Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

سجن صيدنايا.. بين الحقيقه و التضليل في الوقت الذي تحول فيه اسم #صيدنايا الى رمز للرعب و الموت في روايات كثيره يخرج اليوم مؤسس رابطه معتقلي و مفقودي سجن صيدنايا بنفسه ليقول: كل ما يحكى و يروى عن السجن هو كذب و تضليل لا يمت للحقيقه بصله و بين...

NemesisSYR_'s profile picture

NEMESIS – نيميسس

24,816 subscribers

17,172 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

News & PoliticsArts#صيدنايا
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

شهد شاهد من أهل الارهابيين! انكشفت حقيقة هذه الثورة، و التي بدأت اساسا بالمجازر و الطائفية القذرة. اين هم الثوار في أوروبا الآن ؟ تفضلو و عيشو في سوريا طالما حققتم الحرية التي تريدون !؟ أم أنكم بعد ما خربتم البلد اكتشفتم انكم لا تستطيعون العيش مع ابو عمشة و ابو قتادة ؟ ما ذنب الشعب السوري بعد أن سلطتم عليه شياطين الأرض و أنتم الآن تعيشون في أوروبا العلمانية المتحررة الآمنة بينما تروجون للحكم الإسلاميّ المتطرف في سوريا ؟ 14 سنة و نحن تقول إن اسقاط النظام بالسلاح و بالتعاون مع الغرب سيجعل البديل هو الأرهاب، و هو ما نراه اليوم من دبح و تنكيل يومي. اذا كان الساروت رمز هذه الثورة فمالذي تتوقعه منها ؟ الساروت الذي غنى لذبح العلويين و ذبح 13 شخص بيده باعترافه!! و الفيديوهات موجودة و سنكست كل طائفي يدافع عنه و عن ثورته و ستكونون في المحاكم الدولية يا من دعتم الارهاب. هذا كلام السيدة في الفيديو.. A witness from the terrorists' family has testified! The truth of this revolution, which began with massacres and dirty sectarianism, has been revealed. Where are the revolutionaries in Europe now? Go ahead and live in Syria as long as you have achieved the freedom you want!? Or, after you destroyed the country, did you discover that you cannot live with Abu Amsha and Abu Qatada? What is the fault of the Syrian people after you unleashed the devils of the earth on them and you are now living in a secular, liberated and safe Europe while promoting extremist Islamic rule in Syria? For 14 years, we have been saying that overthrowing the regime with weapons and in cooperation with the West will make the alternative terrorism, which is what we see today of daily slaughter and abuse. If Sarout is the symbol of this revolution, what do you expect from it? Sarout is the one who sang about slaughtering the Alawites and slaughtered 13 people with his own hand, by his own admission!! The videos are there and we will bring down every sectarian who defends him and his revolution and you will be in international courts, you who called for terrorism. These are the words of the lady in the video.. #UN #Trump #UN_HRC #eu_eeas #arableague_gs #StateDept #francediplo_EN #FCDOGovUK #ISIS #syria #Tartus #Latakia #Damascus #Homs #لا_للتغيير_الديموغرافي #التهجير_جريمة #السعودية #محمد_بن_سلمان #حماية_الأقليات #الساحل_السوري #حقوق_الانسان #طرطوس #اللاذقية #حمص #سوريا #سوريا_الجديدة #داعش #دمشق #شاهد #هيئة_تحرير_الشام_الإرهابية #StopAlawiteGenocide #StopAlawiteGenocideInSyria #الجولاني_سفاح_سوريا #تسقط_حكومة_الجولاني_الأرهابية #الشرع_ليس_رئيسي #أوقفوا_الإبادة_الطائفية #EUSolidarity #ابادة_علوية #London #Paris #Roma #NewYork #الشرع_من_دون_شرعية #الجولاني_ليس_رئيسي #استقلال_الساحل_السوري Donald J. Trump محمد بن سلمان بن عبد العزيز (Informal). UK Prime Minister Agence France-Presse CNN CNNPolitics Donald J. Trump جامعة الدول العربية وزارة الخارجية 🇸🇦 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office محمد علي الحسيني Elon Musk HH Sheikh Mohammed U.S. Embassy Syria Kaja Kallas Liz Throssell Michael Ohnmacht European External Action Service - EEAS 🇪🇺 @ABaerbock UN Human Rights EU in Syria Mazloum Abdî مظلوم عبدي UN in Syria #israel Israel ישראל Israel ישראלiPM Amnesty International
0:59

شهد شاهد من أهل الارهابيين! انكشفت حقيقة هذه الثورة، و التي بدأت اساسا بالمجازر و الطائفية القذرة. اين هم الثوار في أوروبا الآن ؟ تفضلو و عيشو في سوريا طالما حققتم الحرية التي تريدون !؟ أم أنكم بعد ما خربتم البلد اكتشفتم انكم لا تستطيعون العيش مع ابو عمشة و ابو قتادة ؟ ما ذنب الشعب السوري بعد أن سلطتم عليه شياطين الأرض و أنتم الآن تعيشون في أوروبا العلمانية المتحررة الآمنة بينما تروجون للحكم الإسلاميّ المتطرف في سوريا ؟ 14 سنة و نحن تقول إن اسقاط النظام بالسلاح و بالتعاون مع الغرب سيجعل البديل هو الأرهاب، و هو ما نراه اليوم من دبح و تنكيل يومي. اذا كان الساروت رمز هذه الثورة فمالذي تتوقعه منها ؟ الساروت الذي غنى لذبح العلويين و ذبح 13 شخص بيده باعترافه!! و الفيديوهات موجودة و سنكست كل طائفي يدافع عنه و عن ثورته و ستكونون في المحاكم الدولية يا من دعتم الارهاب. هذا كلام السيدة في الفيديو.. A witness from the terrorists' family has testified! The truth of this revolution, which began with massacres and dirty sectarianism, has been revealed. Where are the revolutionaries in Europe now? Go ahead and live in Syria as long as you have achieved the freedom you want!? Or, after you destroyed the country, did you discover that you cannot live with Abu Amsha and Abu Qatada? What is the fault of the Syrian people after you unleashed the devils of the earth on them and you are now living in a secular, liberated and safe Europe while promoting extremist Islamic rule in Syria? For 14 years, we have been saying that overthrowing the regime with weapons and in cooperation with the West will make the alternative terrorism, which is what we see today of daily slaughter and abuse. If Sarout is the symbol of this revolution, what do you expect from it? Sarout is the one who sang about slaughtering the Alawites and slaughtered 13 people with his own hand, by his own admission!! The videos are there and we will bring down every sectarian who defends him and his revolution and you will be in international courts, you who called for terrorism. These are the words of the lady in the video.. #UN #Trump #UN_HRC #eu_eeas #arableague_gs #StateDept #francediplo_EN #FCDOGovUK #ISIS #syria #Tartus #Latakia #Damascus #Homs #لا_للتغيير_الديموغرافي #التهجير_جريمة #السعودية #محمد_بن_سلمان #حماية_الأقليات #الساحل_السوري #حقوق_الانسان #طرطوس #اللاذقية #حمص #سوريا #سوريا_الجديدة #داعش #دمشق #شاهد #هيئة_تحرير_الشام_الإرهابية #StopAlawiteGenocide #StopAlawiteGenocideInSyria #الجولاني_سفاح_سوريا #تسقط_حكومة_الجولاني_الأرهابية #الشرع_ليس_رئيسي #أوقفوا_الإبادة_الطائفية #EUSolidarity #ابادة_علوية #London #Paris #Roma #NewYork #الشرع_من_دون_شرعية #الجولاني_ليس_رئيسي #استقلال_الساحل_السوري Donald J. Trump محمد بن سلمان بن عبد العزيز (Informal). UK Prime Minister Agence France-Presse CNN CNNPolitics Donald J. Trump جامعة الدول العربية وزارة الخارجية 🇸🇦 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office محمد علي الحسيني Elon Musk HH Sheikh Mohammed U.S. Embassy Syria Kaja Kallas Liz Throssell Michael Ohnmacht European External Action Service - EEAS 🇪🇺 @ABaerbock UN Human Rights EU in Syria Mazloum Abdî مظلوم عبدي UN in Syria #israel Israel ישראל Israel ישראלiPM Amnesty International

NEMESIS – نيميسس

385,187 views • 1 year ago

🔴 أصبح سجن صيدنايا الأشهر عالميًا، ليس بسبب الحقائق وحدها، بل بسبب القصص الكوميدية والمختلقة التي فُبركت عنه..! من قصة “المكبس” التي اعترف أصحابها لاحقًا بكذبها، إلى حكاية طفل قيل إنه بعمر العشر سنوات يفتقد والده منذ 14 عامًا!! مرورًا برواية مريض جاء من لبنان للمعالجة في سوريا، ليُقال لاحقًا إنه خرج من صيدنايا وعليه آثار مرض بسبب التعذيب… لا أحد ينكر أن هناك انتهاكات وقعت داخل هذا السجن، لكن ما يحدث اليوم في سجون الجولاني أشد قسوة، ومع ذلك لا يجرؤ أحد أن ينطق بحرف واحد عنها.. الفرق أن صيدنايا تحوّل إلى مادة لتلفيق الروايات وصناعة الدعاية، بينما سجون الجولاني بقيت خارج الضوء. الكذب والتدليس والنفاق قد يحققون ضجيجًا إعلاميًا، لكنهم لا يبنون وطنًا، ولا يحققون عدالة. Sednaya Prison has become globally infamous not only for real incidents, but for the fabricated, almost comical stories invented about it. From the tale of the “meat grinder,” later admitted as false, to the absurd claim of a ten-year-old boy missing his father for 14 years! Even the story of a patient who came from Lebanon for treatment in Syria was twisted into: “He was released from Sednaya carrying marks of torture.” No one denies that violations did take place inside this prison, but what is happening now in Jolani’s prisons is even harsher — and yet no one dares to speak a word about it. The difference is that Sednaya became a stage for fabricated tales and propaganda, while Jolani’s prisons remain in the dark. Lies, manipulation, and hypocrisy may create media noise, but they do not build a country, nor do they deliver justice. #سوريا #صيدنايا #سجون #الجولاني #انتهاكات #توثيق #Syria #Sednaya #Prisons #Jolani #Violations #Documentation
1:28

🔴 أصبح سجن صيدنايا الأشهر عالميًا، ليس بسبب الحقائق وحدها، بل بسبب القصص الكوميدية والمختلقة التي فُبركت عنه..! من قصة “المكبس” التي اعترف أصحابها لاحقًا بكذبها، إلى حكاية طفل قيل إنه بعمر العشر سنوات يفتقد والده منذ 14 عامًا!! مرورًا برواية مريض جاء من لبنان للمعالجة في سوريا، ليُقال لاحقًا إنه خرج من صيدنايا وعليه آثار مرض بسبب التعذيب… لا أحد ينكر أن هناك انتهاكات وقعت داخل هذا السجن، لكن ما يحدث اليوم في سجون الجولاني أشد قسوة، ومع ذلك لا يجرؤ أحد أن ينطق بحرف واحد عنها.. الفرق أن صيدنايا تحوّل إلى مادة لتلفيق الروايات وصناعة الدعاية، بينما سجون الجولاني بقيت خارج الضوء. الكذب والتدليس والنفاق قد يحققون ضجيجًا إعلاميًا، لكنهم لا يبنون وطنًا، ولا يحققون عدالة. Sednaya Prison has become globally infamous not only for real incidents, but for the fabricated, almost comical stories invented about it. From the tale of the “meat grinder,” later admitted as false, to the absurd claim of a ten-year-old boy missing his father for 14 years! Even the story of a patient who came from Lebanon for treatment in Syria was twisted into: “He was released from Sednaya carrying marks of torture.” No one denies that violations did take place inside this prison, but what is happening now in Jolani’s prisons is even harsher — and yet no one dares to speak a word about it. The difference is that Sednaya became a stage for fabricated tales and propaganda, while Jolani’s prisons remain in the dark. Lies, manipulation, and hypocrisy may create media noise, but they do not build a country, nor do they deliver justice. #سوريا #صيدنايا #سجون #الجولاني #انتهاكات #توثيق #Syria #Sednaya #Prisons #Jolani #Violations #Documentation

NEMESIS – نيميسس

29,458 views • 11 months ago

🔴 في قلب دمشق… حتى الميكروباص صار زنزانة! في حادثة صادمة تعكس استبداد السلطة، أقدمت الشرطة و”الأمن العام الإرهابي” على حبس ركاب ميكروباص كامل لأكثر من نصف ساعة، وأغلقوا النوافذ عليهم حتى بدأت بعض النساء والأطفال بالاختناق.. مشهد يختصر القمع الذي يمارس يوميًا… لا هواء، لا رحمة. فقط إذلال وتجويع وترهيب. مقطع الفيديو المسرّب فضح التعذيب الذي لم يعد يخفى على أحد. إلى متى هذا الظلم؟! وإلى متى الصمت عن جرائم تُرتكب في وضح النهار ضد المدنيين؟! In the heart of Damascus… even the minibus has become a prison cell! In a shocking incident that reflects the tyranny of the authorities, police and the so-called “General Security terrorists” locked an entire minibus of passengers for more than half an hour, sealing the windows until women and children began to suffocate.. A scene that sums up the daily oppression… no air, no mercy. Only humiliation, starvation, and intimidation. The leaked video exposed torture that can no longer be hidden. How much longer will this injustice continue?! How much longer will silence cover crimes committed in broad daylight against civilians?! #دمشق #سوريا #الامن_العام_الارهابي #حقوق_الانسان #توثيق #جرائم #Damascus #Syria #GeneralSecurityTerrorists #HumanRights #Documentation #Crimes
0:50

🔴 في قلب دمشق… حتى الميكروباص صار زنزانة! في حادثة صادمة تعكس استبداد السلطة، أقدمت الشرطة و”الأمن العام الإرهابي” على حبس ركاب ميكروباص كامل لأكثر من نصف ساعة، وأغلقوا النوافذ عليهم حتى بدأت بعض النساء والأطفال بالاختناق.. مشهد يختصر القمع الذي يمارس يوميًا… لا هواء، لا رحمة. فقط إذلال وتجويع وترهيب. مقطع الفيديو المسرّب فضح التعذيب الذي لم يعد يخفى على أحد. إلى متى هذا الظلم؟! وإلى متى الصمت عن جرائم تُرتكب في وضح النهار ضد المدنيين؟! In the heart of Damascus… even the minibus has become a prison cell! In a shocking incident that reflects the tyranny of the authorities, police and the so-called “General Security terrorists” locked an entire minibus of passengers for more than half an hour, sealing the windows until women and children began to suffocate.. A scene that sums up the daily oppression… no air, no mercy. Only humiliation, starvation, and intimidation. The leaked video exposed torture that can no longer be hidden. How much longer will this injustice continue?! How much longer will silence cover crimes committed in broad daylight against civilians?! #دمشق #سوريا #الامن_العام_الارهابي #حقوق_الانسان #توثيق #جرائم #Damascus #Syria #GeneralSecurityTerrorists #HumanRights #Documentation #Crimes

Syrian Witness شاهد سوري

80,583 views • 11 months ago

اسيا هشام!! مذيعة رسمية في قناة كبيرة، تضع نفسها طرفًا، بالاجرام و تدافع عنه!! استمعوا إلى "الحيادية" و"الشفافية" في الإعلام!! من يدافع عن الخاطفين هو شريك، ومن يُكذّب رواية الخطف، هو شريك، ويجب تقديم شكوى ضده فورا .. كهذه المتطرفة التي ينقصها ذقن فقط .... والتي تدافع عن المنظمات الإرهابية وتبرّئهم من أفعالهم… وكل من تكلّم عن القتل أو الخطف، واجهوه، وصرخوا في وجهه: "مكوع!" "ابكي.. بترتاح " وين كنتوا من 14 سنة ...أيتام الأسد... الأيتام الحقيقيون هم هذه المذيعة وهي وجميع من يعملون معها كانوا مقربون من هذه السلطات .. واليوم يرقصون على صرخات الفقراء، صرخات المخطوفات، صرخات الجائعين.. وتسألون من أين أتت هذه المصطلحات؟ هذه نموذج عن مصدر تلك المصطلحات، لا بل قد تكون احد من مخترعيها!! هذا الفيديو و المنطوق به برسم اللجان الدولية و المنظمات الدولية لملاحقة من يدافع عن هكذا اجرام و يقدم لهم عذرهم… Asia Hisham!! An official broadcaster on a major channel, she puts herself at the center of the crime and defends it!! Listen to the "neutrality" and "transparency" in the media!! Anyone who defends the kidnappers is an accomplice, and anyone who denies the kidnapping story is an accomplice, and a complaint must be filed against them immediately. Like this extremist who's only missing a beard... who defends terrorist organizations and exonerates them of their actions... And everyone who spoke of murder or kidnapping was confronted and shouted in their face: "Elbow!" "Cry... you'll be at ease!" Where were you 14 years ago... Assad's orphans... The real orphans are this broadcaster, and she and all those who work with her were close to these authorities. Today, they dance to the cries of the poor, the cries of the kidnapped, the cries of the hungry... And you ask, where did these terms come from? This is an example of the source of these terms. You may even have invented them! This video and the text in it are intended for international committees and organizations to prosecute those who defend such crimes and offer them their excuses. #UN #Trump #UN_HRC #eu_eeas #arableague_gs #StateDept #francediplo_EN #FCDOGovUK #ISIS #syria #Tartus #Latakia #Damascus #Homs #The_Alawite_Holocaust_in_Syria #محرقة_العلويين_في_سوريا #الابادة_الجماعية_العلوية_2025 #محاكمة_الجولاني_الارهابي_الدولي #التهجير_جريمة #حماية_الأقليات #الساحل_السوري #حقوق_الانسان #طرطوس #اللاذقية #حمص #سوريا #سوريا_الجديدة #داعش #دمشق #هيئة_تحرير_الشام_الإرهابية #StopAlawiteGenocide #StopAlawiteGenocideInSyria #الجولاني_سفاح_سوريا #تسقط_حكومة_الجولاني_الأرهابية #أوقفوا_الإبادة_الطائفية #ابادة_علوية #الشرع_من_دون_شرعية #الهولوكوست_العلوي #الجولاني_ليس_رئيسي #استقلال_الساحل_السوري #مجزرة_الساحل Donald J. Trump محمد بن سلمان بن عبد العزيز (Informal). UK Prime Minister Agence France-Presse CNN CNNPolitics Donald J. Trump Jackson Hinkle 🇺🇸 جامعة الدول العربية وزارة الخارجية 🇸🇦 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office はうはう محمد علي الحسيني Elon Musk HH Sheikh Mohammed U.S. Embassy Syria Kaja Kallas Liz Throssell Michael Ohnmacht European External Action Service - EEAS 🇪🇺 UN Human Rights EU in Syria Mazloum Abdî مظلوم عبدي UN in Syria Joe Wilson 🇺🇸 Pamela Geller 🇮🇱 Dr Walid Phares
2:11

اسيا هشام!! مذيعة رسمية في قناة كبيرة، تضع نفسها طرفًا، بالاجرام و تدافع عنه!! استمعوا إلى "الحيادية" و"الشفافية" في الإعلام!! من يدافع عن الخاطفين هو شريك، ومن يُكذّب رواية الخطف، هو شريك، ويجب تقديم شكوى ضده فورا .. كهذه المتطرفة التي ينقصها ذقن فقط .... والتي تدافع عن المنظمات الإرهابية وتبرّئهم من أفعالهم… وكل من تكلّم عن القتل أو الخطف، واجهوه، وصرخوا في وجهه: "مكوع!" "ابكي.. بترتاح " وين كنتوا من 14 سنة ...أيتام الأسد... الأيتام الحقيقيون هم هذه المذيعة وهي وجميع من يعملون معها كانوا مقربون من هذه السلطات .. واليوم يرقصون على صرخات الفقراء، صرخات المخطوفات، صرخات الجائعين.. وتسألون من أين أتت هذه المصطلحات؟ هذه نموذج عن مصدر تلك المصطلحات، لا بل قد تكون احد من مخترعيها!! هذا الفيديو و المنطوق به برسم اللجان الدولية و المنظمات الدولية لملاحقة من يدافع عن هكذا اجرام و يقدم لهم عذرهم… Asia Hisham!! An official broadcaster on a major channel, she puts herself at the center of the crime and defends it!! Listen to the "neutrality" and "transparency" in the media!! Anyone who defends the kidnappers is an accomplice, and anyone who denies the kidnapping story is an accomplice, and a complaint must be filed against them immediately. Like this extremist who's only missing a beard... who defends terrorist organizations and exonerates them of their actions... And everyone who spoke of murder or kidnapping was confronted and shouted in their face: "Elbow!" "Cry... you'll be at ease!" Where were you 14 years ago... Assad's orphans... The real orphans are this broadcaster, and she and all those who work with her were close to these authorities. Today, they dance to the cries of the poor, the cries of the kidnapped, the cries of the hungry... And you ask, where did these terms come from? This is an example of the source of these terms. You may even have invented them! This video and the text in it are intended for international committees and organizations to prosecute those who defend such crimes and offer them their excuses. #UN #Trump #UN_HRC #eu_eeas #arableague_gs #StateDept #francediplo_EN #FCDOGovUK #ISIS #syria #Tartus #Latakia #Damascus #Homs #The_Alawite_Holocaust_in_Syria #محرقة_العلويين_في_سوريا #الابادة_الجماعية_العلوية_2025 #محاكمة_الجولاني_الارهابي_الدولي #التهجير_جريمة #حماية_الأقليات #الساحل_السوري #حقوق_الانسان #طرطوس #اللاذقية #حمص #سوريا #سوريا_الجديدة #داعش #دمشق #هيئة_تحرير_الشام_الإرهابية #StopAlawiteGenocide #StopAlawiteGenocideInSyria #الجولاني_سفاح_سوريا #تسقط_حكومة_الجولاني_الأرهابية #أوقفوا_الإبادة_الطائفية #ابادة_علوية #الشرع_من_دون_شرعية #الهولوكوست_العلوي #الجولاني_ليس_رئيسي #استقلال_الساحل_السوري #مجزرة_الساحل Donald J. Trump محمد بن سلمان بن عبد العزيز (Informal). UK Prime Minister Agence France-Presse CNN CNNPolitics Donald J. Trump Jackson Hinkle 🇺🇸 جامعة الدول العربية وزارة الخارجية 🇸🇦 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office はうはう محمد علي الحسيني Elon Musk HH Sheikh Mohammed U.S. Embassy Syria Kaja Kallas Liz Throssell Michael Ohnmacht European External Action Service - EEAS 🇪🇺 UN Human Rights EU in Syria Mazloum Abdî مظلوم عبدي UN in Syria Joe Wilson 🇺🇸 Pamela Geller 🇮🇱 Dr Walid Phares

Syrian Witness شاهد سوري

44,778 views • 1 year ago

⛔️ الى كل من يكذب جهاد النكاح و يدّعي انه لم يحدث ابدا!! هذه شاهدة حيّة، دفعتها اسرتها نفسها، بل والدها، لتسليم جسدها تحت شعار ما سُمّي بـ “جهاد النكاح”.. الجريمة لم تكن فقط في استغلال الفتاة، بل في تزييف الدين وشرعنة الاغتصاب باسم العقيدة.. وقائع دامغة، لا يمكن انكارها، تركت ندوبا ابدية في الضحايا وذاكرة المجتمع.. هل ما زال هناك من يجرؤ على إنكار هذه الحقيقة السوداء؟! To all who deny that “Sexual Jihad” ever happened!! Here is a living witness — pushed by her own family, even her father, to give up her body under the banner of so-called “Jihad al-Nikah.” The crime was not only exploiting the girl, but also falsifying religion and legitimizing rape in the name of faith. Undeniable facts that left eternal scars on victims and on society’s memory. Who still dares to deny this dark truth?! #سوريا #جهاد_النكاح #توثيق #جرائم_داعش #اغتصاب #حماية_الأقليات #Syria #SexualJihad #ISISCrimes #WarCrimes #CrimesAgainstHumanity #Rape #HumanRights
1:05

⛔️ الى كل من يكذب جهاد النكاح و يدّعي انه لم يحدث ابدا!! هذه شاهدة حيّة، دفعتها اسرتها نفسها، بل والدها، لتسليم جسدها تحت شعار ما سُمّي بـ “جهاد النكاح”.. الجريمة لم تكن فقط في استغلال الفتاة، بل في تزييف الدين وشرعنة الاغتصاب باسم العقيدة.. وقائع دامغة، لا يمكن انكارها، تركت ندوبا ابدية في الضحايا وذاكرة المجتمع.. هل ما زال هناك من يجرؤ على إنكار هذه الحقيقة السوداء؟! To all who deny that “Sexual Jihad” ever happened!! Here is a living witness — pushed by her own family, even her father, to give up her body under the banner of so-called “Jihad al-Nikah.” The crime was not only exploiting the girl, but also falsifying religion and legitimizing rape in the name of faith. Undeniable facts that left eternal scars on victims and on society’s memory. Who still dares to deny this dark truth?! #سوريا #جهاد_النكاح #توثيق #جرائم_داعش #اغتصاب #حماية_الأقليات #Syria #SexualJihad #ISISCrimes #WarCrimes #CrimesAgainstHumanity #Rape #HumanRights

Vendetta - ڤينديتا

27,298 views • 11 months ago

الشابة كريستين شاهين ابنة الطائفة الدرزية الكريمة، توثق اليوم الجثث التي ظهرت على شواطئ دولة لبنان قادمين من سوريا.. تعود هذه الجثث لمجازر الساحل السوري، الذين ارتقوا شهداء على ايدي تنظيم هيئة تحرير الشام الارهابي بقيادة حاكم سوريا المؤقت احمد الشرع الملقب ابو محمد الجولاني.. تنويه: تنظيم داعش الارهابي تم تغيير اسمه الى هيئة تحرير الشام و القصد منه الغاء صفة الارهاب عن نفس القادة و المرتزقة التي كانت في داعش.. Christine Shaheen, a young woman from the honorable Druze community, is documenting today the bodies that have washed up on the shores of Lebanon, after those who came from Syria. These bodies belong to the massacres on the Syrian coast, where those who were martyred were killed at the hands of the terrorist organization Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), led by the interim governor of Syria, Ahmad al-Sharaa, also known as Abu Muhammad al-Julani. Note: The terrorist organization ISIS has changed its name to Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), with the intention of removing the terrorist label from the same leaders and mercenaries who were part of ISIS. #UN #Trump #UN_HRC #eu_eeas #arableague_gs #StateDept #francediplo_EN #FCDOGovUK #ISIS #syria #Tartus #Latakia #Damascus #Homs #The_Alawite_Holocaust_in_Syria #محرقة_العلويين_في_سوريا #الابادة_الجماعية_العلوية_2025 #محاكمة_الجولاني_الارهابي_الدولي #التهجير_جريمة #حماية_الأقليات #الساحل_السوري #حقوق_الانسان #طرطوس #اللاذقية #حمص #سوريا #سوريا_الجديدة #داعش #دمشق #هيئة_تحرير_الشام_الإرهابية #StopAlawiteGenocide #StopAlawiteGenocideInSyria #الجولاني_سفاح_سوريا #تسقط_حكومة_الجولاني_الأرهابية #أوقفوا_الإبادة_الطائفية #ابادة_علوية #London #Paris #Roma #NewYork #الشرع_من_دون_شرعية #الهولوكوست_العلوي #الجولاني_ليس_رئيسي #استقلال_الساحل_السوري #الساحل_السوري #مجزرة_الساحل Donald J. Trump محمد بن سلمان بن عبد العزيز (Informal). UK Prime Minister Agence France-Presse CNN CNNPolitics Donald J. Trump جامعة الدول العربية وزارة الخارجية 🇸🇦 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office はうはう محمد علي الحسيني Elon Musk HH Sheikh Mohammed U.S. Embassy Syria Kaja Kallas Liz Throssell Michael Ohnmacht European External Action Service - EEAS 🇪🇺 @ABaerbock UN Human Rights EU in Syria Mazloum Abdî مظلوم عبدي UN in Syria Joe Wilson 🇺🇸 Pamela Geller 🇮🇱 Dr Walid Phares
1:51

الشابة كريستين شاهين ابنة الطائفة الدرزية الكريمة، توثق اليوم الجثث التي ظهرت على شواطئ دولة لبنان قادمين من سوريا.. تعود هذه الجثث لمجازر الساحل السوري، الذين ارتقوا شهداء على ايدي تنظيم هيئة تحرير الشام الارهابي بقيادة حاكم سوريا المؤقت احمد الشرع الملقب ابو محمد الجولاني.. تنويه: تنظيم داعش الارهابي تم تغيير اسمه الى هيئة تحرير الشام و القصد منه الغاء صفة الارهاب عن نفس القادة و المرتزقة التي كانت في داعش.. Christine Shaheen, a young woman from the honorable Druze community, is documenting today the bodies that have washed up on the shores of Lebanon, after those who came from Syria. These bodies belong to the massacres on the Syrian coast, where those who were martyred were killed at the hands of the terrorist organization Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), led by the interim governor of Syria, Ahmad al-Sharaa, also known as Abu Muhammad al-Julani. Note: The terrorist organization ISIS has changed its name to Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), with the intention of removing the terrorist label from the same leaders and mercenaries who were part of ISIS. #UN #Trump #UN_HRC #eu_eeas #arableague_gs #StateDept #francediplo_EN #FCDOGovUK #ISIS #syria #Tartus #Latakia #Damascus #Homs #The_Alawite_Holocaust_in_Syria #محرقة_العلويين_في_سوريا #الابادة_الجماعية_العلوية_2025 #محاكمة_الجولاني_الارهابي_الدولي #التهجير_جريمة #حماية_الأقليات #الساحل_السوري #حقوق_الانسان #طرطوس #اللاذقية #حمص #سوريا #سوريا_الجديدة #داعش #دمشق #هيئة_تحرير_الشام_الإرهابية #StopAlawiteGenocide #StopAlawiteGenocideInSyria #الجولاني_سفاح_سوريا #تسقط_حكومة_الجولاني_الأرهابية #أوقفوا_الإبادة_الطائفية #ابادة_علوية #London #Paris #Roma #NewYork #الشرع_من_دون_شرعية #الهولوكوست_العلوي #الجولاني_ليس_رئيسي #استقلال_الساحل_السوري #الساحل_السوري #مجزرة_الساحل Donald J. Trump محمد بن سلمان بن عبد العزيز (Informal). UK Prime Minister Agence France-Presse CNN CNNPolitics Donald J. Trump جامعة الدول العربية وزارة الخارجية 🇸🇦 Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office はうはう محمد علي الحسيني Elon Musk HH Sheikh Mohammed U.S. Embassy Syria Kaja Kallas Liz Throssell Michael Ohnmacht European External Action Service - EEAS 🇪🇺 @ABaerbock UN Human Rights EU in Syria Mazloum Abdî مظلوم عبدي UN in Syria Joe Wilson 🇺🇸 Pamela Geller 🇮🇱 Dr Walid Phares

NEMESIS – نيميسس

77,832 views • 1 year ago

A Love Letter to Ferdinand Martin Romualdez | by Franco Mabanta Martin Romualdez, this episode is for you. And for every Filipino who believes that accountability should never depend on wealth, influence or power. For years, the powerful have operated under the assumption that the truth can be bullied, that free speech can be intimidated, that justice can be bought, and that public attention eventually fades. PGMN rejects that idea entirely. Today, PGMN CEO and founder Franco Cruz Mabanta makes his debut appearance on the Anchor Chair, in front of the camera owned by the company he built, for the most consequential statement of his life. In this deeply personal address, he touches the illegal extortion plot against him, the legal battle surrounding PGMN, the principles upon which the network was built, the multitude of untrue accusations, and the corruption issue that PGMN believes remains the single defining challenge facing the Philippines today. More than a response to recent events, it is a reflection on power, abuse, honesty, free speech, faith, and the future of a country still searching for justice from he who plundered what was not his. But before you watch, understand one thing. Do not judge this episode by the reactions of the bots. Do not judge it by the comment section swarmed by accounts created last week. Do not judge it by the trolls, the propaganda, the coordinated attacks, or the noise that inevitably surrounds any serious discussion about plunder, or the kind of greed that directly affects an entire generation, or WHY the Philippines cannot seem to rise above so many of its problems. Judge it by the facts. Judge it by the histories of those involved. Judge it by the actual recorded sequence of events. Judge it by the most logical motives presented. Judge by who you think are the more honest persons speaking. Judge it by the evidence. Judge it by your own investigation. Because when the stakes are this high, we all know that the wealthiest voices are not always the most truthful ones. What follows is far bigger than PGMN. It is bigger than politics. It is bigger than any one person. At its core, this is about whether public officials—especially those instinctively capable of real evil—can still be held accountable when the questions become difficult, the scrutiny becomes dangerous, and the consequences become life-or-death. It is about whether facts still matter in an environment flooded with false and malicious narratives, and whether ordinary Filipinos like us still have the right to demand answers from those we entrusted with power. To Martin Romualdez, we are making PGMN's position crystal clear. We are not backing down. We are not looking away. We are not changing course. You can hope all you want, Martin, for the collective national attention to somehow focus entirely on the senate wars or the energy crisis or the impeachment proceedings—praying to your daily demons that the people of this country turn our heads away from your superabundance of heinous crimes—but the facts remain clear: The Office of the Ombudsman has already referenced you as the “Master Plunderer”; the Sandiganbayan has already said on record that you are the “Purported Mastermind” of Philippine corruption; Boying Remulla has already denied any and all desperate requests from you to flee the country; the government of US President Donald J. Trump has already eviscerated your diplomatic and tourist visas; Mayor Leni Robredo and the Pinks are adamantly insisting on TRUE accountability; Vice President Sara Duterte and the DDS will never EVER forgive you for what you did to her and to them; and President Bongbong Marcos’ powerful/moral decision—not just to cut all ties with you—but to strictly forbid anyone at the Palace from speaking to you anymore, and in any capacity, has completed the metaphorical corruption kill-shot that the entire nation has long, long, long been waiting for. And now 120 million-strong demand to know, with the full weight of everything we are, what you did with OUR MONEY. Distract us all you want, but the questions remain clear. The public interest remains loud. And our commitment to pursuing justice remains explicit. PGMN was founded on the belief that no politician, no billionaire, no dynasty, and no public official should ever become so powerful that they are beyond scrutiny. That belief did not disappear when the pressure arrived. It did not disappear when the controversy intensified. And it will not disappear simply because the stakes are now at their highest. If anything, moments like these are the reason PGMN exists. It is the reason why the Peanut Gallery was built on the backs of real fighters. What follows is a story about accountability, government drama, insider secrets, censorship of the media, prison time, a renewed faith in Christ, resilience that became necessary, sincerity that hopefully cuts through the noise, and what it actually means to go to war for a beautiful idea called freedom of speech—all rolled up into one of the wildest David vs Goliath stories in modern Philippine politics, viewed from the lens of the most radical young media company that exists today. Above all, it is about the critical belief that the Filipino people deserve real justice—regardless of where the truth leads, regardless of who it makes uncomfortable, and regardless of whether or not the subject of that truth is a deeply powerful, historically treacherous man that goes by the name of Ferdinand Martin Romualdez. Watch until the end. Because not only is the conversation not over… The war between PGMN and the single most corrupt Flipino politician of the 21st century has only just begun.
1:28:43

A Love Letter to Ferdinand Martin Romualdez | by Franco Mabanta Martin Romualdez, this episode is for you. And for every Filipino who believes that accountability should never depend on wealth, influence or power. For years, the powerful have operated under the assumption that the truth can be bullied, that free speech can be intimidated, that justice can be bought, and that public attention eventually fades. PGMN rejects that idea entirely. Today, PGMN CEO and founder Franco Cruz Mabanta makes his debut appearance on the Anchor Chair, in front of the camera owned by the company he built, for the most consequential statement of his life. In this deeply personal address, he touches the illegal extortion plot against him, the legal battle surrounding PGMN, the principles upon which the network was built, the multitude of untrue accusations, and the corruption issue that PGMN believes remains the single defining challenge facing the Philippines today. More than a response to recent events, it is a reflection on power, abuse, honesty, free speech, faith, and the future of a country still searching for justice from he who plundered what was not his. But before you watch, understand one thing. Do not judge this episode by the reactions of the bots. Do not judge it by the comment section swarmed by accounts created last week. Do not judge it by the trolls, the propaganda, the coordinated attacks, or the noise that inevitably surrounds any serious discussion about plunder, or the kind of greed that directly affects an entire generation, or WHY the Philippines cannot seem to rise above so many of its problems. Judge it by the facts. Judge it by the histories of those involved. Judge it by the actual recorded sequence of events. Judge it by the most logical motives presented. Judge by who you think are the more honest persons speaking. Judge it by the evidence. Judge it by your own investigation. Because when the stakes are this high, we all know that the wealthiest voices are not always the most truthful ones. What follows is far bigger than PGMN. It is bigger than politics. It is bigger than any one person. At its core, this is about whether public officials—especially those instinctively capable of real evil—can still be held accountable when the questions become difficult, the scrutiny becomes dangerous, and the consequences become life-or-death. It is about whether facts still matter in an environment flooded with false and malicious narratives, and whether ordinary Filipinos like us still have the right to demand answers from those we entrusted with power. To Martin Romualdez, we are making PGMN's position crystal clear. We are not backing down. We are not looking away. We are not changing course. You can hope all you want, Martin, for the collective national attention to somehow focus entirely on the senate wars or the energy crisis or the impeachment proceedings—praying to your daily demons that the people of this country turn our heads away from your superabundance of heinous crimes—but the facts remain clear: The Office of the Ombudsman has already referenced you as the “Master Plunderer”; the Sandiganbayan has already said on record that you are the “Purported Mastermind” of Philippine corruption; Boying Remulla has already denied any and all desperate requests from you to flee the country; the government of US President Donald J. Trump has already eviscerated your diplomatic and tourist visas; Mayor Leni Robredo and the Pinks are adamantly insisting on TRUE accountability; Vice President Sara Duterte and the DDS will never EVER forgive you for what you did to her and to them; and President Bongbong Marcos’ powerful/moral decision—not just to cut all ties with you—but to strictly forbid anyone at the Palace from speaking to you anymore, and in any capacity, has completed the metaphorical corruption kill-shot that the entire nation has long, long, long been waiting for. And now 120 million-strong demand to know, with the full weight of everything we are, what you did with OUR MONEY. Distract us all you want, but the questions remain clear. The public interest remains loud. And our commitment to pursuing justice remains explicit. PGMN was founded on the belief that no politician, no billionaire, no dynasty, and no public official should ever become so powerful that they are beyond scrutiny. That belief did not disappear when the pressure arrived. It did not disappear when the controversy intensified. And it will not disappear simply because the stakes are now at their highest. If anything, moments like these are the reason PGMN exists. It is the reason why the Peanut Gallery was built on the backs of real fighters. What follows is a story about accountability, government drama, insider secrets, censorship of the media, prison time, a renewed faith in Christ, resilience that became necessary, sincerity that hopefully cuts through the noise, and what it actually means to go to war for a beautiful idea called freedom of speech—all rolled up into one of the wildest David vs Goliath stories in modern Philippine politics, viewed from the lens of the most radical young media company that exists today. Above all, it is about the critical belief that the Filipino people deserve real justice—regardless of where the truth leads, regardless of who it makes uncomfortable, and regardless of whether or not the subject of that truth is a deeply powerful, historically treacherous man that goes by the name of Ferdinand Martin Romualdez. Watch until the end. Because not only is the conversation not over… The war between PGMN and the single most corrupt Flipino politician of the 21st century has only just begun.

Peanut Gallery Media Network

17,636 views • 2 months ago

You are confusing cause and effect, and in doing so, you are missing the deeper structural reality that is the central point of the argument. Migration in Africa does not happen in a vacuum. People do not wake up and casually decide to leave their homes, families, and countries for no apparent reason. Movement of people across colonial borders is driven by economic collapse, political instability, conflict, and governance failures, yes, but also by powerful historical forces that shaped those very conditions in the first place. Not everyone has the third eye to see those historical forces at play unless they read, comprehend and follow ideas and not populist demagoguery. Apartheid was not just a South African policy that ended in 1994. Its effects still live with South Africans to this very day. It was part of a wider political and more importantly economic system of racial capitalism that structured the region’s economy. What you fixed in 1994 was only the political and not the economic side of it. South Africa was designed as the industrial hub, while neighbouring countries were deliberately underdeveloped and turned into labour reserves for South Africa’s economy. Migrant labour from countries like Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Lesotho was not an accident at all, it was built into the system. It was designed that way and remains so to this very day. The owners of the means of production then remain the owners of the means of production today. Black people are largely still workers. You have a few token black individuals at the top, but the majority remain little more than exploited labour. So when people move from their countries today, they are often moving along routes that were created decades ago. The inequality between South Africa and its neighbours did not emerge overnight, and it is not simply the result of “African leaders” in isolation of other key factors. It is the continuation of a historical economic design that concentrated wealth in one place and poverty in others. That does not absolve African governments of responsibility. Many have failed their citizens through corruption, mismanagement, and repression. I write about this daily, and I have gone to prison three times in my lifetime for doing so. I have had to leave my country to save my life for doing so. But to reduce a complex, multi-layered issue to “it is African leaders” is intellectually lazy and historically dishonest. It ignores history, economics, and global power dynamics. As for Malema, whether you agree with him or not, his political skill lies in identifying how political and economic narratives are shaped and who benefits from them. He is pointing out that anger is often redirected away from the very systems of inequality and towards vulnerable people, migrants, who did not create those conditions. If you want a serious conversation, then deal with the full picture. Migration is about history, economics, governance, and global inequality. Blaming one factor while ignoring the rest is not analysis at all, it is deceitful propaganda. The economically and intellectually illiterate are often the easiest targets of political propaganda, precisely because they are fed simple, emotionally satisfying explanations for complex structural problems. They are told who to blame for their suffering, migrants, neighbouring countries, or vague notions of “outsiders”, while the real drivers, historical dispossession, entrenched economic inequality, and elite collusion, are deliberately obscured. In Southern Africa, and particularly in South Africa, this manifests in xenophobic narratives that blame Zimbabweans or Mozambicans for unemployment and poverty, when in reality those conditions are rooted in a long standing economic architecture that concentrated wealth and ownership in very few hands. It is easier to turn the poor against the poor than to confront systems that benefit those in power. What is often forgotten in this debate is that the political elites of colonial South Africa and Rhodesia worked in concert to sustain a repressive regional system that enriched a minority while extracting labour and resources from the rest. Your former apartheid Prime Minister John Vorster says it in this video in a very tactful manner. That logic has not disappeared at all, it has merely changed form. Today, segments of the political elite in both South Africa and Zimbabwe continue to operate in ways that protect entrenched economic interests while the majority remain economically marginalised. South Africa was the only true white settler “home”, where wealth, infrastructure, and industry were concentrated, while territories like Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), and Nyasaland (Malawi) functioned largely as economic outposts, feeding capital, labour, and raw materials into that system. The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was presented as a project of regional integration, but in practice it reinforced patterns of extraction, with mining in Zambia, agriculture in Zimbabwe, and labour flows from Malawi all tied into a broader economic network dominated by South African capital. The same remains to this very day. The tragedy of focusing on Julius as the messenger rather than the message is something I speak about regularly, the need to focus on ideas and not personalities. You do not have to like Julius Malema. You do not have to agree with everything he says. All you need to do is focus on his message and interrogate it critically. I am not enslaved to Julius Malema’s ideas. I pick and choose what I agree with, and I am able to articulate a reasoned argument for both what I support and what I reject. You should do the same. One of the most powerful weapons of colonialism was the deliberate fragmentation of black people into small Bantustans, into isolated villages where communities were conditioned to view the next village with suspicion. In Rhodesia we had “reserves” and “keeps.” People from other Bantustans were treated as outsiders. That mentality was never dismantled, it still exists today. The idea of seeing others with suspicion simply because of an arbitrary line, a colonial border, remains deeply entrenched. Many do not fully appreciate how powerful and enduring that mentality and conditioning is. Yet when you look at the descendants of colonialists, they do not view each other through those same lenses. White Zimbabweans move into South Africa without attracting the same hostility because of the economic architecture that allows them to stay away from the so called lumpen. White people from across the world come and settle with ease in South Africa. In fact, one of the most visible figures advocating for the secession of the Western Cape is a British citizen, yet there is no comparable outrage from black South Africans. The same energy of protests and marches that is directed at fellow Africans is rarely directed there. That is not accidental at all, it is well designed that way. It speaks to the protection afforded by entrenched economic power and privilege, but also to a deeper psychological conditioning in how black people are taught to see each other and to see whiteness. This will not disappear overnight. It may not even disappear in my lifetime. But the task is to keep planting the seeds of awareness and unity. As Bob Marley said, you give your more to get your little. What you do today may seem small, but in time it contributes to something much larger, especially if there is collective effort to confront and resolve these divisions. One of the most important things colonialists understood was that education is the key to discernment, to the ability to interrogate and understand issues such as those I raised in this essay. That is precisely why they restricted access to it. Only a few black people were allowed meaningful education, and the consequences of that exclusion remain with us today, not only in South Africa but across much of the continent. We did not dismantle the systems that underpinned colonialism. We largely inherited them, changed the faces at the top, and continued to operate within the same structures. So I will end by saying this, if anyone truly wants change on the issues being debated, you must fix the foundation. You cannot repair window panes when the foundation itself is cracking. Immigration, whether legal or illegal, will always exist, but it is sustained not by foreigners alone, but by the system itself. When Zimbabweans cross the border without passports, they are often enabled by South Africans within a broken system. When documents are obtained illegally, it is again the system that enables it. When Zimbabwe’s political crisis persists without free and fair elections, regional dynamics, including South Africa’s political and economic interests, often play a role in sustaining that status quo. There is a web of political and economic interests that mirrors, in some respects, the relationships that existed during the colonial and apartheid eras. As long as those interests remain, there is little incentive for those in power to confront injustice decisively. The corruption and governance failures in Zimbabwe are real and significant, but they are part of a broader structural problem. The real issue is the foundation. If black South Africans were living well, with access to quality education, meaningful employment, and economic security, they would not be marching in the streets. The anger you see today is not simply about immigration. It is a reflection of an economic structure that has remained fundamentally unchanged, even after 1994. Repression underpinned by racism in Rhodesia effectively came to an end when South Africa shifted its position and recognised that the system was no longer sustainable. The same principle applies today. Repression underpinned by political corruption in Zimbabwe will begin to end the day South Africa, the regional power whether one accepts it or not, decides that the current situation is no longer acceptable. Zimbabwe’s crisis has, over time, been treated as a largely domestic issue rather than a regional one, yet the political and economic realities of Southern Africa make that distinction artificial. What happens in Zimbabwe does not exist in isolation, it is shaped, sustained, and, at times, enabled by regional dynamics, particularly South Africa’s stance. This may be an uncomfortable truth, but history consistently shows that regional power centres play a decisive role in determining outcomes. Ignoring that reality does not change it, it only delays the moment when it must be confronted. It was convenient then for John Vorster and successive apartheid regimes to continue using illegal migrants as a source of cheap labour in South Africa for menial jobs. It remains the same today. As I have said, the political and economic architecture of the apartheid era largely remains in place. What has changed are the political faces, the white faces that held power then and the black faces that hold office today, often operating within and alongside the same entrenched economic structures. Whether one accepts it or not, that is the reality of our politics in the region and of the economic architecture that continues to shape it. There is a reason why certain political actors avoid critically engaging with the structural drivers of immigration, particularly those that sustain flows of cheap labour. There is also a reason why figures like Helen Zille often emphasise the need to document illegal immigrants in South Africa, that position can be understood within the broader context of preserving an economic order that has long depended on controlling and managing labour rather than fundamentally transforming the conditions that produce it. That economic order is rooted in historical structures of concentrated power that shaped not only South Africa, but the wider region more than a century ago. How black Africans view themselves is often reflected in how they respond to political messages. It is why some are quick to criticise Julius Malema for positions that are, in substance, not fundamentally different from those expressed by Helen Zille. On immigration, there is significant overlap in what has been said across the political spectrum, including by the DA and the EFF. Yet the EFF is frequently viewed through a lens of hostility, in part because it is a black-led party, and that perception shapes the reaction it receives. As a result, some black citizens, influenced by long-standing narratives, direct harsher and more emotive criticism towards it. When similar points are made by figures like Helen Zille, the response is often markedly different. That contrast speaks to deeper historical conditioning and the psychological legacy of colonialism. It has not disappeared, and changing it will take time. The fundamental difference, however, lies in the intent and framing of their messages. Malema’s position on immigration is part of a broader effort to confront and address the structural inequalities created by colonial rule. Zille’s position, by contrast, can be seen as operating within and reinforcing an existing economic framework that has its roots in that same colonial architecture which feeds off cheap migrant labour. However, you can't fix the broken system by chasing away immigrants, legal or illegal, you can only empower black South Africans by allowing them to own the means of production and not fighting in the streets for crumbs. Have a lovely weekend.
6:23

You are confusing cause and effect, and in doing so, you are missing the deeper structural reality that is the central point of the argument. Migration in Africa does not happen in a vacuum. People do not wake up and casually decide to leave their homes, families, and countries for no apparent reason. Movement of people across colonial borders is driven by economic collapse, political instability, conflict, and governance failures, yes, but also by powerful historical forces that shaped those very conditions in the first place. Not everyone has the third eye to see those historical forces at play unless they read, comprehend and follow ideas and not populist demagoguery. Apartheid was not just a South African policy that ended in 1994. Its effects still live with South Africans to this very day. It was part of a wider political and more importantly economic system of racial capitalism that structured the region’s economy. What you fixed in 1994 was only the political and not the economic side of it. South Africa was designed as the industrial hub, while neighbouring countries were deliberately underdeveloped and turned into labour reserves for South Africa’s economy. Migrant labour from countries like Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Lesotho was not an accident at all, it was built into the system. It was designed that way and remains so to this very day. The owners of the means of production then remain the owners of the means of production today. Black people are largely still workers. You have a few token black individuals at the top, but the majority remain little more than exploited labour. So when people move from their countries today, they are often moving along routes that were created decades ago. The inequality between South Africa and its neighbours did not emerge overnight, and it is not simply the result of “African leaders” in isolation of other key factors. It is the continuation of a historical economic design that concentrated wealth in one place and poverty in others. That does not absolve African governments of responsibility. Many have failed their citizens through corruption, mismanagement, and repression. I write about this daily, and I have gone to prison three times in my lifetime for doing so. I have had to leave my country to save my life for doing so. But to reduce a complex, multi-layered issue to “it is African leaders” is intellectually lazy and historically dishonest. It ignores history, economics, and global power dynamics. As for Malema, whether you agree with him or not, his political skill lies in identifying how political and economic narratives are shaped and who benefits from them. He is pointing out that anger is often redirected away from the very systems of inequality and towards vulnerable people, migrants, who did not create those conditions. If you want a serious conversation, then deal with the full picture. Migration is about history, economics, governance, and global inequality. Blaming one factor while ignoring the rest is not analysis at all, it is deceitful propaganda. The economically and intellectually illiterate are often the easiest targets of political propaganda, precisely because they are fed simple, emotionally satisfying explanations for complex structural problems. They are told who to blame for their suffering, migrants, neighbouring countries, or vague notions of “outsiders”, while the real drivers, historical dispossession, entrenched economic inequality, and elite collusion, are deliberately obscured. In Southern Africa, and particularly in South Africa, this manifests in xenophobic narratives that blame Zimbabweans or Mozambicans for unemployment and poverty, when in reality those conditions are rooted in a long standing economic architecture that concentrated wealth and ownership in very few hands. It is easier to turn the poor against the poor than to confront systems that benefit those in power. What is often forgotten in this debate is that the political elites of colonial South Africa and Rhodesia worked in concert to sustain a repressive regional system that enriched a minority while extracting labour and resources from the rest. Your former apartheid Prime Minister John Vorster says it in this video in a very tactful manner. That logic has not disappeared at all, it has merely changed form. Today, segments of the political elite in both South Africa and Zimbabwe continue to operate in ways that protect entrenched economic interests while the majority remain economically marginalised. South Africa was the only true white settler “home”, where wealth, infrastructure, and industry were concentrated, while territories like Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), and Nyasaland (Malawi) functioned largely as economic outposts, feeding capital, labour, and raw materials into that system. The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was presented as a project of regional integration, but in practice it reinforced patterns of extraction, with mining in Zambia, agriculture in Zimbabwe, and labour flows from Malawi all tied into a broader economic network dominated by South African capital. The same remains to this very day. The tragedy of focusing on Julius as the messenger rather than the message is something I speak about regularly, the need to focus on ideas and not personalities. You do not have to like Julius Malema. You do not have to agree with everything he says. All you need to do is focus on his message and interrogate it critically. I am not enslaved to Julius Malema’s ideas. I pick and choose what I agree with, and I am able to articulate a reasoned argument for both what I support and what I reject. You should do the same. One of the most powerful weapons of colonialism was the deliberate fragmentation of black people into small Bantustans, into isolated villages where communities were conditioned to view the next village with suspicion. In Rhodesia we had “reserves” and “keeps.” People from other Bantustans were treated as outsiders. That mentality was never dismantled, it still exists today. The idea of seeing others with suspicion simply because of an arbitrary line, a colonial border, remains deeply entrenched. Many do not fully appreciate how powerful and enduring that mentality and conditioning is. Yet when you look at the descendants of colonialists, they do not view each other through those same lenses. White Zimbabweans move into South Africa without attracting the same hostility because of the economic architecture that allows them to stay away from the so called lumpen. White people from across the world come and settle with ease in South Africa. In fact, one of the most visible figures advocating for the secession of the Western Cape is a British citizen, yet there is no comparable outrage from black South Africans. The same energy of protests and marches that is directed at fellow Africans is rarely directed there. That is not accidental at all, it is well designed that way. It speaks to the protection afforded by entrenched economic power and privilege, but also to a deeper psychological conditioning in how black people are taught to see each other and to see whiteness. This will not disappear overnight. It may not even disappear in my lifetime. But the task is to keep planting the seeds of awareness and unity. As Bob Marley said, you give your more to get your little. What you do today may seem small, but in time it contributes to something much larger, especially if there is collective effort to confront and resolve these divisions. One of the most important things colonialists understood was that education is the key to discernment, to the ability to interrogate and understand issues such as those I raised in this essay. That is precisely why they restricted access to it. Only a few black people were allowed meaningful education, and the consequences of that exclusion remain with us today, not only in South Africa but across much of the continent. We did not dismantle the systems that underpinned colonialism. We largely inherited them, changed the faces at the top, and continued to operate within the same structures. So I will end by saying this, if anyone truly wants change on the issues being debated, you must fix the foundation. You cannot repair window panes when the foundation itself is cracking. Immigration, whether legal or illegal, will always exist, but it is sustained not by foreigners alone, but by the system itself. When Zimbabweans cross the border without passports, they are often enabled by South Africans within a broken system. When documents are obtained illegally, it is again the system that enables it. When Zimbabwe’s political crisis persists without free and fair elections, regional dynamics, including South Africa’s political and economic interests, often play a role in sustaining that status quo. There is a web of political and economic interests that mirrors, in some respects, the relationships that existed during the colonial and apartheid eras. As long as those interests remain, there is little incentive for those in power to confront injustice decisively. The corruption and governance failures in Zimbabwe are real and significant, but they are part of a broader structural problem. The real issue is the foundation. If black South Africans were living well, with access to quality education, meaningful employment, and economic security, they would not be marching in the streets. The anger you see today is not simply about immigration. It is a reflection of an economic structure that has remained fundamentally unchanged, even after 1994. Repression underpinned by racism in Rhodesia effectively came to an end when South Africa shifted its position and recognised that the system was no longer sustainable. The same principle applies today. Repression underpinned by political corruption in Zimbabwe will begin to end the day South Africa, the regional power whether one accepts it or not, decides that the current situation is no longer acceptable. Zimbabwe’s crisis has, over time, been treated as a largely domestic issue rather than a regional one, yet the political and economic realities of Southern Africa make that distinction artificial. What happens in Zimbabwe does not exist in isolation, it is shaped, sustained, and, at times, enabled by regional dynamics, particularly South Africa’s stance. This may be an uncomfortable truth, but history consistently shows that regional power centres play a decisive role in determining outcomes. Ignoring that reality does not change it, it only delays the moment when it must be confronted. It was convenient then for John Vorster and successive apartheid regimes to continue using illegal migrants as a source of cheap labour in South Africa for menial jobs. It remains the same today. As I have said, the political and economic architecture of the apartheid era largely remains in place. What has changed are the political faces, the white faces that held power then and the black faces that hold office today, often operating within and alongside the same entrenched economic structures. Whether one accepts it or not, that is the reality of our politics in the region and of the economic architecture that continues to shape it. There is a reason why certain political actors avoid critically engaging with the structural drivers of immigration, particularly those that sustain flows of cheap labour. There is also a reason why figures like Helen Zille often emphasise the need to document illegal immigrants in South Africa, that position can be understood within the broader context of preserving an economic order that has long depended on controlling and managing labour rather than fundamentally transforming the conditions that produce it. That economic order is rooted in historical structures of concentrated power that shaped not only South Africa, but the wider region more than a century ago. How black Africans view themselves is often reflected in how they respond to political messages. It is why some are quick to criticise Julius Malema for positions that are, in substance, not fundamentally different from those expressed by Helen Zille. On immigration, there is significant overlap in what has been said across the political spectrum, including by the DA and the EFF. Yet the EFF is frequently viewed through a lens of hostility, in part because it is a black-led party, and that perception shapes the reaction it receives. As a result, some black citizens, influenced by long-standing narratives, direct harsher and more emotive criticism towards it. When similar points are made by figures like Helen Zille, the response is often markedly different. That contrast speaks to deeper historical conditioning and the psychological legacy of colonialism. It has not disappeared, and changing it will take time. The fundamental difference, however, lies in the intent and framing of their messages. Malema’s position on immigration is part of a broader effort to confront and address the structural inequalities created by colonial rule. Zille’s position, by contrast, can be seen as operating within and reinforcing an existing economic framework that has its roots in that same colonial architecture which feeds off cheap migrant labour. However, you can't fix the broken system by chasing away immigrants, legal or illegal, you can only empower black South Africans by allowing them to own the means of production and not fighting in the streets for crumbs. Have a lovely weekend.

Hopewell Chin’ono

21,194 views • 3 months ago

50 years ago yesterday: U.N. General Assembly adopts initial draft resolution declaring Zionism to be “a form of racism.” U.S. Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan delivered this historic speech when the infamous act was ratified on Nov. 10, 1975: 🇺🇸 “There appears to have developed in the United Nations the practice for a number of countries to combine for the purpose of doing something outrageous, and thereafter, the outrageous thing having been done, to profess themselves outraged by those who have the temerity to point it out, and subsequently to declare themselves innocent of any wrong-doing in consequence of its having been brought about wholly in reaction to the “insufferable” acts of those who pointed the wrong-doing out in the first place. Out of deference to these curious sensibilities, the United States chose not to speak in advance of this vote: we speak in its aftermath and in tones of the utmost concern. The United States rises to declare before the General Assembly of the United Nations, and before the world, that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act. Not three weeks ago, the United States Representative in the Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Committee pleaded in measured and fully considered terms for the United Nations not to do this thing. It was, he said, “obscene.” It is something more today, for the furtiveness with which this obscenity first appeared among us has been replaced by a shameless openness. There will be time enough to contemplate the harm this act will have done the United Nations. Historians will do that for us, and it is sufficient for the moment only to note the foreboding fact. A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of anti-semitism — as this year’s Nobel Peace Laureate Andrei Sakharov observed in Moscow just a few days ago — the Abomination of anti-semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction. The General Assembly today grants symbolic amnesty — and more — to the murderers of the six million European Jews. Evil enough in itself, but more ominous by far is the realization that now presses upon us — the realization that if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened. As this day will live in infamy, it behooves those who sought to avert it to declare their thoughts so that historians will know that we fought here, that we were not small in number — not this time — and that while we lost, we fought with full knowledge of what indeed would be lost. Nor should any historian of the event, nor yet any who have participated in it, suppose, that we have fought only as governments, as chancelleries, and on an issue well removed from the concerns of our respective peoples. Others will speak for their nations: I will speak for mine. In all our postwar history there had not been another issue which has brought forth such unanimity of American opinion. The President of the United States has from the first been explicit: This must not happen. The Congress of the United States in a measure unanimously adopted in the Senate and sponsored by 436 of 437 Representatives in the House, declared its utter opposition. Following only American Jews themselves, the American trade union movements was first to the fore in denouncing this infamous undertaking. Next, one after another, the great private institutions of American life pronounced anathema in this evil thing — and most particularly, the Christian churches have done so. Reminded that the United Nations was born in struggle against just such abominations as we are committing today — the wartime alliance of the United Nations dates from 1942 — the United Nations Association of the United States has for the first time in its history appealed directly to each of the 141 other delegations in New York not to do this unspeakable thing. The proposition to be sanctioned by a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations is that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” Now this is a lie. But as it is a lie which the United Nations has now declared to be a truth, the actual truth must be restated. The very first point to be made is that the United Nations has declared Zionism to be racism — without ever having defined racism. “Sentence first — verdict afterwards,” as the Queen of Hearts said. But this is not wonderland, but a real world, where there are real consequences to folly and to venality. Just on Friday, the President of the General Assembly, speaking on behalf of Luxembourg, warned not only of the trouble which would follow from the adoption of this resolution but of its essential irresponsibility — for, he noted, members have wholly different ideas as to what they are condemning. “It seems to me that before a body like this takes a decision they should agree very clearly on what they are approving or condemning, and it takes more time.” Lest I be unclear, the United Nations has in fact on several occasions defined “racial discrimination.” The definitions have been loose, but recognizable. It is “racism,” incomparably the more serious charge — racial discrimination is a practice; racism is a doctrine — which has never been defined. Indeed, the term has only recently appeared in the United Nations General Assembly documents. The one occasion on which we know the meaning to have been discussed was the 1644th meeting of the Third Committee on December 16, 1968, in connection with the report of the Secretary-General on the status of the international convention on the elimination of all racial discrimination. On that occasion — to give some feeling for the intellectual precision with which the matter was being treated — the question arose, as to what should be the relative positioning of the terms “racism” and “Nazism” in a number of the “preambular paragraphs.” The distinguished delegate from Tunisia argued that “racism” should go first because “Nazism was merely a form of racism.” Not so, said the no less distinguished delegate from the Union Soviet Socialist Republics. For, he explained, “Nazism contained the main elements of racism within its ambit and should be mentioned first.” This is to say that racism was merely a form of Nazism. The discussion wound to its weary and inconclusive end, and we are left with nothing to guide us for even this one discussion of “racism” confined itself to world orders in preambular paragraphs, and did not at all touch on the meaning of the words as such. Still, one cannot but ponder the situation we have made for ourselves in the context of the Soviet statement on that not so distant occasion. If, as the distinguished delegate declared, racism is a form of Nazism — and if, as this resolution declares, Zionism is a form of racism — then we have step to step taken ourselves to the point of proclaiming — the United Nations is solemnly proclaiming — that Zionism is a form of Nazism. What we have here is a lie — a political lie of a variety well known to the twentieth century, and scarcely exceeded in all that annal of untruth and outrage. The lie is that Zionism is a form of racism. The overwhelmingly clear truth is that is it not. The word “racism” is a creation of the English language, and relatively new to it. It is not, for instance, to be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (appears in 1982 supplement to Oxford Dictionary). The term derives from relatively new doctrines — all of them discredited — concerning the human population of the world, to the effect that there are significant biological differences among clearly identifiable groups, and that these differences establish, in effect, different levels of humanity. Racism, as defined in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, is “The Assumption that . . . traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another.” It further involves “a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to dominate over others.” This meaning is clear. It is equally clear that this assumption, this belief, has always been altogether alien to the political and religious movement known as Zionism. As a strictly political movement, Zionism was established only in 1897, although there is a clearly legitimate sense in which its origins are indeed ancient. For example, many branches of Christianity have always held that from the standpoint of biblical prophets, Israel would be reborn one day. But the modern Zionism movement arose in Europe in the context of a general upsurge of national consciousness and aspiration that overtook most other people of Central and Eastern Europe after 1848, and that in time spread to all of Africa and Asia. It was, to those persons of the Jewish religion, a Jewish form of what today is called a national liberation movement. Probably a majority of those persons who became active Zionists and sought to emigrate to Palestine were born within the confines of Czarist Russia, and it was only natural for Soviet Prime Minister Andrei Gromyko to deplore, as he did in 1948, in the 299th meeting of the Security Council, the act by Israel’s neighbors of “sending troops into Palestine and carrying out military operations aimed” — in Mr. Gromyko’s words — at the suppression of the national liberation movement in Palestine.” Now it was the singular nature — if, I am not mistaken, it was the unique nature — of this national liberation movement that in contrast with the movements that preceded it, those of that time, and those that have come since, it defined its members in terms not of birth, but of belief. That is to say, it was not a movement of the Irish to free Ireland, or of the Polish to free Poland, not a movement of the Algerians to free Algeria, nor of Indians to free India. It was not a movement of persons connected by historic membership to a genetic pool of the kind that enables us to speak loosely but not meaninglessly, say, of the Chinese people, nor yet of diverse groups occupying the same territory which enables us to speak if the American people with no greater indignity to truth. To the contrary, Zionists defined themselves merely as Jews, and declared to be Jewish anyone born of a Jewish mother or — and this is the absolutely crucial fact — anyone who converted to Judaism. Which is to say, in terms of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the 20th General Assembly, anyone — regardless of “race, colour, descent, or nationally or ethnic origin …..” The state of Israel, which in time was the creation of the Zionist Movement, has been extraordinary in nothing so much as the range of “racial stocks” from which it Orient and Jew from the West. Most such persons could be said to have been “born” Jewish, just as most Presbyterians and most Hindus are “born” to their faith, but there are many Jews who are just converts. With a consistency in the matter which surely attests to the importance of this issue to that religions and political culture, Israeli courts have held that a Jew who converts to another religion is no longer a Jew. In the meantime the population of Israel also includes large numbers of non-Jews, among them Arabs of both the Muslim and Christian religions and Christians of other national origins. Many of these persons are citizens of Israel, and those who are not can become citizens by legal procedures very much like those which obtain in a typical nation of Western Europe. Now I should wish to be understood that I am here making one point, and one point only, which is that whatever else Zionism may be, it is not and cannot be “a form of racism.” In logic, the State of Israel could be, or could become, many things, theoretically, including many things undesirable, but it could not be and could not become racism unless it ceased to be Zionist. Indeed, the idea that Jews are a “race” was invented not by Jews but by those who hated Jews. The idea of Jews as a race was invented by nineteenth century anti-semites such as Houston Steward Chamberlain and Edouard Drumont, who saw that in an increasingly secular age, which is to say an age made for fewer distinctions between people, the old religions grounds for anti-semitism were losing force. New justifications were needed for excluding and persecuting Jews, and so the new idea of Jews as a race — rather than as a religion — was born. It was a contemptible idea at the beginning, and no civilized person would be associated with it. To think that it is an idea now endorsed by the United Nations is to reflect on what civilization has come to. It is precisely a concern for civilization, for civilized values that are or should be precious to all mankind, that arouses us at this moment to such special passion. What we have at stake here is not merely the honor and the legitimacy of the State of Israel — although a challenge to the legitimacy of any member nation ought always to arouse the vigilance of all members of the United Nations. For a yet more important matter is at issue, which is the integrity of the whole body of moral and legal precepts which we know as human rights. The terrible lie that has been told here today will have terrible consequences. Not only will people begin to say, indeed they have already begun to say that the United Nations is a place where lies are told, but far more serious, grave and perhaps irreparable harm will be done to the cause of human rights itself. The harm will arise first because it will strip from racism the precise and abhorrent meaning that it still precariously holds today. How will the people of the world feel about racism and the need to struggle against it, when they are told that it is an idea as broad as to include the Jewish national liberation movement? As the lie spreads, it will do harm in a second way. Many of the members of the United Nations owe their independence in no small part to the notion of human rights, as it has spread from the domestic sphere to the international sphere exercised its influence over the old colonial powers. We are now coming into a time when that independence is likely to be threatened again. There will be new forces, some of them arising now, new prophets and new despots, who will justify their actions with the help of just such distortions of words as we have sanctioned here today. Today we have drained the word “racism” of its meaning. Tomorrow, terms like “national self-determination” and “national honor” will be perverted in the same way to serve the purposes of conquest and exploitation. And when these claims begin to be made — as they already have begun to be made — it is the small nations of the world whose integrity will suffer. And how will the small nations of the world defend themselves, on what grounds will others be moved to defend and protect them, when the language of human rights, the only language by which the small can be defended, is no longer believed and no longer has a power of its own? There is this danger, and then a final danger that is the most serious of all. Which is that the damage we now do to the idea of human rights and the language of human rights could well be irreversible. The idea of human rights as we know it today is not an idea which has always existed in human affairs, it is an idea which appeared at a specific time in the world, and under very special circumstances. It appeared when European philosophers of the seventeenth century began to argue that man was a being whose existence was independent from that of the State, that he need join a political community only if he did not lose by that association more than he gained. From this very specific political philosophy stemmed the idea of political rights, of claims that the individual could justly make against the state; it was because the individual was seen as so separate from the State that he could make legitimate demands upon it. That was the philosophy from which the idea of domestic and international rights sprang. But most of the world does not hold with that philosophy now. Most of the world believes in newer modes of political thought, in philosophies that do not accept the individual as distinct from and prior to the State, in philosophies that therefore do not provide any justification for the idea of human rights and philosophies that have no words by which to explain their value. If we destroy the words that were given to us by past centuries, we will not have words to replace them, for philosophy today has no such words. But there are those of us who have not forsaken these older words, still so new to much of the world. Not forsaken them now, not here, not anywhere, not ever. The United States of America declares that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.”
24:35

50 years ago yesterday: U.N. General Assembly adopts initial draft resolution declaring Zionism to be “a form of racism.” U.S. Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan delivered this historic speech when the infamous act was ratified on Nov. 10, 1975: 🇺🇸 “There appears to have developed in the United Nations the practice for a number of countries to combine for the purpose of doing something outrageous, and thereafter, the outrageous thing having been done, to profess themselves outraged by those who have the temerity to point it out, and subsequently to declare themselves innocent of any wrong-doing in consequence of its having been brought about wholly in reaction to the “insufferable” acts of those who pointed the wrong-doing out in the first place. Out of deference to these curious sensibilities, the United States chose not to speak in advance of this vote: we speak in its aftermath and in tones of the utmost concern. The United States rises to declare before the General Assembly of the United Nations, and before the world, that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act. Not three weeks ago, the United States Representative in the Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Committee pleaded in measured and fully considered terms for the United Nations not to do this thing. It was, he said, “obscene.” It is something more today, for the furtiveness with which this obscenity first appeared among us has been replaced by a shameless openness. There will be time enough to contemplate the harm this act will have done the United Nations. Historians will do that for us, and it is sufficient for the moment only to note the foreboding fact. A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of anti-semitism — as this year’s Nobel Peace Laureate Andrei Sakharov observed in Moscow just a few days ago — the Abomination of anti-semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction. The General Assembly today grants symbolic amnesty — and more — to the murderers of the six million European Jews. Evil enough in itself, but more ominous by far is the realization that now presses upon us — the realization that if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened. As this day will live in infamy, it behooves those who sought to avert it to declare their thoughts so that historians will know that we fought here, that we were not small in number — not this time — and that while we lost, we fought with full knowledge of what indeed would be lost. Nor should any historian of the event, nor yet any who have participated in it, suppose, that we have fought only as governments, as chancelleries, and on an issue well removed from the concerns of our respective peoples. Others will speak for their nations: I will speak for mine. In all our postwar history there had not been another issue which has brought forth such unanimity of American opinion. The President of the United States has from the first been explicit: This must not happen. The Congress of the United States in a measure unanimously adopted in the Senate and sponsored by 436 of 437 Representatives in the House, declared its utter opposition. Following only American Jews themselves, the American trade union movements was first to the fore in denouncing this infamous undertaking. Next, one after another, the great private institutions of American life pronounced anathema in this evil thing — and most particularly, the Christian churches have done so. Reminded that the United Nations was born in struggle against just such abominations as we are committing today — the wartime alliance of the United Nations dates from 1942 — the United Nations Association of the United States has for the first time in its history appealed directly to each of the 141 other delegations in New York not to do this unspeakable thing. The proposition to be sanctioned by a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations is that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” Now this is a lie. But as it is a lie which the United Nations has now declared to be a truth, the actual truth must be restated. The very first point to be made is that the United Nations has declared Zionism to be racism — without ever having defined racism. “Sentence first — verdict afterwards,” as the Queen of Hearts said. But this is not wonderland, but a real world, where there are real consequences to folly and to venality. Just on Friday, the President of the General Assembly, speaking on behalf of Luxembourg, warned not only of the trouble which would follow from the adoption of this resolution but of its essential irresponsibility — for, he noted, members have wholly different ideas as to what they are condemning. “It seems to me that before a body like this takes a decision they should agree very clearly on what they are approving or condemning, and it takes more time.” Lest I be unclear, the United Nations has in fact on several occasions defined “racial discrimination.” The definitions have been loose, but recognizable. It is “racism,” incomparably the more serious charge — racial discrimination is a practice; racism is a doctrine — which has never been defined. Indeed, the term has only recently appeared in the United Nations General Assembly documents. The one occasion on which we know the meaning to have been discussed was the 1644th meeting of the Third Committee on December 16, 1968, in connection with the report of the Secretary-General on the status of the international convention on the elimination of all racial discrimination. On that occasion — to give some feeling for the intellectual precision with which the matter was being treated — the question arose, as to what should be the relative positioning of the terms “racism” and “Nazism” in a number of the “preambular paragraphs.” The distinguished delegate from Tunisia argued that “racism” should go first because “Nazism was merely a form of racism.” Not so, said the no less distinguished delegate from the Union Soviet Socialist Republics. For, he explained, “Nazism contained the main elements of racism within its ambit and should be mentioned first.” This is to say that racism was merely a form of Nazism. The discussion wound to its weary and inconclusive end, and we are left with nothing to guide us for even this one discussion of “racism” confined itself to world orders in preambular paragraphs, and did not at all touch on the meaning of the words as such. Still, one cannot but ponder the situation we have made for ourselves in the context of the Soviet statement on that not so distant occasion. If, as the distinguished delegate declared, racism is a form of Nazism — and if, as this resolution declares, Zionism is a form of racism — then we have step to step taken ourselves to the point of proclaiming — the United Nations is solemnly proclaiming — that Zionism is a form of Nazism. What we have here is a lie — a political lie of a variety well known to the twentieth century, and scarcely exceeded in all that annal of untruth and outrage. The lie is that Zionism is a form of racism. The overwhelmingly clear truth is that is it not. The word “racism” is a creation of the English language, and relatively new to it. It is not, for instance, to be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (appears in 1982 supplement to Oxford Dictionary). The term derives from relatively new doctrines — all of them discredited — concerning the human population of the world, to the effect that there are significant biological differences among clearly identifiable groups, and that these differences establish, in effect, different levels of humanity. Racism, as defined in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, is “The Assumption that . . . traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another.” It further involves “a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to dominate over others.” This meaning is clear. It is equally clear that this assumption, this belief, has always been altogether alien to the political and religious movement known as Zionism. As a strictly political movement, Zionism was established only in 1897, although there is a clearly legitimate sense in which its origins are indeed ancient. For example, many branches of Christianity have always held that from the standpoint of biblical prophets, Israel would be reborn one day. But the modern Zionism movement arose in Europe in the context of a general upsurge of national consciousness and aspiration that overtook most other people of Central and Eastern Europe after 1848, and that in time spread to all of Africa and Asia. It was, to those persons of the Jewish religion, a Jewish form of what today is called a national liberation movement. Probably a majority of those persons who became active Zionists and sought to emigrate to Palestine were born within the confines of Czarist Russia, and it was only natural for Soviet Prime Minister Andrei Gromyko to deplore, as he did in 1948, in the 299th meeting of the Security Council, the act by Israel’s neighbors of “sending troops into Palestine and carrying out military operations aimed” — in Mr. Gromyko’s words — at the suppression of the national liberation movement in Palestine.” Now it was the singular nature — if, I am not mistaken, it was the unique nature — of this national liberation movement that in contrast with the movements that preceded it, those of that time, and those that have come since, it defined its members in terms not of birth, but of belief. That is to say, it was not a movement of the Irish to free Ireland, or of the Polish to free Poland, not a movement of the Algerians to free Algeria, nor of Indians to free India. It was not a movement of persons connected by historic membership to a genetic pool of the kind that enables us to speak loosely but not meaninglessly, say, of the Chinese people, nor yet of diverse groups occupying the same territory which enables us to speak if the American people with no greater indignity to truth. To the contrary, Zionists defined themselves merely as Jews, and declared to be Jewish anyone born of a Jewish mother or — and this is the absolutely crucial fact — anyone who converted to Judaism. Which is to say, in terms of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the 20th General Assembly, anyone — regardless of “race, colour, descent, or nationally or ethnic origin …..” The state of Israel, which in time was the creation of the Zionist Movement, has been extraordinary in nothing so much as the range of “racial stocks” from which it Orient and Jew from the West. Most such persons could be said to have been “born” Jewish, just as most Presbyterians and most Hindus are “born” to their faith, but there are many Jews who are just converts. With a consistency in the matter which surely attests to the importance of this issue to that religions and political culture, Israeli courts have held that a Jew who converts to another religion is no longer a Jew. In the meantime the population of Israel also includes large numbers of non-Jews, among them Arabs of both the Muslim and Christian religions and Christians of other national origins. Many of these persons are citizens of Israel, and those who are not can become citizens by legal procedures very much like those which obtain in a typical nation of Western Europe. Now I should wish to be understood that I am here making one point, and one point only, which is that whatever else Zionism may be, it is not and cannot be “a form of racism.” In logic, the State of Israel could be, or could become, many things, theoretically, including many things undesirable, but it could not be and could not become racism unless it ceased to be Zionist. Indeed, the idea that Jews are a “race” was invented not by Jews but by those who hated Jews. The idea of Jews as a race was invented by nineteenth century anti-semites such as Houston Steward Chamberlain and Edouard Drumont, who saw that in an increasingly secular age, which is to say an age made for fewer distinctions between people, the old religions grounds for anti-semitism were losing force. New justifications were needed for excluding and persecuting Jews, and so the new idea of Jews as a race — rather than as a religion — was born. It was a contemptible idea at the beginning, and no civilized person would be associated with it. To think that it is an idea now endorsed by the United Nations is to reflect on what civilization has come to. It is precisely a concern for civilization, for civilized values that are or should be precious to all mankind, that arouses us at this moment to such special passion. What we have at stake here is not merely the honor and the legitimacy of the State of Israel — although a challenge to the legitimacy of any member nation ought always to arouse the vigilance of all members of the United Nations. For a yet more important matter is at issue, which is the integrity of the whole body of moral and legal precepts which we know as human rights. The terrible lie that has been told here today will have terrible consequences. Not only will people begin to say, indeed they have already begun to say that the United Nations is a place where lies are told, but far more serious, grave and perhaps irreparable harm will be done to the cause of human rights itself. The harm will arise first because it will strip from racism the precise and abhorrent meaning that it still precariously holds today. How will the people of the world feel about racism and the need to struggle against it, when they are told that it is an idea as broad as to include the Jewish national liberation movement? As the lie spreads, it will do harm in a second way. Many of the members of the United Nations owe their independence in no small part to the notion of human rights, as it has spread from the domestic sphere to the international sphere exercised its influence over the old colonial powers. We are now coming into a time when that independence is likely to be threatened again. There will be new forces, some of them arising now, new prophets and new despots, who will justify their actions with the help of just such distortions of words as we have sanctioned here today. Today we have drained the word “racism” of its meaning. Tomorrow, terms like “national self-determination” and “national honor” will be perverted in the same way to serve the purposes of conquest and exploitation. And when these claims begin to be made — as they already have begun to be made — it is the small nations of the world whose integrity will suffer. And how will the small nations of the world defend themselves, on what grounds will others be moved to defend and protect them, when the language of human rights, the only language by which the small can be defended, is no longer believed and no longer has a power of its own? There is this danger, and then a final danger that is the most serious of all. Which is that the damage we now do to the idea of human rights and the language of human rights could well be irreversible. The idea of human rights as we know it today is not an idea which has always existed in human affairs, it is an idea which appeared at a specific time in the world, and under very special circumstances. It appeared when European philosophers of the seventeenth century began to argue that man was a being whose existence was independent from that of the State, that he need join a political community only if he did not lose by that association more than he gained. From this very specific political philosophy stemmed the idea of political rights, of claims that the individual could justly make against the state; it was because the individual was seen as so separate from the State that he could make legitimate demands upon it. That was the philosophy from which the idea of domestic and international rights sprang. But most of the world does not hold with that philosophy now. Most of the world believes in newer modes of political thought, in philosophies that do not accept the individual as distinct from and prior to the State, in philosophies that therefore do not provide any justification for the idea of human rights and philosophies that have no words by which to explain their value. If we destroy the words that were given to us by past centuries, we will not have words to replace them, for philosophy today has no such words. But there are those of us who have not forsaken these older words, still so new to much of the world. Not forsaken them now, not here, not anywhere, not ever. The United States of America declares that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.”

Hillel Neuer

68,720 views • 10 months ago

"I was calling it out a decade before many were even talking about it" - Jim McMahon MP James Ignatius O'Rourke McMahon posted this statement on Facebook. The Oldham MP insisting he is now a champion of victims of the Pakistani Rape Gangs is an outrageous falsehood. Behind the outright lies is a truth he hopes no one examines. McMahon does not mention that his entire defence of his record as Leader of Oldham Council depends on a single blog post from 2014. When he was the most powerful man in the borough, facing systematic failures in child protection, this obscure internal newsletter is all he has to show for it. A Blog Post is Not Leadership This 2014 blog post was internal council fluff. These leader’s blogs were routine internal bulletins. They were never intended as public warnings or policy interventions. They were political padding read by a very small number of staff and party loyalists. It was never promoted to residents, never raised in full council, never linked to any change in policy or practice. McMahon never used it to demand accountability from Greater Manchester Police or his own officers. The blog post proves nothing except his complete failure to act when children needed protection. McMahon now wants people to believe that this forgotten internal memo represents leadership. It is political theatre designed to salvage his reputation a decade too late. McMahon claims he was ahead of everyone. He even claimed that he was calling this out a decade before others were even talking about it. This is false. It insults the residents who fought to expose what he helped to hide. While he now pretends to have sounded early warnings, the record shows the opposite. He denied the truth. He attacked anyone who raised concerns. He smeared whistleblowers as extremists. He worked with officials and broadcasters to control the narrative. His supposed decade of action amounts to nothing more than a single internal memo that no one saw and no one acted upon. Any council leader who genuinely cared about child sexual exploitation had real power available. His failures fall into two categories. 1. What he had the power to do. McMahon could have ordered immediate internal reviews, commissioned independent investigations and demanded full police disclosure. He could have called emergency council meetings, challenged the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub and required scrutiny committees to take evidence in public. 2. What he had the responsibility to do. He should also have provided moral and political leadership. He had the authority to warn parents, protect whistleblowers and establish specialist CSE task forces. He should have stood with survivors and refused to allow identity politics to silence them. He should have confronted senior officers, raised national alarms, forced council votes and exposed the missing minutes that revealed what officials already knew. McMahon chose to do none of these things. A forgotten newsletter stands in for his leadership because the truth is worse. This was not simply neglect. It was active cooperation in shaping a narrative that hid the truth. Formal reviews and information disclosures have shown how coordinated messaging operated between local leaders and national broadcasters. McMahon worked with the BBC to help conceal what was happening in shisha bars. His team did not stop at hiding these events. They celebrated the fact that they had succeeded. Powerful adults negotiated narratives while children faced the consequences alone. Institutions concealed the truth while the real cost was borne by the children of this town. Children Paid the Price While McMahon was writing newsletters, children in Oldham were being exploited in shisha bars. Offenders approached vulnerable girls outside school gates. When children went missing, teachers had to collect them from addresses already known to the authorities. These failures are now part of the documented record. They have been confirmed in formal reviews and are no longer disputed by any agency. The system failed completely under McMahon's tenure. Agencies refused to intervene. Political leaders discouraged scrutiny at the moments when children most needed protection. The truth emerged in spite of McMahon and his allies. Ordinary residents exposed what happened while those in power tried to silence them. McMahon spent years attacking anyone who spoke out. Even now, McMahon will not allow public scrutiny. He has disabled and deleted comments on his Facebook post. The instinct has not changed. Control who can speak. Shape the narrative. Keep criticism out of sight. If the public does not challenge this behaviour, history will be rewritten by the very people who helped bury it. Children feared coming forward because they knew they would be dismissed, disbelieved or branded racist for telling the truth. This was the culture that kept survivors silent. McMahon and politicians like him created that environment. They found it easier to destroy whistleblowers than confront their own failures. Public trust in Oldham’s institutions has collapsed for this reason. Not because of critics but because leaders put politics above the safety of children. The Evidence Was Always There For years McMahon insisted there was no evidence of a cover up. The scale of the investigations now underway shows how outrageous those denials always were. The evidence is overwhelming. The National Crime Agency is reviewing more than one thousand two hundred files across twenty three police forces going back to 2010. Greater Manchester has two hundred and thirty six cases under reassessment. Operation Beaconpoint is active. Operation Sherwood exists only because even Andy Burnham’s rigged Assurance Review finally accepted the evidence. Sherwood has produced only showcase arrests. There have been no charges, convictions and no form of accountability. The scale of the ongoing review is not progress. It is an indictment of a decade of denial. McMahon’s reaction follows a familiar pattern. When evidence surfaced he denied it. When critics spoke out he attacked them. When survivors came forward he used identity politics to discredit them. When accountability was demanded he shifted blame. Now that the truth cannot be denied he attempts to rebuild his image with selective history and social media spin. Justice, Not Revisionism McMahon is now engaged in an extraordinary attempt at revisionism. He wants to present himself as the hero of a story in which he acted as the villain. He and his allies spent years trying to silence, discredit and destroy anyone who exposed the truth. If they had succeeded the abuse would still be hidden. Survivors would still be voiceless. The cover up would be intact. He attacked those who exposed the truth. He protected the system that failed children. He enabled a culture of silence and intimidation. He did everything except protect the children. The fight is no longer about proving what happened. The evidence is beyond dispute. The fight now is ensuring that McMahon and those like him face consequences for their failures. Children were gang raped while he produced blog posts. Communities were betrayed while he managed his image. Survivors were silenced while he protected his political career. McMahon believes he can escape accountability through Facebook statements and political spin. He believes voters will forget what he did and what he refused to do when children needed him most. What happens next depends on whether the public honours the truth or accepts the rewrite. Oldham deserves the truth and it deserves accountability. That begins by refusing to let politicians rewrite the past. The failures seen in Oldham were repeated across the country. More than one hundred thousand children were affected in towns and cities nationwide. McMahon is not the only political figure involved. There are countless others, all now struggling to rewrite their roles as heroic rather than complicit. The pattern is identical in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Newcastle and many other places. Deny the truth. Attack the critics. Protect reputations. Claim credit when the truth finally emerges. This is not only a CSE scandal. It is a crisis of truth, trust and governance in modern Britain. The country is beginning to wake up. The truth is no longer theirs to control. They will all try to rewrite history to make themselves the heroes. Only if we let them. They'll Rewrite History to Make Themselves the Heroes. Don't Let Them. This inquiry didn't happen because the government suddenly found its moral compass. It was dragged into existence by survivors who wouldn't shut up, whistleblowers who refused to disappear, and a public tired of being lied to. For years, they fought against it. Now they'll fight to control it. Watch how it unfolds. Limited scope. Sanitised language. Politicians rewriting history as if they are the saviours. Meanwhile, evidence will mysteriously vanish, key witnesses will develop sudden memory loss. And when it's over, they'll package it all up as "lessons learned." The whitewash has already begun. The only question is whether we let them get away with it. I am Raja Miah. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. So now the question is: will you stand with me and help make sure the National Inquiry we have all fought for is not a whitewash? We’re running out of time. Without the numbers, they will win. It’s as simple as that. 🔴 Subscribe to my newsletter – it’s free. Or support the work for just 75p a week (£3/month or £30/year). Whatever you do, please subscribe; 👉 This is the fight. This is the moment. There will not be another 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 No corporate sponsors. No party machine. Just you and thousands of ordinary people who know what’s at stake. We’ve come this far. Help finish it. - Raja Miah MBE
23:32

"I was calling it out a decade before many were even talking about it" - Jim McMahon MP James Ignatius O'Rourke McMahon posted this statement on Facebook. The Oldham MP insisting he is now a champion of victims of the Pakistani Rape Gangs is an outrageous falsehood. Behind the outright lies is a truth he hopes no one examines. McMahon does not mention that his entire defence of his record as Leader of Oldham Council depends on a single blog post from 2014. When he was the most powerful man in the borough, facing systematic failures in child protection, this obscure internal newsletter is all he has to show for it. A Blog Post is Not Leadership This 2014 blog post was internal council fluff. These leader’s blogs were routine internal bulletins. They were never intended as public warnings or policy interventions. They were political padding read by a very small number of staff and party loyalists. It was never promoted to residents, never raised in full council, never linked to any change in policy or practice. McMahon never used it to demand accountability from Greater Manchester Police or his own officers. The blog post proves nothing except his complete failure to act when children needed protection. McMahon now wants people to believe that this forgotten internal memo represents leadership. It is political theatre designed to salvage his reputation a decade too late. McMahon claims he was ahead of everyone. He even claimed that he was calling this out a decade before others were even talking about it. This is false. It insults the residents who fought to expose what he helped to hide. While he now pretends to have sounded early warnings, the record shows the opposite. He denied the truth. He attacked anyone who raised concerns. He smeared whistleblowers as extremists. He worked with officials and broadcasters to control the narrative. His supposed decade of action amounts to nothing more than a single internal memo that no one saw and no one acted upon. Any council leader who genuinely cared about child sexual exploitation had real power available. His failures fall into two categories. 1. What he had the power to do. McMahon could have ordered immediate internal reviews, commissioned independent investigations and demanded full police disclosure. He could have called emergency council meetings, challenged the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub and required scrutiny committees to take evidence in public. 2. What he had the responsibility to do. He should also have provided moral and political leadership. He had the authority to warn parents, protect whistleblowers and establish specialist CSE task forces. He should have stood with survivors and refused to allow identity politics to silence them. He should have confronted senior officers, raised national alarms, forced council votes and exposed the missing minutes that revealed what officials already knew. McMahon chose to do none of these things. A forgotten newsletter stands in for his leadership because the truth is worse. This was not simply neglect. It was active cooperation in shaping a narrative that hid the truth. Formal reviews and information disclosures have shown how coordinated messaging operated between local leaders and national broadcasters. McMahon worked with the BBC to help conceal what was happening in shisha bars. His team did not stop at hiding these events. They celebrated the fact that they had succeeded. Powerful adults negotiated narratives while children faced the consequences alone. Institutions concealed the truth while the real cost was borne by the children of this town. Children Paid the Price While McMahon was writing newsletters, children in Oldham were being exploited in shisha bars. Offenders approached vulnerable girls outside school gates. When children went missing, teachers had to collect them from addresses already known to the authorities. These failures are now part of the documented record. They have been confirmed in formal reviews and are no longer disputed by any agency. The system failed completely under McMahon's tenure. Agencies refused to intervene. Political leaders discouraged scrutiny at the moments when children most needed protection. The truth emerged in spite of McMahon and his allies. Ordinary residents exposed what happened while those in power tried to silence them. McMahon spent years attacking anyone who spoke out. Even now, McMahon will not allow public scrutiny. He has disabled and deleted comments on his Facebook post. The instinct has not changed. Control who can speak. Shape the narrative. Keep criticism out of sight. If the public does not challenge this behaviour, history will be rewritten by the very people who helped bury it. Children feared coming forward because they knew they would be dismissed, disbelieved or branded racist for telling the truth. This was the culture that kept survivors silent. McMahon and politicians like him created that environment. They found it easier to destroy whistleblowers than confront their own failures. Public trust in Oldham’s institutions has collapsed for this reason. Not because of critics but because leaders put politics above the safety of children. The Evidence Was Always There For years McMahon insisted there was no evidence of a cover up. The scale of the investigations now underway shows how outrageous those denials always were. The evidence is overwhelming. The National Crime Agency is reviewing more than one thousand two hundred files across twenty three police forces going back to 2010. Greater Manchester has two hundred and thirty six cases under reassessment. Operation Beaconpoint is active. Operation Sherwood exists only because even Andy Burnham’s rigged Assurance Review finally accepted the evidence. Sherwood has produced only showcase arrests. There have been no charges, convictions and no form of accountability. The scale of the ongoing review is not progress. It is an indictment of a decade of denial. McMahon’s reaction follows a familiar pattern. When evidence surfaced he denied it. When critics spoke out he attacked them. When survivors came forward he used identity politics to discredit them. When accountability was demanded he shifted blame. Now that the truth cannot be denied he attempts to rebuild his image with selective history and social media spin. Justice, Not Revisionism McMahon is now engaged in an extraordinary attempt at revisionism. He wants to present himself as the hero of a story in which he acted as the villain. He and his allies spent years trying to silence, discredit and destroy anyone who exposed the truth. If they had succeeded the abuse would still be hidden. Survivors would still be voiceless. The cover up would be intact. He attacked those who exposed the truth. He protected the system that failed children. He enabled a culture of silence and intimidation. He did everything except protect the children. The fight is no longer about proving what happened. The evidence is beyond dispute. The fight now is ensuring that McMahon and those like him face consequences for their failures. Children were gang raped while he produced blog posts. Communities were betrayed while he managed his image. Survivors were silenced while he protected his political career. McMahon believes he can escape accountability through Facebook statements and political spin. He believes voters will forget what he did and what he refused to do when children needed him most. What happens next depends on whether the public honours the truth or accepts the rewrite. Oldham deserves the truth and it deserves accountability. That begins by refusing to let politicians rewrite the past. The failures seen in Oldham were repeated across the country. More than one hundred thousand children were affected in towns and cities nationwide. McMahon is not the only political figure involved. There are countless others, all now struggling to rewrite their roles as heroic rather than complicit. The pattern is identical in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Newcastle and many other places. Deny the truth. Attack the critics. Protect reputations. Claim credit when the truth finally emerges. This is not only a CSE scandal. It is a crisis of truth, trust and governance in modern Britain. The country is beginning to wake up. The truth is no longer theirs to control. They will all try to rewrite history to make themselves the heroes. Only if we let them. They'll Rewrite History to Make Themselves the Heroes. Don't Let Them. This inquiry didn't happen because the government suddenly found its moral compass. It was dragged into existence by survivors who wouldn't shut up, whistleblowers who refused to disappear, and a public tired of being lied to. For years, they fought against it. Now they'll fight to control it. Watch how it unfolds. Limited scope. Sanitised language. Politicians rewriting history as if they are the saviours. Meanwhile, evidence will mysteriously vanish, key witnesses will develop sudden memory loss. And when it's over, they'll package it all up as "lessons learned." The whitewash has already begun. The only question is whether we let them get away with it. I am Raja Miah. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. So now the question is: will you stand with me and help make sure the National Inquiry we have all fought for is not a whitewash? We’re running out of time. Without the numbers, they will win. It’s as simple as that. 🔴 Subscribe to my newsletter – it’s free. Or support the work for just 75p a week (£3/month or £30/year). Whatever you do, please subscribe; 👉 This is the fight. This is the moment. There will not be another 🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution? 👉 👉 No corporate sponsors. No party machine. Just you and thousands of ordinary people who know what’s at stake. We’ve come this far. Help finish it. - Raja Miah MBE

Raja Miah

22,710 views • 9 months ago

When Judge Napolitano asked me on his show how Syria ended up with Abu Mohammed al-Jolani as its “president,” I could almost hear the cognitive dissonance on the other side of the screen. How does a man who was once the emir of al-Qaeda in Syria, a co-founder of ISIS by any reasonable historical reading of his trajectory, become Washington’s chosen man in Damascus? For me, the answer is not a mystery. It is the logical end of a dirty war that began not with Syrian protesters in 2011, but in an American-run prison camp in Iraq years earlier. And if anyone still suspected this was “just a conspiracy theory,” a former CIA officer – John Kiriakou, who went to prison for exposing CIA torture – has now said publicly what many of us have long argued: Jolani is, in all likelihood, a CIA asset. Let’s start with the timeline, because the timeline alone already screams “intelligence operation.” Abu Mohammed al-Jolani was in a CIA-run prison in Iraq – Camp Bucca – alongside another familiar name: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Both men were released in early 2011. “Coincidentally,” that is exactly when the regime-change war in Syria begins. Within weeks, Baghdadi goes on to lead what becomes ISIS, and Jolani crosses into Syria to found Jabhat al-Nusra – officially al-Qaeda’s franchise in my country. Washington designates Nusra a terrorist organization. The UN follows suit. On paper, Jolani is the enemy. The State Department even slaps a $10 million bounty on his head. But bounties are cheap. Cruise missiles are expensive. And for over a decade, while the US flattened cities in Iraq and Syria allegedly to fight “terrorism,” it somehow never found the time, or the coordinates, to seriously target Jolani or his core command structure, even though he controlled large swaths of Syrian territory from Aleppo countryside all the way to Idlib. Because Jolani and his men were fighting the one government Washington had already decided must go: the Syrian state under Bashar al-Assad. This is where Operation Timber Sycamore comes in: a multi-billion-dollar CIA covert program that funneled weapons, money, and training to so-called “rebels” in Syria. They were sold to Western audiences as “moderate opposition.” On the ground, those moderates were a disappearing species. What existed in reality were hardline Salafi-jihadist factions, with Nusra at the top of the food chain. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) was the mask, the logo on the paperwork, the brand name you could sell to Congress and CNN. The real muscle on the ground was Jolani’s men and other takfiri groups, who did the actual fighting, took the actual territory, and imposed their version of rule. Weapons went “to the moderates.” The moderates magically handed them to al-Qaeda. Everyone in Washington pretended to be surprised. No one stopped the pipeline. Over the years, the mask slipped. US officials themselves began to speak of Jolani as something more than just a former enemy. James Jeffrey, Washington’s former envoy to Syria, openly called Jolani “an asset” for US strategy – not my word, his. Robert Ford, the former US ambassador to Syria, has publicly admitted that he personally worked with Jolani to “take him out of the world of terrorism” and polish him into a politician. Think about what that means: the same US that claims to be fighting an endless war against al-Qaeda quietly devotes diplomatic energy to rehabilitating the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda into a partner, a useful strongman, a future head of state. I said on the show, and I repeat it here: I believe Jolani was recruited in Camp Bucca. The timeline makes no sense otherwise. You don’t walk out of an American-run prison and, weeks later, magically have the networks, the money, the arms, and the logistical capacity to found al-Qaeda in Syria, right at the moment when Washington and its allies need a battering ram against Damascus. Recently, former CIA director David Petraeus even sat with Jolani and told him, “Your success is our success.” What more do people need? A signed employment contract? But let’s assume, for a moment, that you still think this is a stretch. Enter John Kiriakou. Kiriakou is not a YouTuber chasing clicks. He is a former CIA officer who went to prison because he exposed the torture program and named the torturers. His loyalty is clearly not to the Agency’s PR department. Recently, on Unfettered Speech, he described the Jolani situation bluntly. Here is the essence of what he said, which Judge Napolitano played on air: -The “new president” of Syria is a former al-Qaeda member and a co-founder of ISIS. -This same man is welcomed at the White House. -Senior US officials, including the Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East, travel to meet him. -President Trump suddenly lifts sanctions on Syria as Jolani consolidates power, prompting Syrians – desperate and exhausted – to dance in the streets. The only thing that makes sense is that Jolani is a CIA asset, per Kiriakou’s. When a former CIA officer who has already sacrificed his career and freedom to tell the truth looks at the pattern and says, “This is our guy,” it is not a conspiracy theory anymore. Now, you may ask, why would the United States and its allies back such a man? The answer lies in what Syria used to be, and what it has now been turned into. Before this war, Syria, for all its flaws, was a horizontally integrated state. People identified themselves as Syrian first and then Armenian, Druze, Christian, Alawite, Sunni, Shi’a, Kurdish, and so on. The state’s foreign policy aligned with Iran and Hezbollah, supported Palestinian factions, and kept a real deterrent posture toward Israel. For Washington and Tel Aviv, this was unacceptable. The goal was not “democracy”; that word is just wrapping paper. The real objective was to remove a government allied with Iran and replace it with a fragmented landscape: a weak central authority in Damascus, surrounded by sectarian cantons and warlord enclaves, all dependent on foreign patrons. Jolani is perfect for this role. For Israel, he brings vertical division. A man with a long al-Qaeda pedigree ruling Syria is a nightmare for minorities: Christians, Druze, Alawites, Shi’a, many Kurds, and other smaller communities. They will not accept al-Qaeda rule. So they retreat into their own militias, their own cantons, their own de facto mini-states, exactly in line with old Israeli strategic doctrines like the Yinon Plan, which openly advocated fragmenting neighboring states along sectarian lines. On the ground, we already see it: -Druze militias running their own affairs in the south with quiet Israeli backing. -Kurdish forces in the northeast under US protection, managing their own autonomous zone. -Alawites discussing an autonomous coastal enclave. -Christians living in silence and fear. You don’t need formal borders on a map to balkanize a country. When I, as a Syrian of Armenian origin, stop thinking of myself as Syrian first and start thinking purely as Armenian, when I instinctively fear my neighbor because he is from another sect, the balkanization has already happened in the mind. For Washington, Jolani is equally “useful.” He has promised to normalize relations with Israel, to open Syria’s markets to Western capital, and to hand over the country’s resources from the hydrocarbons east of the Euphrates to the gas fields under the Mediterranean to American and allied companies. A 24-million-person country reduced to a reconstruction market: $300 billion worth of contracts, infrastructure projects, and “investments.” But for investors to feel safe, they need a strongman in Damascus who can project the illusion of stability while remaining utterly dependent on foreign protection. That strongman, in their design, is Abu Mohammed al-Jolani. But Jolani is not acting alone. Around him is a constellation of Western intelligence veterans and “conflict resolution” NGOs acting as intermediaries. British MI6 circles, under figures like Jonathan Powell – former chief of staff to Tony Blair – are central in managing this process. Powell runs an organization called Inter Mediate, which specializes in “talking to armed groups.” Behind the humanitarian language lies political engineering. One of Inter Mediate’s operatives, a woman named Clare Haigh, is now said to have an office inside the Syrian presidential palace, advising Jolani on how to talk, how to dress, how to handle journalists, how to sell himself as a reformed jihadist turned statesman. And then there is Qatar. Ahmed Zaidan – once Osama bin Laden’s favorite journalist, photographed sipping tea with him and broadcasting his tapes on Al Jazeera – is now a personal adviser to Jolani. Make it make sense. An al-Qaeda emir, handled by US and British intelligence veterans, advised by bin Laden’s favorite media man, massaged by Western PR consultants, welcomed in Washington, and crowned in Damascus as “president.” If you wrote this as fiction, an editor would tell you it’s too on the nose. Since Jolani took power through an international and regional deal that pushed Assad aside, over 11,000 people have been killed. Many of them are from the very minorities the West loves to mention in speeches but abandons in practice. Videos circulate of his fighters asking terrified villagers at gunpoint, “Are you Muslim or not?” and executing those who give the “wrong” answer, including Druze and Alawites who are not recognized as “true Muslims” by their extremist ideology. Christians, who had already suffered massive emigration between 2011 and 2024, are being squeezed further. They have no organized armed force, no foreign sponsor. They are expected either to live under the mercy of an al-Qaeda-bred regime or to leave the land of their ancestors. This is what Washington’s “asset management” looks like in human terms. If you are an American reading this, you might be tempted to say: “This cannot be. My government would never knowingly empower al-Qaeda.” But it already has, repeatedly. From Afghanistan in the 1980s, when US intelligence backed the Mujahideen (and, indirectly, their Arab foreign fighter allies), to Libya and Syria in the last decade, where jihadist factions were instrumentalized against secular or nationalist governments, the pattern is clear. The names and acronyms change. The logic does not. The same establishment that lectures the world on “democracy” and “human rights” is perfectly willing to install a man like Jolani as the ruler of one of the oldest civilizations on earth, as long as he delivers strategic gains: -breaking the Iran–Syria–Hezbollah axis; -fragmenting Syria into weak, controllable pieces; -opening its resources and markets to Western and Gulf capital; -and giving Israel unprecedented strategic depth and security. Everything else – the massacres, the ethnic cleansing, the collapse of national identity, the destruction of ancient communities – is treated as collateral damage. I am often asked what Syria will look like in five or ten years. I wish I could answer with optimism. Right now, the forces pushing to turn my country into a permanent vassal state – ruled by a former al-Qaeda emir, policed by foreign intelligence, exploited by foreign capital – are incredibly strong. But nothing in this region is permanent. People who come to power by cutting off other people’s heads often lose their own. If there are still sane voices left in Western politics – people like Tulsi Gabbard 🌺, whom I mentioned on air – they must at least recognize this insanity: backing an al-Qaeda emir as “our man in Damascus” is not just immoral; it is ultimately self-destructive. Syria does not need Jolani. The West does not need Jolani. There are Syrians who can have friendly relations with the United States without being former al-Qaeda commanders, without murdering their own people, without turning an ancient nation into a laboratory for extremist social engineering. The question is not whether such alternatives exist. They do. The question is whether Washington and its allies want a sovereign, stable Syria, or whether they prefer a shattered, cantonized carcass kept alive just enough for the next “asset” to feed on.
22:55

When Judge Napolitano asked me on his show how Syria ended up with Abu Mohammed al-Jolani as its “president,” I could almost hear the cognitive dissonance on the other side of the screen. How does a man who was once the emir of al-Qaeda in Syria, a co-founder of ISIS by any reasonable historical reading of his trajectory, become Washington’s chosen man in Damascus? For me, the answer is not a mystery. It is the logical end of a dirty war that began not with Syrian protesters in 2011, but in an American-run prison camp in Iraq years earlier. And if anyone still suspected this was “just a conspiracy theory,” a former CIA officer – John Kiriakou, who went to prison for exposing CIA torture – has now said publicly what many of us have long argued: Jolani is, in all likelihood, a CIA asset. Let’s start with the timeline, because the timeline alone already screams “intelligence operation.” Abu Mohammed al-Jolani was in a CIA-run prison in Iraq – Camp Bucca – alongside another familiar name: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Both men were released in early 2011. “Coincidentally,” that is exactly when the regime-change war in Syria begins. Within weeks, Baghdadi goes on to lead what becomes ISIS, and Jolani crosses into Syria to found Jabhat al-Nusra – officially al-Qaeda’s franchise in my country. Washington designates Nusra a terrorist organization. The UN follows suit. On paper, Jolani is the enemy. The State Department even slaps a $10 million bounty on his head. But bounties are cheap. Cruise missiles are expensive. And for over a decade, while the US flattened cities in Iraq and Syria allegedly to fight “terrorism,” it somehow never found the time, or the coordinates, to seriously target Jolani or his core command structure, even though he controlled large swaths of Syrian territory from Aleppo countryside all the way to Idlib. Because Jolani and his men were fighting the one government Washington had already decided must go: the Syrian state under Bashar al-Assad. This is where Operation Timber Sycamore comes in: a multi-billion-dollar CIA covert program that funneled weapons, money, and training to so-called “rebels” in Syria. They were sold to Western audiences as “moderate opposition.” On the ground, those moderates were a disappearing species. What existed in reality were hardline Salafi-jihadist factions, with Nusra at the top of the food chain. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) was the mask, the logo on the paperwork, the brand name you could sell to Congress and CNN. The real muscle on the ground was Jolani’s men and other takfiri groups, who did the actual fighting, took the actual territory, and imposed their version of rule. Weapons went “to the moderates.” The moderates magically handed them to al-Qaeda. Everyone in Washington pretended to be surprised. No one stopped the pipeline. Over the years, the mask slipped. US officials themselves began to speak of Jolani as something more than just a former enemy. James Jeffrey, Washington’s former envoy to Syria, openly called Jolani “an asset” for US strategy – not my word, his. Robert Ford, the former US ambassador to Syria, has publicly admitted that he personally worked with Jolani to “take him out of the world of terrorism” and polish him into a politician. Think about what that means: the same US that claims to be fighting an endless war against al-Qaeda quietly devotes diplomatic energy to rehabilitating the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda into a partner, a useful strongman, a future head of state. I said on the show, and I repeat it here: I believe Jolani was recruited in Camp Bucca. The timeline makes no sense otherwise. You don’t walk out of an American-run prison and, weeks later, magically have the networks, the money, the arms, and the logistical capacity to found al-Qaeda in Syria, right at the moment when Washington and its allies need a battering ram against Damascus. Recently, former CIA director David Petraeus even sat with Jolani and told him, “Your success is our success.” What more do people need? A signed employment contract? But let’s assume, for a moment, that you still think this is a stretch. Enter John Kiriakou. Kiriakou is not a YouTuber chasing clicks. He is a former CIA officer who went to prison because he exposed the torture program and named the torturers. His loyalty is clearly not to the Agency’s PR department. Recently, on Unfettered Speech, he described the Jolani situation bluntly. Here is the essence of what he said, which Judge Napolitano played on air: -The “new president” of Syria is a former al-Qaeda member and a co-founder of ISIS. -This same man is welcomed at the White House. -Senior US officials, including the Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East, travel to meet him. -President Trump suddenly lifts sanctions on Syria as Jolani consolidates power, prompting Syrians – desperate and exhausted – to dance in the streets. The only thing that makes sense is that Jolani is a CIA asset, per Kiriakou’s. When a former CIA officer who has already sacrificed his career and freedom to tell the truth looks at the pattern and says, “This is our guy,” it is not a conspiracy theory anymore. Now, you may ask, why would the United States and its allies back such a man? The answer lies in what Syria used to be, and what it has now been turned into. Before this war, Syria, for all its flaws, was a horizontally integrated state. People identified themselves as Syrian first and then Armenian, Druze, Christian, Alawite, Sunni, Shi’a, Kurdish, and so on. The state’s foreign policy aligned with Iran and Hezbollah, supported Palestinian factions, and kept a real deterrent posture toward Israel. For Washington and Tel Aviv, this was unacceptable. The goal was not “democracy”; that word is just wrapping paper. The real objective was to remove a government allied with Iran and replace it with a fragmented landscape: a weak central authority in Damascus, surrounded by sectarian cantons and warlord enclaves, all dependent on foreign patrons. Jolani is perfect for this role. For Israel, he brings vertical division. A man with a long al-Qaeda pedigree ruling Syria is a nightmare for minorities: Christians, Druze, Alawites, Shi’a, many Kurds, and other smaller communities. They will not accept al-Qaeda rule. So they retreat into their own militias, their own cantons, their own de facto mini-states, exactly in line with old Israeli strategic doctrines like the Yinon Plan, which openly advocated fragmenting neighboring states along sectarian lines. On the ground, we already see it: -Druze militias running their own affairs in the south with quiet Israeli backing. -Kurdish forces in the northeast under US protection, managing their own autonomous zone. -Alawites discussing an autonomous coastal enclave. -Christians living in silence and fear. You don’t need formal borders on a map to balkanize a country. When I, as a Syrian of Armenian origin, stop thinking of myself as Syrian first and start thinking purely as Armenian, when I instinctively fear my neighbor because he is from another sect, the balkanization has already happened in the mind. For Washington, Jolani is equally “useful.” He has promised to normalize relations with Israel, to open Syria’s markets to Western capital, and to hand over the country’s resources from the hydrocarbons east of the Euphrates to the gas fields under the Mediterranean to American and allied companies. A 24-million-person country reduced to a reconstruction market: $300 billion worth of contracts, infrastructure projects, and “investments.” But for investors to feel safe, they need a strongman in Damascus who can project the illusion of stability while remaining utterly dependent on foreign protection. That strongman, in their design, is Abu Mohammed al-Jolani. But Jolani is not acting alone. Around him is a constellation of Western intelligence veterans and “conflict resolution” NGOs acting as intermediaries. British MI6 circles, under figures like Jonathan Powell – former chief of staff to Tony Blair – are central in managing this process. Powell runs an organization called Inter Mediate, which specializes in “talking to armed groups.” Behind the humanitarian language lies political engineering. One of Inter Mediate’s operatives, a woman named Clare Haigh, is now said to have an office inside the Syrian presidential palace, advising Jolani on how to talk, how to dress, how to handle journalists, how to sell himself as a reformed jihadist turned statesman. And then there is Qatar. Ahmed Zaidan – once Osama bin Laden’s favorite journalist, photographed sipping tea with him and broadcasting his tapes on Al Jazeera – is now a personal adviser to Jolani. Make it make sense. An al-Qaeda emir, handled by US and British intelligence veterans, advised by bin Laden’s favorite media man, massaged by Western PR consultants, welcomed in Washington, and crowned in Damascus as “president.” If you wrote this as fiction, an editor would tell you it’s too on the nose. Since Jolani took power through an international and regional deal that pushed Assad aside, over 11,000 people have been killed. Many of them are from the very minorities the West loves to mention in speeches but abandons in practice. Videos circulate of his fighters asking terrified villagers at gunpoint, “Are you Muslim or not?” and executing those who give the “wrong” answer, including Druze and Alawites who are not recognized as “true Muslims” by their extremist ideology. Christians, who had already suffered massive emigration between 2011 and 2024, are being squeezed further. They have no organized armed force, no foreign sponsor. They are expected either to live under the mercy of an al-Qaeda-bred regime or to leave the land of their ancestors. This is what Washington’s “asset management” looks like in human terms. If you are an American reading this, you might be tempted to say: “This cannot be. My government would never knowingly empower al-Qaeda.” But it already has, repeatedly. From Afghanistan in the 1980s, when US intelligence backed the Mujahideen (and, indirectly, their Arab foreign fighter allies), to Libya and Syria in the last decade, where jihadist factions were instrumentalized against secular or nationalist governments, the pattern is clear. The names and acronyms change. The logic does not. The same establishment that lectures the world on “democracy” and “human rights” is perfectly willing to install a man like Jolani as the ruler of one of the oldest civilizations on earth, as long as he delivers strategic gains: -breaking the Iran–Syria–Hezbollah axis; -fragmenting Syria into weak, controllable pieces; -opening its resources and markets to Western and Gulf capital; -and giving Israel unprecedented strategic depth and security. Everything else – the massacres, the ethnic cleansing, the collapse of national identity, the destruction of ancient communities – is treated as collateral damage. I am often asked what Syria will look like in five or ten years. I wish I could answer with optimism. Right now, the forces pushing to turn my country into a permanent vassal state – ruled by a former al-Qaeda emir, policed by foreign intelligence, exploited by foreign capital – are incredibly strong. But nothing in this region is permanent. People who come to power by cutting off other people’s heads often lose their own. If there are still sane voices left in Western politics – people like Tulsi Gabbard 🌺, whom I mentioned on air – they must at least recognize this insanity: backing an al-Qaeda emir as “our man in Damascus” is not just immoral; it is ultimately self-destructive. Syria does not need Jolani. The West does not need Jolani. There are Syrians who can have friendly relations with the United States without being former al-Qaeda commanders, without murdering their own people, without turning an ancient nation into a laboratory for extremist social engineering. The question is not whether such alternatives exist. They do. The question is whether Washington and its allies want a sovereign, stable Syria, or whether they prefer a shattered, cantonized carcass kept alive just enough for the next “asset” to feed on.

Kevork Almassian

177,007 views • 8 months ago

Justice Has Yet to Be Served: Was Abdullah Al-Sakka, the UAE-Backed Rapid Support Militia Member Accused of Torturing Qisma Ali Omar to Death, Really Captured? On the evening of Thursday, July 30, and the morning of Friday, July 31, 2026, a video circulated showing several prisoners from the Rapid support mitltiia. They were reportedly captured by fighters from Sudan’s Joint Force during recent battles in North Kordofan. Sudanese social media accounts, along with several widely followed news platforms, quickly claimed that one of the men in the video was Abdullah Al-Sakka, whose name has been associated with one of the most painful and horrifying videos to emerge from Sudan’s war. In that video, a young woman named Qisma Ali Omar appeared suspended by her arms from a tree. Her legs were tied as her body swung while she endured severe pain and humiliation. Some commentators viewed reports of Al-Sakka’s capture as the beginning of justice for Qisma. Sudanese Echo therefore examined the available material. The investigation raised serious questions about the identity of the prisoner and suggested that claims announcing Abdullah Al-Sakka’s capture may have been premature. Qisma Ali Omar and the Crime That Shocked Sudan By September 11, 2025, the video showing the torture of Qisma Ali Omar had spread widely across Sudanese social media, provoking an enormous wave of anger. The footage showed a young woman tied to a tree with a rope. Her hands and legs were restrained in a scene that reflected deliberate cruelty and systematic humiliation. The victim was soon identified as Qisma Ali Omar, a young woman from Nyala who belonged to the Zaghawa community. During September 2025, her name became a symbol of grief and public outrage, as well as a powerful reminder of the crimes committed against civilians during Sudan’s war. According to accounts that circulated with the video, members of the Rapid support mitltiia accused Qisma of cooperating with their opponents after she sent a voice message in the Zaghawa language to one of her relatives. Reports indicate that she was tortured while suspended from the tree and later died. The man filming her could be heard questioning her and treating her with extreme cruelty, in footage that triggered outrage inside Sudan and beyond. During the same period, the Rapid support mitltiia acknowledged in a statement that the man visible in the video was wearing the uniform commonly used by its fighters. The militia denied that its members were involved and claimed that the footage had been fabricated. Open-source investigations conducted after the video circulated led researchers to an account bearing the name Abdullah Al-Sakka. Material posted on the account contained indications that its owner was directly connected to the Rapid support mitltiia. Images of the account owner were then compared with the man seen in the video of Qisma’s torture. These comparisons contributed to the widespread identification of Al-Sakka as the man accused of carrying out and filming the crime. The account had published 143 videos over several months. Some of the footage showed the man in Zalingei, Central Darfur, near facilities and locations used by the Rapid support mitltiia. Activists also circulated another video, reportedly filmed by a militia intelligence unit several days before Qisma’s torture. It appeared to show a young woman resembling Qisma being handed over to commanders from the Rapid support mitltiia. One person in the video can be heard saying: “This is the accused woman. She has now been handed over by Rapid Support intelligence.” The names of two men, Taha and Saeed, are also mentioned. The woman’s phone is shown, along with a reference to a personal photograph that was allegedly among the materials used to accuse her. Accounts differ regarding the allegation made against Qisma. Some reports linked it to a voice message, while the second video referred to a personal photograph. Neither account provides any justification for her unlawful detention, torture or humiliation. What happened to Qisma forms part of a wider pattern in which civilians are accused of supporting the Sudanese army, before those allegations are used to justify their arrest, abuse and public humiliation. Is the Prisoner in the Video Abdullah Al-Sakka? Sudanese Echo began its verification process by extracting the clearest available frames from the prisoners’ video. The images were enhanced and compared with several photographs of Abdullah Al-Sakka taken from his previous accounts. The investigation also used artificial intelligence tools to assist in comparing the visible facial characteristics of the two men. The preliminary results indicated that the likelihood of the prisoner being Abdullah Al-Sakka was low. Sudanese Echo treated this result with caution. Facial comparison tools can be affected by camera angles, lighting, video quality, image compression, changes in body weight, injuries and differences in facial expression. Image enhancement tools also have significant limitations when applied to low-quality footage. They cannot recover every original detail lost from the source material. Their results therefore cannot independently confirm or exclude a person’s identity. Even with these limitations, the technical result, visual examination and apparent differences between the men’s facial features all weakened the widely circulated claim regarding the prisoner’s identity. Sudanese Echo then contacted Sudanese military intelligence and requested official confirmation of the prisoner’s identity, including whether Abdullah Al-Sakka was among the group shown in the video. The publication had received no response by the time this report was prepared. Sudanese Echo subsequently reviewed the well-known account attributed to Abdullah Al-Sakka. No recent activity was found that could establish his current location or circumstances. The account’s most recent post was published in February 2026. The account’s inactivity does not establish that its owner was captured. It also provides no clear indication of whether he was killed, injured or had disappeared. During the investigation, Sudanese Echo found material published on July 9, 2026, showing a man believed to be Abdullah Al-Sakka with apparent injuries. The material can be viewed through the following link: The link leads to a post on a TikTok account with the username user7332654721704. The post was published approximately 22 days before the prisoners’ video appeared. This time difference provides an important point of reference when examining the visible differences between the two men, although it does not independently establish the prisoner’s identity. As the investigation continued, Sudanese Echo located another account that appeared to be associated with Abdullah Al-Sakka. The account had published new material only hours before this report was prepared. One of its recent posts can be accessed through the following link: The link leads to a video posted by a TikTok account with the username b276521. The continued activity on this account provides another indication that weakens the claim that Abdullah Al-Sakka is the prisoner shown in the video. At the same time, the account’s activity does not prove that Al-Sakka personally uploaded the recent material. The account may be managed by another person, the footage may be old and reposted, or the content may have been published on his behalf. Sudanese Echo therefore treated the account’s activity as a lead requiring further examination, rather than conclusive evidence of Al-Sakka’s location or current status. A further development emerged as the investigation expanded, this time concerning the prisoner’s identity directly. Sudanese Echo found posts published by accounts attributed to members or supporters of the Rapid support mitltiia. The posts called for the release of a man reportedly captured during fighting in North Kordofan. These accounts used the same prisoners’ video that had been published by the Joint Force and later circulated by other accounts claiming the prisoner was Abdullah Al-Sakka. When Sudanese Echo traced the name mentioned in the posts, the prisoner was identified as Gadim Hamdan Adam Koko. The publication also found that accounts supporting the Rapid support mitltiia had circulated the same video while demanding the release of Gadim Hamdan Adam Koko. They used the exact footage that other accounts had cited as evidence that the prisoner was Abdullah Al-Sakka. One of the relevant posts can be viewed through the following link: A visual review of the available material indicates that the facial features of Gadim Hamdan Adam Koko, as seen in the circulated posts, more closely resemble those of the prisoner than the available images of Abdullah Al-Sakka. This conclusion should still be treated carefully. Social media posts may contain inaccurate or incomplete information. Confirming the prisoner’s identity would require independent evidence, including official documents, clearer photographs or confirmation from a credible authority holding the individual. The association of Gadim Hamdan Adam Koko’s name with the same video represents a significant development in the verification process. It provides a plausible explanation for the prisoner’s identity and is consistent with the earlier findings showing that the evidence connecting the man in the video to Abdullah Al-Sakka was weak. Taken together, the visual and technical comparisons, the absence of official confirmation, the July 9 footage, the recent activity on the second account and the appearance of Gadim Hamdan Adam Koko’s name alongside the prisoners’ video indicate that the captive is most likely Gadim Hamdan Adam Koko. Justice for Qisma and Other Victims It is understandable that Sudanese people want to see everyone involved in the torture of Qisma and other victims brought before a court. Achieving that goal requires accurate information that protects the integrity of the evidence and assists investigators in identifying those genuinely responsible for the crime. Misidentifying a prisoner could give the real suspect an opportunity to disappear. It could also damage the credibility of the documentation and reduce a crime requiring a serious criminal investigation to a rapidly circulating emotional claim. Qisma Ali Omar’s killing forms part of a wider pattern of abuses committed by the Rapid support mitltiia against civilians. The militia’s ability to continue committing such crimes has been enabled by the military, financial and logistical support it receives from the United Arab Emirates. One fact remains established: Qisma appeared in an exceptionally brutal video, restrained and suspended from a tree. What happened to her demands an independent criminal investigation capable of identifying everyone involved in her detention, torture and filming. Justice requires the full truth to be established, the real perpetrators to be arrested, the evidence to be preserved, witnesses to be heard and those responsible to be brought before a fair court. Until that happens, the most accurate conclusion remains: Justice has yet to be served. #Sudan #RSFIsATerroristOrganisation #UAEKillsSudanesePeople #UAESponsorsTerrorism
4:10

Justice Has Yet to Be Served: Was Abdullah Al-Sakka, the UAE-Backed Rapid Support Militia Member Accused of Torturing Qisma Ali Omar to Death, Really Captured? On the evening of Thursday, July 30, and the morning of Friday, July 31, 2026, a video circulated showing several prisoners from the Rapid support mitltiia. They were reportedly captured by fighters from Sudan’s Joint Force during recent battles in North Kordofan. Sudanese social media accounts, along with several widely followed news platforms, quickly claimed that one of the men in the video was Abdullah Al-Sakka, whose name has been associated with one of the most painful and horrifying videos to emerge from Sudan’s war. In that video, a young woman named Qisma Ali Omar appeared suspended by her arms from a tree. Her legs were tied as her body swung while she endured severe pain and humiliation. Some commentators viewed reports of Al-Sakka’s capture as the beginning of justice for Qisma. Sudanese Echo therefore examined the available material. The investigation raised serious questions about the identity of the prisoner and suggested that claims announcing Abdullah Al-Sakka’s capture may have been premature. Qisma Ali Omar and the Crime That Shocked Sudan By September 11, 2025, the video showing the torture of Qisma Ali Omar had spread widely across Sudanese social media, provoking an enormous wave of anger. The footage showed a young woman tied to a tree with a rope. Her hands and legs were restrained in a scene that reflected deliberate cruelty and systematic humiliation. The victim was soon identified as Qisma Ali Omar, a young woman from Nyala who belonged to the Zaghawa community. During September 2025, her name became a symbol of grief and public outrage, as well as a powerful reminder of the crimes committed against civilians during Sudan’s war. According to accounts that circulated with the video, members of the Rapid support mitltiia accused Qisma of cooperating with their opponents after she sent a voice message in the Zaghawa language to one of her relatives. Reports indicate that she was tortured while suspended from the tree and later died. The man filming her could be heard questioning her and treating her with extreme cruelty, in footage that triggered outrage inside Sudan and beyond. During the same period, the Rapid support mitltiia acknowledged in a statement that the man visible in the video was wearing the uniform commonly used by its fighters. The militia denied that its members were involved and claimed that the footage had been fabricated. Open-source investigations conducted after the video circulated led researchers to an account bearing the name Abdullah Al-Sakka. Material posted on the account contained indications that its owner was directly connected to the Rapid support mitltiia. Images of the account owner were then compared with the man seen in the video of Qisma’s torture. These comparisons contributed to the widespread identification of Al-Sakka as the man accused of carrying out and filming the crime. The account had published 143 videos over several months. Some of the footage showed the man in Zalingei, Central Darfur, near facilities and locations used by the Rapid support mitltiia. Activists also circulated another video, reportedly filmed by a militia intelligence unit several days before Qisma’s torture. It appeared to show a young woman resembling Qisma being handed over to commanders from the Rapid support mitltiia. One person in the video can be heard saying: “This is the accused woman. She has now been handed over by Rapid Support intelligence.” The names of two men, Taha and Saeed, are also mentioned. The woman’s phone is shown, along with a reference to a personal photograph that was allegedly among the materials used to accuse her. Accounts differ regarding the allegation made against Qisma. Some reports linked it to a voice message, while the second video referred to a personal photograph. Neither account provides any justification for her unlawful detention, torture or humiliation. What happened to Qisma forms part of a wider pattern in which civilians are accused of supporting the Sudanese army, before those allegations are used to justify their arrest, abuse and public humiliation. Is the Prisoner in the Video Abdullah Al-Sakka? Sudanese Echo began its verification process by extracting the clearest available frames from the prisoners’ video. The images were enhanced and compared with several photographs of Abdullah Al-Sakka taken from his previous accounts. The investigation also used artificial intelligence tools to assist in comparing the visible facial characteristics of the two men. The preliminary results indicated that the likelihood of the prisoner being Abdullah Al-Sakka was low. Sudanese Echo treated this result with caution. Facial comparison tools can be affected by camera angles, lighting, video quality, image compression, changes in body weight, injuries and differences in facial expression. Image enhancement tools also have significant limitations when applied to low-quality footage. They cannot recover every original detail lost from the source material. Their results therefore cannot independently confirm or exclude a person’s identity. Even with these limitations, the technical result, visual examination and apparent differences between the men’s facial features all weakened the widely circulated claim regarding the prisoner’s identity. Sudanese Echo then contacted Sudanese military intelligence and requested official confirmation of the prisoner’s identity, including whether Abdullah Al-Sakka was among the group shown in the video. The publication had received no response by the time this report was prepared. Sudanese Echo subsequently reviewed the well-known account attributed to Abdullah Al-Sakka. No recent activity was found that could establish his current location or circumstances. The account’s most recent post was published in February 2026. The account’s inactivity does not establish that its owner was captured. It also provides no clear indication of whether he was killed, injured or had disappeared. During the investigation, Sudanese Echo found material published on July 9, 2026, showing a man believed to be Abdullah Al-Sakka with apparent injuries. The material can be viewed through the following link: The link leads to a post on a TikTok account with the username user7332654721704. The post was published approximately 22 days before the prisoners’ video appeared. This time difference provides an important point of reference when examining the visible differences between the two men, although it does not independently establish the prisoner’s identity. As the investigation continued, Sudanese Echo located another account that appeared to be associated with Abdullah Al-Sakka. The account had published new material only hours before this report was prepared. One of its recent posts can be accessed through the following link: The link leads to a video posted by a TikTok account with the username b276521. The continued activity on this account provides another indication that weakens the claim that Abdullah Al-Sakka is the prisoner shown in the video. At the same time, the account’s activity does not prove that Al-Sakka personally uploaded the recent material. The account may be managed by another person, the footage may be old and reposted, or the content may have been published on his behalf. Sudanese Echo therefore treated the account’s activity as a lead requiring further examination, rather than conclusive evidence of Al-Sakka’s location or current status. A further development emerged as the investigation expanded, this time concerning the prisoner’s identity directly. Sudanese Echo found posts published by accounts attributed to members or supporters of the Rapid support mitltiia. The posts called for the release of a man reportedly captured during fighting in North Kordofan. These accounts used the same prisoners’ video that had been published by the Joint Force and later circulated by other accounts claiming the prisoner was Abdullah Al-Sakka. When Sudanese Echo traced the name mentioned in the posts, the prisoner was identified as Gadim Hamdan Adam Koko. The publication also found that accounts supporting the Rapid support mitltiia had circulated the same video while demanding the release of Gadim Hamdan Adam Koko. They used the exact footage that other accounts had cited as evidence that the prisoner was Abdullah Al-Sakka. One of the relevant posts can be viewed through the following link: A visual review of the available material indicates that the facial features of Gadim Hamdan Adam Koko, as seen in the circulated posts, more closely resemble those of the prisoner than the available images of Abdullah Al-Sakka. This conclusion should still be treated carefully. Social media posts may contain inaccurate or incomplete information. Confirming the prisoner’s identity would require independent evidence, including official documents, clearer photographs or confirmation from a credible authority holding the individual. The association of Gadim Hamdan Adam Koko’s name with the same video represents a significant development in the verification process. It provides a plausible explanation for the prisoner’s identity and is consistent with the earlier findings showing that the evidence connecting the man in the video to Abdullah Al-Sakka was weak. Taken together, the visual and technical comparisons, the absence of official confirmation, the July 9 footage, the recent activity on the second account and the appearance of Gadim Hamdan Adam Koko’s name alongside the prisoners’ video indicate that the captive is most likely Gadim Hamdan Adam Koko. Justice for Qisma and Other Victims It is understandable that Sudanese people want to see everyone involved in the torture of Qisma and other victims brought before a court. Achieving that goal requires accurate information that protects the integrity of the evidence and assists investigators in identifying those genuinely responsible for the crime. Misidentifying a prisoner could give the real suspect an opportunity to disappear. It could also damage the credibility of the documentation and reduce a crime requiring a serious criminal investigation to a rapidly circulating emotional claim. Qisma Ali Omar’s killing forms part of a wider pattern of abuses committed by the Rapid support mitltiia against civilians. The militia’s ability to continue committing such crimes has been enabled by the military, financial and logistical support it receives from the United Arab Emirates. One fact remains established: Qisma appeared in an exceptionally brutal video, restrained and suspended from a tree. What happened to her demands an independent criminal investigation capable of identifying everyone involved in her detention, torture and filming. Justice requires the full truth to be established, the real perpetrators to be arrested, the evidence to be preserved, witnesses to be heard and those responsible to be brought before a fair court. Until that happens, the most accurate conclusion remains: Justice has yet to be served. #Sudan #RSFIsATerroristOrganisation #UAEKillsSudanesePeople #UAESponsorsTerrorism

Sudanese Echo

25,950 views • 24 days ago