Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
81 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK (2 members, 79 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,260 Year: 5,906/14,102 Month: 54/438 Week: 98/83 Day: 0/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA by Luiz Albe
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2018
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1 of 7 (889286)
11-14-2021 9:56 PM


Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira
2017
Springer

I heard the respected Brazilian historian (a former ambassador as well), but not lately. It seems that he died about the same year this book was published.

I was looking for a 20 year old news article, and found this book.

And the journalists Evan Thomas and Mark Hosenball wrote in Newsweek that one day before the attacks, i.e. on September 10, senior officials of the Pentagon suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparantly because of security issues. The state of alert had been declared 2 weeks before and an urgent warning was received by the Pentagon on the eve of September 11, which led "a group of top Pentagon officials" to suspend their travel plans. Newsweek reported that the upper echelons of the United States military intelligence community were in on something...

27 Michael Hirsh, "We have hit the targets," Newsweek, 13/9/2001. Evan Thomas and Mark Hosenball, "Bush: We're at War ...", Newsweek, 24/9/2001

He hits on unique reports that were ignored by the political class. A one-report wonder, that got ignored by the entire political class, and self-styled "smart people " that populated the message board community. The self proclaimed "intelligent people" never demanded that we learn what enabled the elites to get warnings that very few regular people would ever get.

We never got any answer. The 9/11 Comission uttered not a peep.

Here was the relevant confirmation in the Newsweek article, from 9/12/2001

NEWSWEEK has learned that while U.S. intelligence received no specific warning, the state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircrafts may become a hot topic on the Hill

The one-report story was ignored in a classic case of collective amnesia.

But for one exception:

A 9/23 Newsweek article

On September 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns

The American people, who ask questions, like victim's widows, are smeared by the "smart ones".

Vital answers don't come when the questions are ridiculed as coming from those of "conspiracy theory" ilk.

(And the same smears come from people who swallow - WHOLE - all kinds of "Russian conspiracy" theories, not to mention the Jan 6 conspiracy theories)

Why cant we even ask questions about where these warnings came from? Willie Brown was reported to have gotten some sort of early September flight warning.

Call me a "conspiracy theorist" if it means that I want SOLID questions asked about SOLID events that actually happened. I want solid answers about why flights were canceled due to 11th hour warnings (From where? From who? Because of what?).

Why ask why?

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 11-25-2021 7:04 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2018
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 2 of 7 (889336)
11-18-2021 12:45 PM


Clarification: January 6 conspiracy theories.
I just noticed that anti-free-speech fascists, like Liz Cheney, are attempting to go after something being discussed about January 6.

I have not read the news lately, but it seems that Tucker Carlson has a theory that he feels is worth looking at: the possibility that January 6, 2001 was some sort of "false flag" (That would be a radical & difficult operation, but the more possible possibility would be a degree of government infiltration, via covert operatives who helped promote a certain level of incitement ).

I found out about this theory while I was seeing if Liz Cheney had a potential primary opponent in 2022. (She does!)

(Trump targeted her pro war views in his Jan 6 speech, and seemed to "incite" a 2022 Wyoming at-large primary battle - at the ballot box,that is!)

I just want to clarify that my comments, in the OP, about January 6 conspiracy theories were meant to be critical of the anti-free speech crowd and their attempts to turn Trump's speech into some orchestrated attempt to overthrow the government. A dangerous and chilling attack on the very freedom to protest and (peacefully) pressure. It would deter the exercise of political discourse. It would be criminalizing speech, even a speech that called for "peaceful" protesting, explicitly.

Liz Cheney has been, literally, calling for trials, for just about every single politician & political commentator who disagrees with her militant stance on January 6. She is a fascist who seems to be calling for a military tribunal for anyone who discusses a possibility that January 6 had government agents (of some sort) involved in the "operation" (She sees Jan 6 as an orchestrated event, as opposed to a generally spontaneous slide into violence).

She just said Tucker Carlson is promoting "unpatriotic" theories, and the theory is a call to violence. She said that his theory is on par with January 6, which, in turn, means that Tucker Carlson should be seen as an insurrectionist. He is, Cheney pronounces, just as guilty as those dangerous people who say that the U.S. government had more to do with the events of September 11, 2001 happening than Middle Easterners did.

Cheney can't simply disagree with views contrary to her own, she wants theories that criticize the intelligence agencies to be on par with speech she has already been describing as treasonous criminality.

Adam Schiff just called Tucker Carlson's theory a call to violence.

(Keep in mind that Carlson is critical of violence, infact it is - based on all canons of logical reasoning - fundamentally implicit that he is critical of the said violence when he blames the government agencies for violence.)


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 11-25-2021 7:12 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15709
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 3 of 7 (889401)
11-25-2021 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by LamarkNewAge
11-14-2021 9:56 PM


Why Not?
Why can't we even ask questions about where these warnings came from? (...)Why ask why?
We can always ask questions. Perhaps our first task is to attempt to pin down the sources that the original journalists used to write about them.

It's labeled a conspiracy theory for a reason. Some certain groups of individuals either actually knew the answers or they didn't.
Other groups spread the information. (or disinformation)

It's a bit like JFK and the grassy knoll. All that we will likely ever have are theories.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-14-2021 9:56 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15709
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 4 of 7 (889402)
11-25-2021 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by LamarkNewAge
11-18-2021 12:45 PM


The Flip Side To Freedom Of Speech
Freedom of speech is a mixed blessing. There is never one side or one truth that anyone human possesses (with one notable exception that critics attempt to disprove since two thousand years ago)

With freedom of speech comes the responsibility to discriminate and choose the most likely accurate information. We all have our biases.

Some actually prefer the information assembled by Richard Carrier or Alex Jones.

They have found their source palatable. (If not accurate)

Who can determine ultimate truth and/or accuracy?


"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-18-2021 12:45 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by ringo, posted 11-25-2021 10:57 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 6 by jar, posted 11-25-2021 11:01 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-25-2021 11:06 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19302
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 5 of 7 (889410)
11-25-2021 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Phat
11-25-2021 7:12 AM


Re: The Flip Side To Freedom Of Speech
Phat writes:

Who can determine ultimate truth and/or accuracy?


If there was such a thing as "ultimate truth", the people who are least likely to find it are the ones who scoff at evidence.

"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"
-- Lucky Ned Pepper

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 11-25-2021 7:12 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33496
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 6 of 7 (889412)
11-25-2021 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Phat
11-25-2021 7:12 AM


Re: The Flip Side To Freedom Of Speech
Phat writes:

Who can determine ultimate truth and/or accuracy?

Think Phat.

Ultimate truth is an oxymoron and accuracy can most certainly be tested.

And the god you've created fails at both. Even the Bible shows that there is no ultimate truth and not a single example of accurate prophesy has ever been shown or supported.


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 11-25-2021 7:12 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2622
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 7 of 7 (889413)
11-25-2021 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Phat
11-25-2021 7:12 AM


Re: The Flip Side To Freedom Of Speech
Who can determine ultimate truth and/or accuracy?

Many of us can determine ultimate BULLSHIT and lies.

Are you mainlining sugar this morning or something?

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 11-25-2021 7:12 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021