Who Is Behind The Hamas Attack?

I know the issue of who is behind this attack keeps coming up. I think it's worth discussing. Before we do, however, please note that this is ALL GUESSWORK... looking at motives, that's it. There is no evidence of collusion yet by anyone, and I am not saying there is. That said, let's talk about who gains and loses from this as we watch to see if any evidence of collusion ever does appear (Biden is apparently looking for evidence of Iranian involvement).

(1) Hamas alone. This is the most obvious choice. They are blinded by obsession. They are struggling with relevance because they only matter when engaged in crisis and right now they are saddled with the responsibility of running Gaza. It's hard to be liked when you can't arrange for trash pickup. This attack makes them relevant again. Also, the more people the Israelis kill, the more likely they are that the world supports them.

Other reasons to think it's only them: There were only a couple hundred involved, apparently. That makes this a small operation, which suggests intimacy rather than state sanction. Half of Hamas is apparently upset these guys took women and children hostage. That suggests this was a faction rather than the whole thing, again suggesting this was nothing official. The West Bank did not get involved. If this was coordinated, why not do a general Palestinian uprising? Likewise, there were no terror attacks in third countries by Palestinian operatives. Again, this suggests a rogue faction and not any sort of official backing.

(2) Iran. They back the Palestinians to cause chaos in the West. Iran likes to be seen as a power player and this fits that. They have also been getting pretensions lately since the Russians have come begging them for equipment to use in Ukraine... Too. Big. For. Their. Britches. Also, Iran and Saudi are enemies and the US is reconciling with Saudi after Biden fractured the relationship initially. This could have been seen as a way to splinter that relationship again.

On the other hand, this could just as easily unite the Saudis and the US... friends forgive when faced with danger. Moreover, Iran usually starts playing games when they are involved in something... hit and runs at tankers, that sort of thing. Yet, they've been silent this time. Also, there apparently isn't much internal support for this with their public. Iran is involved at least to the extent of supporting Hamas, and they may have a veto on attacks. Other than that, though, there isn't evidence yet of them encouraging this or partaking.

(3) Russia. Russia could certainly use the distraction. This kind of conflict could draw in the US, stopping weapons exports to Ukraine. It will splinter Europe and the US, which could cause dissent on Ukraine. Further, the Ukrainians were begging the Israelis for weapons this past month. This ends that as Israel can't afford to spare them now. And Putin is a games player who might think of this kind of move. The problem is, Russia doesn't have much sway with the Palestinians anymore and there's really no evidence of Russian backing. If this theory makes sense, it makes the most sense as a favor Russia asked of Iran... "please cause a distraction." If that proves true, look for Russian anti-aircraft batteries to start appearing in Iran as the price. Most likely though, Russia was not involved.

(4) Al Qaeda/Taliban. The Taliban has for years proven to be an internal force. Civil warriors, not external terrorists. They are unlikely to be involved. Al Qaeda would love to attack Israel and the US, but they haven't claimed a hand in this... which they always do. Also, moving into Palestine would step on Iranian toes. I can't see either group being involved here.

(5) Saudi. Kind of far fetched, but the Saudis are dirty players and this might be a good way to bring themselves back into the good graces of the Americans by making us focus on Iran as the regional bad guy. They need help in a war they are fighting in Yemen and a change of image: the enemy of my enemy is my closest friend and weapon's supplier. That's pretty complicated reasoning and the new prince running Saudi seems more economically focused, which means he wants stability, so I dismiss it. But I can't say it's impossible.

(6) Israel: Could it be that a hated Prime Minister stages a black flag operation to make himself a victim and save his regime? No. That's paranoid logic... but expect to hear it from paranoids and anti-Israelis.

Terrorists Are Not Victims

I'm not entirely sure (nor do I care) what the Palestinians hope to win by murdering innocent people and kidnapping more (interesting that so many seem to be women... kind of backs the idea that political extremism and sexual inadequacy are linked). Killing people is a non-starter. You've already lost me at that point. I am deaf to your cause. I'm not sure what the "Palestinian people" are thinking by cheering this on either. That makes you an accessory, in my book, and I have zero sympathy if the person you harmed now slaps you around as hard as they want. You gave up your right to complain or scream innocence. I'm not sure what the progressive left is thinking either, basically trying to defend this. You whined about the drunken inbreds on January 6, but you're trying to defend pure, unadulterated terrorism. The best I can say is this proves your hypocrisy, but I am thinking harsher words than that. It seems you are sick f*cks. I guess all I can say is that chunks of the human race are pretty sick and maybe we need to be a little more careful about encouraging or accepting extremists.

Snopes... 'Debunking' As Propaganda

One of the things that really bothers me in the modern era is the way people have learned to pretend to be victimized to support their cause. Two types of people use this. The first are over-privileged people trying to make their narcissistic extravagance less intolerable and the second are those trying to keep the cult together, so to speak. The first is usually hypocritical actors, arrogant models and the children of the ultra rich... nepo babies. The second tend to be political types trying to keep the morons outraged. In the last few weeks something interesting along these lines has emerged: Snopes.

You might remember Snopes as a hard-left "fact checker." It lies and misleads and spreads all kinds of leftist propaganda as it pretends to be an unbiased debunker. It seemed to kind of vanish from the news for a while, but now it's back. And what it's doing is... interesting.

Over the past month, I've seen Snopes articles appearing every day. Only one was overly political. It was a "debunking" of the idea that AOC became a millionaire over the last four years. To say the debunking was bunk is an understatement. First, it only used her official campaign disclosure to do the debunking... and we know no one lies on those, right? And what kind of debunker relies on the statements of the person they are investigating? Secondly, it only looked at cash in the bank and her declared retirement fund. It did not examine assets... where people keep their value. Based on this "extensive" look at one single self-reported form, Snopes concluded she was only worth about $15,000. Take that right wingers! Of course, that would make her a fool as her House income alone is $174,000 a year, before benefits and outside engagements.

Anyway, not the point.

What's interesting is that for the past month, Snopes has been posting articles at places like leftist Yahoo purporting to debunk things I can guarantee you no one actually said. These are usually attempts to defend well-connected leftist celebrities like Oprah, Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, Bill Gates, Obama. What's more, they seem to be an attempt to defend these people from (fake) nonsense attacks in an effort to sure up their reputations when they've done something else that is being criticized.

Examples of the types of things they're debunking are:

Did Jada Pinkett panic as her 'sickening' role in Maui wild fires leaks?
Did Tom Hanks reveal Oprah's 'true plan' behind Maui fires?
Did Bill Gate laugh and say he was buying land in Maui at pennies on the dollar?
Did NFL coach/owner X immediately suspend a player/fire coach Y for kneeling during the national anthem?
Did Obama panic of Joan River's confession?

Note that this is all obvious nonsense no one would believe. Note also that no one likely said any of this. I don't mean the celebrity didn't say it, I mean no real person ever suggested this happened. Maybe a Russian bot, but no actual person. And certainly no one believed it or passed it on. So what is Snopes doing?

I think there are several factors at play here. First, this defends well-connected leftist celebrities by polluting the water around them. If they get you to believe that your favorite celeb is under constant false attack, you tend to disbelieve and forgive real scandals. For example, Oprah's $10 million donation in Maui went over like a lead balloon because it looks chintzy compared to her wealth. Snopes steps in to debunk a fake scandal. Bill Gates was baffled why people were upset he owns 4% of the farmland in the US. Snopes steps in to debunk a fake scandal. As these are the people driving the left today, Snopes is protecting the leftist ruling class.

Secondly, it reinforces who we should listen to by (1) making certain people seem so important they are being targeted and (2) it keeps people assuming those who oppose them are lunatics. Basically, it's making average people believe the right is a bunch of Tucker Carlsons, which devalues the right very much by making them seem lunatic and devoid of any factual reasoning or common sense. It makes the right seem scary and stupid.

Third, it distracts at the same time it defines the culture: don't talk about incomes falling, inflation, corporate misbehavior, or out of control crime... the real battleground is Oprah's donations. It's the same way talk radio tells you the real issue is that teacher in Indiana or that kid at that one prom rather than trying to explain the real issues and provide real solutions. Look moron, shiny.

Fourth, it makes it easier to swallow bullship debunking like the AOC debunking because Snopes improves its batting average to build trust. So maybe you won't think too hard when it matters more.

I actually think this is pretty insidious. The left has been doing this for a while now. One of the first ones I really recall was the girly Ghostbusters movie. It was a movie no one wanted and then was premised with identity politics. It clearly wasn't selling. To try to make it sell, the black chick suddenly discovered racists who were trolling her over appearing in it. Appeals went out immediately to see the movie to fight back against racists. Within days, the anti-gay trolls supposedly appeared, then the misogynist trolls. None of it was real. They made it all up to sell the movie. Since then, it's slowly become a standard practice for actresses and leftists and the crapulent rich to try to garner sympathy to cover their mistakes. Now Snopes is part of it. Interesting.