SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
During the cold war, there was a clear narrative: an ideological opposition between the US and the Soviet Union. Moments of great tension were understood as episodes within that narrative. The closest we came to nuclear confrontation was the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when the two countries seemed on the edge of war. But the crisis itself was finished inside a fortnight, and there was a wider framework to fall back on. The 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty calmed the waters.
Then, in the early 1980s the tough-talking but critically derided , Ronald Reagan was elected US president. He reignited the cold war rhetoric and began escalating the arms race, and there was an assumption – particularly in Europe – that nuclear destruction was creeping closer. But it was still within a recognisable context. That ended with the collapse of communism, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. For a while the world felt a much safer place than it had been.
But the cold war was replaced by uncertainty. And now the uncertainty is combined with the unpredictability of Donald Trump. The recent bombing raids in Syria and Afghanistan were isolated moments, without any sense of programme or continuity. Nor does there seem any logic to why North Korea should have suddenly become a pressing issue. Incidents that seem to arrive out of the blue can be much more frightening. We're probably not on the verge of nuclear war, but it's destabilising if we can't make sense of events.
Is the world more dangerous now than during the cold war?
[Related]: Nuclear war will ignite in May 2017, mystic Horacio Villegas says
What do you think ?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday April 23 2017, @07:17PM (1 child)
The reaction to 9/11 was no accident, it was carefully scripted. Possibly down to the mailing of Anthrax to a Senator (which eventually turned out to come from a US military lab).
This doesn't say that the government plotted for 9/11 to happen, or even knew in detail what was coming down. But, unless you believe that they are totally incompetent, they knew that SOMETHING was coming down, and they had plans to take full advantage of it. This doesn't mean I think they used agent provocateurs this time, even though they have in the past. I know of no convincing evidence either way. And the anthrax was done by SOMEBODY with connections to the US military.
Note that they had the bill to take advantage of the event on the floor of congress within a couple of days. It *has* to have been written ahead of time.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 24 2017, @09:18AM
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/04/23/facing-down-terror-the-man-who-leads-a-bukit-aman-division-in-fighting-terrorism-has-many-tales-to-s/ [thestar.com.my]
We passed all information, including passport and flight details and photographs to an American intelligence agency. Unfortunately, that agency did not share the information with other US law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. If the agency had shared the information, pre-emptive measures could have been taken by US authorities to arrest the suspects as they entered the United States. This lack of coordination was highlighted in the “9/11 Commission Report” published by the US Government after the attack.
Lack of coordination or part of the plan? ;)