This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
We will not tolerate foreign subservience.
Whoever you may be—when you become an agent of foreigners and work for them—the people reject you, and likewise the Islamic system rejects you.
And that one who sits arrogantly, issuing judgments on the whole world, must know that the tyrants and the arrogant throughout history—such as Pharaoh, Nimrod, Reza Khan, Mohammad Reza, and their likes—fell at the height of their pride. This one too will fall.
Last night, a group of saboteurs completely destroyed buildings belonging to their own country to please the American president.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
❤3
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍1
The Observer
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍1
Blood on America’s Streets: ICE Killing Sparks Nationwide Uprising
Category: Human Rights, Immigration Enforcement, Civil Unrest
Countries Involved: United States, Iran (comparative focus), Lebanon (axis of resistance perspective)
Organizations: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Trump Administration, Minneapolis City Government, Minnesota State Government, BORTAC (Border Patrol Tactical Unit)
Introduction
In early January 2026, the United States witnessed a wave of demonstrations following the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis resident, by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent. The incident, which occurred during a large-scale federal immigration operation, has ignited national outrage and intensified public distrust of federal enforcement agencies. Protests have erupted across multiple cities, framing the tragedy within the broader context of militarized immigration enforcement and the erosion of civil liberties.
1. Background on ICE and Federal Immigration Enforcement
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a principal agency under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is tasked with enforcing immigration laws, deportations, and investigative operations within the country’s interior. ICE employs tens of thousands of agents and contractors, and under the Trump administration, its presence has expanded dramatically. In Minneapolis and St. Paul, approximately 2,000 federal agents were deployed as part of an immigration crackdown, reflecting the administration’s aggressive stance on undocumented communities.
Immigration enforcement has long been controversial, particularly in sanctuary cities where local governments resist federal raids. Recent years have seen confrontations between ICE and immigrant communities, with critics accusing the agency of targeting vulnerable populations and undermining civil rights.
2. Identity of the Woman Killed: Renee Nicole Good
The victim, Renee Nicole Good, was a mother of three and a poet known within her Minneapolis community. On January 7, 2026, she was shot multiple times at close range by an ICE agent during a federal operation in south Minneapolis.
The DHS narrative claims Good attempted to weaponize her vehicle against agents, framing the shooting as self-defense. However, eyewitnesses and video evidence contradict this account, showing her SUV moving slowly and not aggressively toward officers. Local leaders have denounced the federal narrative as misleading and manipulative.
3. What Happened: The Incident Leading to the Shooting
The operation unfolded in Minneapolis, where DHS had stationed thousands of agents. Eyewitnesses reported chaotic instructions given to Good as agents surrounded her SUV. Within seconds, an ICE agent fired three shots into her vehicle.
Controversy deepened when federal authorities denied immediate medical assistance and seized control of evidence, sidelining state investigators. This federal dominance over the investigation has fueled accusations of cover-up and abuse of power.
4. Why Demonstrations Are Happening and Growing
Protests began in Minneapolis and quickly spread to Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix, and Tallahassee. Demonstrators demand:
• An end to federal immigration raids in residential neighborhoods.
• Transparent investigation and accountability for the ICE agent involved.
• A broader critique of Trump’s immigration policies and militarized tactics.
Communities already scarred by police violence, such as the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, view Good’s death as part of a systemic pattern of state violence against marginalized groups. The demonstrations thus represent both immediate outrage and historical continuity in resistance to state repression.
5. Trump Administration and Other Officials’ Response
The Trump administration labeled Good a “domestic terrorist,” insisting the shooting was self-defense. DHS echoed this narrative without independent verification.
Category: Human Rights, Immigration Enforcement, Civil Unrest
Countries Involved: United States, Iran (comparative focus), Lebanon (axis of resistance perspective)
Organizations: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Trump Administration, Minneapolis City Government, Minnesota State Government, BORTAC (Border Patrol Tactical Unit)
Introduction
In early January 2026, the United States witnessed a wave of demonstrations following the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis resident, by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent. The incident, which occurred during a large-scale federal immigration operation, has ignited national outrage and intensified public distrust of federal enforcement agencies. Protests have erupted across multiple cities, framing the tragedy within the broader context of militarized immigration enforcement and the erosion of civil liberties.
1. Background on ICE and Federal Immigration Enforcement
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a principal agency under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is tasked with enforcing immigration laws, deportations, and investigative operations within the country’s interior. ICE employs tens of thousands of agents and contractors, and under the Trump administration, its presence has expanded dramatically. In Minneapolis and St. Paul, approximately 2,000 federal agents were deployed as part of an immigration crackdown, reflecting the administration’s aggressive stance on undocumented communities.
Immigration enforcement has long been controversial, particularly in sanctuary cities where local governments resist federal raids. Recent years have seen confrontations between ICE and immigrant communities, with critics accusing the agency of targeting vulnerable populations and undermining civil rights.
2. Identity of the Woman Killed: Renee Nicole Good
The victim, Renee Nicole Good, was a mother of three and a poet known within her Minneapolis community. On January 7, 2026, she was shot multiple times at close range by an ICE agent during a federal operation in south Minneapolis.
The DHS narrative claims Good attempted to weaponize her vehicle against agents, framing the shooting as self-defense. However, eyewitnesses and video evidence contradict this account, showing her SUV moving slowly and not aggressively toward officers. Local leaders have denounced the federal narrative as misleading and manipulative.
3. What Happened: The Incident Leading to the Shooting
The operation unfolded in Minneapolis, where DHS had stationed thousands of agents. Eyewitnesses reported chaotic instructions given to Good as agents surrounded her SUV. Within seconds, an ICE agent fired three shots into her vehicle.
Controversy deepened when federal authorities denied immediate medical assistance and seized control of evidence, sidelining state investigators. This federal dominance over the investigation has fueled accusations of cover-up and abuse of power.
4. Why Demonstrations Are Happening and Growing
Protests began in Minneapolis and quickly spread to Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix, and Tallahassee. Demonstrators demand:
• An end to federal immigration raids in residential neighborhoods.
• Transparent investigation and accountability for the ICE agent involved.
• A broader critique of Trump’s immigration policies and militarized tactics.
Communities already scarred by police violence, such as the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, view Good’s death as part of a systemic pattern of state violence against marginalized groups. The demonstrations thus represent both immediate outrage and historical continuity in resistance to state repression.
5. Trump Administration and Other Officials’ Response
The Trump administration labeled Good a “domestic terrorist,” insisting the shooting was self-defense. DHS echoed this narrative without independent verification.
👍1
The Observer
Blood on America’s Streets: ICE Killing Sparks Nationwide Uprising Category: Human Rights, Immigration Enforcement, Civil Unrest Countries Involved: United States, Iran (comparative focus), Lebanon (axis of resistance perspective) Organizations: U.S. Immigration…
Local officials, however, pushed back. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey demanded ICE withdraw from the city, while Governor Tim Walz mobilized the National Guard to manage protests. State prosecutors urged citizens to submit evidence, fearing federal suppression of facts. Minneapolis Public Schools even canceled classes due to safety concerns amid mass mobilizations.
6. Trump’s Focus on Iranian Demonstrations Instead of Domestic Unrest
While domestic protests escalated, President Trump publicly emphasized Iranian demonstrations abroad, portraying them as democratic uprisings against Tehran. His administration amplified these narratives through official statements and social media, contrasting sharply with its dismissive stance toward domestic unrest.
This selective focus reveals political incentives: foreign demonstrations serve U.S. geopolitical strategy, while domestic protests challenge federal legitimacy. For international audiences, particularly within the axis of resistance, this hypocrisy underscores Washington’s double standards in championing “freedom” abroad while suppressing dissent at home.
7. BORTAC Involvement and Legal Questions
The Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC), a specialized arm of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, is trained for counterterrorism and high-risk operations. Though originally designed for border missions, BORTAC has been deployed domestically, including during the Portland protests of 2020.
Its involvement in Minneapolis raises legal and civil liberties concerns. While DHS regulations permit federal tactical deployments, critics argue such actions blur the line between law enforcement and military occupation, potentially violating the Posse Comitatus Act. The use of BORTAC against civilian demonstrators highlights the militarization of immigration enforcement and suppression of lawful protest.
8. Conclusion and Evidence Base
The killing of Renee Nicole Good has become a catalyst for nationwide demonstrations, exposing deep fractures in U.S. governance and public trust. Her death, disputed narratives, and the federal government’s heavy-handed response have galvanized communities demanding accountability and justice.
The Trump administration’s dismissal of domestic unrest, contrasted with its focus on Iranian protests, illustrates the political manipulation of dissent. Meanwhile, the deploymentl
of tactical units like BORTAC raises urgent questions about legality, civil liberties, and the militarization of immigration enforcement.
For international audiences and those aligned with the axis of resistance, these events reveal the contradictions of U.S. democracy: a state that claims to defend freedom abroad while silencing it at home
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
6. Trump’s Focus on Iranian Demonstrations Instead of Domestic Unrest
While domestic protests escalated, President Trump publicly emphasized Iranian demonstrations abroad, portraying them as democratic uprisings against Tehran. His administration amplified these narratives through official statements and social media, contrasting sharply with its dismissive stance toward domestic unrest.
This selective focus reveals political incentives: foreign demonstrations serve U.S. geopolitical strategy, while domestic protests challenge federal legitimacy. For international audiences, particularly within the axis of resistance, this hypocrisy underscores Washington’s double standards in championing “freedom” abroad while suppressing dissent at home.
7. BORTAC Involvement and Legal Questions
The Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC), a specialized arm of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, is trained for counterterrorism and high-risk operations. Though originally designed for border missions, BORTAC has been deployed domestically, including during the Portland protests of 2020.
Its involvement in Minneapolis raises legal and civil liberties concerns. While DHS regulations permit federal tactical deployments, critics argue such actions blur the line between law enforcement and military occupation, potentially violating the Posse Comitatus Act. The use of BORTAC against civilian demonstrators highlights the militarization of immigration enforcement and suppression of lawful protest.
8. Conclusion and Evidence Base
The killing of Renee Nicole Good has become a catalyst for nationwide demonstrations, exposing deep fractures in U.S. governance and public trust. Her death, disputed narratives, and the federal government’s heavy-handed response have galvanized communities demanding accountability and justice.
The Trump administration’s dismissal of domestic unrest, contrasted with its focus on Iranian protests, illustrates the political manipulation of dissent. Meanwhile, the deploymentl
of tactical units like BORTAC raises urgent questions about legality, civil liberties, and the militarization of immigration enforcement.
For international audiences and those aligned with the axis of resistance, these events reveal the contradictions of U.S. democracy: a state that claims to defend freedom abroad while silencing it at home
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍1
3.Jolani performs a dual function: restraining the Syrian state on the one hand, and containing or exhausting other factions—including Kurdish ones—on the other.
In other words, Jolani is not “out of control,” but rather part of a chaos-management equation.
Second: The Kurds Between the American Promise and Repeated Betrayal
Kurdish forces—particularly those affiliated with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)—once again find themselves in an extremely vulnerable position. Since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, the Kurdish card has been used first as a pressure tool against Damascus, then as a means to contain Iran, and finally as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Turkey.
The clashes with Jolani’s forces reveal that:
• Kurdish presence in northern Syria lacks strategic protection.
• U.S. support is conditional and temporary, receding whenever priorities shift.
• Kurds are repeatedly pushed into secondary conflicts that exhaust them and weaken their ability to impose a fair political settlement.
Each time, the same scenario is reproduced: support → exhaustion → abandonment.
Third: Why Aleppo?
Aleppo is not merely a major city; it is Syria’s economic and symbolic nexus. Controlling or destabilizing it means:
• Undermining any serious path toward reconstruction.
• Preventing Syria’s return as an economically coherent state.
• Keeping supply lines between Damascus and the north under constant threat.
Thus, reigniting tensions in Aleppo is not coincidental, but a political and security message: there is no stability without external consent.
Fourth: External Players — Who Manages the Conflict?
Turkey
Ankara plays a central role in northern Syria:
• Turning a blind eye to HTS expansion when it serves its interests.
• Using armed factions as leverage against both the Kurds and Damascus.
• Seeking to prevent the emergence of any stable Kurdish entity along its borders.
United States
Washington manages the conflict from behind the scenes:
• Militarily backing the SDF without providing genuine political cover.
• Using its military presence to prevent the Syrian state from restoring sovereignty over its entire territory.
• Leaving the field open for “controlled” confrontations between its proxies and their adversaries.
Israel
Tel Aviv is the silent beneficiary:
• Any exhaustion of Syria directly serves its interests.
• Continued chaos prevents the formation of a secure environment for the Axis of Resistance.
• Israeli airstrikes fit within the same context: preventing Syria’s strategic recovery.
Fifth: The Axis of Resistance Perspective
From the standpoint of the Axis of Resistance, what is unfolding in Aleppo is not a conflict between “Islamists” and “Kurds,” but a new chapter in the project of dismantling the Syrian state. This axis maintains that:
• Sovereignty is indivisible.
• Militias, regardless of shifts in rhetoric, remain tools.
• Any genuine solution must pass through the restoration of Syrian state authority, decision-making, and original borders—away from the control of Jolani’s gangs.
Sixth: Media — Whitening Jolani and Erasing Context
Western and Gulf media play a decisive role in:
• Reintroducing Jolani as a potential partner.
• Ignoring his violent record.
• Selectively highlighting Kurdish suffering when it serves political narratives, and silencing it when it does not.
This constitutes a psychological and media war no less dangerous than battlefield confrontations.
What Is Not Said About the Battle for Aleppo
Despite the abundance of media coverage, the essence of what occurred in Aleppo remains surrounded by striking silence, raising more questions than answers.
The manner in which HTS expanded, the timing of the clashes, and the absence of any effective deterrence suggest that what happened was not a sudden security breakdown, but an escalation allowed to occur within calculated margins.
In other words, Jolani is not “out of control,” but rather part of a chaos-management equation.
Second: The Kurds Between the American Promise and Repeated Betrayal
Kurdish forces—particularly those affiliated with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)—once again find themselves in an extremely vulnerable position. Since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, the Kurdish card has been used first as a pressure tool against Damascus, then as a means to contain Iran, and finally as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Turkey.
The clashes with Jolani’s forces reveal that:
• Kurdish presence in northern Syria lacks strategic protection.
• U.S. support is conditional and temporary, receding whenever priorities shift.
• Kurds are repeatedly pushed into secondary conflicts that exhaust them and weaken their ability to impose a fair political settlement.
Each time, the same scenario is reproduced: support → exhaustion → abandonment.
Third: Why Aleppo?
Aleppo is not merely a major city; it is Syria’s economic and symbolic nexus. Controlling or destabilizing it means:
• Undermining any serious path toward reconstruction.
• Preventing Syria’s return as an economically coherent state.
• Keeping supply lines between Damascus and the north under constant threat.
Thus, reigniting tensions in Aleppo is not coincidental, but a political and security message: there is no stability without external consent.
Fourth: External Players — Who Manages the Conflict?
Turkey
Ankara plays a central role in northern Syria:
• Turning a blind eye to HTS expansion when it serves its interests.
• Using armed factions as leverage against both the Kurds and Damascus.
• Seeking to prevent the emergence of any stable Kurdish entity along its borders.
United States
Washington manages the conflict from behind the scenes:
• Militarily backing the SDF without providing genuine political cover.
• Using its military presence to prevent the Syrian state from restoring sovereignty over its entire territory.
• Leaving the field open for “controlled” confrontations between its proxies and their adversaries.
Israel
Tel Aviv is the silent beneficiary:
• Any exhaustion of Syria directly serves its interests.
• Continued chaos prevents the formation of a secure environment for the Axis of Resistance.
• Israeli airstrikes fit within the same context: preventing Syria’s strategic recovery.
Fifth: The Axis of Resistance Perspective
From the standpoint of the Axis of Resistance, what is unfolding in Aleppo is not a conflict between “Islamists” and “Kurds,” but a new chapter in the project of dismantling the Syrian state. This axis maintains that:
• Sovereignty is indivisible.
• Militias, regardless of shifts in rhetoric, remain tools.
• Any genuine solution must pass through the restoration of Syrian state authority, decision-making, and original borders—away from the control of Jolani’s gangs.
Sixth: Media — Whitening Jolani and Erasing Context
Western and Gulf media play a decisive role in:
• Reintroducing Jolani as a potential partner.
• Ignoring his violent record.
• Selectively highlighting Kurdish suffering when it serves political narratives, and silencing it when it does not.
This constitutes a psychological and media war no less dangerous than battlefield confrontations.
What Is Not Said About the Battle for Aleppo
Despite the abundance of media coverage, the essence of what occurred in Aleppo remains surrounded by striking silence, raising more questions than answers.
The manner in which HTS expanded, the timing of the clashes, and the absence of any effective deterrence suggest that what happened was not a sudden security breakdown, but an escalation allowed to occur within calculated margins.
👍1
The Observer
3.Jolani performs a dual function: restraining the Syrian state on the one hand, and containing or exhausting other factions—including Kurdish ones—on the other. In other words, Jolani is not “out of control,” but rather part of a chaos-management equation.…
Once again, Kurdish forces appear as a party drawn into unequal confrontations, often based on external assurances that quickly evaporate—reflecting a recurring pattern of functional use followed by abandonment. In the background, questions persist regarding the roles of regional and international intelligence services, whose presence seems closer to deliberate observation than prevention or containment.
At the level of funding and armament, the continued ability of armed groups to maneuver and fight raises serious questions about support networks that remain active despite declared international oversight. Most importantly, the political timing of the escalation suggests that Aleppo is once again being used as a strategic obstruction tool whenever discussions of stability, reconstruction, or genuine restoration of Syrian sovereignty gain momentum.
In this sense, what occurred in Aleppo cannot be read as a local conflict between rival factions, but rather as another chapter in the management of chaos—where local actors are exhausted, the state is frozen, and Syria remains hostage to external equations whose tools change while their objective does not.
Conclusion: Where Is Aleppo Heading?
The latest clashes warn that Aleppo may once again become a long-term arena of attrition unless the logic of managed proxy wars is broken. The equation is clear:
Either a unified, sovereign state—or a mosaic of competing functional entities.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
At the level of funding and armament, the continued ability of armed groups to maneuver and fight raises serious questions about support networks that remain active despite declared international oversight. Most importantly, the political timing of the escalation suggests that Aleppo is once again being used as a strategic obstruction tool whenever discussions of stability, reconstruction, or genuine restoration of Syrian sovereignty gain momentum.
In this sense, what occurred in Aleppo cannot be read as a local conflict between rival factions, but rather as another chapter in the management of chaos—where local actors are exhausted, the state is frozen, and Syria remains hostage to external equations whose tools change while their objective does not.
Conclusion: Where Is Aleppo Heading?
The latest clashes warn that Aleppo may once again become a long-term arena of attrition unless the logic of managed proxy wars is broken. The equation is clear:
Either a unified, sovereign state—or a mosaic of competing functional entities.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍1
1. Summary
* Military Escalation: On January 7, 2026, Syrian government forces under President Ahmed al-Sharaa launched a major military operation against the Kurdish-majority neighborhoods of Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafiyeh in Aleppo, declaring them "closed military zones."
* Political Collapse: This offensive follows the collapse of the March 2025 integration agreement between Damascus and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Damascus is pushing for individual integration and central control, while the SDF demands unit autonomy.
* Diplomatic Shift: Simultaneously, in Paris, the Sharaa government signed an unprecedented "Joint Fusion Mechanism" with Israel under U.S. mediation. This deal focuses on intelligence sharing and de-escalation, aimed at easing international sanctions and securing the border.
2. Commentary from the Perspective of the "Axis of Resistance"
From the viewpoint of the Resistance forces, these developments are analyzed as follows:
* Betrayal and Deviation: The signing of an "intelligence agreement" with the Zionist entity by the current Damascus administration is viewed as a stab in the back to the martyrs who defended Syria’s Arab identity. This "submissive approach" suggests the new leadership has pivoted toward the American-Zionist axis, abandoning Syria's historical role as a fortress of resistance.
* Internal Liquidation: The attack on Kurdish neighborhoods—despite the political differences with the SDF and their ties to the U.S.—is seen as a "show of force" intended to distract the public from the humiliating concessions being made to the occupation in Paris.
* American Hegemony: Direct U.S. sponsorship of these deals confirms that the objective is to isolate Syria from its natural allies in Tehran and Beirut, transforming the country into a tool for the occupation’s security under the guise of "regional stability."
* Principled Stand: Any security coordination with Israel is an acknowledgment of the occupation's legitimacy. The Axis of Resistance maintains that restoring Syrian sovereignty does not come through coordination with the enemy, but through upholding legitimate rights and total resistance until every inch of Arab land is liberated.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍1
Category: Geopolitical
Countries Involved: United States, Denmark, Greenland, China, Russia (with mentions of Venezuela, Lebanon, Gaza, and Socotra Island).
Organizations: NATO, European Union (EU), Kingdom of Denmark.
Brief :
Greenland’s strategic Arctic position drives intense great-power competition, highlighted by U.S. President Donald Trump’s renewed push for control amid Chinese investments and Russian military advances. Historical autonomy shifts and indigenous voices underscore sovereignty tensions. Recent 2026 developments link this to U.S. actions in Venezuela, raising fears of escalation.
Historical Context:
Greenland saw Norse settlements around 985 AD, followed by Danish colonization from the 18th century, leading to full integration into Denmark by 1953. The Home Rule Act of 1979, approved by 70.1% in a referendum, granted autonomy in areas like education and fisheries, while the 2009 Self-Government Act expanded powers to minerals and recognized Greenlanders as a people under international law, with 75% support. These transitions bolster Inuit self-determination but preserve Danish control over foreign affairs and defense, limiting full independence without mutual agreement.
Trump’s 2019 Proposal and 2026 Revival
On August 18, 2019, Trump proposed buying Greenland for national security, prompting Danish PM Mette Frederiksen to deem it “absurd” and declare it “not for sale,” leading to a canceled U.S. visit. Positions hardened; Greenlandic leaders rejected interference. In 2026, post-reelection, Trump actively discusses acquisition, even military options, tying it to Arctic threats, while Denmark invests €1.4 billion in surveillance.
The U.S. shift from a "buyer" to a "protector" (or predator, according to some European critics) is driven by the 2025 National Security Strategy, which emphasizes hemispheric defense. Washington’s interest is two-fold:
• Military: Securing the Pituffik (Thule) Space Base and expanding deep-water port access to monitor the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-UK) gap.
• Economic: Controlling the world’s largest untapped deposits of Rare Earth Elements (REEs)—essential for green tech and advanced weaponry—currently dominated by China.
Strategic Motivations
U.S. interest counters Chinese mining/port bids (many paused) and Russian Arctic militarization, securing rare earths, shipping lanes, and missile paths over Greenland. Credible rivalry drives this, not mere theater, as China eyes resources despite setbacks. Trump’s framing highlights GIUK Gap monitoring for NATO.
In more details , he U.S. framing of Greenland as a "national security necessity" is built on the perceived threat of a "Polar Silk Road."
• China: Despite being a "near-Arctic state," Beijing has attempted to finance three airports in Greenland and invested in the Kvanefjeld mining project. U.S. pressure on Denmark successfully halted several of these bids, but Chinese interest in Greenland’s $10 billion worth of potential Arctic projects remains a persistent "dual-use" threat in Washington’s eyes.
• Russia: Russia’s militarization of its Arctic coastline—reopening 50 Cold War-era bases—forces NATO to look toward Greenland as its "northern shield." The U.S. argues that Denmark lacks the naval capacity to police these waters against Russian nuclear submarines.
NATO and EU Implications
Deeper U.S. presence could strengthen NATO’s northern flank against Russia but risks alliance fracture, as Danish PM warns it ends NATO; Europe unites on sovereignty. EU Arctic policy faces trade route disruptions; Denmark bolsters patrols to assert role. Greenland’s status tests NATO cohesion.
New Great Game?
Greenland echoes proxy patterns in Gaza (Israeli occupation : resource/security clashes), South Lebanon (Israeli invasion ), and Socotra (UAE-Saudi rivalry), as melting ice opens routes/resources amid competition. Not kinetic WW3 yet, but flashpoint potential rises with U.S. revisionism post-Venezuela.
Venezuela Policy Link
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍1
The Observer
Critics argue that the hyper-focus on Greenland serves as a strategic pivot following perceived failures or stalemates in Venezuela. After the Jan 2026 capture of Nicolás Maduro, the U.S. administration immediately shifted focus to the Arctic, perhaps seeking a "clean win" in a territory with fewer entrenched insurgencies and higher strategic mineral rewards. It is a transition from regime change in the South to territorial "absorption" in the North.
Greenlandic Perspectives: NOT FOR SALE
Leaders like PM Jens-Frederik Nielsen reject U.S. takeover: “We don’t want to be Americans… our future by Greenlanders.” 85% oppose U.S. control; favor independence per international law, clashing with powers; pressure delays self-determination.
Nordic Security Declarations ( NSD)
Nordic Security Declarations refer to a series of agreements among Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden to enhance collective defense, civil security, and regional resilience, evolving from post-Cold War cooperation into NATO-aligned frameworks amid Arctic and Russian threats.
Definition and
Purpose
The Helsinki Declaration of 2011, a cornerstone, commits Nordic states to mutual assistance in crises like terrorism, cyberattacks, or disasters, but stops short of a military Article 5-style pact to respect neutral stances at the time. It builds on the 2009 Haga Declaration for civil emergency cooperation and NORDEFCO (Nordic Defence Cooperation), launched in 2009, which pools resources for cost-effective military capabilities, joint exercises, and airspace integration. The purpose is to deter aggression, share intelligence, and amplify NATO contributions without formal alliances overriding national sovereignty.
Relevance to Greenland Geopolitics
Denmark's inclusion ties these declarations to Greenland's defense, as Copenhagen retains foreign policy control; U.S. pressure for bases could invoke Nordic solidarity, strengthening Denmark's Arctic patrols against Russian incursions or Chinese bids. Recent 2024-2025 updates, like competitiveness and airspace pacts, counter Trump's 2026 gambit by signaling unified Nordic resolve, potentially isolating unilateral U.S. moves. This bolsters EU-NATO cohesion but tests Inuit autonomy if escalated.
Conclusion
Greenland’s strategic significance is undeniable, encompassing defense, natural resources, and alliance politics. Its history of autonomy and colonization shapes current debates over sovereignty. U.S. overtures — increasingly assertive under President Trump — raise profound questions about international law, alliance cohesion, and the future of global geopolitics.
While kinetic warfare remains unlikely, the "Donroe Doctrine" (Trump’s Arctic Monroe Doctrine) suggests a "Geopolitical World War" over resources. If the U.S. employs "hard power" tactics or economic tariffs against Denmark to force a handover, it marks the end of the post-WWII alliance structure.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
Greenlandic Perspectives: NOT FOR SALE
Leaders like PM Jens-Frederik Nielsen reject U.S. takeover: “We don’t want to be Americans… our future by Greenlanders.” 85% oppose U.S. control; favor independence per international law, clashing with powers; pressure delays self-determination.
Nordic Security Declarations ( NSD)
Nordic Security Declarations refer to a series of agreements among Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden to enhance collective defense, civil security, and regional resilience, evolving from post-Cold War cooperation into NATO-aligned frameworks amid Arctic and Russian threats.
Definition and
Purpose
The Helsinki Declaration of 2011, a cornerstone, commits Nordic states to mutual assistance in crises like terrorism, cyberattacks, or disasters, but stops short of a military Article 5-style pact to respect neutral stances at the time. It builds on the 2009 Haga Declaration for civil emergency cooperation and NORDEFCO (Nordic Defence Cooperation), launched in 2009, which pools resources for cost-effective military capabilities, joint exercises, and airspace integration. The purpose is to deter aggression, share intelligence, and amplify NATO contributions without formal alliances overriding national sovereignty.
Relevance to Greenland Geopolitics
Denmark's inclusion ties these declarations to Greenland's defense, as Copenhagen retains foreign policy control; U.S. pressure for bases could invoke Nordic solidarity, strengthening Denmark's Arctic patrols against Russian incursions or Chinese bids. Recent 2024-2025 updates, like competitiveness and airspace pacts, counter Trump's 2026 gambit by signaling unified Nordic resolve, potentially isolating unilateral U.S. moves. This bolsters EU-NATO cohesion but tests Inuit autonomy if escalated.
Conclusion
Greenland’s strategic significance is undeniable, encompassing defense, natural resources, and alliance politics. Its history of autonomy and colonization shapes current debates over sovereignty. U.S. overtures — increasingly assertive under President Trump — raise profound questions about international law, alliance cohesion, and the future of global geopolitics.
While kinetic warfare remains unlikely, the "Donroe Doctrine" (Trump’s Arctic Monroe Doctrine) suggests a "Geopolitical World War" over resources. If the U.S. employs "hard power" tactics or economic tariffs against Denmark to force a handover, it marks the end of the post-WWII alliance structure.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍1
Geopolitics | Cyber Warfare | Hybrid War | Intelligence & Technology
Title
The Fall of the Starlink Myth: How Iran, China, and Russia Shattered Elon Musk’s Satellite Warfare Fantasy
Countries Involved
Iran 🇮🇷 | United States 🇺🇸 | Israel 🇮🇱 | China 🇨🇳 | Russia 🇷🇺 | Taiwan 🇹🇼
Organizations & Actors
SpaceX / Starlink | U.S. Department of Defense (Pentagon) | Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) | Russian Armed Forces (EW Units) | Chinese PLA Strategic Support Force | Iranian Cyber Defense Command | Wall Street financial institutions
Introduction: When the “Unstoppable Internet” Hit a Wall
For years, Silicon Valley—and Elon Musk in particular—sold the world a seductive myth: low-Earth-orbit satellite internet is untouchable, immune to jamming, and destined to liberate populations from “authoritarian darkness.”
What unfolded over Iran, however, has shaken that mythology to its core.
According to multiple technical observers, regional intelligence assessments, and defense analysts, Starlink experienced unprecedented disruption over Iranian airspace, including severe packet loss, terminal isolation, and large-scale service failure. For the first time, the question is no longer whether Starlink can be weaponized—but whether it can survive being counter-weaponized.
What happened in the skies over Tehran was not a glitch. It was a message.
I. Nature of the Cyberattack: A Digital Earthquake Over Tehran
Iranian officials and regional analysts described the incident as a hybrid cyber–electromagnetic confrontation, not limited to software attacks but extending into heavy electronic warfare (EW).
Independent network monitors reported packet loss rates approaching 80%, a level incompatible with normal service degradation. One long-time internet observer—monitoring Iranian connectivity for over two decades—stated bluntly:
“I have never seen anything like this.”
Western media, predictably cautious, framed the incident as “connectivity issues” or “state interference.” Iranian media, in contrast, labeled it what it appeared to be: a direct response to foreign-enabled information warfare.
If cyber warfare is measured by scale, sophistication, and strategic signaling, this episode qualifies—arguably—as one of the most consequential confrontations in the history of satellite communications.
II. Starlink as a Tool of Hybrid Warfare
The controversy surrounding Starlink is not new. The platform has already been used to bypass state controls, coordinate protest activity, and sustain communication networks in active conflict zones—often without the consent of the states involved.
In Iran, authorities accused Starlink of:
• Enabling unauthorized communications during unrest
• Facilitating coordination among protest groups
• Serving as a conduit for foreign psychological operations
Starlink was not operating as a neutral utility. It was operating as infrastructure embedded in a geopolitical struggle.
The central question is no longer technical—it is political:
When does “connectivity” become intervention?
III. China and Russia: The Architects Behind the Counterstrike
Russia: The Hardware Hammer
Unlike Ukraine—where SpaceX countered Russian jamming through software patches—Iran reportedly faced hardware-based electronic warfare, allegedly supplied or supported by Russia.
Systems such as Murmansk-BN and Krasukha-4, capable of jamming over ranges up to 5,000 km, reportedly changed the battlefield entirely. This was not frequency hopping versus code. This was physics versus orbit.
Wall Street had priced Starlink as invulnerable. Moscow proved otherwise.
China: The Catalogue of Blackout
Chinese military researchers had already published a theoretical roadmap detailing how to neutralize Starlink over Taiwan:
• Coordinated deployment of hundreds of ground-based jammers
• Saturation of Ku-band frequencies
• Terminal isolation through synchronized interference
Iran, according to analysts, became the live testing ground for this theory.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍1
The Observer
If true, then Tehran was not merely defending itself—it was executing a multipolar rehearsal.
IV. Gaza as Precedent: From “Humanitarian Internet” to Battlefield Asset
Starlink’s defenders insist the platform is neutral. Gaza tells a different story.
Multiple journalists and human rights observers raised concerns that satellite connectivity was selectively enabled to assist Israeli military operations—enhancing command, control, and targeting capabilities during assaults that resulted in massive civilian casualties.
If Starlink could function as a force multiplier for the IDF, then claims of neutrality collapse entirely.
Iran did not invent this suspicion. It inherited it.
V. Ethnic Fault Lines and the Weaponization of Dissent
Satellite internet was also accused of being used to:
• Amplify unrest in Kurdish regions
• Enable coordination beyond Iran’s borders
• Blur the line between civil protest and foreign-assisted destabilization
This does not negate legitimate grievances. But it raises an unavoidable question:
Who decides when dissent becomes a battlespace?
When private infrastructure selectively empowers unrest in targeted states, sovereignty becomes conditional—and technology becomes a proxy army.
VI. Wall Street Shock: The $280 Billion Reality Check
The satellite communications market—valued at $280 billion—was built on one assumption: near-zero risk.
That assumption is dead.
Following reports of Starlink disruption:
• Investors began reassessing orbital vulnerability
• Defense and electronic warfare stocks surged
• Space-based communication firms faced renewed scrutiny
Elon Musk, once hailed as a techno-libertarian savior, was quietly welcomed back into the arms of the U.S. national security state—courted by the very Ministry of War he pretended to disrupt.
Cybersecurity contracts. Pentagon projects. Quiet handshakes.
So much for rebellion.
Conclusion: The End of the “Unstoppable Internet”
Somewhere in Beijing, analysts are taking notes.
Somewhere in Moscow, engineers are refining range tables.
And somewhere in Washington, strategists are recalculating assumptions.
The world was promised an internet beyond borders.
What it received was an internet with enemies.
The real question now is not whether Elon Musk and the Pentagon can fix Starlink.
It is whether any satellite network can survive the age of heavy jamming and multipolar resistance.
The myth has fallen.
The sky is no longer neutral.
🔵 Link to the article in Arabic
🖋 @observer_5
IV. Gaza as Precedent: From “Humanitarian Internet” to Battlefield Asset
Starlink’s defenders insist the platform is neutral. Gaza tells a different story.
Multiple journalists and human rights observers raised concerns that satellite connectivity was selectively enabled to assist Israeli military operations—enhancing command, control, and targeting capabilities during assaults that resulted in massive civilian casualties.
If Starlink could function as a force multiplier for the IDF, then claims of neutrality collapse entirely.
Iran did not invent this suspicion. It inherited it.
V. Ethnic Fault Lines and the Weaponization of Dissent
Satellite internet was also accused of being used to:
• Amplify unrest in Kurdish regions
• Enable coordination beyond Iran’s borders
• Blur the line between civil protest and foreign-assisted destabilization
This does not negate legitimate grievances. But it raises an unavoidable question:
Who decides when dissent becomes a battlespace?
When private infrastructure selectively empowers unrest in targeted states, sovereignty becomes conditional—and technology becomes a proxy army.
VI. Wall Street Shock: The $280 Billion Reality Check
The satellite communications market—valued at $280 billion—was built on one assumption: near-zero risk.
That assumption is dead.
Following reports of Starlink disruption:
• Investors began reassessing orbital vulnerability
• Defense and electronic warfare stocks surged
• Space-based communication firms faced renewed scrutiny
Elon Musk, once hailed as a techno-libertarian savior, was quietly welcomed back into the arms of the U.S. national security state—courted by the very Ministry of War he pretended to disrupt.
Cybersecurity contracts. Pentagon projects. Quiet handshakes.
So much for rebellion.
Conclusion: The End of the “Unstoppable Internet”
Somewhere in Beijing, analysts are taking notes.
Somewhere in Moscow, engineers are refining range tables.
And somewhere in Washington, strategists are recalculating assumptions.
The world was promised an internet beyond borders.
What it received was an internet with enemies.
The real question now is not whether Elon Musk and the Pentagon can fix Starlink.
It is whether any satellite network can survive the age of heavy jamming and multipolar resistance.
The myth has fallen.
The sky is no longer neutral.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍2
Directly targeted:
• Iran – the subject of the propaganda campaign and the primary axis of distortion
Countries directly shaping the narrative (media–political sphere):
• United States – engineering the human rights discourse, imposing sanctions, and applying political pressure
• United Kingdom – providing media and human rights support through soft power platforms
• France – hosting opposition figures and producing a cultural–human rights narrative
• Canada – amplifying narratives through “civil society” organizations
Implicit / strategic background:
• Israel – a strategic beneficiary of delegitimization efforts and the regional weakening of Iran
• Iran – the subject of the propaganda campaign and the primary axis of distortion
Countries directly shaping the narrative (media–political sphere):
• United States – engineering the human rights discourse, imposing sanctions, and applying political pressure
• United Kingdom – providing media and human rights support through soft power platforms
• France – hosting opposition figures and producing a cultural–human rights narrative
• Canada – amplifying narratives through “civil society” organizations
Implicit / strategic background:
• Israel – a strategic beneficiary of delegitimization efforts and the regional weakening of Iran
👍2
Dark Propaganda Watch #1
When Dots Replace Evidence
The Claim:
A viral flyer declares: “Iran – Each dot is a lost life. 12,000 killed.”
No sources. No dates. No methodology. Just red dots and moral panic.
So let’s ask the questions the graphic avoids.
1. Who counted the 12,000?
Names? Lists? Burial records? Or is this a number born in a design studio, not a morgue?
2. When did these deaths occur—exactly?
One protest cycle? Several years? Four decades compressed into a single accusation?
3. Why dots instead of documentation?
When visuals replace verifiable data, are we dealing with reporting—or psychological priming?
4. Why now, and why in this format?
Why does every humanitarian “outcry” against Iran arrive Instagram-ready, English-captioned, and algorithm-friendly?
5. Why is English foregrounded, not Persian?
If this message is for Iranians, why is it designed for Western consumption and policy moods?
6. Why are sanctions invisible in this story?
If lives matter, why are economic warfare, medicine shortages, and financial sieges erased from the narrative?
7. Why is the West always just ‘watching’?
Who funded Saddam? Who imposed decades of sanctions? Who wages cyberwar, media war, and separatist agitation?
8. Why say “regime” instead of “state”?
Is the aim accountability—or delegitimization in preparation for the next “humanitarian” intervention?
9. Where are the sources?
NGOs? Hospital data? Independent verification? Or are we expected to trust aesthetics over evidence?
10. Why are similar graphics never made for Gaza, Yemen, or Iraq?
Is human life measured by geopolitical convenience?
11. Why is ‘condemnation’ framed as inaction—while pressure continues?
Why is “doing something” always code for more sanctions on the same population?
12. Why erase resistance and show only helplessness?
Why depict Iranians as passive victims rather than a society resisting external domination for decades?
13. Why reduce a complex geopolitical battlefield to monsters vs. innocents?
Who benefits from erasing intelligence operations, foreign-backed unrest, and information warfare?
14. Why are numbers shouted, but methods whispered?
If this were a court of law, would this graphic survive five minutes?
Dark Propaganda Note:
When numbers replace names, graphics replace facts, and outrage replaces analysis, you are not witnessing solidarity—you are watching information warfare dressed in humanitarian language.
Next in the series:
Dark Propaganda Watch #2 –
When Dots Replace Evidence
The Claim:
A viral flyer declares: “Iran – Each dot is a lost life. 12,000 killed.”
No sources. No dates. No methodology. Just red dots and moral panic.
So let’s ask the questions the graphic avoids.
1. Who counted the 12,000?
Names? Lists? Burial records? Or is this a number born in a design studio, not a morgue?
2. When did these deaths occur—exactly?
One protest cycle? Several years? Four decades compressed into a single accusation?
3. Why dots instead of documentation?
When visuals replace verifiable data, are we dealing with reporting—or psychological priming?
4. Why now, and why in this format?
Why does every humanitarian “outcry” against Iran arrive Instagram-ready, English-captioned, and algorithm-friendly?
5. Why is English foregrounded, not Persian?
If this message is for Iranians, why is it designed for Western consumption and policy moods?
6. Why are sanctions invisible in this story?
If lives matter, why are economic warfare, medicine shortages, and financial sieges erased from the narrative?
7. Why is the West always just ‘watching’?
Who funded Saddam? Who imposed decades of sanctions? Who wages cyberwar, media war, and separatist agitation?
8. Why say “regime” instead of “state”?
Is the aim accountability—or delegitimization in preparation for the next “humanitarian” intervention?
9. Where are the sources?
NGOs? Hospital data? Independent verification? Or are we expected to trust aesthetics over evidence?
10. Why are similar graphics never made for Gaza, Yemen, or Iraq?
Is human life measured by geopolitical convenience?
11. Why is ‘condemnation’ framed as inaction—while pressure continues?
Why is “doing something” always code for more sanctions on the same population?
12. Why erase resistance and show only helplessness?
Why depict Iranians as passive victims rather than a society resisting external domination for decades?
13. Why reduce a complex geopolitical battlefield to monsters vs. innocents?
Who benefits from erasing intelligence operations, foreign-backed unrest, and information warfare?
14. Why are numbers shouted, but methods whispered?
If this were a court of law, would this graphic survive five minutes?
Dark Propaganda Note:
When numbers replace names, graphics replace facts, and outrage replaces analysis, you are not witnessing solidarity—you are watching information warfare dressed in humanitarian language.
Next in the series:
Dark Propaganda Watch #2 –
👍2
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
This latest Instagram reel—circulating under the guise of “news about Iran”—is not journalism. It is manufactured spectacle, distorted by AI, designed to provoke emotional reaction without verifiable facts.
Let’s be blunt:
1. Visuals Are Not Evidence — They Are Manufactured Content
In multiple recent cases supposed “footage from Iran” has been proven AI-generated or digitally manipulated, not genuine recordings of events on the ground. Videos claiming to show rallies, street lighting conspiracies, or dramatic scenes from protests have been debunked by independent fact-checkers because visual anomalies show they were created with artificial intelligence, then spread as if real.
2. Context Is Deleted, Narrative Is Inserted
Some posts claim huge protests or massive dissent—yet many of those visuals are taken out of context, reused from older unrelated footage, or altered to fit the desired storyline. This is not coincidence; this is information engineering aimed at shaping perception.
3. Disinformation Is Bidirectional — But Often Positioned as “Objective News”
Yes, bad actors on all sides can misuse media. However, the manufactured anti-Iran reels that flood platforms are often framed as “neutral reporting from BBC / CNN / Fox News,” giving them undeserved credibility. The presence of Western brand labels does not make content truthful. Truth requires independent verification, not logo placement.
4. Western Outlets Amplify Selective Narratives
Reports from major Western media frequently prioritize certain frames: Iran as a purely oppressive state with no political realities, resistance movements as uniformly peaceful, and geopolitical context as irrelevant. This is selective emphasis, not balanced coverage, and often ignores external pressures on Iran such as sanctions and geopolitical hostility.
5. Real Protests vs. Manufactured Data
There are legitimate sources confirming unrest in Iran, including commentary from Iranian cultural figures and diaspora voices condemning state repression and internet blackouts during protests.
But real reporting distinguishes verified eyewitness accounts from algorithm-amplified fiction. The reel you linked does not meet that standard.
6. AI and Social Media Algorithms Are Being Exploited
AI tools are now widely used to generate “convincing” yet false videos that can go viral. Analytical reports confirm that such AI content about Iran’s conflicts—both internal and with Israel—has spread rapidly without labels, misleading millions.
7. What Truth Can We Anchor To?
Verified facts that must be included in any honest narrative:
• There have been protests within Iran—rooted in economic issues, political grievances, and social frustrations. These deserve genuine reporting, not caricature.
• The Iranian state has used internet blackouts, which critics call tools to hinder communication.
• AI-generated and manipulated media is widespread during geopolitical crises, not unique to Iran—but it is weaponized to distort public perception.
8. Don’t Let Your Feed Be Weaponized
A reel with dramatic visuals does not prove its captions.
A Reuters logo does not guarantee truth.
A BBC brand does not immunize against distortion.
Disinformation campaigns are systematic. They recycle old footage, edit clips out of context, use AI to fabricate scenes, and lean on Western media brands to lend authority—all while omitting geopolitical realities like sanctions, economic warfare, and external hostility toward Iran.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
👍2
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Trump Shocks Iranian Opposition With Remarks on Executions at School Milk Event
#Dark_Propaganda No. 3 | When the Script Suddenly Changes
Funny how “truth” shifts the moment the streets refuse to follow the script: just days ago the president was certain that Iran was killing its people and that the regime was collapsing, backed by a chorus of “sources say” and “activists report,” then millions of Iranians took to the streets—not to ask for Western “liberation” but to defend their sovereignty—no filters, no AI, and suddenly the certainty vanished; the killings became “unclear,” the situation “complex,” the narrative “under review,” not because a conscience awakened, but because Mossad-style provocations failed and the disinformation campaign collapsed when the street refused to perform, so the regime didn’t fall, the people didn’t turn, the operation itself failed—and that’s how dark propaganda works: verdict first, evidence later, and if facts rebel, rewrite the verdict, and of course what matters most to Trump now is that the milk be… full-fat.
👍2
The Zionist entity is no longer even bothering with the "plausible" part of deniability. In a display of staggering arrogance, Channel 14’s Tamir Morag recently admitted what we have known all along: foreign elements are pouring live weapons into the hands of rioters to manufacture a bloodbath. They aren’t just watching the chaos; they are the architects of it. Even Mike Pompeo, a man who built a career on "lying, cheating, and stealing," couldn’t resist gloating on social media about the Mossad agents he claims are "walking beside" protesters in our streets. This isn't a grassroots movement; it is a clinical, illegal attempt at regime change, orchestrated by a regime that views the sovereignty of others as a mere suggestion.
While ProPublica and other Western outlets detail the Mossad's "covert" recruitment of dissidents to sabotage their own nation, the mask of the "humanitarian supporter" has completely rotted away. They arm the few to kill the many—policemen, civilians, and whoever else stands in the way of their geopolitical greed—all while feeding the world a sanitized narrative of "freedom fighting." Let’s be clear: under every international convention they pretend to uphold, state-sponsored subversion and the arming of militias for regime change is a flagrant violation of global law. The "freedom" they offer is the same brand they brought to Libya and Iraq: ashes, instability, and a puppet strings attached to Tel Aviv and Washington.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
The Zionist entity is no longer satisfied with its military killing machine; it has unleashed swarms of rabid "electronic flies" to poison global consciousness. Even the Times of Israel has been forced to admit the existence of these bot farms—herds of fake, programmed accounts serving as filthy tools in the hands of the Mossad and intelligence agencies to manipulate international public opinion. These are not mere social media users; they are digital mercenaries tasked with forging facts, silencing the voice of the Resistance, and sowing discord and confusion in the hearts of free people through systematic, coordinated disinformation campaigns.
The fact that this regime resorts to armies of millions of "bots" to manage its media battles is a blatant admission of moral defeat. They know their false narrative cannot withstand sound human logic, so they are forced to pump out billions of artificial comments to manufacture a delusional consensus. While the West cries crocodile tears over "democracy" and "freedom of expression," it turns a blind eye to the Zionist hijacking of digital spaces and the employment of AI to assassinate the truth. Their desperate attempts to topple regimes through digital "Color Revolutions" will fail; the awareness of the world's free people is far stronger than their algorithms soaked in blood and lies.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM