• 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?

bob_kark said:
He's comparing the Wiki aricle that states:


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?
Click to expand...

Why use such an extreme example as Adolf Hitler? Any person could have been used to illustrate that analogy, not just genocidal psychopaths. Do you see my point?
 
Docker said:
So far this forum does not seem like a place I would like to be credible in.
Click to expand...
There was a recent poster pdoherty (or something like that). He seemed to take pride in the fact that he wasn't a critical thinker and didn't care to support his opinions with evidence. He just wanted to dump his opinions and aimless debate, with no basis in facts. Would you describe yourself the same way?

If so, then maybe this isn't the best place for your. People here generally have no patience for accusations without supporting evidence. Especially when those accusations involve accusing innocent people of complicity in mass murder. I'm one of them, even though I never voted for Bush and object to almost everyone one of his political ideals.
 
Docker said:
I dont know of any Gravy. He admits he is an expert in the creation and maintenence of myths. Thats all I claimed.
Click to expand...
No, you claimed, four times, that he is a myth maker. His Wiki bio claims that an area of his academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of myths. He studies myths and mythmakers.

Do you see the difference? Yes or no?

If yes, do you withdraw your claim that he is a mythmaker, which was the basis for your opinion that he should not have been selected for the Commission?
 
Docker said:
Why use such an extreme example as Adolf Hitler? Any person could have been used to illustrate that analogy, not just genocidal psychopaths. Do you see my point?
Click to expand...


The more extreme you make an example, the clearer the illustration is.

Most people would say you were utterly insane to think someone IS Hitler when they claim they are an EXPERT on Hitler.

This makes it easier to realise you would be equally insane to think Zelikow WAS a mythmaker when he claims he is an expert on mythmaking.

-Gumboot
 
Docker, starting fresh, would you please explain why Zelikow should be judged unfit. If his academic specialty has to do with understanding how these public myths are created does it follow that he would be any more likely to create these myths than anyone else? I don't think so. To take it to that level we need to know much more about his history and specifically we would need eviedence he had been employed or otherwise occupied in such a capacity before.

To say generally that anyone appointed by Bush or being a US citezen might make them in some way biased is of course an argument that could be used against any of those on the commision. Why single out Zelikow? Wouldn't you want to know much more about him before you question his impartiality?

ETA If in addition to having this knowledge if you could show that he had been employed by, say, the CIA, in this capacity you might then have a good case for looking deeper.
 
Last edited:
Docker said:
Why use such an extreme example as Adolf Hitler? Any person could have been used to illustrate that analogy, not just genocidal psychopaths. Do you see my point?
Click to expand...
No! I'm sorry, but I have to conclude that you're just yanking our chain. I find it impossible to believe that you're really that obtuse. It was entertaining, but I'm not interested in debating the obvious anymore.
 
DavidJames said:
There was a recent poster pdoherty (or something like that). He seemed to take pride in the fact that he wasn't a critical thinker and didn't care to support his opinions with evidence. He just wanted to dump his opinions and aimless debate, with no basis in facts. Would you describe yourself the same way?

If so, then maybe this isn't the best place for your. People here generally have no patience for accusations without supporting evidence. Especially when those accusations involve accusing innocent people of complicity in mass murder. I'm one of them, even though I never voted for Bush and object to almost everyone one of his political ideals.
Click to expand...

So this pdoherty is no longer here? Nice of you to talk about him when he cant respond.

The official account accuses people on the basis of circumstantial evidence. And doesn't even question people who might shed light on it, like Mahmood.
 
Docker said:
Well, for a start, I would like to see somebody with expertise in something relevant.
Click to expand...


Well, if you think 9/11 was an inside job, and the entire terrorist thing is a sham, he's the PERFECT man for the job isn't he?

I mean, if anyone could spot mythmaking it would be him.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Well, if you think 9/11 was an inside job, and the entire terrorist thing is a sham, he's the PERFECT man for the job isn't he?

I mean, if anyone could spot mythmaking it would be him.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

But he was appointed by Bush, so which myth do you think he will favour? A commission appointed by the government cant be impartial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom