George the dog retweeted
If you want to understand modern antisemitism, you need to go back to Moscow in 1982.
This is the cover of Mahmoud Abbas’s thesis, later published as The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism.
Abbas is not just another Palestinian politician. He is the President of the Palestinian Authority, Chairman of the PLO, and the man Western governments have treated for decades as a partner for peace.
Yet Abbas wrote his thesis in the Soviet Union, promoting Holocaust distortion and the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Zionists collaborated with the Nazis.
But the story goes much further.
Documents from the Mitrokhin Archive identified Abbas as a KGB agent in Damascus in 1983, operating under the codename “Krotov,” meaning “Mole.” Think about what this means: The man who leads the PLO today was KGB agent.
For decades, the Soviet Union weaponized the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It supported Palestinian organizations and systematically repackaged antisemitism in the language of anti-Zionism, anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism.
Abbas emerged from this Soviet political environment and maintained close relations with Moscow. Russia continues to exploit the Palestinian issue to expand its influence, destabilize Western societies and undermine Western alliances.
And here is what I find extraordinary.
The West has allowed itself to be overwhelmed by a political narrative shaped by one of the most successful and enduring influence campaigns in modern history.
An entire generation has been taught to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through an ideological framework that was cultivated decades ago by Soviet propaganda.
Today, that framework has found powerful new allies in the Red-Green alliance between radical progressive movements and Islamist organizations.
The accusations have barely changed. Zionists are Nazis. Israel is responsible for the world’s suffering. Jews are portrayed as powerful conspirators controlling governments, media and wars.
What Soviet propaganda once spread through political organizations, universities and intelligence networks is now amplified by social media algorithms, influencers, university campuses and mass demonstrations across Western cities.
The technology has changed. The distribution has accelerated. But the ideological foundations remain remarkably familiar.
And the most disturbing part? Many Western institutions, politicians and intellectuals have embraced elements of this narrative without questioning where it came from or whose geopolitical interests it serves.
The Palestinian cause has become far more than a national movement. It has also been exploited as an instrument of ideological warfare against Israel, Jews and the democratic West.
Abbas’s 1982 thesis is not simply a disturbing historical document. It is a window into the ideological origins of a campaign whose influence we continue to witness today.
George the dog retweeted
In France, they riot and loot "for Palestine." In the Middle East, they kill "for Palestine." The Islamic regime in Iran attacks Jews, Christians, and Muslims "for Palestine." Hamas committed the October 7 genocide in Israel "for Palestine." At some point, perhaps we should stop asking where the problem is and start noticing the rather obvious pattern.
The clue has been repeated four times.
George the dog retweeted
Just to clarify, did the Jews travel to Palestine to kill Jesus, or was Jesus killed during a trip to Poland?
George the dog retweeted
Fauda – Menschlichkeit ohne moralische Gleichwertigkeit.
Vorweg: Ich spoilere keine wesentlichen Handlungswendungen. Wer allerdings suuuuper spoilerempfindlich ist, sollte lieber erst nach der Serie weiterlesen.
Nach fünf Staffeln bleibt für mich eine der größten Stärken von Fauda ihre psychologische Tiefe. Selbst Terroristen werden als Menschen mit Ängsten, Familien, Loyalitäten und inneren Widersprüchen dargestellt. Doch genau darin liegt auch die Schwäche der Serie: Sie ist mit ihren Terroristen bisweilen zu gnädig.
Biografische Tragik erklärt nicht alles. Terrorismus entsteht nicht nur aus Leid, sondern auch aus Überzeugung. Gerade der Islamismus wird als ideologischer Motor der Gewalt zu wenig herausgearbeitet. Er heiligt den Kampf, glorifiziert das Martyrium und legitimiert die Vernichtung des Feindes. Nicht jeder Terrorist ist ein Opfer seiner Geschichte. Manche sind überzeugte Architekten der Gewalt.
Brillant zeigt Fauda dagegen den zerstörerischen Sog familiärer Verstrickungen. Loyalität wird zur Pflicht, Verlust zur Rache, Familienehre zur Geisel individueller Freiheit. Menschen, die nichts mit Terrorismus zu tun haben wollen, werden hineingezogen. So reproduziert sich Gewalt über Generationen.
Besonders eindrücklich ist eine Begegnung zwischen Ayub und einer palästinensischen Mutter. Obwohl sie und ihre Tochter jüdische Hilfsbereitschaft unmittelbar erfahren, wertet sie Juden vor ihrer Tochter anschließend wieder ab.
Das erlernte Feindbild besiegt die eigene Erfahrung. „Ein Jude darf nicht gut sein.“ Eine erschütternde Miniatur ideologischer Indoktrination.
Auch Israel wird nicht romantisiert. Seine Sicherheitskräfte sind traumatisiert, impulsiv, moralisch widersprüchlich und privat häufig dysfunktional. Ihre Methoden sind schonungslos (gegen sich selbst) und überschreiten bisweilen moralische Grenzen.
Doch Fauda macht unmissverständlich deutlich: Israel hat nicht den Luxus, auf effektive Geheimdienstarbeit und entschlossene Terrorismusbekämpfung zu verzichten. Für Israel ist Sicherheit keine politische Option, sondern eine existenzielle Notwendigkeit. Es handelt nicht allein, um seine Bevölkerung zu schützen, sondern um als Staat zu überleben.
Gerade diese Spannung zwischen existenziellem Überlebenskampf und moralischen Grenzkonflikten macht die Serie so eindringlich.
Mit Staffel fünf verschiebt sich die Perspektive spürbar: Weg von der palästinensischen Opfererzählung, hin zum israelischen Trauma. Die Verwundbarkeit Israels und die seelische Verwüstung durch Terrorismus erhalten endlich mehr Gewicht.
Fauda zeigt schonungslos, wie Gewalt Menschen deformiert und wie Feindbilder, Rache und Ideologien ganze Generationen gefangen halten.
Was mir dennoch fehlt, ist eine konsequentere Auseinandersetzung mit der ideologischen Verantwortung der Täter. Aber vielleicht will Fauda uns das auch selbst überlassen.
Denn Menschlichkeit anzuerkennen bedeutet nicht, Schuld zu relativieren. Empathie ist keine Entschuldigung. Und psychologische Differenziertheit ist keine moralische Äquidistanz.
Genau diese Spannung macht Fauda für mich zu einer außergewöhnlichen Serie.
George the dog retweeted
The UN accused Israel of genocide, and one of the 3 commissioners behind that accusation just admitted, in front of a live audience, that they never independently verified one of the most explosive statistics in their own report.
Chris Sidoti insisted that his commission conducts independent investigations and doesn't simply rely on media reports.
Except paragraph 21 of their official genocide report claims that 83% of those killed in Gaza were civilians. The footnote cites The Guardian.
When asked whether the commission had actually verified that figure, Sidoti admitted:
“No, we didn't… we literally do not know.”
Now watch how this works.
The Guardian publishes a statistic. The UN cites The Guardian. TIME and other media orgs then repeat the statistic while reporting on the UN's genocide findings, giving readers the impression that they're looking at an independently established fact.
The media quotes the UN, the UN quotes the media, and somewhere along the way a newspaper's claim gets transformed into an authoritative finding of international investigators.
This is how information gets laundered. Each new citation adds another layer of credibility without necessarily adding a single piece of independent evidence.
But the commissioner himself admits they never verified the number.
We're talking about an official UN report accusing the Jewish state of the gravest crime in international law, circulated around the world as authoritative evidence, while one of its own authors acknowledges that they literally do not know whether a central statistic they published is accurate.
How many other claims in that report have been through the same process?
George the dog retweeted
Hola, soy palestino. 🇵🇸
Y como la honestidad es poco común en mi política, permítanme confesar algunas cosas.
1947. La ONU me ofreció un estado. Junto a Israel. Fronteras, independencia, reconocimiento. Dije que no. Mis líderes prometieron que la guerra "arrojaría a los judíos al mar". En cambio, lo perdí todo y lo llamaron catástrofe. No porque no me ofrecieran un estado, sino porque lo rechacé.
1948–2025. Los estados árabes podrían haberme integrado, dado derechos, pasaportes, dignidad. En cambio, me encerraron en campos de refugiados durante generaciones, para que siguiera siendo un arma contra Israel. Construyeron palacios para ellos y cárceles para mí. Me usaron como propaganda, no como personas.
1967. Tras otra guerra perdida, podría haber construido un estado en Cisjordania y Gaza. En cambio, insistí en "ni paz, ni reconocimiento, ni negociaciones". Tres noes. Cincuenta años después, sigo sin Estado. Resulta que el rechazo no paga el alquiler.
Oslo, década de 1990. Israel dijo: «Intentémoslo». Me dio autonomía. Armas para la policía. Miles de millones en ayuda. ¿Qué hicieron mis líderes? Robaron el dinero, armaron milicias y lanzaron una intifada. Atentados suicidas en lugar de escuelas. Cohetes en lugar de fábricas.
Gaza, 2005. Israel se fue por completo. Sin colonos, sin soldados. Tuve la oportunidad de convertir Gaza en un Singapur mediterráneo. Voté por Hamás. La convirtieron en Mogadiscio junto al mar. ¿Miles de millones en ayuda? Túneles, cohetes y palacios para sus líderes, mientras mi gente come comida enlatada en la oscuridad.
¿Democracia? No he tenido elecciones en casi 20 años. Hamás mata a los disidentes en Gaza. Fatah los encarcela en Cisjordania. Mis líderes cancelan elecciones porque están demasiado ocupados luchando por el poder.
Religión. En lugar de construir un futuro, pongo a clérigos en televisión enseñando a los niños a odiar a los judíos. Glorifico a los "mártires" que hacen estallar autobuses. Crío a mis hijos con canciones de sangre y fuego en lugar de libros y ciencia. Cambio la esperanza por la guerra santa.
Mundo árabe. Los regímenes árabes me llaman "hermano". Pero pregúntenles cuántos palestinos pueden vivir libremente en Líbano, Siria, Egipto o Kuwait. Me excluyen, pero celebran mi muerte, porque mi muerte es su excusa.
Absurdo. Sigo diciendo que quiero "construir un estado". E irónicamente, justo al lado está Israel: el vecino que construyó una democracia próspera, una potencia tecnológica, granjas en el desierto, ciudades de polvo. Sin petróleo, sin riqueza infinita, solo coraje. Podría haber aprendido, copiado, colaborado. En cambio, elegí la envidia y la rabia.
Obsesión antijudía. Podría haber aceptado a los judíos como vecinos. Podría haber dicho: "Dos naciones, dos estados". En cambio, repito: "Del río al mar". En lugar de exhibir el honor, la hospitalidad y la rica cultura árabe, mostré solo la cultura de la espada: la ira, el extremismo y la sangre. En lugar de gritar salaam (paz) a los israelíes, grité muerte a los judíos. Y luego finjo sorprenderme cuando los israelíes no confían en mí, cuando están enojados, decepcionados y convencidos de que no quiero coexistencia en absoluto.
Responsabilidad. Culpo a Israel de todo. Siempre. ¿Mis líderes roban miles de millones? Culpa de Israel. ¿Hamás dispara cohetes desde hospitales? Culpa de Israel. ¿Glorifico la muerte más que la vida? Culpa de Israel. La responsabilidad no es mi fuerte.
Soy palestino.
Podría haber construido una nación, muchas veces. Elegí el rechazo, la corrupción y la guerra sin fin. Podría haber vivido en paz con Israel, pero elegí vivir a la sombra de su destrucción.
Así que sí, soy una víctima. Pero con demasiada frecuencia, soy víctima de mis propios líderes, de mis propias decisiones y de mi propia negativa a abandonar el odio.
Y esa, querido lector, es la tragedia que nadie quiere admitir.
George the dog retweeted
Is Hamas Becoming a Global Identity Vehicle? Support for Hamas has morphed into a transnational phenomenon that is not just about being “pro-Palestine.” Instead, Hamas and what it represents have become a form of rebellious identity expression and a vessel for a sprawling mix of grievances: ideological, economic, cultural, and psychological. Its jihadist violence is being repackaged as a catch‑all outlet for anti‑Western, anti‑capitalist, anti‑white, and antisemitic politics. Whether it is leftism or Islamism, the “resistance” narrative that Hamas ostensibly represents has become quite a normalized interpretation of how to think about October 7 and the past two decades in Gaza, while erasing Palestinian agency, responsibility, and accountability. The inability to truly understand the complexities and actual details of the Israel and Palestine conflict is why so many support Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Iranian regime, all of whom are somehow seen as correcting or challenging white-centric dominance and colonialism.
The third anniversary of October 7 exposed the scale of this shift. Large crowds in American and European cities used the worst day for Jews since the Holocaust and the most disastrous day in Palestinian history to flaunt their support for violent Islamist extremism. To understand the extent to which the “pro-Palestine” industrial complex has mutated and created out-of-control monsters, consider how incredibly damaging and self-sabotaging the pro-Hamas rallies and actions were. They deliberately chose to brand the Palestinian cause as inseparable from the bloodshed, hostage‑taking, and fascistic jihad of 10/7. These Western pro‑Hamas demonstrators are erasing any distinction between Palestinians and a terror organization that has devastated Palestinian society far more than it ever harmed Israelis. Their behavior naturally triggers an instinctive backlash: a hardening of attitudes, a dismissal of Palestinian suffering, and a collapse of sympathy for legitimate Palestinian grievances.
Compounding the problem is the statistically confirmed fact that large segments of the Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian diaspora communities have been unable or unwilling to counter this trend. Some have joined it outright, embracing the “resistance” narrative or hiding behind slogans like “this didn’t begin on October 7” to avoid confrontation with the anti‑Zionist machinery that dominates the “pro‑Palestine” space and to not be called “Zionists” or “traitors” by other members of the community.
With diaspora communities paralyzed, universities compromised, and basic civic norms eroded, national‑level responses are now essential. Support for Hamas remains strong three years after October 7 and is growing more entrenched. Think ahead five or ten years: persistent economic strain, deeper ideological radicalization, and expanding networks of Islamist and far‑left extremism. What happens when those marching for Hamas begin entering governments, militaries, financial institutions, and other levers of power? What happens when already‑radicalized youth, with no off‑ramps, continue believing the West, Jews, and Zionists are their mortal enemies? Even if a tiny fraction – less than one‑tenth of one percent – turn to violence, the resulting instability could eclipse that of ISIS and al-Qaeda combined.
A coordinated national strategy is overdue – not to suppress legitimate debate on Israel and Palestine, but to draw firm boundaries and stop tolerating the intolerable.
This video shows just a small sample of pro-Hamas rallies in major US and European cities two days ago, on October 7.
George the dog retweeted
Left: German Nazis executing a Jewish woman with her child in Ivanhorod, 1942.
Right: Palestinian Nazis executing a Jewish woman in Kibbutz Alumim, October 7, 2023.
“Never Again” is now.
George the dog retweeted
The meaning of the phrase Jews Don’t Count is often misunderstood. It means: as a vulnerable minority. A minority that has suffered, like all minorities, extreme violence and discrimination. The assumption remains, despite history, that Jews are too powerful really to be seen in that way. Drawing attention to Jewish suffering is seen as only another example of their power, of Jews' ability to highlight their own suffering at the expense of others. Jews are not granted specificity in suffering: it must always be compared to the suffering of others, and found wanting. And if you want to see that in action, have a look at some of the responses on here - or no doubt, below this message - to the various attempts to commemorate one acute example of Jewish suffering, that took place three years ago today.
George the dog retweeted
Two people made a major contribution to Israel’s public discourse this week: Avinatan Or and Brett McGurk. One spent the war in Hamas’s tunnels, the other in the White House. Both laid out this week, in plain language, from right inside the events themselves, two positions that had until now been dismissed here as a desire for death, cynical politics and abandoning hostages. Or, held for two years in Gaza’s tunnels, explained in simple Hebrew why disproportionate deals with Hamas would only bring more kidnappings in the future. McGurk, Joe Biden’s senior adviser, explained in simple English that no such deal was ever really on the table anyway, until the military sword was at the terror organization’s throat.
I watched Avinatan Or on the Israeli 60 minutes, “Uvda” and felt ashamed all over again at how his mother, Ditza Or, was treated in real time for daring to say the same things. She and other parents from the Tikva Forum were portrayed as having abandoned their children, while those pushing for capitulation were cast as something like adoptive parents of our hostages. It was one more example of the distortion by which the people credited with bringing the hostages home aren’t the soldiers who risked their lives in Gaza, but those who protested demanding that Hamas’s demands be met (demands that, as noted, never actually crystallized into a real proposal). I also thought of Elchanan Kalmanzon, who fell in Be’eri on the morning of October 8, and who, months earlier at one of the Kaplan protests, had someone shout “you draft-dodger” at him, just because they saw his kippah. Certain elements on this side of the debate put no effort into actually arguing the case—only into trying to frame the opposing view as illegitimate.
I listened to Brett McGurk across a series of interviews and was reminded again how shallow, how skewed our discourse here really is. Only in a world like this could Nitzan Alon, who headed the IDF’s directorate for the hostage issue, toss out quotes like “they could have freed everyone earlier” into the public sphere without having to answer to the facts. In a world like this, you can publish books and “investigations” that portray Hamas as eager to make a deal and Israel as the hard-hearted, indifferent party determined to fight forever. Hostage families are allowed to say absolutely anything in real time (unless, of course, we’re talking about the Or and Mor families). But for commentators and experts, telling the truth is also an option.
Judged by results, and contrary to every accusation and prediction, every time a hostage deal was put forward, Israel’s government approved it by an overwhelming majority. The moment a proposal to end the war on terms Israel could live with landed on the table, the government backed it. The polls—in which Benjamin Netanyahu actually hit a high right after the deal was signed—also show just how foolish the claim was that Netanyahu wanted an endless war because it was the smart political move for him.
Until October 2025, and no amount of lying will change this, no proposal was ever put forward that would let Israel both get back all the hostages and avoid retreating to the old, bleeding border. As McGurk explained, patiently, as if to a struggling child, every framework involved an immediate withdrawal from Gaza down to the last Israeli soldier, with the hostages released in an agonizing drip-feed that, according to Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, was never meant to end. Anyone who claims there’s no difference between a Gaza with hostages and no IDF and a Gaza with no hostages and an IDF presence is either ignorant or a propagandist and ought to be kept as far from public platforms as possible.
I also suspect the public has noticed—despite every attempt to muddy the waters—a strange pattern: the same people who argued for two years that Hamas had been defeated and the war could therefore end are now the ones arguing that Hamas is stronger than ever and the war is a failure. Voters will make Netanyahu pay for the gap between his promise of total victory and the reality on the ground. But if forced to choose at the ballot box between two ways of describing the situation in the Middle East—total victory or total failure—they won’t choose failure.
George the dog retweeted
Seven seconds. That’s all it takes to explain the entire conflict. And it came straight from the mouth of a Palestinian Arab. Watch.
He doesn’t bother with the charade. He isn’t talking about settlements, or a checkpoint, or an armistice line drawn in 1967. He says that in his religion, in the Quran, it is forbidden for the Jews to have their own land.
Read that again and again.
In the Quran, it is forbidden for the Jews to have their own land.
That’s the conflict. Everything else is insignificant.
A two-state solution requires both peoples to accept that the other one has a right to exist as itself. Jews have spent a century offering that, and the offers were rejected every single time because it included a Jewish state that would remain a Jewish state.
The rejection wasn’t a negotiating tactic. It was the whole doctrine. Accepting that the Jews as a people have their own land would mean accepting that Jews are equal and not a subservient population under Islam, and that is the part Islam won’t grant. The choice he leaves is the old one. Subservience, or death.
You can argue maps for another century. He already told you that the map isn’t the objection. The objection is that the Jews are on it as owners and equals.
H/T @AskProjectYT
George the dog retweeted
Zionism isn't racism.
Mothin Ali isn't English.
Trans women aren't women.
The word "mother" isn't offensive.
You can't enhance breast size with hypnotism.
Taxing the rich isn't how you achieve growth.
There is no genocide in Palestine.
💚 a guaranteed job for every 18-24 year old
💚 a plan to bring failing water companies into public ownership by Christmas
💚 standing up for an inclusive and welcoming Britain
So proud of our Deputy Leaders @mothinali @rachelmillward
George the dog retweeted
For three years the world has cried about Gaza and what was done to it. Of everything filmed in those three years, apart from the footage of October 7 itself, this is the video that settles it for me.
Ghazi Hamad, of the Hamas political bureau, on LBC in Lebanon, October 24, 2023. The host asks him what occupation he is talking about. Occupying Gaza? He says NO. He is talking about all the land he calls Palestinian. She asks if that means the annihilation of Israel. He says YES, of course. He says they will do it again and again, that the Al-Aqsa Flood was only the first time, and that October 7th, October 10th, October one millionth, everything they do is justified.
So the occupation line was a lie, and he is the one who says it. Gaza wasn’t occupied. The thing he won’t accept is that Israel exists. He says they’ll repeat the massacre until it doesn’t. They’ve been saying that, in one form or another, for a century. On October 7 they stopped saying it and did it.
That day wasn’t a threat. It was the act. About 1,200 people were slaughtered in roughly ten hours. Not weeks. Not a campaign. A single morning. That is 120 an hour. Run the same rate over a day and it’s about 2,880. They also took about 250 hostages and held many of them for more than two years. If we take proportion as a measure since that’s what people keep saying, then the rate they set on the day, across the 730 days and more that those people were kept, a response that merely matched them would be somewhere around two million dead. The figure circulated for Gaza is about 76,000, of which a large share were fighters and a further share would have died anyway by natural death. Even if you take the whole 76,000, the gap between what they did and what was done back is not a disproportion against Gaza. It’s a shortfall of well over a million and a half, if matching them is the standard the complaint is using.
Israel didn’t destroy Gaza. Gaza destroyed Gaza. Gaza chose the massacre, chose to keep the hostages, and chose a man who went on television and promised to do it again.
I genuinely don’t care about the destruction of Gaza. That satellite photo doing the rounds doesn’t make me feel sympathy. It doesn’t make me feel empathy. And it certainly doesn’t make me feel guilt. I feel nothing for them. Gaza deserves every bit of it. If they choose to even attempt to repeat it again as he promised, the restraint we showed to Gaza over the past three years will vanish. And since the world supports them doing it again, what will follow them trying will be on the heads of those supporting them.
George the dog retweeted
𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗹𝗮𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲, 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲:
The co-pilot volunteered to be arrested and interrogated.
The captain volunteered to be stabbed.
Flightradar24 recorded a fake dive in real time.
ADS-B Exchange independently recorded the exact same fake dive.
Saudi ATC and radar logs recorded a fake emergency and landing.
UAE ATC records logged the departure of a flight supposedly involved in an incident that never happened.
Israeli ATC records logged the expected arrival of that same flight.
The flight data recorder recorded fake altitude and control inputs.
The cockpit voice recorder somehow matched the fake story too.
Saudi aviation authorities agreed to write a preliminary assessment confirming a fake incident.
UAE investigators agreed to open a real investigation into a staged event.
Roughly 174 passengers agreed to fake an emergency and film it from every angle.
Passengers agreed to storm the cockpit on cue and then give interviews afterward.
Tabuk Airport and Saudi air traffic control agreed to handle a fake emergency landing.
Saudi medical staff agreed to treat fake injuries and keep the secret.
Israeli officials agreed to publicly discuss an incident they knew was fake.
Ben Gurion Airport staff and ambulances agreed to wait for a plane that was never really in danger.
News outlets independently verified fake passenger videos and all somehow reached the same conclusion.
Passenger videos and photos from multiple phones all showed the same fake blood and chaos.
The aircraft itself was physically damaged as part of the fake story.
Saudi hospital records documented injuries from an attack that supposedly never happened.
Custody and transfer records were created to document the pilots being moved to the UAE.
Saudi authorities put the incident in writing in their preliminary assessment.
Multiple governments and organizations issued matching official statements.
Independent news organizations all separately reported the same fake event.
The FlyDubai flight crew agreed to fake the entire incident.
The cabin crew agreed to act terrified for the whole flight.
FlyDubai management agreed to issue statements about an incident they knew was fake.
So the theory requires hundreds of passengers, airline employees, medical staff, investigators, three countries’ aviation systems, flight-tracking services, journalists, physical aircraft damage, hospital records, radar data, and official documents to all be coordinated perfectly without anyone exposing it.
George the dog retweeted
The most thorough response to the actual accusations in the NAZA documentary I've read. From an IDF officer, (name/rank/unit provided) in which we can validate he was a part of and observed the processes the documentary attempts to cover. yairmiron.com/media/yair-mir…
George the dog retweeted
Since yesterday I’ve been grilling my husband about the Flydubai incident. He’s a commercial pilot. I threw every conspiracy at him until he snapped.
His exact words: “People already calling this fake is insane.”
So here’s what he said about the three dumbest theories.
1- “How did anyone get into the cockpit? The door locks from the inside.”
There’s a door-release switch right next to the pilot. He can unlock it from the flight deck. Once it’s released, people on the other side can shove it open and get in. Locked does not mean sealed forever.
2- “Why didn’t the oxygen masks drop?”
This isn’t a movie. Masks don’t fall because something scary happened. They deploy only if cabin pressure drops. A steep descent, even a violent one, does not automatically dump cabin pressure. No pressure loss, no masks. Simple as that.
3-“How did people reach the cockpit if the plane was nose-diving?”
“Nose dive” does not mean the jet was vertical. It was pitched down, not at 90 degrees. That attitude doesn’t pin you in your seat. It throws you forward, toward the cockpit. If you get up, you’re not fighting the dive. You’re being shoved down the aisle faster.
That’s it. Not a film. Not a hoax script. Just how the airplane actually works.
George the dog retweeted
Yasser Arafat, the founder of the Palestinian national, said in 1971 that they invented the Palestinian identity.
This video is dedicated to all the antisemites who support something that was made up 😂😂🤡
George the dog retweeted
Watch the full documentary The Killing Roads, about the October 7th massacre.
Set aside the time to watch it through. Then share it with someone who knows the date but has only seen the headlines.
