Replying to 064cd082...

When the truth is boring, complicated, and disappointed, people look for other narratives. This is a classic example of that. The by-far most likely explanation is a series of small mistakes of the IDF (allowing "civilian" activity on the border, not reinstalling balloon-floating cameras, diverting attention to the West Bank, etc), together with excellent preparation by Hamas (Iranian help, only letting the lower ranks know the plan hours before the attack, etc).

But wouldn't it be so cool if there was this conspiracy that involved hundreds of people being ok with their own people dying, when none of these people ever showed a sign that they think that is morally justified? Let's work real hard to convince ourselves that is what happened, regardless of any evidence that we are too lazy to look into.
Avatar
George Vaccaro 2y ago

Interesting perspective. In light of the many notable events of the last 3 years, do you discount the value of questioning the popular media/state narratives? That's what I'm trying to explore here. A series of small mistakes is an interesting theory but IMO can't explain a massive intelligence and protocol failure that combined with the response is resulting in a significant and increasing death toll of innocent lives. I think its valid to explore these and other ideas in search of the truth despite your assertion that your theory obviously explains it all. Which is lazier, simply accepting the popular narrative or questioning it?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

06
064cd082... 2y ago

A lot of conspiracy theories start out as questions like this, without any intention to actually look for evidence, or ever be convinced that whatever outlandish idea presented is wrong. But I realize I was picking on you even though you were probably asking honestly. My immune system overreacting maybe. Still, if you really want an answer you will have to start by actually evaluating the "popular narrative". You can't just say "IMO" because of some intuition you have and be satisfied with that. The narrative is popular for a reason. If it was false you would probably hear at least some reputable voices speaking against it, offering contradictory evidence. I haven't come across any. No one seems to dispute what I said before other than "raising questions", which is the laziest thing in the world.

Avatar
George Vaccaro 2y ago

There were no reputable voices opposing the popular narratives regarding covid and it's origins and the risks of jabs etc., except all the reputable voices that were, that were being censored. But OK. I didn't invent these concerns and observations out of nowhere. Massive intelligence failures resulting in death and possible alternate explanations and motives are certainly worth considering. Or you can just assume covid19 came from a wet market and the level 4 covid biolab was just coincidental. Trust the science or actually practice science via skeptical analysis? You choose for yourself. I'll choose skepticism and analysis over assumptions and trusting the popular narrative every time.

06
064cd082... 2y ago

Science isn't just posing questions and pointing out seeming coincidences. You are pretending to do science, not actually doing it.

You are doing exactly what I said at the start. Covid having originated from a wet market is boring, and random, and unsatisfying. The cooler narrative is that it was smuggled out of a lab. That makes a good movie.

Look, I'm not rejecting the theory, I'm just dismissing it until there is some concrete evidence, and people who actually spent their life studying this stuff done it convincing.

Avatar
George Vaccaro 2y ago

You sound "vaccinated".