-
Hamas duped Israel into thinking it cared more about economic stability than a war, Reuters said.
-
Meanwhile, it was practicing for an attack in plain sight, the report said.
-
Hamas trained its fighters on a mock Israeli settlement, learning how to storm it, Reuters added.
———
The Palestinian militant group Hamas built a mock Israeli town in Gaza and practiced attacking in plain sight — but Israel didn’t react, Reuters reported on Sunday.
Hamas militants launched a surprise offensive on Israel on Saturday, in what has been described as the worst breach in Israel’s defenses in decades.
The attack followed a careful campaign of deception by Hamas that ensured Israel was caught off guard over the weekend, an unnamed source, with connections to the group, told Reuters.
Despite convincing Israel that they had no interest in war, Hamas militants were practicing for the offensive in plain sight by setting up a mock Israeli settlement in Gaza to train its fighters.
I would not at all be surprised if the israeli government allowed this to happen.
But there is no evidence beyond “they did not act on questionable intel”. And the sooner we enter full conspiracy theory mode, the less credence there is TO (more) nefarious actions coming to light later. US-centric, but I know plenty of people who consider “The Bush Administration lied about evidence of WMDs” to be on the same level as “jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams” in terms of “conspiracy theories”
And all we do by entertaining conspiracy theories is erode the concept of truth.
The question is not “so was this a false flag action and all the festival goers were crisis actors?”. It is “why did israel not act on this intelligence. What made them think it was not valid”
Uhhh, okay well which is it then? One second you say it is totally unreasonable to question, and the next you are actively agreeing that you would not be surprised if the government had allowed this to happen. I’m sure even you can see the hypocrisy in that.
I don’t recall ever suggesting that there was, nor did the OP of this chain.
I’m willing to give you a pass on this point because I think this is probably true. However, let’s not also act like the government doesn’t intentionally muddy the waters and paint anything that is counter to their chosen narrative as conspiracy theories anyway…
That is entirely the point isn’t it? The government & intelligence community are fully aware of this phenomenon, and use it to their advantage as one of their main tactics to either squash or foment dissent depending on their objectives.
The truth has already been eroded to such a degree that whoever controls the largest & fastest means of information dissemination is able to control the narrative. It takes people who are willing to entertain other perspectives to weed through the bullshit in order to eventually land at something that more closely APPROXIMATES the truth.
Wow, this is such a laughable conflation that I don’t even know what to say about it really. Yes, there are morons who think that way, but I don’t think anybody in this discussion is one of them as far as I can’t tell. So, let’s stick to higher level discourse that can be potentially productive.
Are you familiar with the old robot saying, “does not compute”?
I have a lot of suspicions about a lot of things. Many based on a “gut feeling”
But when there is no meaningful evidence to support it other than speculation and said “gut feeling”? It is not something I bring up.
Ah, interesting! I personally have no moral qualms with discussing possibilities.
Already pointed this out in the other branch but always worth repeating
You know, I have my suspicions about that Hegar guy. He said a few things that makes me wonder if he is a pedophile. Like, I am not saying he diddles kids, but he says the kinds of things that make me think he might? You know?
Can you see why baseless speculation (because not properly acting on intelligence is pretty much the one constant of intelligence gathering) might have negative repercussions?
But it’s baseful speculation, based on Netanayahu’s past actions.
He intentionally dialed up tensions as recently as the first round of protests against eliminating judicial independence.
A more apt anology would be if I was convicted sex offender and suddenly there were hundreds and hundreds of molested children, and people started “just asking questions” about whether I was involved. It’s unlikely that I would have done something on that scale - I’m not a priest. But it’s not a bad faith argument to discuss whether I could be involved.
I think you’re mistaking some noncommittal discussion of the reality of politics in that region with a known bad faith argument.