Tested Boundaries
In a world capable of total annihilation multiple times, we are going back into living on the edge. Maybe not regular people, although they have their own reasons to be on the edge: cost of living, health issues, freedoms becoming an illusion, exacerbated fears because of media unless you decide to decouple yourself from most of what's going on outside of your area of comfort.
I haven't followed global events much lately. Yesterday, I heard someone mention Israel attacked a target in Doha, the capital of Qatar. At the time, I remember my first reaction was that this isn't good, but haven't looked into it. In the meantime I have looked into it. PM Netanyahu says on X they were aiming at "top terrorist chieftains of Hamas" there. The other side says they were negotiators, discussing the ceasefire proposal put forth by the US... Oh well, that sounds kind like a well-crafted cover story to me, but still... has Israel gone too far? Are they turning into the Goliath of the Middle East, from David?
However, Netanyahu felt the need to not involve any allies in this and take full responsibility:
Israel initiated it, Israel conducted it, and Israel takes full responsibility.
I imagine he took some concerned phone calls for this action.
Early in the morning the next day (if I got the timetable correct from the news coverage), Russia, in its now regular missile/drone attacks on Ukraine, decided to fly almost two dozens of them into Poland's territory. At least that's the NATO scenario. Russia denies it, and says it's an Ukrainian diversion to make them look bad.
If Russia has done it, and they may have very well done it, strange timing coincidence, wouldn't you think, a few hours after Israel bombed Doha?
This is a much juicier option for a speculation than the alternative where Ukrainians are trying to solidify support for their cause by using a false flag tactics, something the Russians are specialized in as well.
So, let's explore the alternative where Russia launched those provocations.
Why... and why now? Well, for many reasons of course, of which we will talk. Why now? Because they had the opportunity where unofficially, probably they wouldn't get condemned for doing it.
So... let's speculate on the why now part. Qatar has been a hot potato for a good while—including among some big Arab countries in the Middle East—being accused of harboring and supporting terrorism. In recent years, it has mended some of those relationships. For example, with the UAE, a neighboring Gulf nation. The United Arab Emirates is also a member of BRICS, an organization with whom Qatar has bilateral relations (apparently, many Arab countries are eager to join that club). China, the strongest BRICS country, took a strong position against the attack on Doha. Isn't it conceivable that Russia found a great timing to test NATO responses by sending a few drones deep into its territory, as a public military counteraction of what Israel did, even if Israel is not in NATO (but perceived as having a symbiotic relationship with the US, the top NATO force)? Qatar is not in BRICS either. So, a sort of testing new boundaries, in both cases, I'm thinking.
What would Russia be interested in, besides flexing their muscles after Doha's targeted bombing. Many things:
- check reaction times of NATO
- check if allies react (and which ones), or only the country that has a potential issue
- check the NATO procedures in this situation: what goes up, when, and from where
- check if NATO would fire on drones
- check how long it takes for the drones to be taken down
- attempt to better spy on certain facilities, if they get close enough
- see reaction post-attack (political statements, military changes, etc.)
If that wasn't enough, Charlie Kirk (I didn't know who he was, but looks like he was a big MAGA supporter with a great influence on the youth) was shot and killed yesterday in the Utah university campus, while having an open-air "Proof Me Wrong" QA session with students. Likely shot from some distance from inside or on top of a building, by someone with skills and an exit plan (shooter still hasn't been caught).
Obviously, America's attention turned entirely on this subject. To some degree, the world's too. No more Russia drones or Israel attack in the news, after that.
As it happens, it is 9/11 today, the day after... Strange coincidences, I would say. But maybe that's all they are. But I sometimes think they are all just geopolitical mind games, and everything else is considered collateral damage.
Another coincidence... At the beginning of the month, at Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Xi Jinping spoke again against hegemony in the world. Sure, the lingering and sometimes upfront accusation is that they want to replace one hegemony with another. Isn't it what has always happened in history? Why would this time be any different?
I'm really thinking about how much of world events might just be strategic moves and distractions. Timing, reactions, and media focus all seem way more calculated than most people would realize
Sometimes they might be. Other times, we might be suspecting them of too much planning, whereas the reality might be just a series of circumstances.
I haven't heard much of Charlie Kirk until the news broke out that he was shot and killed. He seemed like a genuine guy doing incredible work for his country, many young men see him as a role model I've read too. The geopolitical scene is quite hard to make sense of with all the mind games that are happening, there was also a protest in Nepal within the same timeframe, I think a fundamental change in power structures is happening beneath these occurrences.
Yep... The "prove me wrong" idea put into practice also shows someone inclined to debate rather than only see his point of view, sure of his convictions and ready to defend them... using words. The shot certainly looks bad, besides the tragedy of the lost life of a promising young man.
Yes, I've read about the protest in Nepal (interestingly, on Hive for the first time), but likely that doesn't have broader implications globally, like the others do.
Surely those could be just random events happening around the same time. Sometimes coincidences are just that... coincidences. I'm not sure what would be better. If they were coincidences, or a series of linked events, at least the bombing in Doha and the drone provocations over Poland. If they are linked events, this might imply a dose of opportunity reaction, if they are not linked, the second one might be a step in a deliberate, calculated plan. And that would be scary!
It's obvious Israel warned Qatar and US and in case people didn't realize yet, Israel will stop only when Hamas has been exterminated and Gaza strip annexed to Israel, they have enough of Hamas, rockets and attacks after the 7th October...
As for Russian drones, for me pretty obvious false flag from Ukraine or nato itself, it's easy to fake those drones, no real reason for Russia to do so, not until Ukraine front is open... Don't forget nord stream, called Russian sabotage but it was ukraine
As for kirk it could be anyone really, a Democrat or even someone from MAGA to have a casus belli... Some people talk about civil war
Maybe they talked to Trump before the attack, but given the reactions after, maybe they didn't. I doubt they talked with anyone in Qatar since they consider it a country harboring terrorists. It shows from the reaction of Qatar, which condemned the attack. China did it too, so we kind of see sides here...
Yes, it is possible, as I mentioned in the post as well. I just went with one of the possibilities. I don't agree that they wouldn't do it unless the front in Ukraine is open. Intel is precious at any time.
Yes, all options are on the table. It is interesting that up until last night, they weren't even able to identify the suspect, although they had him on cameras. They had to go the traditional way to share the photo publicly and offer a reward. Are some sunglasses enough to stop AI from recognizing you? Or this guy in particular is not so easy to identify, in which case... P.S.: Hmmm, now I see better images online: seems like he knew how to avoid being identified: always looking down, with that cap and glasses on, right age and clothing to easily blend in.
On kirk killer is also to notice how he shot just 1 single bullet with precision and then escaped, it's not a random mad dude like that one trying to kill Trump, he knew how to do things, that's why I don't feel like point at anything yet on this
Yes, good point! That one shot as much as he could, maybe one bullet would hit the target... definitely, an amateur. This one was very precise, and an interesting target, if that's what he was aiming for... the neck, to hit the carotid artery, which would be an almost guaranteed kill. Although maybe he was aiming for the head.
I also watched the photos released. By looking at the posture and face (as much as it's visible), he doesn't seem precipitated on the way out, or affected in any way that he just took a life. Maybe not the first kill for him?
I heard he would aim for the chest but the kirk moved and the neck got hit but who knows... Since they haven't taken him yet I wonder, will they take him at all at this point?
Yeah, I tend to believe the neck was a miss too, although hitting the carotid proved fatal. Probably aiming for the head.
They found and arrested him. Someone recognized him and told police, from what I read or heard, I don't even remember anymore...
His father apparently, recognized from the photo
Hmm... I wonder if that was a tough call for him to make...
He asked the priest about what to do I have read, can't blame him
https://x.com/jewellery_all/status/1966228906278793438
https://x.com/lee19389/status/1966284058549440894
#hive #posh
Things have gone kind of crazy. I wonder where things will go with all of this going on. My feed on Youtube has been filled with Charlie Kirk. I just wonder where the world is headed to.
Yeah... That was quite a blow in the US. Even for people not agreeing with what he said, partially or totally. It's obviously a topic that covered pretty much everything else around the world too, which may not be a good thing, because at the cover of or using collective emotion, unscrupulous people tend to do shady or dangerous things (that may concern many).
It's really hard not to be Nihilistic, at least for me.
That! At times like these, moral (of any kind) seems to be the last on the minds of those with a high profile. And it may be intentional. It is difficult to see the value or purpose of human life when things like that happen so often, but as a species, we (barely) went through the Dark Ages too... Hopefully, we won't go back there, upgraded with a modern "skin".
Update: The killer of Charlie Kirk was apprehended late last night and it was publicly announced this morning. Turned into authorities by his own father ...
This morning's news conference concerning all the details was unlike anything I have seen in recent memory. Remarkable. If you can find access to it, you may it of interest. At least for this American, I found that it provided some glimmer of hope for the first time in a long while.
FYI, President Trump has publicly announced he will be personally attending Charlie's funeral next week. It will be something to behold how a young man at 31 years of age will be honored with what normally one would associate only with heads of state.
Yes, I saw a few fragments. I am torn on the idea of father turning in his son. Maybe he was too. On one side, maybe he already failed as a parent if his son learned how to shoot quite well and have access to serious weapons, and he didn't see him possibly turning into an executioner. On the other side, a son is a son, and family is family. Maybe not what it used to be, but still, if family means as much to him as it probably should, this decision will likely give him nightmares for life.
This assassinate will be remembered for a while... Unfortunately, it probably won't be the last. Gun control probably wouldn't solve this, since an individual who really wants access to a weapon can get it from the black market (or perhaps even build it nowadays?). Fewer would, that's true, but I think it has something to do with the American culture (and not only), where (in this case) some individuals think they can erase an idea by physically removing the one(s) propagating it. They achieve the opposite, if it isn't covered up (and sometimes even if it is, years later). It's been tested throughout history, and that's the effect. Sure, maybe Charlie Kirk is raised to a higher level than he deserved in life, due to his death, but the shooter achieved that.
???
Would you like to expand on this, so there is no misunderstanding of your intent in writing it?
That usually happens when people die, especially in tragic and emotional circumstances... All humans have flaws, and personally, I don't like any kind of radicalism (in any direction), although sometimes is probably needed. He was a guy defending his cause, with a good (even great) visibility and good arguments. He was also a polarizing person, because the other side would not have seen him with good eyes, for sure. I don't know if it's been determined why he was shot, but the fact that political assassination was among the top reasons why he could have been shot at the speculative level, right from the start, says a lot about how the other side saw him.
Okay. Thanks. Your word "deserved" stood out since, as I sure you are aware, many are publicly stating he got what was coming to him. He "deserved" to be killed.
From what you have now said, will not clearly stated, I will assume (hope) that does not include you.
Definitely not! It's like "shooting" the freedom of speech.
Exactly! Underscoring the fact, in spite of all the "useful idiots" once again screaming about the Americans "love affair" with guns, etc. this was an attack on our First Amendment freedom of expression. Not on our Second Amendment right to bear arms ...