Thread Reader helps you read and share Twitter threads easily!
I'm @ThreadReaderApp a Twitter bot here to help you read threads more easily. To trigger me, you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention me with the "unroll" keyword and I'll send you a link back on Twitter ๐
— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) November 25, 2017
X thread is series of posts by the same author connected with a line!
From any post in the thread, mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll
Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us easily!
Practice here first or read more on our help page!
Recent
1/๐จ Peter Thiel just called the Giving Pledge an "Epstein-adjacent, fake Boomer club."
Federal documents show he wasn't being provocative.
Epstein literally designed a business plan to help Bll Gates capture tens of billions of dollars of Giving Pledge money โ in his own words, with Bates numbers.
Here's what the files show ๐งต๐
Federal documents show he wasn't being provocative.
Epstein literally designed a business plan to help Bll Gates capture tens of billions of dollars of Giving Pledge money โ in his own words, with Bates numbers.
Here's what the files show ๐งต๐
2/๐ฐ Feb 17, 2011. Epstein to JPMorgan โ three months after the Giving Pledge launched:
"They all have a tax advisor, but have no real clue on how to give it away."
$60+ billion pledged. No mechanism to deliver it.
Epstein saw the gap. He intended to fill it. [EFTA00904740] justice.gov/epstein/files/โฆ
"They all have a tax advisor, but have no real clue on how to give it away."
$60+ billion pledged. No mechanism to deliver it.
Epstein saw the gap. He intended to fill it. [EFTA00904740] justice.gov/epstein/files/โฆ
3 / He told Gates directly what the vehicle was for:
"You can save taxes. A DAF with you is the pinnacle of their giving lives. The leverage is as great as increasing govt spending."
Not philanthropy. A theory of power โ charity-sized impact with zero democratic accountability. [EFTA01003196] justice.gov/epstein/files/โฆ
"You can save taxes. A DAF with you is the pinnacle of their giving lives. The leverage is as great as increasing govt spending."
Not philanthropy. A theory of power โ charity-sized impact with zero democratic accountability. [EFTA01003196] justice.gov/epstein/files/โฆ
Today I am sharing ๐details on Trump and Elon Muskโs secret weapon! Some say he was a former Biden advisor. Other say, He and Bob Johnson now are working on a new federal law. Mr. Johnson led Biden negotiations for your JuneteenthAtl.com. Either way ๐ซตneed to know him๐. x.com/gaelectionssecโฆ
Featured story of the day. The new hope for Georgia. A man who can bring us all together in smiles and laughs. A man of God who is imperfect, has been locked up, and learned lessons. Here his story from Fulton county independent media @NilesGApol ๐please share
@threadreaderapp โunrollโ @andybeshearpod
1/ Iran intends to leverage its stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz to force the US and Gulf Arab states to accept an agreement in which Iran has set "appropriate political and security conditions", in which its security is guaranteed and US bases in the region are closed. โฌ๏ธ
2/ Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the Speaker of the Parliament of Iran, has told the London-based Arabic newspaper The New Arab (Al-Araby al-Jadeed) that Iran will keep fighting and "will not return to the conditions that prevailed before the war."
3/ He says that a ceasefire agreement will not be acceptable without guarantees "that war will not resume, not if it gives the enemy an opportunity to fix its problems, such as the destruction of its radars or the shortage of interceptor missiles,โฆ
@BBCMaryam @Shayan86 Sources:
1).
โ๏ธ @Refugees unhcr.org/news/press-relโฆ
โ๏ธ @UN_News_Centre news.un.org/en/story/2026/โฆ
โ๏ธ @QatarNewsAgency qna.org.qa/ar-QA/news-bulโฆ
โ๏ธ ๐ฟ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ป๐๐๐ (@washingtonpost) (@AP) archive.is/bBejy
1).
โ๏ธ @Refugees unhcr.org/news/press-relโฆ
โ๏ธ @UN_News_Centre news.un.org/en/story/2026/โฆ
โ๏ธ @QatarNewsAgency qna.org.qa/ar-QA/news-bulโฆ
โ๏ธ ๐ฟ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ป๐๐๐ (@washingtonpost) (@AP) archive.is/bBejy
@BBCMaryam @Shayan86 @Refugees @UN_News_Centre @QatarNewsAgency @washingtonpost @AP 2).
โ๏ธ @Israel_Alma_org israel-alma.org/daily-report-tโฆ
โ๏ธ ๐ฟ๐๐ ๐น๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ฟ๐๐๐๐ (@nytimes) nytimes.com/2026/03/10/worโฆ
โ๏ธ @Reuters reuters.com/world/middle-eโฆ
โ๏ธ @TF1Info x.com/i/status/20326โฆ
x.com/i/status/20326โฆ
threadreaderapp.com/thread/2032625โฆ
โ๏ธ @Israel_Alma_org israel-alma.org/daily-report-tโฆ
โ๏ธ ๐ฟ๐๐ ๐น๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ฟ๐๐๐๐ (@nytimes) nytimes.com/2026/03/10/worโฆ
โ๏ธ @Reuters reuters.com/world/middle-eโฆ
โ๏ธ @TF1Info x.com/i/status/20326โฆ
x.com/i/status/20326โฆ
threadreaderapp.com/thread/2032625โฆ
@BBCMaryam @Shayan86 @Refugees @UN_News_Centre @QatarNewsAgency @washingtonpost @AP @Israel_Alma_org @nytimes @Reuters @TF1Info 3).
โ๏ธ ๐ท๐ ๐ธ๐๐๐๐ (@lemondefr) lemonde.fr/international/โฆ
โ๏ธ @Reuters reuters.com/world/six-frenโฆ
โ๏ธ @TIME time.com/article/2026/0โฆ
โ๏ธ ๐ฟ๐๐ ๐น๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ฟ๐๐๐๐ (@nytimes) archive.is/20260314223852โฆ
โ๏ธ ๐ท๐ ๐ธ๐๐๐๐ (@lemondefr) lemonde.fr/international/โฆ
โ๏ธ @Reuters reuters.com/world/six-frenโฆ
โ๏ธ @TIME time.com/article/2026/0โฆ
โ๏ธ ๐ฟ๐๐ ๐น๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ฟ๐๐๐๐ (@nytimes) archive.is/20260314223852โฆ
I think people are calling her Nazi for these explicitly Nazi posts!
"Jews lost us WW1" is like, THE original Nazi talking point
"Jews lost us WW1" is like, THE original Nazi talking point
I genuinely don't care much about Palestinian antisemitism atm, especially for those actually in Palestine (or say, Ukrainian Russophobia). There's time to deal with it later. But these are textbook Nazi arguments unrelated to Israel!
Here she is retweeting Holocaust denial BTW
Here she is retweeting Holocaust denial BTW
The "yes, she is/every time" is a common online Nazi phrasing and Koschel is a open white nationalist
Like cmon, this is the guy she was talking about in that first post
Like cmon, this is the guy she was talking about in that first post
Today's adventure in being a UK GP shows why the system is creaking.
Of 30 patients on my list today, 3 were GP problems; rest are waiting for definitive secondary care treatment.
Manager added our actual GP work (hypertension reviews) as extras because we have no time anymore.
Of 30 patients on my list today, 3 were GP problems; rest are waiting for definitive secondary care treatment.
Manager added our actual GP work (hypertension reviews) as extras because we have no time anymore.
Let's go through some examples, adapted for patient confidentiality.
Important to recognise that this is all the fault of a stretched system, and not any specific clinic/doctor.
(Having said that, I do wish my hospital colleagues were a little better at NHS Hospital Contract)
Important to recognise that this is all the fault of a stretched system, and not any specific clinic/doctor.
(Having said that, I do wish my hospital colleagues were a little better at NHS Hospital Contract)
Letter to patient, copied to GP
"CT scan shows something else - GP to investigate".
Has CT scan report been shared? (No)
Has speciality made onward referral to colleague in same building as NHS Hospital Contract requires (No)
This wastes GP and admin time and blocks an appt
"CT scan shows something else - GP to investigate".
Has CT scan report been shared? (No)
Has speciality made onward referral to colleague in same building as NHS Hospital Contract requires (No)
This wastes GP and admin time and blocks an appt
A word about Phil Woolas.
In 1985, antisemites persuaded a uniquely spineless Student Union in Sunderland to ban its Jewish society. For Zionism.
In a foretaste of today, the racists paraded their virtue & enjoyed making 20 Jewish kids miserable.
Quite a few โeminentโ members
1/
In 1985, antisemites persuaded a uniquely spineless Student Union in Sunderland to ban its Jewish society. For Zionism.
In a foretaste of today, the racists paraded their virtue & enjoyed making 20 Jewish kids miserable.
Quite a few โeminentโ members
1/
of my profession behaved like this as student โactivistsโ. Some resurfaced during Corbynโs leadership, still behaving like it.
@UJS_UK - which I then chaired - fought the ban & got it reversed.
Phil headed @nusuk (& when you think of its recent appalling leadership you
2/
@UJS_UK - which I then chaired - fought the ban & got it reversed.
Phil headed @nusuk (& when you think of its recent appalling leadership you
2/
realise quite how impressive it once was). This was a row he didnโt need.
Honourable mentions go to @tuktukaren & Rachel Brooks who used their executive positions to help. And to Phil - who took the racism as a personal affront (as did @LordJohnMann, his close mate).
3/
Honourable mentions go to @tuktukaren & Rachel Brooks who used their executive positions to help. And to Phil - who took the racism as a personal affront (as did @LordJohnMann, his close mate).
3/
A new study: an LLM rates 600k social science abstracts since 1960
-near absence of right-of-center works
-economics: 16% of works were rated 0โ4 (right-leaning)
-all other disciplines: 0-6% of works were rated 0-4
Overall mean on 0-10 scale: 5.7-7.6, or left-leaning:
-near absence of right-of-center works
-economics: 16% of works were rated 0โ4 (right-leaning)
-all other disciplines: 0-6% of works were rated 0-4
Overall mean on 0-10 scale: 5.7-7.6, or left-leaning:
Source: The ideological orientation of academic social science research 1960โ2024
0-4 (right-leaning) is VDARE to Wall Street Journal
5 (centrist) is Reuters or Brookings
6-10 (left-leaning) is The Atlantic to Full Communism
5 (centrist) is Reuters or Brookings
6-10 (left-leaning) is The Atlantic to Full Communism
World War III: The Fatal Mistake In Iran /๐งต
... and why nothing can stop this war except the defeat of the United States.
Introduction: Salami Tactics
Imagine a heavy roll of salami, sitting on a table. It's usually a substantial amount of meat, and not something you can eat in one sitting. In fact, to properly dine on a piece of salami, you should slice it thinly and make a sandwich out of it. Gradually, salami slice after salami slice, the roll will disappear. But at no time except at the end of the roll, do you feel such a substantial amount of meat will run out.
This is the classic "salami tactic" concept, and the same idea applies to every aspect of life and war. Let us start with something that should be immediately familiar to any professional.
Office bullying can be modelled through salami slicing. Imagine a slight against you โ very small, not enough to make you retaliate. Everyone prefers a comfortable peace, after all. You might even rationalise it as a mistake. But then it happens again and again, with each move it perhaps slices deeper into your personal space or rights.
But with each slice, your standing is lowered to the point where you're faced with the same dilemma: It's cheaper to let it slide and hope it doesn't happen again. Before you know it, you've been completely undermined and removed from the picture with miserable prospects for the future.
This is the most basic form of what is usually termed coercive gradualism, or gradualist tactics supporting a grand strategy. In RAND parlance, "threshold stretching and exploitation". In fact, this is exactly what started this war with Iran which is bound to expand as all means by which it can end have already been destroyed.
This isn't the first time this has happened, in fact, another war was started by the exact same mistake. Let us discuss that first before moving on to the current war that is raging and expanding horizontally (geographically) and vertically (in terms of escalation).
Which war am I talking about exactly? You see, that war was World War II.
... and why nothing can stop this war except the defeat of the United States.
Introduction: Salami Tactics
Imagine a heavy roll of salami, sitting on a table. It's usually a substantial amount of meat, and not something you can eat in one sitting. In fact, to properly dine on a piece of salami, you should slice it thinly and make a sandwich out of it. Gradually, salami slice after salami slice, the roll will disappear. But at no time except at the end of the roll, do you feel such a substantial amount of meat will run out.
This is the classic "salami tactic" concept, and the same idea applies to every aspect of life and war. Let us start with something that should be immediately familiar to any professional.
Office bullying can be modelled through salami slicing. Imagine a slight against you โ very small, not enough to make you retaliate. Everyone prefers a comfortable peace, after all. You might even rationalise it as a mistake. But then it happens again and again, with each move it perhaps slices deeper into your personal space or rights.
But with each slice, your standing is lowered to the point where you're faced with the same dilemma: It's cheaper to let it slide and hope it doesn't happen again. Before you know it, you've been completely undermined and removed from the picture with miserable prospects for the future.
This is the most basic form of what is usually termed coercive gradualism, or gradualist tactics supporting a grand strategy. In RAND parlance, "threshold stretching and exploitation". In fact, this is exactly what started this war with Iran which is bound to expand as all means by which it can end have already been destroyed.
This isn't the first time this has happened, in fact, another war was started by the exact same mistake. Let us discuss that first before moving on to the current war that is raging and expanding horizontally (geographically) and vertically (in terms of escalation).
Which war am I talking about exactly? You see, that war was World War II.
Special Study Case: World War II
The treaty of Versailles which formally ended WWI was unfair to Germany. It restricted the size of its army and navy then cut away much of its territory. It was so unstable a situation that restricted what should be a great power to a miserable existence. Along with the corrosive influence of the anti-German degenerate Weimar regime, the rise of Hitler was inevitable.
Hitler wanted one thing: To make Germany great again. For that, he needed its army in the best shape and its territory expanded to its natural size.
After raising his army, Hitler went to work reversing the content of this treaty, beginning at the most natural point: [1] Moving his soldiers into the Rhineland in 1936. This was to be a DMZ between Germany and other European states. At the time, Britain was the enforcer of the treaty and the Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin saw this as a correction of an unfair treaty.
Hitler's Ambassador-at-Large and soon to be Foreign Minister Ribbentrop, saw the information from the event in a different way: The UK saw an incremental move by Germany and decided it was not worth going through another disastrous war to stop it. Remilitarizing the Rhineland was an important move for Germany's rearmament as it allowed Germany to fortify its western front.
This enabled it to focus on the south and the east...
The next move by Hitler was to unify Germany and Austria [2]. Today this is depicted as an annexation (The Sound of Music certainly makes it seem like such a thing). Nevertheless, the UK accepted this. There was no protest in Austria and it was largely bloodless. Opposing it could be construed as opposing Austrian's right to self-determination.
Just six months later, on September 1938, Hitler demanded the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia [3]. Chamberlain was a little concerned to say the least. England and France took this seriously, and kicked off the Munich conference. Hitler was told that he may have the Sudetenland but he must not make any more territorial demands. This was a signaled threshold, but without any kind of promise of action. It was declared a "peace for our time" by Chamberlain.
But Ribbentrop saw it differently. He had just violated the terms of the treaty of Versailles numerous times without action from the UK. Almost like clockwork, six months later, Germany took all of Czechoslovakia [4].
That was the final threshold for the UK. Chamberlain immediately issued a guarantee to Poland that the UK will enter a war with Germany should its sovereignty be impinged. Ribbentrop saw this as a bluff and in fact Germany invaded Memel in Lithuania (a German territory captured by allies in WWI) just days after Czechoslovakia [5]. No foreign policy statement was made by any party.
The stage was set for the second biggest mistake in human history. I will argue later, that the mistake made on the 28th of February is even worse.
Invasion of Poland
Exactly six month after taking Czechoslovakia, Hitler and Stalin jointly invaded Poland. The excuse was a false flag, the famous Gleiwitz radio incident. Given the steady timing of each invasion, it would have been unreasonable to believe it wasn't a premeditated excuse for war.
This acquisition would have secured the entire eastern flank of Germany, preparing the western front for eventual invasion. But the UK wasn't going to allow this invasion to take place without responding. King George the VI fulfilled the promise made by his prime minister and declared war on Germany just two days later.
The UK knew Germany would eventually invade France, ally with Italy and possibly even the USSR. It didn't want to wait until it could no longer fight Germany, but went to war immediately when its threshold was crossed.
This set in motion the most miserable episode in human memory, and catastrophes that we are still dealing with today.
Hitler's Savage Look
As England's declaration of war crackled over the radio and an official telegram was received from the British embassy, translated by Hitler's chief translator Paul-Otto Schmidt, Hitler was quite shocked. A war with England, at least at this stage, was not part of his plan. He wanted to salami slice his way into Europe, and prepare himself to a fait accompli victory later. A war completely destroyed all of his plans for a great Germany.
Schmidt recounts Hitler's immediate reaction after this news: He turned towards Ribbentrop with a savage look that spoke of betrayed trust and asked him in a snappy manner: "What now?".
The treaty of Versailles which formally ended WWI was unfair to Germany. It restricted the size of its army and navy then cut away much of its territory. It was so unstable a situation that restricted what should be a great power to a miserable existence. Along with the corrosive influence of the anti-German degenerate Weimar regime, the rise of Hitler was inevitable.
Hitler wanted one thing: To make Germany great again. For that, he needed its army in the best shape and its territory expanded to its natural size.
After raising his army, Hitler went to work reversing the content of this treaty, beginning at the most natural point: [1] Moving his soldiers into the Rhineland in 1936. This was to be a DMZ between Germany and other European states. At the time, Britain was the enforcer of the treaty and the Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin saw this as a correction of an unfair treaty.
Hitler's Ambassador-at-Large and soon to be Foreign Minister Ribbentrop, saw the information from the event in a different way: The UK saw an incremental move by Germany and decided it was not worth going through another disastrous war to stop it. Remilitarizing the Rhineland was an important move for Germany's rearmament as it allowed Germany to fortify its western front.
This enabled it to focus on the south and the east...
The next move by Hitler was to unify Germany and Austria [2]. Today this is depicted as an annexation (The Sound of Music certainly makes it seem like such a thing). Nevertheless, the UK accepted this. There was no protest in Austria and it was largely bloodless. Opposing it could be construed as opposing Austrian's right to self-determination.
Just six months later, on September 1938, Hitler demanded the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia [3]. Chamberlain was a little concerned to say the least. England and France took this seriously, and kicked off the Munich conference. Hitler was told that he may have the Sudetenland but he must not make any more territorial demands. This was a signaled threshold, but without any kind of promise of action. It was declared a "peace for our time" by Chamberlain.
But Ribbentrop saw it differently. He had just violated the terms of the treaty of Versailles numerous times without action from the UK. Almost like clockwork, six months later, Germany took all of Czechoslovakia [4].
That was the final threshold for the UK. Chamberlain immediately issued a guarantee to Poland that the UK will enter a war with Germany should its sovereignty be impinged. Ribbentrop saw this as a bluff and in fact Germany invaded Memel in Lithuania (a German territory captured by allies in WWI) just days after Czechoslovakia [5]. No foreign policy statement was made by any party.
The stage was set for the second biggest mistake in human history. I will argue later, that the mistake made on the 28th of February is even worse.
Invasion of Poland
Exactly six month after taking Czechoslovakia, Hitler and Stalin jointly invaded Poland. The excuse was a false flag, the famous Gleiwitz radio incident. Given the steady timing of each invasion, it would have been unreasonable to believe it wasn't a premeditated excuse for war.
This acquisition would have secured the entire eastern flank of Germany, preparing the western front for eventual invasion. But the UK wasn't going to allow this invasion to take place without responding. King George the VI fulfilled the promise made by his prime minister and declared war on Germany just two days later.
The UK knew Germany would eventually invade France, ally with Italy and possibly even the USSR. It didn't want to wait until it could no longer fight Germany, but went to war immediately when its threshold was crossed.
This set in motion the most miserable episode in human memory, and catastrophes that we are still dealing with today.
Hitler's Savage Look
As England's declaration of war crackled over the radio and an official telegram was received from the British embassy, translated by Hitler's chief translator Paul-Otto Schmidt, Hitler was quite shocked. A war with England, at least at this stage, was not part of his plan. He wanted to salami slice his way into Europe, and prepare himself to a fait accompli victory later. A war completely destroyed all of his plans for a great Germany.
Schmidt recounts Hitler's immediate reaction after this news: He turned towards Ribbentrop with a savage look that spoke of betrayed trust and asked him in a snappy manner: "What now?".
WWIII: The Project For the New American Century
PNAC was a think tank project founded by Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, students of Strauss. These largely liberal men called themselves neoconservatives and quickly found support from a republican party trying to reinvent itself after the victories of the cold war and the grand finale of Desert Storm.
Their argument can be surmised as such (even though they would never put it in these terms): The world was enjoying peace, but an America without enemies and without conflicts could not realize its own power. What they desired was an enabling act, much like Hitler's numerous false flags, that set America into a motion of war. Then rearmament, nuclear weapons and missile defenses could be put up.
[Of course, as we know today they had a different goal: They wanted to make Israel Great Again, and in the process, get rid of America as people knew it transforming it into something entirely different and subservient to Israel. I will not cover this subject in this thread, however.]
After getting their men into power, Dick Cheyney, Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush, they got exactly what they wanted with the September 11 false flag. Their immediate course of action was to invade Afghanistan after framing Osama Bin Laden and his organization (a key ally of the US against the Soviet Union). The world was largely hoodwinked. The US received support from virtually every single person in the world, even in the streets of Tehran there was nothing but sympathy and support. Even I supported the US, quite strongly too. My uncle worked in one of the world trade centers (though thankfully he was out of state on that day).
The US invaded Afghanistan and defeated the Taliban by gaining support from all neighboring nations, Iran and using the full force of NATO, Australia and New Zealand as well as the northern alliance. It did not take long for the US to win.
Before the dust even settled, the US began making the case for invading Iraq. The excuse? Weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, the US had created a new class of weapons, low-yield minimal residual radiation nuclear weapons initially intended for Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) or bunker busters. It also started to fund construction of all kinds of missile defenses, the reason for which was not clear to outsiders.*
Seven Nations in Five Years
Right after the dust from Afghanistan was settling, Wesley Clark reported that more wars were planned. To quote him directly:
"We are going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing it off with Iran"
And quelle surprise, while the sequence didn't go to plan, nor the timing, every single country on the list was attacked or taken over in some manner.
Iraq War (2003-2007)
The Iraq war was different. No one with a brain bought the WMD excuse. Besides, how can Iraq even deliver this? This war was pushed by Benjamin Netanyahu who guaranteed "positive reverberations" in the middle east should it be carried out and result in knocking out Saddam Hussein. Curiously, this same man "predicted" the destruction of the world trade center in 1996 and multiple times after that.
The world was split but the US found some support. France stayed out of the war. The UK and other parties joined in. This wasn't as easy as Afghanistan. The US used a weapon of mass destruction on the Baghdad Airport to force a victory, a fact recounted by both American and Iraqi sources and made undeniable by certain evidence, such as the wounds on one particular boy... but never mind the details.
[* But would be clearer if you understood the insider perspective of 9/11. I will leave that subject for my final thread however and it will not be covered here.]
PNAC was a think tank project founded by Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, students of Strauss. These largely liberal men called themselves neoconservatives and quickly found support from a republican party trying to reinvent itself after the victories of the cold war and the grand finale of Desert Storm.
Their argument can be surmised as such (even though they would never put it in these terms): The world was enjoying peace, but an America without enemies and without conflicts could not realize its own power. What they desired was an enabling act, much like Hitler's numerous false flags, that set America into a motion of war. Then rearmament, nuclear weapons and missile defenses could be put up.
[Of course, as we know today they had a different goal: They wanted to make Israel Great Again, and in the process, get rid of America as people knew it transforming it into something entirely different and subservient to Israel. I will not cover this subject in this thread, however.]
After getting their men into power, Dick Cheyney, Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush, they got exactly what they wanted with the September 11 false flag. Their immediate course of action was to invade Afghanistan after framing Osama Bin Laden and his organization (a key ally of the US against the Soviet Union). The world was largely hoodwinked. The US received support from virtually every single person in the world, even in the streets of Tehran there was nothing but sympathy and support. Even I supported the US, quite strongly too. My uncle worked in one of the world trade centers (though thankfully he was out of state on that day).
The US invaded Afghanistan and defeated the Taliban by gaining support from all neighboring nations, Iran and using the full force of NATO, Australia and New Zealand as well as the northern alliance. It did not take long for the US to win.
Before the dust even settled, the US began making the case for invading Iraq. The excuse? Weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, the US had created a new class of weapons, low-yield minimal residual radiation nuclear weapons initially intended for Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) or bunker busters. It also started to fund construction of all kinds of missile defenses, the reason for which was not clear to outsiders.*
Seven Nations in Five Years
Right after the dust from Afghanistan was settling, Wesley Clark reported that more wars were planned. To quote him directly:
"We are going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing it off with Iran"
And quelle surprise, while the sequence didn't go to plan, nor the timing, every single country on the list was attacked or taken over in some manner.
Iraq War (2003-2007)
The Iraq war was different. No one with a brain bought the WMD excuse. Besides, how can Iraq even deliver this? This war was pushed by Benjamin Netanyahu who guaranteed "positive reverberations" in the middle east should it be carried out and result in knocking out Saddam Hussein. Curiously, this same man "predicted" the destruction of the world trade center in 1996 and multiple times after that.
The world was split but the US found some support. France stayed out of the war. The UK and other parties joined in. This wasn't as easy as Afghanistan. The US used a weapon of mass destruction on the Baghdad Airport to force a victory, a fact recounted by both American and Iraqi sources and made undeniable by certain evidence, such as the wounds on one particular boy... but never mind the details.
[* But would be clearer if you understood the insider perspective of 9/11. I will leave that subject for my final thread however and it will not be covered here.]
The narrative that Israeli PM Netanyahu is dead is not organic, it is a coordinated information operation largely coming from India and Pakistan based bot and sock puppet enterprises. I will prove it in this thread. ๐งต CC: @nikitabier
Something we quickly notice about many of these accounts is that they were opened this month when the war against Iran started and that dozens are located in South Asia, India, Pakistan. Irrespective of exact origin, they are coordinated foreign information operations that @nikitabier and X should address. I am happy to help.
In many instances these account have changed their username as many as 14 times in just two weeks. @nikitabier this is a very easy to fix countermeasure against foreign influence operations.
Zionism was probably something of a mystery to many people on 6 October 2023. Two and a half years of hatred have been quite an education. So the ugly messages at the โQuds Dayโ protest in London yesterday should come into sharp relief.
Jews as corrupters is ancient poison. 1/8
Jews as corrupters is ancient poison. 1/8
Zionists range from committed leftists to the hard right. So wherever you are on the political spectrum, you probably have Zionist fellows. And we are talking about the vast majority of Jews when it comes to Zionism in general.
Do you want them to be "destroyed"? 2/8
Do you want them to be "destroyed"? 2/8
Nefarious Jewish control is another ancient hatred theme. Swapping in "Zionism" changes nothing. We see you. 3/8
Bart De Wever: From the diamond deal in Moscow to the trailblazer for Russian state interests.
๐งต1/19
๐งต1/19
In my thread, I already reported on Bart De Wever's travels and questionable contacts to Russia (2018 and 2020). During the 2018 trip, a 'new, expanded cooperation agreement' was signed and this is precisely the focus of the following report.
๐งต2/19
๐งต2/19
The Russian corporation ALROSA, the world's largest diamond mining company, and the Belgian AWDC (Antwerp World Diamond Centre) signed an expanded cooperation agreement in Moscow on April 24th, 2018. In 2021, this agreement was officially renewed and extended for the โcoming yearsโ to โfurther consolidate the market leadership of both partnersโ.
๐งต3/19
๐งต3/19
