It’s actually a very telling carve-out, and I have no idea what it’s doing so far down in the article. It should have been front and center.
The only two logical conclusions I can see are:
Israel is so sharp with their negotiation that they spotted and fought for something that it just didn’t occur to anyone else would be something worth worrying about (possible, I guess.)
We already know that Israel is fucked without us, F-35s or no, so there’s no particular reason we would need to separately ensure that their F-35s are fucked without us.
I very much suspect that it’s the second one. Which indicates that the lock-in was an intentional decision, and one that actually would make quite a bit of sense on reflection.
I think it is far more likely that some other country would fall out of our good graces than that the US government might become anti-Israeli-genocide.
(I am not saying you’re wrong as far as the Israeli calculus or that factoring into their decision. Just that, as far as my own calculus, they don’t really have any need to get concerned.)
Biden made some meek complaints about 2000lb bombs being used in dense urban environment. Israel had to put up with a couple of weeks delay on more of them. They signed contract in 2010. Maybe DNC could have chosen Bernie instead of HRC (just kidding).
Oh, hello! I didn’t even notice it was you when I was replying. Good to see you found a way to shoehorn “Biden” and “DNC” and “Hillary” into this totally related topic. You did it real smoothly, too, it totally wasn’t some random hard turn into a rant about US politics and your favorite politicians from the US to talk about. Nice.
Israel’s genocidal ambitions were always there. Knowing the absolute control over US rulership and their ability to maintain genocide support through advances in mind control was not known in 2010.
The US rulership’s wildly successful tactics of mind control, specifically as pertains to Israel, really haven’t changed much since Noam Chomsky was writing about them in 1988.
That’s actually part of the problem: New techniques in mind control have been being developed, including organized mass shilling on social media, and the US government hasn’t really gotten the hang of how to do it effectively. As a result they’ve lost control to a large extent over the US populace. However, the people who are now gaining control are somehow even worse than the pro-genocide contingent who were in charge before.
All you have to do is reach out your hand, on Lemmy, and you can touch someone who’s openly in favor of genocide in Xinjiang or Ukraine. That’s new. The stuff Chomsky talks about seems kind of antiquated now. But it was definitely in full-scale operation, and easily predictable in its features, in 2010.
you can touch someone who’s openly in favor of genocide in Xinjiang or Ukraine.
social media disinformation making smears in favour of warmongering is quite new, but extreme statism if not paid agents. The high divisiveness is part of the mind control techniques that are making most of the audience internalize evil. Those were not of certain effectiveness in 2010.
social media disinformation making smears in favour of warmongering is quite new
Got it!
but extreme statism if not paid agents.
Not a sentence! Also nothing coherent. What are you trying to say here?
The high divisiveness is part of the mind control techniques
Absolutely true.
that are making most of the audience internalize evil
I don’t think this part is true. Most of the tactic of divisiveness and chaos (deliberately lapsing into incoherence and hostility against the other speaker as a default) is to prevent people internalizing anything, I think that is separate from the more directed type of propaganda that’s aiming to get people to adopt some particular worldview or other. A lot of it is just attacking the whole concept of developing an accurate and truthful worldview, or effectively communicating on the internet with other people, in general.
Those were not of certain effectiveness in 2010.
Are you saying the US populace wasn’t manipulated to unconditionally support Israel in 2010? I would say the 2010 electorate was way more misled on that topic than the modern-day audience. There were always some outliers, but the way that pro-Palestinian views have become mainstream even to the point of impacting presidential campaigns, having direct respresentation in congress, that kind of thing, is new.
Again, the really effective manipulating in the modern day is in other directions. “Europe needs to quit this green energy nonsense and start buying fuel from Russia again.” “Joe Biden betrayed the working class and the American people and as a faithful supporter of the left I’m not going to vote for Kamala Harris as a result.” That kind of thing.
It’s actually a very telling carve-out, and I have no idea what it’s doing so far down in the article. It should have been front and center.
The only two logical conclusions I can see are:
I very much suspect that it’s the second one. Which indicates that the lock-in was an intentional decision, and one that actually would make quite a bit of sense on reflection.
The foresight that using F35s for genocide could make some future US politician uppity.
I think it is far more likely that some other country would fall out of our good graces than that the US government might become anti-Israeli-genocide.
(I am not saying you’re wrong as far as the Israeli calculus or that factoring into their decision. Just that, as far as my own calculus, they don’t really have any need to get concerned.)
Biden made some meek complaints about 2000lb bombs being used in dense urban environment. Israel had to put up with a couple of weeks delay on more of them. They signed contract in 2010. Maybe DNC could have chosen Bernie instead of HRC (just kidding).
Oh, hello! I didn’t even notice it was you when I was replying. Good to see you found a way to shoehorn “Biden” and “DNC” and “Hillary” into this totally related topic. You did it real smoothly, too, it totally wasn’t some random hard turn into a rant about US politics and your favorite politicians from the US to talk about. Nice.
Israel’s genocidal ambitions were always there. Knowing the absolute control over US rulership and their ability to maintain genocide support through advances in mind control was not known in 2010.
What?
The US rulership’s wildly successful tactics of mind control, specifically as pertains to Israel, really haven’t changed much since Noam Chomsky was writing about them in 1988.
That’s actually part of the problem: New techniques in mind control have been being developed, including organized mass shilling on social media, and the US government hasn’t really gotten the hang of how to do it effectively. As a result they’ve lost control to a large extent over the US populace. However, the people who are now gaining control are somehow even worse than the pro-genocide contingent who were in charge before.
All you have to do is reach out your hand, on Lemmy, and you can touch someone who’s openly in favor of genocide in Xinjiang or Ukraine. That’s new. The stuff Chomsky talks about seems kind of antiquated now. But it was definitely in full-scale operation, and easily predictable in its features, in 2010.
social media disinformation making smears in favour of warmongering is quite new, but extreme statism if not paid agents. The high divisiveness is part of the mind control techniques that are making most of the audience internalize evil. Those were not of certain effectiveness in 2010.
Got it!
Not a sentence! Also nothing coherent. What are you trying to say here?
Absolutely true.
I don’t think this part is true. Most of the tactic of divisiveness and chaos (deliberately lapsing into incoherence and hostility against the other speaker as a default) is to prevent people internalizing anything, I think that is separate from the more directed type of propaganda that’s aiming to get people to adopt some particular worldview or other. A lot of it is just attacking the whole concept of developing an accurate and truthful worldview, or effectively communicating on the internet with other people, in general.
Are you saying the US populace wasn’t manipulated to unconditionally support Israel in 2010? I would say the 2010 electorate was way more misled on that topic than the modern-day audience. There were always some outliers, but the way that pro-Palestinian views have become mainstream even to the point of impacting presidential campaigns, having direct respresentation in congress, that kind of thing, is new.
Again, the really effective manipulating in the modern day is in other directions. “Europe needs to quit this green energy nonsense and start buying fuel from Russia again.” “Joe Biden betrayed the working class and the American people and as a faithful supporter of the left I’m not going to vote for Kamala Harris as a result.” That kind of thing.