The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA by Luiz Albe

Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira
2017
SpringerI 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. 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 The one-report story was ignored in a classic case of collective amnesia.But for one exception:A 9/23 Newsweek article 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.

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.)