Whether in a cloud, the front of a car, or a $28,000 toasted sandwich supposedly resembling the Virgin Mary, seeing faces in inanimate objects is a common experience.
According to new research by the University of Sydney, our brains detect and respond emotionally to these illusory faces the same way they do to real human faces.
Face pareidolia – seeing faces in random objects or patterns of light and shadow – is an everyday phenomenon. Once considered a symptom of psychosis, it arises from an error in visual perception.
Lead researcher Prof David Alais, of the University of Sydney, said human brains are evolutionarily hardwired to recognise faces, with highly specialised brain regions for facial detection and processing.
SKY NEWS adds:
Professor David Alais, lead author of the study from the University of Sydney's school of psychology, said: "From an evolutionary perspective, it seems that the benefit of never missing a face far outweighs the errors where inanimate objects are seen as faces.
"There is a great benefit in detecting faces quickly, but the system plays 'fast and loose' by applying a crude template of two eyes over a nose and mouth.
"Lots of things can satisfy that template and thus trigger a face detection response."
So this is something we apparently developed to protect ourselves. We needed to quickly realize who we were looking at and quickly determine whether they were friend or foe.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Wednesday, July 7, 2021. More attacks in Iraq, what's Joe going to do now?
In nearby Iraq, a rocket struck a base containing US troops, injuring three people.
A US-led coalition colonel, Wayne Malott, spokesman said that at around 12:30 pm, the Al-Assard Air Force Base in western Iraq was attacked by 14 rockets that landed in and around the base. “At this point, the first report shows three minor injuries. The damage is under evaluation,” he said, saying that force protection defenses had been invoked. “
He didn’t say if the injured were American.
We should note that this attack came after -- after -- the Iraqi government increased the number of their security forces in Anbar. Of course, their 'security' forces include the infamous militias. The increase appears to have allowed more opportunities to attack instead of reducing violence.
Then Anbar attack was one attack. That air base is in Anbar Province -- home to cities such as Falluja and Ramadi. AFP reports on an attack in the northern Kurdistan Region of Iraq:
Explosive-laden drones attacked the international airport in the northern Iraqi city of Erbil late on Tuesday, close to the American consulate, Kurdish authorities said.
The attack took place at around 1930 GMT but caused no injuries or major damage, with firefighters putting out a blaze, the anti-terrorist unit of the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan region said in a statement.
The airport in Erbil, which houses a military base of the international coalition fighting the Islamic State jihadist group, was also targeted in April by a drone packed with explosives.
Caitlin McFall (FOX NEWS) speaks with the Pentagon:
"We are aware of reporting of a UAS [unmanned aircraft system] incident in the vicinity of Erbil, Iraq," Pentagon Spokesperson Commander Jessica McNulty told Fox News. "At this time, initial reports indicate no structural damage, injuries or casualties."
The Pentagon confirmed that U.S. troops are currently housed in Erbil but did not answer questions as to how many are located there.
There are approximately 2,500 troops dispersed across "several Iraqi Security Forces facilities," McNulty confirmed.
Seth J. Frantzman (JERUSALEM POST) offers, "For three days in a row, since America’s July 4 Independence Day, pro-Iran militias have carried out attacks on US forces and facilities in Iraq and Syria." Joyce Karam (THE NATIONAL) offers a little more detail in her Tweet:
And Halgurd Sherwani (KURDISTAN 24) provides a very basic fact, "The two bases —Erbil and Ain al-Asad—host the vast majority of US forces in Iraq and the Kurdistan Region."
So what now, Joe? Huh?
The bombings carried out by the US -- targeting the Iranian-linked militias -- June 28th. It wasn't smart. It wasn't smart that some of those opposed to the strike felt the need to lie and ignore the fact that public threats had been made by the militias and that many attacks had been carried out against US troops in Iraq since the start of this year.
Because you couldn't make an argument, because you could just screech, "It's illegal!!! It's illegal!!!!"
No, it wasn't illegal.
But the next action is even less so.
This week alone?
The head of Sayyid of Martyrs Battalions, or Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada
(KSS) has warned the United States that the Iraq resistance groups are
moving towards revenge options.
Abu Alaa al-Walai the leader of
Sayyid of Martyrs Battalions, or Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada (KSS) has
told Associated Press that the Iraqi Resistance group will take revenge
on the US following the attacks on the recent PMU positions
"We
want to carry out an operation that everyone describes as revenge
against Washington," he told AP according to a translated version of the
interview by Arabic-Language website of Al-Mayadeen.
Al-Walai added that the revenge operations against Americans may take place on land, sea, air, or any other location.
Here for the AP article referenced above.
This time, the threats are a little better covered in the US and are covered while things are still fresh. With the ongoing attacks and the public threats, you really want to trot out your hoary nonsense of 'it's illegal, Joe acted first! Joe did this! Joe did that!'
The strikes were a mistake for many reasons. Arguing that they were illegal was always a reach.
Glenn Greenwald went with nonsense of 'the prime minister says . . .'
Mustafa al-Kadhimi, like those before him, says one thing to the Iraqi people in the lead up to an election and one thing to the US government. Nouri al-Maliki, while insisting publicly that he wanted US troops out of Iraq, actually argued/begged the US government for more troops as then-Senator John McCain and then-Senator Joe Lieberman revealed over and over in Congressional hearings.
No one should be so stupid that they take empty words from a figure up for re-election as reality.
If Mustafa wanted them out, the current agreement does have an exit clause and he could activate it. He chooses not to. But he then tries to hide behind empty words and, fortunately for him, their are enough suckers to fall fo his empty words.
The June 28th bombings were not an answer. And we noted that. They weren't a deterrent either -- a big concern of many because after Joe bombed and it didn't reduce the attacks, what do you do?
Joe is already starting to look weak internally as the White House's own polling has shown. Vice President Kamala Harris' mis-steps or perceived mis-steps are reflecting on him. The huge increase in gas prices are also hurting him.
Now he's going to be weak in the eyes of the world?
When Joe elected to bomb at the end of June, he raised the stakes. That's on him. And now he's seeing that other parties around the table can do the same -- and it actually costs him more because he's the big name at the table. The others can bluff and if they lose? Not as big a tumble.
So what will Joe move towards? A diplomatic surge? That would be great but the US government really doesn't do that. Brute force is the usual response. Which is why air strikes are again being considered.
And they are.
So what happens? How does this play out?
If conflict between the two sides intensifies? The war doesn't end, US troops don't come home and the backing from the Iranian government gives Joe the excuse the US government has long needed to go to war with/on Iran.
Maybe all the whores who pretended to care about ending the Iraq War but really just used it to elect Democrats in 2006 and 2008 need to examine their actions because by packing up your tents and going home before the war ended and while US troops remained in Iraq, you created the vacuum.
Did someone say Goody Whore? In other news, the Goody Whore and her DEMOCRACY SOMETIMES! continues to be appalling. Ben Horst makes this observation:
You should be old enough to remember when Goody Whore hectored CNN and others for their usage of military generals as experts. But if you are too young, pick up any of her many copy & paste 'books' and you'll find her insisting that other voices should be sought out. Or check out her published 'work -- published in HUSTLER magazine -- or her interviews -- with Charlie Rose. HUSTLER magazine, Charlie Rose? Yeah, a lot of us called Goody Whore out in real time. Maybe at some point there can be a reassessment of her because she was never that great or wonderful.
And on that, Aaron Mate can stop being a little bitch anytime he wants. If he wants credit for calling out Amy -- and we've given him it -- then he needs to call her out. He was part of the team that promoted the Libya war. That's the war -- and Aaron will never tell you this while making himself the focus over and over -- that got BLACK AGENDA REPORT's Glen Ford banned from DEMOCRACY NOW! because he refused to support it.
We'll note this thread from Chatham House:
| & analysed the mechanics of politically sanctioned #corruption in #Iraq & argue that this type of corruption is more consequential for the coherence of the state & its everyday functioning, than personal corruption.
/
The following sites updated:
-
-
-
-
-
Volvo strike10 hours ago
-
THE TOMORROW WORLD10 hours ago
-
Howie10 hours ago
-
AMERICAN DAD10 hours ago
-
Hunter The Never Ending Scandal Biden10 hours ago
-
Octavia Butler10 hours ago
-
-
-
How I Made It: Kichwa Hatari1 day ago
-
-
