That makes no sense. You are already at war. You have already justified it. Getting the other country to defend harder is not what you want. You want to win.
Bombing a school wasn’t 5D chess by Trump. It was incompetence.
I don’t see how it doesn’t make sense to build the justification after attacking. It takes time for people to actually show their disagreement in a way that hurts the state and they’re quick to forget once an attack hits them. Also, it still makes sense for the state to build further justifications even if they’ve already justified it. For this instance in particular, I don’t think there really was any justification and if I remember correctly, the population heavily disagrees with this war.
I also think it’s a big mistake to equate everything that the state does under Trump to him just being stupid, it makes you blind to what’s actually being planned and carried out. You should always try to analyze what the intent behind actions like this is and only if you can’t find any reasons at all is it maybe justified to say it’s just the government being stupid.
I don’t see how it doesn’t make sense to build the justification after attacking.
You are already bombing. The justification is done. Politically it reduces justification because the public (as was shown) is now against the bombing. When Trump attacked Venezuela, he didn’t bomb a school, wait a week, and then kidnap Maduro.
Getting the other country to attack to justify war only works if you either make it look like they attacked first (false flag), or have deniability on your attack so their retribution can be spun into a first attck. (Secretly bomb the school with spies but leave evidence so they know it was you but can’t prove it.)
So there is absolutely no reason militarily or politically.
That makes no sense. You are already at war. You have already justified it. Getting the other country to defend harder is not what you want. You want to win.
Bombing a school wasn’t 5D chess by Trump. It was incompetence.
what do you mean it doesn’t make sense?
it worked for 9/11 didn’t it?
I don’t see how it doesn’t make sense to build the justification after attacking. It takes time for people to actually show their disagreement in a way that hurts the state and they’re quick to forget once an attack hits them. Also, it still makes sense for the state to build further justifications even if they’ve already justified it. For this instance in particular, I don’t think there really was any justification and if I remember correctly, the population heavily disagrees with this war.
I also think it’s a big mistake to equate everything that the state does under Trump to him just being stupid, it makes you blind to what’s actually being planned and carried out. You should always try to analyze what the intent behind actions like this is and only if you can’t find any reasons at all is it maybe justified to say it’s just the government being stupid.
You are already bombing. The justification is done. Politically it reduces justification because the public (as was shown) is now against the bombing. When Trump attacked Venezuela, he didn’t bomb a school, wait a week, and then kidnap Maduro.
Getting the other country to attack to justify war only works if you either make it look like they attacked first (false flag), or have deniability on your attack so their retribution can be spun into a first attck. (Secretly bomb the school with spies but leave evidence so they know it was you but can’t prove it.)
So there is absolutely no reason militarily or politically.
That might work if the zionazis weren’t actively showing they want to cleanse Palestine so they can move in.