Is the Media Lying About Gaza? Sulaiman Ahmed Speaks Out | DSH #1849

The claim is that Hamas had behind tunnels, had under hospitals, had under school.

This is what Dave Smith says.

This is fake news Hamas don't do that.

If you look at the videos where they said about the tunnels,

they weren't even under hospitals.

I've interviewed a large number of people from the West,

not Muslims, who are doctors.

Example Dr. Madz Gilbert, who worked in Alshifa hospital,

who said unequivocally they were given complete autonomy to walk throughout the hospitals.

There was no closed areas.

There was no Hamas there at the hospitals.

And there was no underground tunnels.

And those underground tunnels where the military personnel were,

they weren't at the hospitals.

They were away from the hospitals and they got debunked on those things.

That's crazy, yeah.

Because I saw in the media the hospitals and the schools

is where they would hide in the tunnel.

Yeah, that was a claim, but it's fake.

All right guys, Suleiman back on the show,

just debated a Christian.

It wasn't supposed to be a Christian debate,

but it kind of ended up being a lot of...

I think it did cover a little bit,

but I always try and stay away from those Christian Muslims debates

because I feel like it causes animosity.

Yeah.

So even after the show, he did tell me,

he was like, oh look, I debate this issue.

At this moment, at this point,

and he was like, do you want a debate as I look,

will it cause animosity between Muslims and Christians?

He said, yeah, so I said, look, I don't want a debate.

I don't want anything that kind of causes animosity.

I'm about bringing Muslims and Christians together.

It's just that when the claim is being made,

that is Islam compatible with the West.

I know that's just a weak position.

Something that has been propagandized by the media,

by the public, and so therefore,

my main kind of angle is to try and do a bunch of that position.

Yeah.

You see the propaganda about Dearborn Michigan right now?

Yeah, that is.

That's just an example of extreme propaganda,

because if you look at Dearborn Michigan,

the crime rate is extremely low.

Dearborn's crime rate within Michigan is very low.

Within the state is very low.

And then within the United States of America is very low.

So you've got a populist who commits low crime,

who are integrated really well.

And yet, you've got people who are going there

and attacking them both through media and then physically.

And I'll talk about physically in a second.

So through the media when they're attacking them,

they like, oh, guess what?

They're doing the Muslim call to prayer.

Now, that is something that's been propagandized,

because actually, when this issue was brought up to the people

in charge in Dearborn Michigan said, okay, cool.

We'll stop even though what we're doing

doesn't break the ordinance rules within Dearborn

will stop playing the prayer.

And I think that's the kind of prudent thing to do,

because people are using it for propaganda.

Although, in the United States of America,

there is freedom of religion.

There is freedom of expression.

You go to New York, you'll see Jewish people

overtly practicing their religion in synagogues,

in the streets.

And so it's clearly an attack on Dearborn Michigan.

And then the main propaganda of that is Jake Lang,

someone who had to be debated and crushed quite easily.

But he's like an Ashkenazi guy who is claiming he's Christian.

But I spoke to even people within prison

who were basically incarcerated with him due to Jan 6th.

And all of them say that he has like mental health issues.

He has delusions of grandeur.

Apparently, in prison, he thought he was like some kind of Messiah.

Some kind of Messiah.

He called himself Israel or Israel.

Oh, no, Israel.

He was called himself Israel.

So he's not someone who's respected within the community,

someone who, and then he's doing it quite clearly for clicks.

And then if you look at the people that who went there with him,

people like Cam Higby and Lance, I believe,

both of whom got trips paid to Israel,

who were part of the Israeli propaganda,

who lied about the fact that food wasn't going into Gaza.

And then they are the people who are essentially going into

these areas with him in order to propagate hatred against Muslims.

And Israel did a study two years ago.

I saw you know two years ago,

two months ago, now it's about three months ago.

And what they said is, what's the best way to redirect conversation

against Israel?

Because the vast majority of the world is against Israel,

even in the United States of America,

Paul sure that the vast majority of Americans against Israel

and even right wing under 30 year olds are against Israel.

So if you look at the right wing Republicans,

and we're at TPUSA, the vast majority,

you see the split within the Marga movement,

those who are America first and those who are Israel first.

Under 30 year olds are very much now,

America first and they've kind of rejected this notion

of being subservient to Israel.

And so they did this study to say,

how can we re-change the kind of view that people have about Israel?

And what they found is actually the best way to do so

is to basically spew hatred about Muslims,

do propaganda against Muslims.

And so then you're seeing that both in the United States of America

and the UK.

For example, many of them are like,

oh guess what, there's a takeover of the Muslims in the UK.

Which is fake news.

Like Muslims are 6% of the population.

They don't hold any kind of strong positions of power.

The two positions that people always hold to

is or basically highlight is the mayor of London, Sadi Khan.

And Shabana Mahmoud, who is the home secretary,

Sadi Khan isn't someone who puts the positions of a Muslim's first.

He didn't even speak about the Gaza genocide until very late on.

He's a very liberal walk person.

So he actually is more aligned with the liberal walk position

as opposed to the Muslim position,

which is conservative.

Shabana Mahmoud, ironically, is someone who used to do

the pro-Palestinian protests.

And as soon as she was made home secretary,

she turned on Muslims and she actually banned pro-Palestinian protests.

She said that if you protest in the same place,

more than once, you will be banned.

So what that demonstrates is actually when these people go into positions of power,

they become subservient to Zionists.

And actually it's the Zionists who control the United Kingdom,

they control our government.

The prime minister of the United Kingdom is a self-proclaimed Zionist.

And so this whole idea notion is something that is claimed.

But as soon as you push back, they have no answer for it.

It's why most of these guys are afraid to debate me on this issue.

It's why the most of these guys literally are within their own echo chamber

and relate this idea and position without any kind of basically real evidence.

Do you think there's any truth to the $7,000 stuff?

Yes, I do think so.

So even before this kind of $2,000 thing came about,

we all were well aware, even in 2023,

this was before the Gaza genocide happened October 7th,

that many of these institutes were paying people.

And they do it through a multi-mode method.

So they'll either do it through campaigns,

like through Prager U, or Influensibles,

where they'll basically play with people to say,

look, this is our agenda point.

This is our pro-Israel position.

All of you are going to be paid like $1,000, $2,000, $3,000, $4,000.

This is the tweet we want.

And they did this to propagate Zionism,

to propagate Israel, to demonize Muslims,

even for example, Nick Fuentes,

who you're well aware of.

They've done campaigns against him calling him a fed.

So this is well-known campaigns.

That's one aspect.

Then the other aspect is that they'll pay people direct.

So for example, you'll know someone called Robert Schillman.

Robert Schillman funded, for example, TPUS.

He's the guy who, if you remember,

four years ago, he was before the assassination of Charlie Kirk,

pulled his fund in from TPUS.

That's him.

Yeah, it was because he wasn't happy

about the fact that Charlie Kirk was platforming took a call.

And so Robert Schillman is one example of someone

who not only pushes, has funded the IDF,

he also, for example, funds TPUS there.

He also funds hatred against Muslims.

So he funded, for example, Laura Luma.

He funded Tommy Robinson.

Tommy Robinson is one of the biggest proponents

against Muslims in the United Kingdom.

He financially funded him.

He funds rebel media, which is again another channel

that funds anti-Islam hatred.

So what they do is they'll fund these people directly as well.

So it's done through campaigns.

Yeah.

It's done through direct funding.

And also not just funding as well.

What will also happen is like, you want a good career.

If you want a good career,

even if they don't pay you direct, you know that if you basically present

the Israeli position, the Zionist position,

you'll have a very good rule into Congress,

a very good rule into center,

a very good rule within politics.

So this is well, and within the media.

So this isn't the well known.

Never mind the fact that within Congress and center,

they'll directly through APEC fund their campaigns as well.

And hence why APEC say, look,

95% of the congressmen we back are within Congress.

97% of the senators we back are within the center.

And then even Donald Trump was massively backed

by the Zionist lobby,

Merriam Ailesan directly.

And this is not even through APEC funded,

what's called a Donald Trump,

to make sure that he gets into power.

And they do this, and again,

that'll be an example of where it's not APEC money.

It's someone who is a American,

but basically holds Israeli positions

ahead of American positions.

Do you think the biggest threat to the West

is the Zionist movement?

I would say they want it.

I wouldn't say they're the only threat,

but I would say they are the biggest threat

in the sense of immediate threat.

So obviously I do think China is a threat.

I'm not someone who is like pro-China's.

I do think China is a threat,

but I do when you look at the Zionist lobby

and you look at the accelerated nature of the threat.

So for example, the economy has been harmed

because of the foreign wars.

When you look out within the culture,

the left wing liberal ideas in terms of population collapse

amongst the white population

in terms of the lack of religiosity

within Western society, feminism, liberalism.

All of these things have been pushed by Zionists.

And so if you look at what is the biggest problem,

you're seeing the destruction of the white race

and Christianity in the West.

So when you look at the birth rate,

the birth rate is like 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 in certain countries.

And so what that means is,

imagine there's two people.

And for each of the two people,

you're only producing one person.

That's immediately within one generation

the halving of a population.

Wow.

And so you're seeing the complete destruction of that

that is happening.

And so I would say those and examples

of an immediate threat within the West.

And obviously they then use those controls

to destroy and bomb the Middle East as well.

So it's the destruction of all of society.

So I'd say an immediate threat for sure.

But long term obviously there are other threats as well.

So do you see the white population

dwindling down as a problem in America?

Or do you think that matters at all?

What?

I think it matters.

I think the white population in America now,

I believe is 58% to 60% completely dwindling down.

There's this new technology floating around

that people cannot stop talking about.

It's called the light system.

Before you roll your eyes,

it's not some gadget you strap on

or supplement that promises the world.

Every once in a while I come across something

that actually stops me in my tracks.

And the light system is one of those things.

This isn't a supplement, it's not a biohack,

it's a full on energy environment

built to help your mind and body synchronize,

recharge and operate at a higher level.

It uses light patterns, color frequencies

and coherent energy fields.

All the stuff that your body naturally responds to

to create a cohere and energetic field around you.

People are saying they feel more clear,

more centered, more alive in their environment.

And honestly, the science behind it is fascinating.

I've seen a lot of wellness tech,

but the numbers coming out on this new study

of the light system are actually insane.

Researchers measured human chic cells

before and after sitting in front of a system

and get this.

A 30 minute session boosted cellular conductivity

by 61%.

The study even showed increased conductivity

and isolated DNA,

which is associated with stronger structure

and better repair pathways.

The result, more clarity, more balance and more alignment.

You can save $500 now if you go to the lightsystems.com

and use discount code, Sean.

In the UK, I believe it's 75%.

And I do think that it does matter because there's a certain,

so for example, America was created

by white, Protestant, Christian men.

They had a certain ethos and a certain idea behind it.

Now, do I believe that, for example,

there should be an ethnostate?

No, I don't believe in ethnostates.

I think bringing people in from different cultures,

different societies does benefit the community

because you get the best of the best.

You have innovation.

You have ideas and thoughts from different people.

But the problem becomes when you massively

have a population completely changed.

Now, let's say you bring millions upon millions

of Indians into the country.

Now you basically have an Indian culture

which supersedes or supplants Western society, Western ideals.

I do believe that that changes the culture completely.

And so you do need a majority population to remain

as the kind of native population.

I think that's extremely important

because ideals come from there,

values come from there, morals come from there.

So I do think there's a major problem.

Yeah, it's a tricky spot

because we need immigration to keep the country running,

right, because our birth rate is so low.

Exactly. You need to import the right amount of people

and the right quality of people.

And that's the problem you've got

because you've got the birth rate collapse

and you know, you're 100% right

because you have the birth rate collapse.

You're forced to basically,

you're forced into immigration.

There's like so many great books about this.

And for example, and even some science fiction books about this

and one of the books I like a lot is a book

called By All of Stapleton.

And it's called First and Last Men.

And what it talks about is different societies over time

and how those societies become the best societies in the world

and then they become destroyed.

And what are the societies in there?

What happens is there's a small population.

It grows and then they have industry.

They have civilization.

They have structure. They have infrastructure.

And then what happens is some kind of world of anarchists

which decreases the society by 50%.

By decreasing the society,

it totally causes a collapse of the society

and people go back into the storage.

And the reason for it is because even though in the past,

you are less people or the current situation,

the way societies molded, the way societies restructured,

now requires that a number of people.

And if you were to have a reduction of those people,

it would actually cause people to,

the society to be destroyed

and to essentially go back into the storage.

So actually, it's a much bigger issue

than people realize how much of a population collapse is.

So yeah, I think I agree with you.

Because of the major population collapse,

you're forced into migration.

If you don't, you're gonna end up becoming like a third world

country or something worse.

And so it's kind of like a situation

where population has been collapsed as many as caused.

You then need immigration.

The problem we have in mass immigration

is the society and culture changes.

What I push back on isn't this idea of immigration,

is this claim that there is a mass migration of Muslims.

That's what I'm saying, the lie is because,

if you look at the United States of America,

the vast majority of the immigration is from twofolds.

Illegal immigration is obviously from Latin America.

Those are Muslim countries, the Catholic countries go.

And then if you look at legal migration,

the number one country is Mexico.

Again, that's a Catholic country, but not a Muslim country.

The number two country is India.

India is a Hindu country.

It's not a Muslim country.

And the number three country is China.

China is an atheist country.

It's not a Muslim country.

And the same is for Canada.

Canada, top two countries are India and China.

Australia, the top two countries are India and China, New Zealand.

The top two countries are India and China.

The United Kingdom, the top two countries are India and China.

So this claim about mass Muslim migration.

I'm saying that is fake or not in terms of mass migration is fake.

Of course, there is mass migration happening.

That's interesting.

That is very interesting.

Yeah, you've actually dove into the numbers

and realized that it's not Muslims taking over

these parts of the world.

Yeah, just, Muslims are not taken over numerically

because the mass migration is from India and China.

And also, when it comes to positions of power,

UK, it's not Muslims, the position of power.

Actually, you have more Jewish,

Zionists and positions of power in the US.

Muslims aren't in positions of power.

It's Zionists who are in positions of power,

Canada, the same thing, Australia, the same thing,

New Zealand, the same thing.

And so, in reality, when they make this claim,

it's fake news.

And so, they make the claim that they also

in positions of power and the impact in free speech.

But if you look at the UK and the US,

who's impact in free speech?

So, in the UK, thousands upon thousands of people

are arrested in the UK every week for their speech.

You know why they're arrested?

For being pro-Palestine.

So, you have doctors whose license

have been taken away.

You have professionals whose license

have been taken away.

For example, I have many people on my show

who are basically legitimate doctors,

like Dr. Rahmah, whose license have been taken away.

Just because she's against Israel.

That's crazy.

And so, this idea that there's a Muslim takeover,

yet there's no Muslims in positions of power

that actually put Muslims first.

Mass migration isn't happening in the Muslims.

And free speech is being impacted.

And people have been tired of free speech.

And there's two actually groups of people

who've been tired of a free speech.

The biggest group is people who are pro-Palestine.

And it's not just Muslims only,

even basically liberal white people

are also being targeted for that.

And the second group of people

is obviously the far right as well,

who are also being targeted,

but it's not for Muslims.

Is the main argument that I make?

Yeah.

Do you want to see more Muslims

in positions of power in the West?

Um, no.

I don't.

Okay, that's an interesting take.

And the reason I don't is because

when Muslims get into positions of power,

they never ever,

they end up harming the Muslim community.

Because what happens is people say,

look, that Muslim is in a position of power.

They use that to demonize Muslims

and to attack Muslims.

But that Muslim who's in position of the power,

he doesn't put the interest of the native country first

and he doesn't put the interest of Muslims first.

So where's the benefit?

So you've got Sadi Khan,

who doesn't put an Anshabana Mahmoud,

who don't put the interest of Muslims first,

who put the interest of,

who don't put the interest of the native people first.

And then those people are used as a more

to demonize Muslims.

Or in the US as an example, Ilhan Omar.

Ilhan Omar, when you look at her language,

she annoys the native Americans,

like the white Americans.

She annoys Muslims with her kind of work liberal positions.

She annoys everyone, she doesn't benefit anything.

And it's like just harmful.

Because what's happened in the US is like a large part

of the Muslims who are in positions of power

are these work liberal Muslims.

But they'll put the work liberal agenda

before actual Muslims.

Yeah.

And then it was the debate between Wajahat Ali,

who's like a media personality liberal in the US

with Gillian Michaels.

And he was calling her a white supremacist.

Even though she's not a white supremacist,

she's a pro-premacist.

But not a white supremacist.

And again, this idea of doing it from a liberal perspective

is done intentionally in order to harm Muslims.

So no, I don't want them in positions of power

because they don't bring any benefit.

There's no utility.

So in negativity.

Did you get nominated for anti-Semite of the Year?

I didn't, I'm failing.

I'm failing so badly.

Like I was thinking I've not been nominated.

I've not been chosen.

I'm surprised.

Yeah, I'm surprised as well.

They did put my like early on in 2023.

They put my name on a missile

and then use that missile to attack innocent Palestinians.

Are you serious?

Yeah.

Israel put your name on a missile?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Holy crap.

Yeah, that's crazy.

It is crazy.

And it was annoying because they use that missile

to kill innocent people.

Oh my.

And also I saw it as a threat.

There's a say, look, your name's on a missile.

You know, it's a threat against you.

So they didn't do that, but no, they didn't put me

under anti-Semite, you know, anti-Semite of the Year.

Now, I believe there could be one or two reasons for that.

Either it's because they don't see me as a threat,

which is possible anymore.

All the other reason is that I'm very clear

that I differentiate between this and Zionist.

I think the issue is Zionism, no Judaism.

I think that there are Zionists

and the vast majority are Zionists.

But I believe the vast majority of Zionists

and so some people argue or guess what?

You're being weak when you say that, but I disagree.

I say that when you say it's a issue,

rather than a Zionist issue, you're basically hiding

the fact that there was a large number of Christian Zionists

who also are Zionists.

And a good example of that is, for example,

Senator Mike Johnson.

Someone like him or hookaby.

Someone like them, they're not Jewish.

And I believe that the reason people do it

is in order to defend them

or to try and get podcasts with these Christian Zionists

because in reality, these people who believe that,

who believe in this idea of Israel,

who push people first,

it's within the ideological belief as well,

is within the Christian belief,

they believe that certain eschatological events

need to happen in order for basically the Messiah to return.

And so these Christian Zionists push the state of Israel,

not because of Judaism,

but because of their own Christian Zionists belief,

because they believe the raptors gonna come

and then they need the Messiah to come.

So if it's a part of your belief system,

then you're the problem as well.

How can you just blame Jews?

So I believe that it's a Zionist issue

as opposed to like a Jewish issue.

Yeah, so you make a distinct, you separate the two.

Yeah, but not because of weakness.

I think they're being weak,

because they're like, oh, you're being weak,

you're afraid to say the two,

you're afraid to name the Jew.

And I'm like, that's ridiculous.

I'll talk about where Judaism has an issue.

You saw it in the debate.

I'll talk about how there's issues within the Talmud.

But if you are gonna say Zionism is solely

a Jewish issue, when non-Jewish people are also part of it,

then you're gonna say, oh, Shabbat's going.

I believe that's a form of weakness.

You're hiding the fact that they are also Zionists.

And I believe that your position,

or their position is a position of weakness.

I don't really trace trends anymore.

I just want clothes that work feel good and laugh.

I stopped buying a lot of clothes,

I started buying better ones.

Stuff that fits right holds up and I actually wear.

That's why I've been going with a winch.

They've got basics I actually use.

Organic cons, sweaters, clean polos, lightweight jackets.

Stuff that holds up to daily wear and still looks good.

Quality solid and everything's built for last.

What makes Quince different is how they do it.

They work directly with top factories,

adult and middleman, and you're not paying

for brand mark-off just quality clothing.

And they only partner with factories

that meet high standards for craftsmanship

and ethical production.

Refresh your wardrobe with Quince.

Go to Quince.com slash DSH for free shipping on your order

and 365 day returns.

That's q-u-i-n-c-e.com slash DSH.

Now available in Canada to free shipping

and 365 day returns.

Quince.com slash Q6.

What do you think of the America first movement

led by Nick Fuentes?

So Nick's a friend of mine?

Yep.

I think the movement is extremely important

because for far too long and they do this in the UK,

they do this in Europe where they'll make this issue

of Israel, they'll make this issue of Zionism,

a solely a liberal left wing issue.

And so they'll be like, oh, guess what?

It's a walk issue.

It's a liberal issue.

The green red alliance, they'll try and make it into that.

Even though when you look at Muslims,

Muslims are neither liberal

and neither are they conservative.

And so someone like Nick Fuentes

is a very important person.

And I saw his importance in 2023

when he wasn't even that big.

And the reason is because he demonstrates

that being anti-Israel, being anti-Zionist

or for him being anti-Jewish, isn't solely a left wing issue.

It's a holistic issue.

It's the idea and notion that they need to put America first.

Israel is completely occupied the United States of America.

And what he does is he makes the issue

into a non-left wing issue first thing.

But also more important than that.

The left wing is very occupied.

They'll be afraid to talk about half-setting conversations.

They won't have conversations about the Talmud.

They won't have conversations about October 7th.

So if you look at it, I'm the number one guy

who debunks the lies about October 7th.

People from the left and people from the right

are afraid to platform me because, and the reason is

because they don't want to have that conversation.

They don't want to have the conversation

that they lied about the Beheaded Babies.

They don't want to have the conversation

that they claims about the master's fake.

They don't want to have the conversation

that Israel killed the vast majority of their people

on October 7th.

They don't want to have those conversations.

And so someone from the left like,

and someone I like about the Junk,

Junk, I like him a lot, very nice guy.

But he'll be like, oh, it's a horrific massacre

without ever talking about the specifics

about what happened October 7th.

Someone like Anna Kasparian will say the same thing.

Someone like Dave Smith, who's a loud and TPUSA,

his position is the closest to Zion

is that you can have, and he'll be platformed.

Now he's not a Zionist, obviously, I appreciate

all this things that he said about Palestine.

But for example, he agrees with him about October 7th.

He agrees with him about the resistance.

He agrees with him about Hamas.

All of these things are lies.

And so when these-

Wait, Hamas is a liar, sir?

Yeah, yeah.

What do you mean by that?

So, for example, he'll say that on October 7th,

Hamas committed a massacre.

Their aim was to target civilians.

This is fake news or the fact that basically

they hide behind civilians.

This is fake news because on October 7th,

the Hamas are very clear.

First of all, in the charter,

they make it look like they want to kill us.

The charter says the opposite.

The Hamas charter says that we want to have,

we want to basically fight against the state of Israel

because they occupy and oppressors.

But when we are in charge,

we're going to have a stay that gives equality

and they mention this specifically

for Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

So they want to stay where Muslim-Christian Jews

live in equality,

which you don't have in the state of Israel,

they're going to have unity,

that they're going to have a security

and they'll be able to practice the religion.

Something that doesn't happen in Israel.

Christians are spot on, Christians are oppressed,

Muslims are abused.

So that doesn't happen in Israel.

This is what Hamas said.

The second thing is in October 7th,

they actually said that the reason

that we're going in is because we're going to go to

the Kubutsas, we're going to go to military outposts,

we're going to get Israeli military personnel,

we're going to take them back to Israel

and then we're going to exchange them

for Palestinian hostages, men, women, and children

that are held in Israeli prisons without trial.

And so they said that that was the objective,

the objective was never to attack or kill innocent civilians.

Now, did innocent civilians die?

Of course they did.

No one's denying that.

But how many were killed by Hamas?

So my claim is there was 1,150 people killed.

About 400 of them were actual military personnel.

So that leaves about 700 of those,

the vast majority that were killed by Israel

through the Hannibal directive,

through short artillery fire.

This was confirmed by witnesses like Yasmeen Porra.

And then the ones that were killed by Hamas

either were killed accidentally,

but there are a few incidences.

I'd say about four or five that I've seen through the video

because I've seen every single video

that are about four or five,

which looks like that there is intentional killing.

But again, we don't know what happened before that video,

what happened after that video,

what the context is, whether they were put in the gun,

or whether they were about to fire.

But that being said, it does look like that in that video.

But those specific four or five people,

of course, I do believe that they should be a trial.

They shouldn't be killing innocent civilians,

that goes against the code of ethics of war within Islam.

They shouldn't be taken civilians as hostages as well.

I think that goes against code of ethics of war within Islam.

But that being said,

their argument is that if they were to leave them in,

Israel would have deployed the Hannibal directive,

and Israel would have, and had it killed

a vast majority of their own people.

So that's where I disagree with them.

And also, they claim is that Hamas had behind tunnels,

sorry, hide under hospitals, hide under school.

This is what Dave Smith says.

This is fake news.

Hamas don't do that.

Look at the videos where they said about the tunnels.

They weren't even under hospitals.

I've interviewed a large number of people from the West,

not Muslims, who are doctors,

example Dr. Mads Gilbert,

who worked in Al-Shafar hospital,

who said unequivocally,

they were given complete autonomy

to walk throughout the hospitals.

There was no closed areas.

There was no Hamas there at the hospitals,

and there was no underground tunnels.

And those underground tunnels where the military personnel were,

they weren't at the hospitals.

They were away from the hospitals,

and they got debunked on those things.

That's crazy, yeah,

because I saw in the media,

the hospitals and the schools

is where they would hide the tunnels.

That was a claim, but it's fake.

Wow.

Yeah, but they didn't even question it.

Yeah, people don't question it.

We debunked it on X,

but then obviously what they do is they do

these media campaigns,

they do the propaganda campaigns,

and then they make sure that they're able

to propagate these lives.

Yeah, you'll only see a screenshot of the headline on X.

Yeah, there was one video where the Hagarri,

who was the head of the military,

goes in and he gets like this calendar,

and he's like, look, he's the hospital,

and here is the rotor of the Hamas people,

and it was just in Arabic the days of the week.

What?

So in Arabic, the days of the week,

he thought, guess what, the people are dumb,

they're gonna think that that's the name of Hamas personnel,

who are guarding the hospital,

and then they got debunked,

because it was literally just a calendar

with the days of the week.

It's crazy.

So who's actually winning the war then?

In your opinion?

In terms of what we're,

Israel Palestine.

Okay, so it depends what you mean by winning.

So if you mean by winning that Israel managed

to murder a lot of people,

because that was really the Israeli objective,

then Israel has managed to murder a lot of innocent people.

If you mean what the Israeli objective was,

where Israel complained that claim

that the objective was to dismantle

and destroy and kill, destroy Hamas,

that was the first objective,

and the second objective was to return the hostages.

So in terms of the second objective,

they've been able to do that now,

although it took two years to do so,

although Hamas already on October 9th said

that we're willing to give you all the hostages back,

Israel said no.

So on October 7th,

October 7th happens, two days later Hamas said,

we're gonna give you back all the hostages.

Israel say no.

Wow.

They don't want the hostages back.

They want to basically kill as many people

as possible in Gaza.

So it was never about the hostages,

but if you say that was an objective

that they vocally said that that was an objective,

they achieved even though it was achievable two years earlier.

The second objective was to dismantle Hamas.

They were never able to do that.

Hamas actually were never dismantled

according to the US State Department.

They actually say that after October 7th,

till now Hamas have more members now

than they did in October 7th.

Wow.

So if the aim was to dismantle Hamas,

that didn't work because they got more people.

So in terms of the objectives they felt,

in terms of what the stated objectives were,

but in terms of the verbal in non-state objectives,

I do believe that they succeeded,

which was to kill as many people as possible.

They've killed hundreds of thousands of people,

innocent people in Palestine.

Also, if you look at the peace deal that's happened,

I don't think that's a positive deal

for the Palestinian people.

That's a positive deal for the Israelis

because the Gaza takeover where Trump is in charge,

what Trump has done is he's put the control over that

to Jared Kushner, his nephew who is a journalist

and to the Tony Blair Institute.

Tony Blair being the guy who was responsible

for the killing of millions of Iraqis in Iraq.

But also, if you look at the Tony Blair Institute,

the biggest funder of the Tony Blair Institute is who?

It is Larry Ellison.

Larry Ellison is a journalist.

He financially funded the IDF.

He's the biggest funder of the IDF.

He's the burgers funder of the Tony Blair Institute.

He's gonna take over that.

And as you know, he's now also taken over TikTok.

Hey, my David Horowitz, Horowitz being again,

another big funder of the IDF,

another one who propagates anti-Islam hatred

through the David Horowitz Freedom Center

is taken over TikTok.

Larry Ellison, as you know, is taken over CBS

where he put a body wise in charge,

giving $150 million for a podcast,

which has low viewers than you.

If our podcast is, if our podcast is about 150 million,

yours is worth 200 million, 300 million, 400 million.

And he put it in charge of CBS.

He's taken over Paramount.

There's discussions about possibly

taken over Warner Bros.

He's trying to do it.

A hostile takeover of Warner Bros.

I believe he's in conversations of taking over CNN.

Well, Larry Ellison is taking over the entirety

of the media based on instructions by Jonathan Greenblatt,

who is a left-wing Zionist.

Larry Ellison being a right-wing guy,

who has a control over the Trump administration,

but they're also taken over Gaza as well.

So Ellison is the new Soros.

Ellison is more powerful than Soros.

Powerful.

Yeah, without a doubt.

Soros is powerful.

And he's another Jewish guy.

He crushed the UK economy.

He did.

He's got a lot of power.

He's got a lot of power.

Not just him, also the right-wing Zionist,

also destroyed the UK as well.

If you look at someone like,

what's his name again?

I'll slip some of mine again.

The guy in charge of Fox News.

I forget his name.

He begins at, I can't believe I forgot his name,

but I know it, but I just accept my mind.

But anyway, he's in charge of talk TV.

And if you look at it, he is the guy

who pushed through his media channels

because he controlled the newspapers.

He controlled the media.

He controls all of these different aspects.

He's the one who pushed a lot of the things

that harm the US UK economy.

He pushed Brexit.

Brexit harmed the UK economy.

He pushed the Ukraine Russia wall.

He pushed the COVID lockdowns.

He pushed the Gaza genocide, the Gaza war, a Gaza war.

So all of these things are massively impacted

and harm the UK economy.

And that was the right wing

and the left wing Zionist who did that.

So we got to keep an eye on Ellison, him and Bill Gates.

For sure.

That's another one.

Yeah, for sure.

So they both do it from both sides.

I would say Soros and then Larry Ellison

are the biggest guys and like they both

guys are definitely Zionist.

It seems like when you have so much money,

I mean, you could just do whatever the fuck you want.

Well, this is the problem because in reality,

what people need to realize is it's not the politicians

who are in charge.

It's the billionaire class in charge.

People like, as you said, Larry Ellison,

people like Peter Thiel, people like Elon Musk.

So if someone like Peter Thiel can get someone like J.D. Vance,

find him at university,

prop him up and give him a job initially,

then put him in as a senator within two years,

make him the vice president of the United States.

And now in TPUSA, people are talking about how

he is going to be the president of the United States.

That's an example of someone who is a puppet

for these billy-ness and he's basically

put them in positions of power.

And you see it, for example, J.D. Vance,

you see Peter Thiel through Palantir

with his mass surveillance.

They've basically controlled the politicians.

So I'll say, yeah, the biggest people who people need

to be worried about is these billionaire class.

It's almost like politicians now are groomed, right?

Politicians are groomed, they're chosen,

and then they put in positions of power.

And so these examples we gave are those people

who they choose is in positions of power.

And other than in 2016, when Donald Trump won,

the data quite clearly shows

that whether it has the most money behind them,

whether they're in Congress, whether they're in Senate,

whether they're the president of the United States of America,

the one who has the largest amount of money behind them

are the ones who win the election.

Wow, so it's paid a plus.

It's just paid a plus.

Yeah, whoever's got the most money, that's crazy.

Yeah, your Obama seemed very groomed to me too.

Oh, yeah, Obama was someone who also was groomed.

He was chosen.

Funny enough, there's, I know people say he's gay,

that's possible.

There's also other reports that say

that actually during his college years

used to sleep around a lot.

And he is actually with a white woman.

Obama, yeah, there were reports that when he was in college,

he used to sleep around a lot.

And he used to sleep around with basically white women.

And then they basically groomed him and said,

look, if you want to be basically in a position of power,

if you want to be the president of the United States,

you need to make sure you're not with a white woman.

You need to make sure that you're with a black woman.

And then they brought it together with Michelle Obama.

And then that's when he had the presidential run.

That's crazy.

Yeah, it makes you really wonder if these marriages

are arranged half the time.

Oh, I mean, we're in TPP, USA, right?

It's quite clear that the marriage between Erica Kirk

and a Charlie Kirk was arranged.

She seems like she was either his handler or she was basically.

They both were extreme Zionists.

They were all pushing the Zionist position.

And so this is where I've had a lot of pushback

because on social media,

because people are trying to, in my view,

represent Charlie Kirk as being something he wasn't.

He wasn't extreme Zionist.

He was pro-Israel.

She was an extreme Zionist.

She was pro-Israel.

They used to celebrate the Shabbat.

They used to both the Shabbat Shalom.

And I believe that what's happened on social media

through kindness is this kind of attempt

to represent him as someone who wasn't pro-Israel

when he was the most pro-Israel person there is.

He was very.

Do you think he was questioning it?

Do you buy that narrative that he was questioning it?

Oh, on the other end or not?

I get a lot of pushback on this.

And it's easy to say that he was because you get virality.

I don't think he was changing his view.

If you look at it, he was the most pro-Israel person

throughout.

He was talking about how he was funny

that there was no buildings left in Gaza.

Up until recently, he said he was basically saying

that in July, he said that guess what?

There's no starvation in Gaza,

which is one of the biggest Israel-talking points.

He was demonizing Muslims up until days before he died.

So this claim that he was changing his position is fake.

The basis of the claim is a couple of things they mentioned.

They mentioned his podcast with P.B.D.

But his podcast in P.B.D. was 2023, right?

That's the first thing.

And actually, there is a lot of Zionists who hold the position

at heels that there was a stand-down order

because they want to give this idea that Israel

is on impenetrable that no one can get through it.

And that's part of the Zionist agenda

to basically make it look like the nob Palestinian

could go against Israel and succeed.

The second point that they make is the claim that,

you know, those text messages that came out

four years before, because they said,

I've got no choice but to leave the pro-Israel position

because the donors, Robert Schillman,

and the Mephasar we mentioned.

But I believe that what that was is he was trying to leverage

his donors in order to get the money back

because he wasn't platforming to Calaison

or to get other donors.

And so you know like how you're in a job

and you say, look, I want to, you know,

you would say, oh, look, I'm going to leave.

I'm going to leave.

But you're not really going to leave.

You just want to leverage it.

So I think Charlie Cook was just leveraging it

in order to get his donors.

But in reality, he was never leaving the pro-Israel position.

I think the people who are claiming that,

I think is extremely weak,

because if you look at his output,

it clearly isn't the case.

Now the only other point that I would say is a strong point

is the Iran position.

But if you look at the Iran position,

he supported Trump in terms of the bombing of Iran.

And he supported Trump in terms of not having

regime changing Iran.

So his position was the Trumpian position.

It wasn't anything else.

Now, is it the same as the Israel position?

No, it's not, because Israel want to bomb,

want to go to war with Iran.

And so that position, you could say,

he kind of slightly digressed from Israel,

but he didn't digress away from the Trump position.

And is your position that Trump is anti-Israel?

No, he's not.

So again, I think these arguments

that I've been made about in my extremely weak.

I think a big part of why he supported Israel

was because he was Christian too.

Well, it was because he was a Christian Zionist.

And if TPUSA and his entire organization

was built on this Zionist and Christian Zionist money,

it would be almost impossible for him to change his position

from a financial perspective.

And as you said, you're quite right.

It's also his ideological belief.

He's a Christian Zionist.

Now, there are certain things that, for example,

Candace claims that he was, for example,

conducting certain Catholic positions.

That's fine.

But he was also conducting certain positions.

He was basically following the Sabbath, right?

He didn't do it all the time, but he did it sometimes.

So then it's like this claim that he's changing

I just disagree with it.

We'll end off with Candace.

What do you think of all the Candace drama lately?

That's, again, my opinion is gonna be controversial

because I believe that the Candace position

and the E.N. Carole position are extremely weak

on the vast majority of points.

And I debunked a lot of those points.

His position is weak in terms of some of the arguments

they present, they present some of those arguments

as factual, even though they perverse

on weak evidence they're the flights.

For example, the flights, it was shown

that actually 60% of the flights

were in a different continent.

There's our, for example, he said the,

you know, the note that was left between Charlie Kirk,

sorry, between Tyler Robinson and Lan,

okay, Netanyahu, let's go with that one first.

So the Netanyahu letter.

So for a very long time Candace Oz was saying,

guess what, release the Netanyahu letter.

Release the Netanyahu letter.

You're gonna see that their position wasn't pro-Israel.

But then what did we find out?

When he released the seven page letter,

it was a love letter to Netanyahu, wasn't it?

It was a love letter to Netanyahu.

It was the most pro-Israel letter you can have.

He was saying, guess what?

Let's work together to manipulate the American public

because Americans are now becoming anti-Israel.

Let's work together to manipulate Americans

do hazbara on them to basically become pro-America.

The final point is they said,

oh, that letter, what, do you trust Netanyahu?

No, I don't trust Netanyahu.

But if that's a fake letter, Candace Oz can release

the real letter or release evidence that she has.

Someone else has the real letter.

That will debunk Netanyahu,

but she stopped talking about the letter.

The other one is that they say, you know, Tyler Robinson.

He was basically pushing,

which he said, you know, there was that messages

between Tyler Robinson and that's it.

Well, there's three possibilities, right?

And this is the point, they say that's evidence.

So either it's real, which is possible.

The other possibility, and I do think it looks fake,

the other possibility is,

but this is, I understand when I say that,

it's based on speculation.

The other possibility is that Lance Twigs

and Tyler Robinson got together and faked it.

And actually Lance Twigs,

and if he's basically transgender boyfriend

was also involved and other people were involved as well.

It's possible that they faked it.

Or the third possibility is the FBI faked it.

All three of those possibilities are there.

Ian Carroll goes to that and says, oh, guess what?

Well, what Cash Patel is saying makes no sense.

But what Cash Patel is saying does make sense.

But what you're saying is you disagree with it.

Because what Cash Patel is saying is that

the letter was left under the keyboard.

Then what happened was Lance Twigs destroys the letter,

throws it in the bin.

They then are able to use forensic to say,

look, that letter did exist.

And then they interrogate Lance Twigs in the FBI.

And then she says, yeah, look,

this was the content of the letter.

So what he says makes sense.

What you're saying is that you disagree with him.

Either you think he's lying.

Well, what you're saying he's lying.

Well, there's no evidence from you to say that he's lying.

So again, there's this lack of understanding

of what evidence is and what speculation is.

So what Candace Owens and Ian Carroll are doing is speculation.

And that's fine.

They can say what we're doing is speculation,

but it's not evidence.

The strongest argument is based on the gun,

the 30 yard six.

The claim is that 30 yard six couldn't do it.

Now, I agree with them that when you speak

to a vast majority of people,

it does seem like a 30 yard six couldn't do it.

But is it impossible?

That's where I disagree.

I think there is a possibility.

When you look at some of the experts

that they pull forward, Chris Masterson,

I believe one shot, both of them say

that there is a possibility.

You could have a scenario where if it's an old gun,

there's a yawning that happens,

a tumbling that happens on the gobole,

there is a possibility that it could be done.

Is it a high possibility?

No, it's not.

And so, therefore, they're going to be

half to present an evidence,

the prosecution to show how this possibility could be a lot higher.

Looking at it's going to be hard to convict Tyler Robinson

based on expert evidence,

because the possibility is very low in my body.

So it'd be hard to convict him yourself.

Yeah, I do think so, because in the court of law,

you need a balance, you need beyond reasonable doubt, right?

Is there a reasonable doubt that that bullet

and that gun can do that?

I think there is, there is an element of doubt there.

I said, it's always a blast with you, man.

Yeah, so it's different in terms of court of law.

Yeah.

And different in terms of evidence

and different in terms of speculation.

So where I disagree with Ian Carroll

and Tyler and Candace Owens

is they present in certain things as evidence

when it's just speculation.

Agreed.

Yeah, it's the first statement.

Well, dude, it's always a pleasure with you.

Great, thanks so much for having me.

Check them out, guys, we'll link his ex below.

Please, thank you.

Thanks for watching all the way to the end, guys.

It means a lot.

Please click here if you want to watch the next episode.

And please subscribe to the show.

It helps us get more guests and helps grow the brand.