Yes, I agree that the US may be worse than Israel. But I doubt that they want a war in the Middle East. I really do believe that they (the US) are trying their best to not start WWIII. But their "best" is appallingly inadequate.
If the US was in control of the situation, I think they would have preferred to keep things the way they were on October 6th. They worked hard on the Abraham Accords - which was essentially an attempt to normalize relationships between the Arab states and Israel while completely ignoring the 75+ year ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
The US is already in a war with Russia in Ukraine (I am purposely omitting the "proxy" word here). It is also highly probable that they would be involved in a conflict with China whenever that happens. I can't see what they could possibly gain by starting another war in the Middle East.
The US has ardently supported Israel for so long that they seem to have lost the ability to extricate themselves from all the actions of Israel. They literally ARE joined at the hip. And as a consequence of that, they will pay a price (and be blamed rightfully so) for every action that Israel takes.
I am not totally sure that the US wants a war in the middle east, but I am certain that they want the money that they are making from the genocide in Gaza and from the war in Ukraine. I think where money is involved, the US is always in.
Chang Chokaski, Your arguments are very appealing, also rational. But the way events are building up it is hard to believe that the US is trying to avoid WW111. When it happens are we going to say " unintended consequences".
The late John Pilger warned about " The coming war with China" years ago. It will hardly be localised; it will engulf the whole world.
Agree with you that it is a US war against Russia. Russia is fighting for its very existence. Ukraine is only the cannon fodder.
What I would say to that is - No one wanted WWI or WWII, but for myraid reasons they still happened. Similarly, no one wants WWIII - but it may still happen either because of the Ukraine war, an impending China war, or an Israeli-Middle East war (or soemthing else).
John Pilger: RIP - he is one of my heroes! (Along with Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, George Carlin and Michael Parenti - as you can see, I'm obviously anti-empire, anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, anti-capitalist, etc.) :)
The last war that the US won was WWII. They lost the Vietnam War, they lost in Afghanistan (just like the Russians before them did), they lost in Iraq, they are losing in Ukraine, I don't think they won the Korean war either.
Not a single war since WWII has benefitted the US. But still they persist in continuing to try to dominate the world - either through economic and financial strategies (eg. US Dollar hegemony) or military might (800+ bases around the world).
When I say the US has not benefitted by wars I mean the common citizens of the US. The ruling power elite benefit enormously by wars ("War is a Racket" is an amazing book by General Major Smedley Butler written in 1935 that sheds more light on this).
But as all empires that stretch themselves too thin (like the US is on a trajectory of doing), it is only a matter of time before such empires collapse under the weight and consequences of its own actions (blowback and unintended consequences and uncontrollable and unpredictable variables). This story of the "crash of empires" has been a reliable staple of human history.
In summary: A world war is NOT in America's strategic interests. Unfortunately, the US has become so arrogant, vainglorious, hubristic, pompous, egotistic and narcissistic in its thinking and decision-making that its ability to think strategically has become clouded and error-prone. It's as if the US can't get out of its own way - as if it's in a downward-spiral negative feedback loop of its own creation. And unfortunately, the rest of the world will have to pay for its consequences, along with itself.
That is the tragedy of declining empires that I am so apprehensive of. (i.e. when empires decline, they tend to get more ruthless and irrational in their actions - just as what we are witnessing currently with Israel - nothing that Israel is doing currently is good for Israel's future - but despite this they continue on this pyschopathic and sociopathic path).
Thank you very much Chang Chokaski, no need to apologise. Your scholarly response - with the finer points which escaped me - is much appreciated. I am in total agreement with you.
All those massive underground bunkers the usa built... Just saying they might be planing this.
Once down town I witnessed black helicopters doing landing drills on the roofs of all the government building in the middle of the night.. Flew low over our old industrial loft looking towards down town,, they flew in fast came up the side of the buildings and landed on top and took off soon after dropping down and swooping off.. I watched with binoculars and could see no numbers or marking in the helicopters .. There was no official news or press release at the time.
I think what you are describing is an example of "availability heuristic/bias" or "personal experience bias".
It's common for a person to weigh their own personal experiences at a higher level and with more relevancy than what is statistically present in the wider population (something that also applies to base-rate neglect).
I'm not saying that personal experiences are incorrect or should be ignored or anything remotely to that effect. What I'm saying is that to arrive at an objective evaluation, a statistical analysis of events needs to be done - and any personal experiences should be evaluated in the context of this larger dataset.
What you describe is an example of anecdotal fallacy (An informal fallacy where personal experience or a singular example is used to support an argument or position instead of compelling evidence. People often gravitate towards using their own experiences or those of people around them as evidence in arguments.)
I am extremely guily of doing the same myself - using my own experiences to make judgements and arrive at conclusions instead of evaluating my experiences in a broader context. I work at it constantly - it's challenging - but I've found that placing less importance on personal experiences helps me make more objective and accurate assessments.
Apologies if this comes across as patronizing or pedantic - that's not my intention.
Also I just asked my girlfrind if she remembers those drills that went on downtown and she described it back to me exactly what I was saying..
So yeah maybe the bunkers and the drills don't add up to much other than a interesting hmm?...but I never said more than that... And yeah maybe filling in the blanks is not always wise but they are cercomstantial evidence that should not just be fluffed off and ignored either..
The trick of the way our clandestine world works is it's too outlandish to believe so it must not be real or must be seen as ridiculous...it's like the con artist saying oh don't be ridiculous I'm not stealing from you im your friend,, trust me.
I'm not disbelieving your experience. How could I? I wasn't even there.
I'm not even talking about ignoring or omitting any evidence, however microscopic or circumstantial it may be.
I'm talking about drawing connections and inferences between different events.
I'm talking about evidence of the connections, not evidence of the experience.
I'm talking about the evidence and the justification for making the leap, from your experience of the event, to your analysis of how the US might want WW3 - of how it ties in to your statement of "All those massive underground bunkers the usa built... Just saying they might be planing this."
If you saw what I did you might change your mind...
I think it interesting that the asumption you took was that I misinterpreted some normal goings on with maybe police helicopters as somthing more neferios and thus you came to the conclusion it's all in my own conspiratorial head.. I find it interesting that you kinda did exactly what you described you are working on not doing.
Our world is so fucked up, so messed up - that it is becoming increasingly challenging to distinguish between true and false, truth and lies, etc. Different people's realities start competing with each other for "who's reality represents the truth?"
In such situations, who's version of reality does one believe?
IMHO, what most people fail to realize, is that there is a very thin, invisible line between reality and conspiracy, and it is exceedingly easy to cross back and forth over that line - sometimes multiple times. One person's reality is another person's conspiracy, and one person's conspiracy is another person's reality. Often the line becomes so blurred that it becomes impossible to distinguish between reality and conspiracy.
So then you have the conspiracy theorists that make inferences without using sufficient statistical and probability theory and often without enough critical thinking. But even so, they are right every so often because they are willing to question prevailing narratives and propaganda. Also, there is often some kernel of truth as the basis of many conspiracy theories.
Then you have the conspiracy theory deniers - which often includes people that have been so brainwashed and propagandized by the "consensus wisdom" or the "common-sense" argument, or the narratives of the "power elite" that they fail to question themselves and their belief structures rigorously enough.
The human mind is a pattern-seeking machine - humans love to find patterns in everything - even if those patterns don't exist. Humans have a hard time grappling with randomness and chaos. It is no coincidence that people with "conspiratorial mindsets" often have superior pattern-recognition skills (and these pattern discerning skills are a positive evolutionary adaptation). But sometimes they perceive patterns where non exist.
Humans have an innate need to make sense of a world that they have little control over. They have a need to feel safe & secure in the environment in which they live, to have a sense of control over the things that happen to them. But our world is exceedingly complex - full of complex events, processes, and systems - full of random events, unexplained events and random coincidences - full of complex connections that are not easy to comprehend. Hence, in their all-too-natural thirst to satisfy the above human needs, many conspiracy theories offer a way to resolve this cognitive dissonance - theories that seem to offer what look like meaningful explanations of what could otherwise be random events. Often these theories provide a feeling of certainty, of knowing, of rationalizing the world, of providing easy explanations for complex or unexplained events. Hence the allure of conspiracy theories and grand theories that connect everything into a coherent, often easily-digestible explanation.
My issue is not really with the "conspiracy theories" themselves, but rather with the rational thinking processes of believers of conspiracy theories. Often conspiracy theorists regard the existence of a plot not as a testable hypothesis and something that needs to be verified with hard, cold evidence (as in evidence-based medicine), but as a fundamental and unshakable principle from which all other evidence gathering and evidence interpretation and analysis begins.
IMHO, the problem lies with the methodologies used by many "conspiracy theorists". Most are lacking in the rigorousness of their analysis, the inadequate use of scientific methodology, statistics, and probability analysis, and even critical thinking. The conspiracy theories that have successfully exposed the truth about our smoke-and-mirrors world have managed to surpass the limitations of many of the flaws of "conspiratorial thinking" highlighted above.
Yes, I agree that the US may be worse than Israel. But I doubt that they want a war in the Middle East. I really do believe that they (the US) are trying their best to not start WWIII. But their "best" is appallingly inadequate.
If the US was in control of the situation, I think they would have preferred to keep things the way they were on October 6th. They worked hard on the Abraham Accords - which was essentially an attempt to normalize relationships between the Arab states and Israel while completely ignoring the 75+ year ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
The US is already in a war with Russia in Ukraine (I am purposely omitting the "proxy" word here). It is also highly probable that they would be involved in a conflict with China whenever that happens. I can't see what they could possibly gain by starting another war in the Middle East.
The US has ardently supported Israel for so long that they seem to have lost the ability to extricate themselves from all the actions of Israel. They literally ARE joined at the hip. And as a consequence of that, they will pay a price (and be blamed rightfully so) for every action that Israel takes.
I am not totally sure that the US wants a war in the middle east, but I am certain that they want the money that they are making from the genocide in Gaza and from the war in Ukraine. I think where money is involved, the US is always in.
Natural gas field offshore.. Funny that all the other ports had been "exploded" except Hifa.
Till syria lobbed a few at it
Chang Chokaski, Your arguments are very appealing, also rational. But the way events are building up it is hard to believe that the US is trying to avoid WW111. When it happens are we going to say " unintended consequences".
The late John Pilger warned about " The coming war with China" years ago. It will hardly be localised; it will engulf the whole world.
Agree with you that it is a US war against Russia. Russia is fighting for its very existence. Ukraine is only the cannon fodder.
What I would say to that is - No one wanted WWI or WWII, but for myraid reasons they still happened. Similarly, no one wants WWIII - but it may still happen either because of the Ukraine war, an impending China war, or an Israeli-Middle East war (or soemthing else).
John Pilger: RIP - he is one of my heroes! (Along with Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, George Carlin and Michael Parenti - as you can see, I'm obviously anti-empire, anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, anti-capitalist, etc.) :)
The last war that the US won was WWII. They lost the Vietnam War, they lost in Afghanistan (just like the Russians before them did), they lost in Iraq, they are losing in Ukraine, I don't think they won the Korean war either.
Not a single war since WWII has benefitted the US. But still they persist in continuing to try to dominate the world - either through economic and financial strategies (eg. US Dollar hegemony) or military might (800+ bases around the world).
When I say the US has not benefitted by wars I mean the common citizens of the US. The ruling power elite benefit enormously by wars ("War is a Racket" is an amazing book by General Major Smedley Butler written in 1935 that sheds more light on this).
But as all empires that stretch themselves too thin (like the US is on a trajectory of doing), it is only a matter of time before such empires collapse under the weight and consequences of its own actions (blowback and unintended consequences and uncontrollable and unpredictable variables). This story of the "crash of empires" has been a reliable staple of human history.
In summary: A world war is NOT in America's strategic interests. Unfortunately, the US has become so arrogant, vainglorious, hubristic, pompous, egotistic and narcissistic in its thinking and decision-making that its ability to think strategically has become clouded and error-prone. It's as if the US can't get out of its own way - as if it's in a downward-spiral negative feedback loop of its own creation. And unfortunately, the rest of the world will have to pay for its consequences, along with itself.
That is the tragedy of declining empires that I am so apprehensive of. (i.e. when empires decline, they tend to get more ruthless and irrational in their actions - just as what we are witnessing currently with Israel - nothing that Israel is doing currently is good for Israel's future - but despite this they continue on this pyschopathic and sociopathic path).
Apologies for such a long response.
Thank you very much Chang Chokaski, no need to apologise. Your scholarly response - with the finer points which escaped me - is much appreciated. I am in total agreement with you.
Best wishes.
All those massive underground bunkers the usa built... Just saying they might be planing this.
Once down town I witnessed black helicopters doing landing drills on the roofs of all the government building in the middle of the night.. Flew low over our old industrial loft looking towards down town,, they flew in fast came up the side of the buildings and landed on top and took off soon after dropping down and swooping off.. I watched with binoculars and could see no numbers or marking in the helicopters .. There was no official news or press release at the time.
I think what you are describing is an example of "availability heuristic/bias" or "personal experience bias".
It's common for a person to weigh their own personal experiences at a higher level and with more relevancy than what is statistically present in the wider population (something that also applies to base-rate neglect).
I'm not saying that personal experiences are incorrect or should be ignored or anything remotely to that effect. What I'm saying is that to arrive at an objective evaluation, a statistical analysis of events needs to be done - and any personal experiences should be evaluated in the context of this larger dataset.
What you describe is an example of anecdotal fallacy (An informal fallacy where personal experience or a singular example is used to support an argument or position instead of compelling evidence. People often gravitate towards using their own experiences or those of people around them as evidence in arguments.)
I am extremely guily of doing the same myself - using my own experiences to make judgements and arrive at conclusions instead of evaluating my experiences in a broader context. I work at it constantly - it's challenging - but I've found that placing less importance on personal experiences helps me make more objective and accurate assessments.
Apologies if this comes across as patronizing or pedantic - that's not my intention.
Also I just asked my girlfrind if she remembers those drills that went on downtown and she described it back to me exactly what I was saying..
So yeah maybe the bunkers and the drills don't add up to much other than a interesting hmm?...but I never said more than that... And yeah maybe filling in the blanks is not always wise but they are cercomstantial evidence that should not just be fluffed off and ignored either..
The trick of the way our clandestine world works is it's too outlandish to believe so it must not be real or must be seen as ridiculous...it's like the con artist saying oh don't be ridiculous I'm not stealing from you im your friend,, trust me.
I'm not disbelieving your experience. How could I? I wasn't even there.
I'm not even talking about ignoring or omitting any evidence, however microscopic or circumstantial it may be.
I'm talking about drawing connections and inferences between different events.
I'm talking about evidence of the connections, not evidence of the experience.
I'm talking about the evidence and the justification for making the leap, from your experience of the event, to your analysis of how the US might want WW3 - of how it ties in to your statement of "All those massive underground bunkers the usa built... Just saying they might be planing this."
If you saw what I did you might change your mind...
I think it interesting that the asumption you took was that I misinterpreted some normal goings on with maybe police helicopters as somthing more neferios and thus you came to the conclusion it's all in my own conspiratorial head.. I find it interesting that you kinda did exactly what you described you are working on not doing.
Our world is so fucked up, so messed up - that it is becoming increasingly challenging to distinguish between true and false, truth and lies, etc. Different people's realities start competing with each other for "who's reality represents the truth?"
In such situations, who's version of reality does one believe?
IMHO, what most people fail to realize, is that there is a very thin, invisible line between reality and conspiracy, and it is exceedingly easy to cross back and forth over that line - sometimes multiple times. One person's reality is another person's conspiracy, and one person's conspiracy is another person's reality. Often the line becomes so blurred that it becomes impossible to distinguish between reality and conspiracy.
So then you have the conspiracy theorists that make inferences without using sufficient statistical and probability theory and often without enough critical thinking. But even so, they are right every so often because they are willing to question prevailing narratives and propaganda. Also, there is often some kernel of truth as the basis of many conspiracy theories.
Then you have the conspiracy theory deniers - which often includes people that have been so brainwashed and propagandized by the "consensus wisdom" or the "common-sense" argument, or the narratives of the "power elite" that they fail to question themselves and their belief structures rigorously enough.
The human mind is a pattern-seeking machine - humans love to find patterns in everything - even if those patterns don't exist. Humans have a hard time grappling with randomness and chaos. It is no coincidence that people with "conspiratorial mindsets" often have superior pattern-recognition skills (and these pattern discerning skills are a positive evolutionary adaptation). But sometimes they perceive patterns where non exist.
Humans have an innate need to make sense of a world that they have little control over. They have a need to feel safe & secure in the environment in which they live, to have a sense of control over the things that happen to them. But our world is exceedingly complex - full of complex events, processes, and systems - full of random events, unexplained events and random coincidences - full of complex connections that are not easy to comprehend. Hence, in their all-too-natural thirst to satisfy the above human needs, many conspiracy theories offer a way to resolve this cognitive dissonance - theories that seem to offer what look like meaningful explanations of what could otherwise be random events. Often these theories provide a feeling of certainty, of knowing, of rationalizing the world, of providing easy explanations for complex or unexplained events. Hence the allure of conspiracy theories and grand theories that connect everything into a coherent, often easily-digestible explanation.
My issue is not really with the "conspiracy theories" themselves, but rather with the rational thinking processes of believers of conspiracy theories. Often conspiracy theorists regard the existence of a plot not as a testable hypothesis and something that needs to be verified with hard, cold evidence (as in evidence-based medicine), but as a fundamental and unshakable principle from which all other evidence gathering and evidence interpretation and analysis begins.
IMHO, the problem lies with the methodologies used by many "conspiracy theorists". Most are lacking in the rigorousness of their analysis, the inadequate use of scientific methodology, statistics, and probability analysis, and even critical thinking. The conspiracy theories that have successfully exposed the truth about our smoke-and-mirrors world have managed to surpass the limitations of many of the flaws of "conspiratorial thinking" highlighted above.