Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Zimbabweans is it not weird that these two journalists saw what we were careless to see especially after the 2030 ndendichopo ?why did they kept asking him the same question and remember this was at the beginning of Ed’s term in office.

PATRIOT SON🇿🇼 🇬🇧

7,251 subscribers

13,957 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

BANNON: “Obama and Brennan wanted the coup so we could not get to the deep state records. War after war after war. That is what they were hiding. No offense, but in Trump’s first term, why did Barr and Ratcliffe not expose this? Why was this not exposed in Trump’s first term.”

BANNON: “Obama and Brennan wanted the coup so we could not get to the deep state records. War after war after war. That is what they were hiding. No offense, but in Trump’s first term, why did Barr and Ratcliffe not expose this? Why was this not exposed in Trump’s first term.”

Grace Chong, MBI

434,051 views • 1 year ago

Rep. Adam Smith on the double-tap strike: "There were two survivors on an overturned boat, and Senator Cotton's description of it is simply not accurate. When they were finally taken out, they weren't trying to flip the boat over. The boat was clearly incapacitated — a tiny portion of it remained capsized, the bow of the boat. They had no communications device, certainly they were unarmed. Any claim that the drugs somehow survived that attack is hard to really square with what we saw. So it was really disturbing. It did not appear that these two survivors were in any position to continue the fight."

Rep. Adam Smith on the double-tap strike: "There were two survivors on an overturned boat, and Senator Cotton's description of it is simply not accurate. When they were finally taken out, they weren't trying to flip the boat over. The boat was clearly incapacitated — a tiny portion of it remained capsized, the bow of the boat. They had no communications device, certainly they were unarmed. Any claim that the drugs somehow survived that attack is hard to really square with what we saw. So it was really disturbing. It did not appear that these two survivors were in any position to continue the fight."

The Bulwark

54,706 views • 7 months ago

March 2024 MSP asks Julie Albert what relationship she had with John O’Keefe: “He was my neighbor” 2 months later in May 2024 Julie testifies in trial 1 and is asked the same question by Adam Lally: “We were friendly. We were neighbors. I’d see him all the time coming in and out of the street. We were friendly” The McAlberts somehow became better friends with John after they killed him. So weird. I genuinely hope they see John’s face every time they close their eyes for the rest of their pathetic lives. What a sick bunch. Also to the O’Keefe’s…. It’s time to wake the fuck up. Karen Read did not kill John. John was not hit, clipped or sideswiped by a vehicle.

March 2024 MSP asks Julie Albert what relationship she had with John O’Keefe: “He was my neighbor” 2 months later in May 2024 Julie testifies in trial 1 and is asked the same question by Adam Lally: “We were friendly. We were neighbors. I’d see him all the time coming in and out of the street. We were friendly” The McAlberts somehow became better friends with John after they killed him. So weird. I genuinely hope they see John’s face every time they close their eyes for the rest of their pathetic lives. What a sick bunch. Also to the O’Keefe’s…. It’s time to wake the fuck up. Karen Read did not kill John. John was not hit, clipped or sideswiped by a vehicle.

Unfiltered Thoughts (Justice For John O’Keefe)

17,486 views • 10 days ago

The American government is so corrupt that it can't even hold USAID employees accountable after they were busted laundering $764,000,000 in Madagascar. Not one penny of that money went to helping the citizens who needed it. It was used to bribe and blackmail corrupt politicians into doing the bidding of the US government. The question you should be asking is why? This is low-hanging fruit, and it's not political. Why are these money laundering crooks still walking free?

The American government is so corrupt that it can't even hold USAID employees accountable after they were busted laundering $764,000,000 in Madagascar. Not one penny of that money went to helping the citizens who needed it. It was used to bribe and blackmail corrupt politicians into doing the bidding of the US government. The question you should be asking is why? This is low-hanging fruit, and it's not political. Why are these money laundering crooks still walking free?

RyanMatta 🇺🇸 🦅

64,353 views • 11 months ago

BREAKING - EXPLOSIVE: Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (Rep. Jim Jordan) confronts Dr. Fauci on alleged COVID-19 cover-up and outright lies. WATCH Question: Thank you, Mister Chairman. Doctor, why was it so important that the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: We don't know where it started. And that's the reason why I keep an open mind. So I don't know what you mean by why was it so important. It wasn't important. Question: You still don't know where it started. The guys you gave money to figured out in three days. Answer: No, no, no. They said, Mister Anderson said on January 31, 2020, virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory. The very next day, Doctor Gerry said, I don't know how this happens in nature. It'd be easy to do in a lab. And then three days later, Shazam, they switched and say it has to be nature. So they figured out in three days. But you still don't know. Answer: No. In fact, if you look at what they were saying, Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a manufactured virus. It still could have evolved out of a lab. Question: Let me read something here to you. They're not incompatible. In our study on the censorship of the Biden administration working with big tech, I want to read you a WhatsApp message from Mark Zuckerberg. Can we include that? The White House put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory? Answer: Is there a question? Question: Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg. It says, subject line COVID misinformation, Wuhan lab leak theory. Due to continued public pressure and tense conversations with the new administration, we started removing five COVID claims, including the lab leak theory. Mister Zuckerberg responds, this seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we often later regret it. Why was it so important the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: It wasn't so important that the virus not. We don't know. Question: We know it was important to someone in the Biden administration. So much so that the top people at Meta, the top people at Facebook are asking, why are we getting all this pressure to downplay the lab leak theory? And we have an email from June of the same year, June 4, 2021, saying the same thing. It was certainly important to somebody. Answer: Well, what does that got to do with me? Question: I'm asking you because you're the expert on the coronavirus. I'm saying, why was the administration so pushing not to have the lab leak theory as something that was viable? Answer: I can answer that. I've kept an open mind throughout the entire time. Question: Doctor Fauci. Open mind. Answer: That is correct. Question: What happened in those three days? Why did Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry, why did they change their mind in 180 degrees? Because what Christian Andersen says three days later after he said virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory, three days later, he says the main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered. And that is demonstrably false. Question: How did they figure all that out in three days? Answer: Well, what they did is that, you know, they testified before this committee what they did. They went back and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial concern was unfounded about that. And it did not look at all like it was manufactured. Question: But in three days, they figured that out? Answer: Exactly. You could do that in three days. You can scan sequences in a day. You don't need three days. Question: Okay, who's Robert Redfield? Answer: The former director of the CDC. Question: Doctor Redfield. Right. And he was also in the coronavirus task force. Is that accurate? Answer: He was a member of the coronavirus task force. Question: Here's what he said to this committee. He said, Redfield said that Fauci and Collins left him out because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab. Is that accurate? Answer: Well, he said that, but that's not true. That is incorrect. Question: Congressman, Doctor Redfield's lying to the committee? Answer: When he sat right where you sat when he said that I kept him out. That is an incorrect statement. Question: The roster who was on the phone, was Doctor Redfield in that conference call on February 1 when you had Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry on that call? Answer: He was not. And the conference call was put together by Jeremy Farrar. So no one kept him out. Question: He said he was kept out because did US tax dollars. Answer: You want me to answer the question? Question: Yeah. I would just wonder why it wasn't on the call. It seems to me the head of CDC, part of the coronavirus task force, which was formed two days prior to that call, would have been on the call. Answer: Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar. You should ask him. Question: Okay. Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: I'm sorry, what was? Question: Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: Yes, of course. It was a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute. Question: And who approved that award? Answer: Excuse me? Question: And who approved that award? Answer: What agency approved that award? Answer: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Question: Your agency approved that, right? Answer: Yes, it did. Question: Does that have anything to do with this downplaying of the lab leak theory? Answer: No, nothing to do with it. Question: Nothing. Do you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory? Answer: Not on my part. Question: Really? Really. Wow. Wow. I think most of the country find that amazing. Answer: I've kept an open mind throughout the entire process. Question: All right, I yield back.

BREAKING - EXPLOSIVE: Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (Rep. Jim Jordan) confronts Dr. Fauci on alleged COVID-19 cover-up and outright lies. WATCH Question: Thank you, Mister Chairman. Doctor, why was it so important that the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: We don't know where it started. And that's the reason why I keep an open mind. So I don't know what you mean by why was it so important. It wasn't important. Question: You still don't know where it started. The guys you gave money to figured out in three days. Answer: No, no, no. They said, Mister Anderson said on January 31, 2020, virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory. The very next day, Doctor Gerry said, I don't know how this happens in nature. It'd be easy to do in a lab. And then three days later, Shazam, they switched and say it has to be nature. So they figured out in three days. But you still don't know. Answer: No. In fact, if you look at what they were saying, Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a manufactured virus. It still could have evolved out of a lab. Question: Let me read something here to you. They're not incompatible. In our study on the censorship of the Biden administration working with big tech, I want to read you a WhatsApp message from Mark Zuckerberg. Can we include that? The White House put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory? Answer: Is there a question? Question: Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg. It says, subject line COVID misinformation, Wuhan lab leak theory. Due to continued public pressure and tense conversations with the new administration, we started removing five COVID claims, including the lab leak theory. Mister Zuckerberg responds, this seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we often later regret it. Why was it so important the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: It wasn't so important that the virus not. We don't know. Question: We know it was important to someone in the Biden administration. So much so that the top people at Meta, the top people at Facebook are asking, why are we getting all this pressure to downplay the lab leak theory? And we have an email from June of the same year, June 4, 2021, saying the same thing. It was certainly important to somebody. Answer: Well, what does that got to do with me? Question: I'm asking you because you're the expert on the coronavirus. I'm saying, why was the administration so pushing not to have the lab leak theory as something that was viable? Answer: I can answer that. I've kept an open mind throughout the entire time. Question: Doctor Fauci. Open mind. Answer: That is correct. Question: What happened in those three days? Why did Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry, why did they change their mind in 180 degrees? Because what Christian Andersen says three days later after he said virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory, three days later, he says the main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered. And that is demonstrably false. Question: How did they figure all that out in three days? Answer: Well, what they did is that, you know, they testified before this committee what they did. They went back and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial concern was unfounded about that. And it did not look at all like it was manufactured. Question: But in three days, they figured that out? Answer: Exactly. You could do that in three days. You can scan sequences in a day. You don't need three days. Question: Okay, who's Robert Redfield? Answer: The former director of the CDC. Question: Doctor Redfield. Right. And he was also in the coronavirus task force. Is that accurate? Answer: He was a member of the coronavirus task force. Question: Here's what he said to this committee. He said, Redfield said that Fauci and Collins left him out because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab. Is that accurate? Answer: Well, he said that, but that's not true. That is incorrect. Question: Congressman, Doctor Redfield's lying to the committee? Answer: When he sat right where you sat when he said that I kept him out. That is an incorrect statement. Question: The roster who was on the phone, was Doctor Redfield in that conference call on February 1 when you had Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry on that call? Answer: He was not. And the conference call was put together by Jeremy Farrar. So no one kept him out. Question: He said he was kept out because did US tax dollars. Answer: You want me to answer the question? Question: Yeah. I would just wonder why it wasn't on the call. It seems to me the head of CDC, part of the coronavirus task force, which was formed two days prior to that call, would have been on the call. Answer: Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar. You should ask him. Question: Okay. Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: I'm sorry, what was? Question: Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: Yes, of course. It was a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute. Question: And who approved that award? Answer: Excuse me? Question: And who approved that award? Answer: What agency approved that award? Answer: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Question: Your agency approved that, right? Answer: Yes, it did. Question: Does that have anything to do with this downplaying of the lab leak theory? Answer: No, nothing to do with it. Question: Nothing. Do you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory? Answer: Not on my part. Question: Really? Really. Wow. Wow. I think most of the country find that amazing. Answer: I've kept an open mind throughout the entire process. Question: All right, I yield back.

Simon Ateba

997,322 views • 2 years ago

im just learning that elijah wood was not in the same room as dominic monahan during this interview, couldnt see him, and did not know it was dominic doing an accent asking the questions. i thought they were just doing a bit together 😭😭

im just learning that elijah wood was not in the same room as dominic monahan during this interview, couldnt see him, and did not know it was dominic doing an accent asking the questions. i thought they were just doing a bit together 😭😭

jay

5,025,306 views • 1 year ago

THIS ⬇️ is why we have a free press. To all our journalists out there—and especially our women journalists (we see you!)—don’t stop asking the hard questions! 💅

THIS ⬇️ is why we have a free press. To all our journalists out there—and especially our women journalists (we see you!)—don’t stop asking the hard questions! 💅

Rep. Melanie Stansbury

317,968 views • 1 month ago

“I remember vividly, especially after Rwanda, we started evaluating and saying, ‘Why did we fail? Why didn’t we act to stop it from happening, instead of trying to go after those who committed these atrocities and to bring them to justice?’ Now we’re saying let’s act now to save the one million children in Gaza to save them. Palestine will not disappear. For those who have the illusion that they can negate our existence: that is an illusion, a dream. Palestine will not disappear. We are rooted in that national homeland from the beginning of history.”

“I remember vividly, especially after Rwanda, we started evaluating and saying, ‘Why did we fail? Why didn’t we act to stop it from happening, instead of trying to go after those who committed these atrocities and to bring them to justice?’ Now we’re saying let’s act now to save the one million children in Gaza to save them. Palestine will not disappear. For those who have the illusion that they can negate our existence: that is an illusion, a dream. Palestine will not disappear. We are rooted in that national homeland from the beginning of history.”

State of Palestine

29,250 views • 11 months ago

This kind of humiliation against Zimbabweans in South Africa and elsewhere will not stop until Zimbabweans realise that they must unite around ideas, principles, and values. They must come together to gain strength, especially those in the diaspora. What stops Zimbabweans from building communities that are financially, politically, and socially powerful? If that does not happen, this cycle of humiliation will only continue, and it will intensify as South Africa heads towards the local government elections in 2026. It will get worse, more degrading than what we are seeing in this video. We must also remember that the Zimbabwean government does not care. In a normal country, with normal leaders elected by the people, such a video would trouble the leadership. They would act to protect their citizens. But not under Emmerson Mnangagwa. He does not give two hoots. It is up to Zimbabweans themselves to unite, to fight back, and to reclaim control of their country. Only then will the humiliation end, and only then will Zimbabweans restore dignity at home and abroad.

This kind of humiliation against Zimbabweans in South Africa and elsewhere will not stop until Zimbabweans realise that they must unite around ideas, principles, and values. They must come together to gain strength, especially those in the diaspora. What stops Zimbabweans from building communities that are financially, politically, and socially powerful? If that does not happen, this cycle of humiliation will only continue, and it will intensify as South Africa heads towards the local government elections in 2026. It will get worse, more degrading than what we are seeing in this video. We must also remember that the Zimbabwean government does not care. In a normal country, with normal leaders elected by the people, such a video would trouble the leadership. They would act to protect their citizens. But not under Emmerson Mnangagwa. He does not give two hoots. It is up to Zimbabweans themselves to unite, to fight back, and to reclaim control of their country. Only then will the humiliation end, and only then will Zimbabweans restore dignity at home and abroad.

Hopewell Chin’ono

78,255 views • 10 months ago

"We kept getting these demands from Judge Alexandre to suspend accounts of sitting members of the parliament and major journalists. We could not tell them that this was at the behest of Alexandre, we had to pretend that it was due to our rules" 🇧🇷 一 Elon Musk

"We kept getting these demands from Judge Alexandre to suspend accounts of sitting members of the parliament and major journalists. We could not tell them that this was at the behest of Alexandre, we had to pretend that it was due to our rules" 🇧🇷 一 Elon Musk

DogeDesigner

20,676,051 views • 2 years ago

Will Cain on the U.S. officials who were killed after an operation in Mexico: "Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum says the U.S. officials were not authorized to be there." Sheinbaum: "We are investigating what these people were doing and what agency they were from. Until now, the information we have is that they were working together, let's put it that way. Then the investigation has to be done by the public prosecutor's office to see..."

Will Cain on the U.S. officials who were killed after an operation in Mexico: "Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum says the U.S. officials were not authorized to be there." Sheinbaum: "We are investigating what these people were doing and what agency they were from. Until now, the information we have is that they were working together, let's put it that way. Then the investigation has to be done by the public prosecutor's office to see..."

Gunther Eagleman™

26,340 views • 3 months ago

A lot of international journalists across the continent and beyond have been asking me whether the opposition in Zimbabwe would vote in support of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 when it comes to Parliament. For those who have been asking that question, and for others who had the same question in mind, this video is your answer. This is an opposition Member of Parliament speaking, praising President Mnangagwa and supporting his political agenda. Susan Matsunga was elected in 2023 to represent Budiriro North (Mufakose). She does not belong to the group of opposition Members of Parliament that were imposed by Sengezo Tshabangu, the charlatan who worked with others to disrupt Parliament and effectively hand ZANUPF a two-thirds majority. She belongs to the Nelson Chamisa group, the group that came through Bereka Mwana. When we criticised Bereka Mwana at the time, we were insulted. I remember explaining that Bereka Mwana was bringing in people who were bootlicking the leader of the party but did not necessarily have the substance and gravitas required to become Members of Parliament or oppose bad governance. So the more you bootlick the leader, the better your chances of getting into Parliament. She is a clear example of that. She was as militant as they come in defending the leader when he was making his festival of mistakes, and here you have her now supporting President Mnangagwa and his agenda. The problem that we have in Africa, particularly in Zimbabwe, is that people follow personalities. They do not follow ideas. When an empty vessel is a personality they like, they are happy to sink with that empty vessel. If someone comes with ideas but they do not like that person, they would rather discard the good ideas than support them. I want to make this prediction, and you can hold me to it. If it does not come to fruition, I will be very happy. ZANUPF is assured of power for at least the next 18 years. Until Zimbabweans change their attitude of supporting personalities over ideas, ZANUPF will remain in power for the next 18 years. We do not know what will happen after that, but for now, that is the trajectory. Some of you will ask why I say 18 years. It is because we are in 2026, and if ZANUPF gets Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 passed, it means the current president will remain in power for the next four years until 2030. The president who comes after him will then have two seven-year terms, that is 14 years. Add the four years from Mnangagwa, and that gives you 18 years. We do not know what will happen after that. Even if Mnangagwa is removed, for example through a coup, it will still be ZANUPF that remains in power. Until Zimbabweans understand that the enemy is not the person they do not like but who comes with good ideas, and that they must support ideas over personalities, ZANUPF will remain in power. Until Zimbabweans understand that politics is not like football, where you die on the hill of the team that you support, ZANUPF will remain in power. Until Zimbabweans understand the importance of working together, regardless of whether they like each other, as seen in the idea of a team of rivals associated with Abraham Lincoln, ZANUPF will remain in power. Until those who tell the truth are listened to, ZANUPF will remain in power. As long as people applaud and ululate those who tell them what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear, ZANUPF will remain in power. I want to leave you with this food for thought. In 2000, when Robert Mugabe and ZANUPF were pushing for a new constitution, the then opposition leader stood firm, campaigned across the country, and slept in people’s homes, in huts, mobilising against that constitution. It went to a referendum, and Robert Mugabe and ZANUPF lost. The opposition leader and his team managed to convince Zimbabweans, and they won. That moment showed what leadership, conviction, and grassroots mobilisation can achieve when people are organised around an idea. Today, I do not know who you can point to as the main opposition leader capable of doing the same, and that in itself is something Zimbabweans must seriously reflect on.

A lot of international journalists across the continent and beyond have been asking me whether the opposition in Zimbabwe would vote in support of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 when it comes to Parliament. For those who have been asking that question, and for others who had the same question in mind, this video is your answer. This is an opposition Member of Parliament speaking, praising President Mnangagwa and supporting his political agenda. Susan Matsunga was elected in 2023 to represent Budiriro North (Mufakose). She does not belong to the group of opposition Members of Parliament that were imposed by Sengezo Tshabangu, the charlatan who worked with others to disrupt Parliament and effectively hand ZANUPF a two-thirds majority. She belongs to the Nelson Chamisa group, the group that came through Bereka Mwana. When we criticised Bereka Mwana at the time, we were insulted. I remember explaining that Bereka Mwana was bringing in people who were bootlicking the leader of the party but did not necessarily have the substance and gravitas required to become Members of Parliament or oppose bad governance. So the more you bootlick the leader, the better your chances of getting into Parliament. She is a clear example of that. She was as militant as they come in defending the leader when he was making his festival of mistakes, and here you have her now supporting President Mnangagwa and his agenda. The problem that we have in Africa, particularly in Zimbabwe, is that people follow personalities. They do not follow ideas. When an empty vessel is a personality they like, they are happy to sink with that empty vessel. If someone comes with ideas but they do not like that person, they would rather discard the good ideas than support them. I want to make this prediction, and you can hold me to it. If it does not come to fruition, I will be very happy. ZANUPF is assured of power for at least the next 18 years. Until Zimbabweans change their attitude of supporting personalities over ideas, ZANUPF will remain in power for the next 18 years. We do not know what will happen after that, but for now, that is the trajectory. Some of you will ask why I say 18 years. It is because we are in 2026, and if ZANUPF gets Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 passed, it means the current president will remain in power for the next four years until 2030. The president who comes after him will then have two seven-year terms, that is 14 years. Add the four years from Mnangagwa, and that gives you 18 years. We do not know what will happen after that. Even if Mnangagwa is removed, for example through a coup, it will still be ZANUPF that remains in power. Until Zimbabweans understand that the enemy is not the person they do not like but who comes with good ideas, and that they must support ideas over personalities, ZANUPF will remain in power. Until Zimbabweans understand that politics is not like football, where you die on the hill of the team that you support, ZANUPF will remain in power. Until Zimbabweans understand the importance of working together, regardless of whether they like each other, as seen in the idea of a team of rivals associated with Abraham Lincoln, ZANUPF will remain in power. Until those who tell the truth are listened to, ZANUPF will remain in power. As long as people applaud and ululate those who tell them what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear, ZANUPF will remain in power. I want to leave you with this food for thought. In 2000, when Robert Mugabe and ZANUPF were pushing for a new constitution, the then opposition leader stood firm, campaigned across the country, and slept in people’s homes, in huts, mobilising against that constitution. It went to a referendum, and Robert Mugabe and ZANUPF lost. The opposition leader and his team managed to convince Zimbabweans, and they won. That moment showed what leadership, conviction, and grassroots mobilisation can achieve when people are organised around an idea. Today, I do not know who you can point to as the main opposition leader capable of doing the same, and that in itself is something Zimbabweans must seriously reflect on.

Hopewell Chin’ono

49,773 views • 3 months ago

Russian political analysts claim that Estonia and Latvia do not exist — that they are invented territories and that this is how children should be taught. He says that if you want Russians not to ask the question “Why did we attack Ukraine?”, then from childhood they must be taught that none of the countries Russia plans to attack actually exist. The existence of these countries is simply a historical misunderstanding. And only then will a generation grow up that will “return historical territories.” This is the kind of nonsense we have been listening to all this time. I always understood that there would be war. The only ones who did not understand this were politicians, who often even played along with this propaganda. And Russia’s policy has always been like this. It did not start in 2022, it did not start in 2014 — I saw similar videos when I was a student long before the war, and even when I was in school. Do you think they are saying this into empty space? This is how the opinion of Russians is shaped. And in the second part of the video you can see what ordinary Russians think — they wish for total destruction, for the killing of everyone, not only Ukrainians but also, for example, the German people, the British, and others. And it is not only ordinary Russians saying this, but also the Russian elite on state television channels. And then we see Russians at international sports competitions, at the UN, and on theater stages in the very same countries they dream of destroying — and often they are the very same Russians who made these statements. And only Ukraine pays attention to this, raises the issue, protests.

Russian political analysts claim that Estonia and Latvia do not exist — that they are invented territories and that this is how children should be taught. He says that if you want Russians not to ask the question “Why did we attack Ukraine?”, then from childhood they must be taught that none of the countries Russia plans to attack actually exist. The existence of these countries is simply a historical misunderstanding. And only then will a generation grow up that will “return historical territories.” This is the kind of nonsense we have been listening to all this time. I always understood that there would be war. The only ones who did not understand this were politicians, who often even played along with this propaganda. And Russia’s policy has always been like this. It did not start in 2022, it did not start in 2014 — I saw similar videos when I was a student long before the war, and even when I was in school. Do you think they are saying this into empty space? This is how the opinion of Russians is shaped. And in the second part of the video you can see what ordinary Russians think — they wish for total destruction, for the killing of everyone, not only Ukrainians but also, for example, the German people, the British, and others. And it is not only ordinary Russians saying this, but also the Russian elite on state television channels. And then we see Russians at international sports competitions, at the UN, and on theater stages in the very same countries they dream of destroying — and often they are the very same Russians who made these statements. And only Ukraine pays attention to this, raises the issue, protests.

Devana 🇺🇦

12,988 views • 5 months ago

This is my home, you can see for yourself what the Assad regime, Russia and Iran did to it, they destroyed the roofs of my home and completely destroyed it as they did to the homes of many of the civilian neighbors, we will not forget what these criminals did to us.

This is my home, you can see for yourself what the Assad regime, Russia and Iran did to it, they destroyed the roofs of my home and completely destroyed it as they did to the homes of many of the civilian neighbors, we will not forget what these criminals did to us.

Fared Al Mahlool | فريد المحلول

19,694 views • 4 months ago

Did you just see it too? The car in question just vanished. There were reports from other drivers that claim the same thing at this intersection. They all saw a car driving on the road and all of a sudden it wasn’t there anymore. The car in question reminds me of a 1950’s Belair, it looks so out of place for today’s day and age. I do see some of them on the road every once in a while and that’s why they stick out to me so much. I’m not saying this is a haunted road or this is even paranormal, however I have heard of these residual style occurrences happening. If that was the case maybe this was where the original owner had an accident and it plays out over and over throughout the years at random. Have you ever seen anything like this before? What would you do if you saw this? I think I would keep coming back so I can see it again, events like this fascinate me.

Did you just see it too? The car in question just vanished. There were reports from other drivers that claim the same thing at this intersection. They all saw a car driving on the road and all of a sudden it wasn’t there anymore. The car in question reminds me of a 1950’s Belair, it looks so out of place for today’s day and age. I do see some of them on the road every once in a while and that’s why they stick out to me so much. I’m not saying this is a haunted road or this is even paranormal, however I have heard of these residual style occurrences happening. If that was the case maybe this was where the original owner had an accident and it plays out over and over throughout the years at random. Have you ever seen anything like this before? What would you do if you saw this? I think I would keep coming back so I can see it again, events like this fascinate me.

SonnyBoy🇺🇸

138,983 views • 1 month ago

“You remember the lives we lost. It is a good thing to be talking about this as we approach the month of April, when we commemorate the Genocide. Those who were involved and are not Rwandans, played an even more significant role in the tragic events that happened than Rwandans did. These are the same people who, even today, continue to persecute us, denying us peace, and making us pay a price because we were not meant to survive. They hold this against us because we did not stay at the bottom where they wanted us to stay broken and unable to heal. And for that, they believe we must pay. They want to show us that they have the power to take us back to that same place.” President Kagame | #KwegeraAbaturage

“You remember the lives we lost. It is a good thing to be talking about this as we approach the month of April, when we commemorate the Genocide. Those who were involved and are not Rwandans, played an even more significant role in the tragic events that happened than Rwandans did. These are the same people who, even today, continue to persecute us, denying us peace, and making us pay a price because we were not meant to survive. They hold this against us because we did not stay at the bottom where they wanted us to stay broken and unable to heal. And for that, they believe we must pay. They want to show us that they have the power to take us back to that same place.” President Kagame | #KwegeraAbaturage

Presidency | Rwanda

45,430 views • 1 year ago

OMG he’s right the guy that was able to flee Brown University after shooting and killing two people and injuring others was wearing the same type of outfit ICE agents wear! If anyone saw him they would think he was ICE and wouldn’t even question him! Is this how he got away!

OMG he’s right the guy that was able to flee Brown University after shooting and killing two people and injuring others was wearing the same type of outfit ICE agents wear! If anyone saw him they would think he was ICE and wouldn’t even question him! Is this how he got away!

Suzie rizzio

289,172 views • 7 months ago

👩🏻: So, imagine all of you became members without knowing each other… you’d all have first impressions, right? 👩🏻: There’d even be some terrible first impressions. 🐧: That was me! (pointing at Kai) 🐻: Me? Was it me? 🍒: Actually, there’s a funny story about these two. 👩🏻: What is it? What is it? 🍒: When this friend (Kyungsoo) first joined the company, we were taking profile photos. On the day of the photoshoot, Kyungsoo couldn’t see well, so he kept staring at people. So, Kyungsoo and I are the same age, and those two (Suho and Kai) had been trainees the longest. After the shoot, we happened to meet in pairs near the studio 2 vs 2. Since he’s the oldest, Kai whispered into Suho’s ear, “I don’t want to eat with this guy.” 👩🏻: Ah, why! Don’t be territorial, seriously, why? 🐻: With him and him… 👩🏻: I mean, why didn’t you want to eat with him? 🐻: He was glaring at me, I thought he was picking a fight. 👩🏻: Really? That’s how you saw it… right there? 🐻: Like this! 🐧: It wasn’t that extreme, I just couldn’t see. 🐻: Yeah, like this #CHANYEOL

PCY BASE

50,139 views • 8 months ago

🚨DANKSTER INTEL EXCLUSIVE🚨 AT 10:35 PM THE NIGHT BEFORE CHARLIE KIRK WAS ASSASSINATED, TWO MEN WALKED INTO A UTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY OFFICE AND ASKED TO SPEAK WITH POLICE ABOUT "A PLAN." They did not call. They did not email. They showed up in person. Staff at UVU considered it serious enough to notify CABINET. That is the president's office. The top of the institution. This was not treated as routine. The initial report said "two senators are coming tomorrow." The chat speculated it was Senator Curtis and Senator Lee. 40 MINUTES LATER someone quietly clarified: "The two gentlemen who showed up at [REDACTED]'s office are not from a senator's office. They are GOP reps who played like they knew more than they did." Read that again. TWO MEN IMPERSONATED SENATORIAL AUTHORITY TO GET TO POLICE THE NIGHT BEFORE CHARLIE KIRK WAS KILLED. For 16 minutes the entire internal conversation was about whether these men were US senators or state senators. Nobody asked what the plan was. Nobody asked what the men wanted to tell police. Nobody asked what they told police. Nobody followed up on the substance. The entire email/text thread pivoted to credentials and authority. What happened after staff "got them to police" is not documented anywhere in the 112 pages. Their names are redacted. The plan is never described. Who were they? Why impersonate senators? What was the plan? What did they tell police? And why, 7 months later, are their names still hidden? Full live on my page and youtube. Facts Over Feelings. Receipts Over Narratives.

🚨DANKSTER INTEL EXCLUSIVE🚨 AT 10:35 PM THE NIGHT BEFORE CHARLIE KIRK WAS ASSASSINATED, TWO MEN WALKED INTO A UTAH VALLEY UNIVERSITY OFFICE AND ASKED TO SPEAK WITH POLICE ABOUT "A PLAN." They did not call. They did not email. They showed up in person. Staff at UVU considered it serious enough to notify CABINET. That is the president's office. The top of the institution. This was not treated as routine. The initial report said "two senators are coming tomorrow." The chat speculated it was Senator Curtis and Senator Lee. 40 MINUTES LATER someone quietly clarified: "The two gentlemen who showed up at [REDACTED]'s office are not from a senator's office. They are GOP reps who played like they knew more than they did." Read that again. TWO MEN IMPERSONATED SENATORIAL AUTHORITY TO GET TO POLICE THE NIGHT BEFORE CHARLIE KIRK WAS KILLED. For 16 minutes the entire internal conversation was about whether these men were US senators or state senators. Nobody asked what the plan was. Nobody asked what the men wanted to tell police. Nobody asked what they told police. Nobody followed up on the substance. The entire email/text thread pivoted to credentials and authority. What happened after staff "got them to police" is not documented anywhere in the 112 pages. Their names are redacted. The plan is never described. Who were they? Why impersonate senators? What was the plan? What did they tell police? And why, 7 months later, are their names still hidden? Full live on my page and youtube. Facts Over Feelings. Receipts Over Narratives.

Danks

42,429 views • 3 months ago