam, and the civil rights struggle are more recent examples.” He has noted that “a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make a connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all” ("Thinking about Political History," Miller Center Report [Winter 1999], pp. 5-7).
He's a history professor at UVA. He's stating how myths are created by public perception of grand events such as the Civil War, slavery, WWII, Vietnam, etc... not how he's creating myths. That's why when he speculates:

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.”
His opinion holds weight.
 
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.

I did no such thing. I said hes a myth maker but that I am not suggesting he made myths in this case. I just suggest hes the wrong choice for a commission.

Please don't misrepresent me like that again.
 
When BUSH was asked/pressed to investigate 9/11, did those who wanted the investigation indicate or request that it be a panel of people with no government ties or business connections?

If not, what was wrong with the selections BUSH made?

TAM
 
When BUSH was asked/pressed to investigate 9/11, did those who wanted the investigation indicate or request that it be a panel of people with no government ties or business connections?

If not, what was wrong with the selections BUSH made?

TAM

The fact that Bush made the choice is wrong. They should be selected or elected by an independent method
 
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
 
A) i cant since I dont know you

B) my attempt at debate so far have just drawn sarcasm
False. It has also drawn evidence that you took these quotes out of context, and that your logic is flawed.

You started another thread you claimed that the purported ISI funding connection was apparently the biggest smoking gun in the whole affair.

You were repeatedly asked to provide evidence to support your claim. You provided none. Zero.

I ask you again: If you have no evidence for your biggest smoking gun, what does that say about the rest of your smoking guns? So far you're shooting blanks.
 
TAM if I were accused of negligence in my job would it be right that I choose the panel to investigate? Of course not.
 
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
You'd win the cupie doll if I had one.
 
False. It has also drawn evidence that you took these quotes out of context, and that your logic is flawed.

You started another thread you claimed that the purported ISI funding connection was apparently the biggest smoking gun in the whole affair.

You were repeatedly asked to provide evidence to support your claim. You provided none. Zero.

I ask you again: If you have no evidence for your biggest smoking gun, what does that say about the rest of your smoking guns? So far you're shooting blanks.

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.
 
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

I never mentioned Adolf Hitler.

Please don't misrepresent me like that again.
 
My point is, his expertise is in creating public myths, not finding truth.
How was it out of context? His expertise is creating "myths".
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
I did no such thing. I said hes a myth maker but that I am not suggesting he made myths in this case. I just suggest hes the wrong choice for a commission.

Please don't misrepresent me like that again.
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.
 

Back
Top Bottom