What do people make of the fact that every time they do this and claim most penetrated and that they hit objectives on the ground causing destruction and then in the US it's just denial, that 99% of them were stopped actually and the only ones that got through hit a Palestinian man walking his dog or some shit.
On the one hand I get they want to make the zionists look strong, but on the other wouldn't it lend itself to greater urgency and frothing rage if they met the Iranian narrative half-way and said that actually a number got through and damaged a fighter plane or two and therefore this is why we must immediately approve another 500 billion for the arms manufacturers?
Is it just that the zionists cannot admit that the iron dome failed and the western sources have to tail them and repeat whatever they say verbatim despite it being contrary to the interests of the warmongers?
Or is Iran inflating its numbers a bit?
Because thinking about it, if Iran's attack were to mostly fail or get intercepted and they don't want escalation (clearly they don't, all along they've been trying their hardest to back away) wouldn't it be in their interests rather than admit their attack failed and that they have to up the ante to instead just lie, say it worked instead? That way they can save face and act like they achieved something while not actually really provoking the zionists much thus preventing escalation?
I don't know what to believe here. There are too many parties who benefit from lies out of either end for me to decide. I'm sure they didn't get 100% interception rate but Iran's claims of taking out multiple F-35s also seems rather rosy.
On the one hand I get they want to make the zionists look strong, but on the other wouldn't it lend itself to greater urgency and frothing rage if they met the Iranian narrative half-way
I think the answer is simple. Isntreal is a settler-state, and it is a settler-state which has not succeeded in eradicating the indigenous peoples to such an extent that they are the minority (when one considers the surrounding Arab and Muslim-majority states actually, rather the opposite).
They have to maintain the image of the "untouchable ubermensch." Psychologically they have to, but also strategically; all they offer the local peoples is terrorism and genocide, so they must ensure that all the local peoples (who number more than them) fear them more than they hate them. This is also exactly the same as how colonial forces across the globe acted- with the promise of extreme and inordinate terrorism- to maintain their rule, and to create the circumstances where they could establish rule to begin with.
The other older settler-states have similar dynamics, but have had more time and space (through the successful and extensive genocides and conquests they engaged in- ie. through their successful lebensraum/Manifest Destiny) to settle into a more "lax" phase of settler-colonialism, where the genocides take a quieter, more low-key form of suppression. They all had the same foundational psychology however, and will all generally act in the same way Isntreal has if provoked. And of course, the examples of all the failed settler-states (Nazi Germany, French Algeria, "Rhodesia," British Kenya, Apartheid South Africa, etc. and even the resurgent indigenism within parts of Latin America) show what happens if the settlers cannot succeed in genociding off the vast majority of the indigenous peoples of an entire geographic region.
It's an interesting thought. But going for "simplest explanation" reasoning, I would say based on the fact alone that israel is known to aggressively, constantly lie, that would suggest they're more likely to be doing any lying/misleading statements here. If we consider israel as being something like Narcissistic Personality Disorder in state colony form, that kind of person never wants to admit weakness or fault, no matter what; a narcissist's actions differ from a more plainly cunning malignant psychopath in that protecting their image can be deemed more important than protecting themself materially. (Mind you, I'm not saying this situation is reducible to psychological archetypes - just drawing the comparison to try to help explain how pathological lying to the point of damaging their own goals could make a kind of sense to them as behavior, even if it seems irrational and reckless to us.)
I don't love my own analogy here (anything too "individual psychology" focused is a bit iffy to me), but trying to get at the mindset of superiority that seems to be a significant part of what israel is and how it acts.
What do people make of the fact that every time they do this and claim most penetrated and that they hit objectives on the ground causing destruction and then in the US it's just denial, that 99% of them were stopped actually and the only ones that got through hit a Palestinian man walking his dog or some shit.
On the one hand I get they want to make the zionists look strong, but on the other wouldn't it lend itself to greater urgency and frothing rage if they met the Iranian narrative half-way and said that actually a number got through and damaged a fighter plane or two and therefore this is why we must immediately approve another 500 billion for the arms manufacturers?
Is it just that the zionists cannot admit that the iron dome failed and the western sources have to tail them and repeat whatever they say verbatim despite it being contrary to the interests of the warmongers?
Or is Iran inflating its numbers a bit?
Because thinking about it, if Iran's attack were to mostly fail or get intercepted and they don't want escalation (clearly they don't, all along they've been trying their hardest to back away) wouldn't it be in their interests rather than admit their attack failed and that they have to up the ante to instead just lie, say it worked instead? That way they can save face and act like they achieved something while not actually really provoking the zionists much thus preventing escalation?
I don't know what to believe here. There are too many parties who benefit from lies out of either end for me to decide. I'm sure they didn't get 100% interception rate but Iran's claims of taking out multiple F-35s also seems rather rosy.
I think the answer is simple. Isntreal is a settler-state, and it is a settler-state which has not succeeded in eradicating the indigenous peoples to such an extent that they are the minority (when one considers the surrounding Arab and Muslim-majority states actually, rather the opposite).
They have to maintain the image of the "untouchable ubermensch." Psychologically they have to, but also strategically; all they offer the local peoples is terrorism and genocide, so they must ensure that all the local peoples (who number more than them) fear them more than they hate them. This is also exactly the same as how colonial forces across the globe acted- with the promise of extreme and inordinate terrorism- to maintain their rule, and to create the circumstances where they could establish rule to begin with.
The other older settler-states have similar dynamics, but have had more time and space (through the successful and extensive genocides and conquests they engaged in- ie. through their successful lebensraum/Manifest Destiny) to settle into a more "lax" phase of settler-colonialism, where the genocides take a quieter, more low-key form of suppression. They all had the same foundational psychology however, and will all generally act in the same way Isntreal has if provoked. And of course, the examples of all the failed settler-states (Nazi Germany, French Algeria, "Rhodesia," British Kenya, Apartheid South Africa, etc. and even the resurgent indigenism within parts of Latin America) show what happens if the settlers cannot succeed in genociding off the vast majority of the indigenous peoples of an entire geographic region.
It's an interesting thought. But going for "simplest explanation" reasoning, I would say based on the fact alone that israel is known to aggressively, constantly lie, that would suggest they're more likely to be doing any lying/misleading statements here. If we consider israel as being something like Narcissistic Personality Disorder in state colony form, that kind of person never wants to admit weakness or fault, no matter what; a narcissist's actions differ from a more plainly cunning malignant psychopath in that protecting their image can be deemed more important than protecting themself materially. (Mind you, I'm not saying this situation is reducible to psychological archetypes - just drawing the comparison to try to help explain how pathological lying to the point of damaging their own goals could make a kind of sense to them as behavior, even if it seems irrational and reckless to us.)
I don't love my own analogy here (anything too "individual psychology" focused is a bit iffy to me), but trying to get at the mindset of superiority that seems to be a significant part of what israel is and how it acts.