mattb260

The night is always darkest before dawn. Rebounding and rebuilding.

[Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree]

Watergate involved maybe 50 people, one administration, one agency. Collapsed in 26 months. Multiple people went to prison rather than stay silent.

COINTELPRO the FBI’s secret domestic surveillance program. Collapsed when a small group broke into an FBI office and leaked documents. Couldn’t survive exposure by a handful of activists.

Pentagon Papers one man, Daniel Ellsberg, brought down the government’s entire Vietnam narrative. One person. That’s all it took.

Abu Ghraib military cover-up of prisoner abuse. Collapsed when one soldier handed photos to a journalist. One person.

NSA Mass Surveillance the most classified intelligence program in American history, involving thousands of people with top secret clearances. Edward Snowden, one contractor, ended the secret in 2013.

Iran-Contra involved Reagan’s White House, CIA, NSC, Pentagon, and foreign governments. Collapsed within a year. People went to prison.

This is how many people would have had to cover up the USS Liberty if it was a lie:

1967 Johnson administration

•Johnson himself
•McNamara and his Pentagon staff
•National Security Advisor Walt Rostow and his team
•Secretary of State Dean Rusk’s entire department
•Approximately 30-50 people with direct knowledge

CIA June 1967 report

•The analysts who wrote it
•Their supervisors who approved it
•Directors who signed off
•Approximately 15-25 people

NSA

•The Hebrew linguists on the EC-121 listening in real time
•The Fort Meade analysts who transcribed the tapes
•Every director who reviewed files over 60 years
•Approximately 50-100 people over six decades

Joint Chiefs fact-finding team

•Senior officers across all branches
•Their staff and support personnel
•Approximately 20-30 people

Five Congressional investigations across multiple decades

•Committee chairmen from both parties
•Staff investigators
•Members who received briefings
•Approximately 100-150 people across hostile Congresses

Three Israeli investigations

•Military prosecutors
•Judges
•Government officials across multiple Israeli administrations
•Approximately 40-60 people

The Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush administrations

•Each received intelligence briefings on this
•Each had officials with file access
•None had any political loyalty to Johnson’s decisions
•Approximately 50-100 additional people

Total: conservatively 400-600 people

So 400-600 people across six Presidential administration, both Democrat and Republican.

[Townhall.com @townhallcom]

Useful Idiot Kristen Welker's PATHETIC defense of California election fraud DEBUNKED

Larry O'Connor takes Welker to task for the rigged system she's dismissing.

"The real scandal coming out of California right now is quite possibly every single thing we are seeing transpire before our very eyes is 100% legal."

O'Connor explains that anyone with a functional brain can see what's happening in California and know that the election is being stolen.

"You can steal something and not break the law. And that's what's happening here. They are stealing it without actually breaking the law."

As a former Californian resident, O'Connor breaks down the entire process.

"This is the election system in California as we speak. Anybody who is a registered voter gets a ballot mailed to them, and you register to vote because you walk into a DMV, and you automatically get registered no matter what. And as you know, California leads the nation in giving driver's licenses and registrations to illegal immigrants, people who are in the country illegally, and they're getting driver's ed. They're getting commercial driver's license in California right now. And when you go through the process, they register you to vote. And there is no check for citizenship. There's no check for ID, there's no check for anything. And they'll register to vote. And you're on the voter rolls."

O'Connor even stated he hasn't lived in Los Angeles County since 2012, and he's STILL being notified by email that his ballot has been mailed to him.

"I don't know who's got it. Whatever address I used to live in has has the Lawrence O'Connor ballot, and I'd love to know if I voted. I probably have without anyone knowing it."

And then comes the issue of ballot harvesting...

"In California, individuals can go and collect ballots from anyone. They can go and knock on the doors and say, 'Hey, give me your ballot. I'll take care of it for you' legally. And those people who knock on your door and collect your ballot, they call it 'ballot harvesting,' they can work for political entities. They can work for political action committees."

"They can go and they can pick and choose what ballots they want to collect. And they bring them in or they don't. And every mail in ballot, there is no ID required for every single mail in or drop box ballot. All you've got to do is sign the ballot. But of course, it would be discriminatory to allow somebody who is illiterate and can't write their name to not vote."

"So when you sign your ballot, you can just make a mark. You can make a smiley face if you want, but it's witnessed. Don't worry. There's a little box for a witness to sign. But of course, there's no name associated with a witness. It's just a signature. And oh, by the way, when those ballots are collected, the witness signature isn't checked."

"They just check that there is a signature for a witness. So, of course, there's nothing keeping people from making a little mark on the signature for the voter. And then that same person squiggling the witness box, putting it in an envelope and then having those votes come in. Oh, what else are they doing in California? Well, they allow ballots that come in as late as a week after Election Day to be counted. That doesn't seem right. Oh. It's okay. The ballot had to be mailed or put into a Dropbox or delivered by Election Day. But of course, if it's not postmarked, they'll overlook that. If there's no postmark at all on the envelope, they'll just look at whatever date you put on it and they'll trust you, and then they'll count the ballots."

"Every single thing I just described for you is accurate and legal. They're not breaking the law. They're following the laws that they have written so that they can get away with this garbage and everyone knows it."

@LarryOConnor

[mattb260 @mberger260]

@AnFamMan @GrantrGregory @willchamberlain I knew it was bad, but I hadn't realized it was so bad!
How could anybody listen to a description of the "legal voting" and call it anything other than fraud and corruption?

https://t.co/zMnVBMIk5L

[Townhall.com @townhallcom]

Useful Idiot Kristen Welker's PATHETIC defense of California election fraud DEBUNKED

Larry O'Connor takes Welker to task for the rigged system she's dismissing.

"The real scandal coming out of California right now is quite possibly every single thing we are seeing transpire before our very eyes is 100% legal."

O'Connor explains that anyone with a functional brain can see what's happening in California and know that the election is being stolen.

"You can steal something and not break the law. And that's what's happening here. They are stealing it without actually breaking the law."

As a former Californian resident, O'Connor breaks down the entire process.

"This is the election system in California as we speak. Anybody who is a registered voter gets a ballot mailed to them, and you register to vote because you walk into a DMV, and you automatically get registered no matter what. And as you know, California leads the nation in giving driver's licenses and registrations to illegal immigrants, people who are in the country illegally, and they're getting driver's ed. They're getting commercial driver's license in California right now. And when you go through the process, they register you to vote. And there is no check for citizenship. There's no check for ID, there's no check for anything. And they'll register to vote. And you're on the voter rolls."

O'Connor even stated he hasn't lived in Los Angeles County since 2012, and he's STILL being notified by email that his ballot has been mailed to him.

"I don't know who's got it. Whatever address I used to live in has has the Lawrence O'Connor ballot, and I'd love to know if I voted. I probably have without anyone knowing it."

And then comes the issue of ballot harvesting...

"In California, individuals can go and collect ballots from anyone. They can go and knock on the doors and say, 'Hey, give me your ballot. I'll take care of it for you' legally. And those people who knock on your door and collect your ballot, they call it 'ballot harvesting,' they can work for political entities. They can work for political action committees."

"They can go and they can pick and choose what ballots they want to collect. And they bring them in or they don't. And every mail in ballot, there is no ID required for every single mail in or drop box ballot. All you've got to do is sign the ballot. But of course, it would be discriminatory to allow somebody who is illiterate and can't write their name to not vote."

"So when you sign your ballot, you can just make a mark. You can make a smiley face if you want, but it's witnessed. Don't worry. There's a little box for a witness to sign. But of course, there's no name associated with a witness. It's just a signature. And oh, by the way, when those ballots are collected, the witness signature isn't checked."

"They just check that there is a signature for a witness. So, of course, there's nothing keeping people from making a little mark on the signature for the voter. And then that same person squiggling the witness box, putting it in an envelope and then having those votes come in. Oh, what else are they doing in California? Well, they allow ballots that come in as late as a week after Election Day to be counted. That doesn't seem right. Oh. It's okay. The ballot had to be mailed or put into a Dropbox or delivered by Election Day. But of course, if it's not postmarked, they'll overlook that. If there's no postmark at all on the envelope, they'll just look at whatever date you put on it and they'll trust you, and then they'll count the ballots."

"Every single thing I just described for you is accurate and legal. They're not breaking the law. They're following the laws that they have written so that they can get away with this garbage and everyone knows it."

@LarryOConnor

[mattb260 @mberger260]

@GrantrGregory @AnFamMan @willchamberlain This is the problem with claiming that there is "an entire agency that explicitly provides oversight."
And this is why we assume that fraud is happening until proven otherwise.
If they legalized these loopholes, why should I assume they are not utilized?
https://t.co/zMnVBMIk5L

[Townhall.com @townhallcom]

Useful Idiot Kristen Welker's PATHETIC defense of California election fraud DEBUNKED

Larry O'Connor takes Welker to task for the rigged system she's dismissing.

"The real scandal coming out of California right now is quite possibly every single thing we are seeing transpire before our very eyes is 100% legal."

O'Connor explains that anyone with a functional brain can see what's happening in California and know that the election is being stolen.

"You can steal something and not break the law. And that's what's happening here. They are stealing it without actually breaking the law."

As a former Californian resident, O'Connor breaks down the entire process.

"This is the election system in California as we speak. Anybody who is a registered voter gets a ballot mailed to them, and you register to vote because you walk into a DMV, and you automatically get registered no matter what. And as you know, California leads the nation in giving driver's licenses and registrations to illegal immigrants, people who are in the country illegally, and they're getting driver's ed. They're getting commercial driver's license in California right now. And when you go through the process, they register you to vote. And there is no check for citizenship. There's no check for ID, there's no check for anything. And they'll register to vote. And you're on the voter rolls."

O'Connor even stated he hasn't lived in Los Angeles County since 2012, and he's STILL being notified by email that his ballot has been mailed to him.

"I don't know who's got it. Whatever address I used to live in has has the Lawrence O'Connor ballot, and I'd love to know if I voted. I probably have without anyone knowing it."

And then comes the issue of ballot harvesting...

"In California, individuals can go and collect ballots from anyone. They can go and knock on the doors and say, 'Hey, give me your ballot. I'll take care of it for you' legally. And those people who knock on your door and collect your ballot, they call it 'ballot harvesting,' they can work for political entities. They can work for political action committees."

"They can go and they can pick and choose what ballots they want to collect. And they bring them in or they don't. And every mail in ballot, there is no ID required for every single mail in or drop box ballot. All you've got to do is sign the ballot. But of course, it would be discriminatory to allow somebody who is illiterate and can't write their name to not vote."

"So when you sign your ballot, you can just make a mark. You can make a smiley face if you want, but it's witnessed. Don't worry. There's a little box for a witness to sign. But of course, there's no name associated with a witness. It's just a signature. And oh, by the way, when those ballots are collected, the witness signature isn't checked."

"They just check that there is a signature for a witness. So, of course, there's nothing keeping people from making a little mark on the signature for the voter. And then that same person squiggling the witness box, putting it in an envelope and then having those votes come in. Oh, what else are they doing in California? Well, they allow ballots that come in as late as a week after Election Day to be counted. That doesn't seem right. Oh. It's okay. The ballot had to be mailed or put into a Dropbox or delivered by Election Day. But of course, if it's not postmarked, they'll overlook that. If there's no postmark at all on the envelope, they'll just look at whatever date you put on it and they'll trust you, and then they'll count the ballots."

"Every single thing I just described for you is accurate and legal. They're not breaking the law. They're following the laws that they have written so that they can get away with this garbage and everyone knows it."

@LarryOConnor

[Jeremy Boreing @JeremyDBoreing]

No. The story was not overlooked or buried.

Israel immediately informed us the attack happened. There were numerous investigations. The Captain of the USS Liberty was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Israel apologized and paid reparations.

The truth is, it's just not a big story. It's a tragic story, and no doubt. But it isn't a big story.

34 Americans died on the USS Liberty in 1967.

11,363 Americans died in the jungles of Vietnam in 1967.

Friendly Fire is horrific, but not uncommon. There is very little reason for a sixty-year old friendly fire incident to be widely known about, much less widely discussed.

For example, that same year, 1967, a US Marine Corp jet attacked a US Army position on Hill 875 in Vietnam, killing 42 American soldiers.

59 years later, not many remember Hill 875, not because it wasn't horrific -- it killed more Americans than the attack on the USS Liberty -- but because it isn't useful as a talking point to implicate the US/Israel relationship.

As to the second part of your question, we aren't discussing the USS Liberty today because of new information. We are discussing the USS Liberty today because of old -- even ancient -- grudges.

[mattb260 @mberger260]

@BrambhattVishab @usslibertyvets @ConceptualJames I don't understand this.
Everyone agrees that there was an attack. We of course believe the survivors.
The question is about what the Israelis were thinking during the attack.
Why should the survivors be in a better position to assess that instead of the multiple investigations?

[mattb260 @mberger260]

@BrambhattVishab @usslibertyvets @ConceptualJames I don't understand this.
Everyone agrees that there was an attack. We of course believe the survivors.
The question is about what the Israelis were thinking during the attack.
Why should the survivors be in a better position to assess that instead of the multiple investigations?

[James Lindsay, anti-Communist @ConceptualJames]

I'll admit the propagandists got me, at least enough to bother to look into it a little. I actually opened my mind enough to bother looking up the USS Liberty story a few weeks ago, even though I know agitprop when I see it.

People really should bother to go look into the story instead of just hanging out in the emotionally driven agitprop. Multiple investigations turn up no evidence of intentional wrongdoing. Israel apologizing and paying reparations. The facts of the relationship between Israel and the United States in 1967 (not quite the same as we have today!). The contingencies of the Six Day War.

Here's one simple example.

Before the Six Days War (June 5-11, 1967), the U.S. policy toward Israel and the Middle East was one of "balance." The U.S. refused to take a side. Through both the Kennedy and Eisenhower administrations, the goal was to strike a balance between the state of Israel, the local conservative monarchies, and the radical revolutionary Islamic states. The U.S. wasn't an ally of Israel; it was neutral and seeking to avoid any entanglements in the area. Its interests were dealing with the Soviets and the Cold War and oil concerns, mostly, and Israel wasn't that interesting of an ally in those concerns.

After the Six Days War, which is when the friendly-fire attack on the USS Liberty occurred (on Day 4 of 6, so June 8), U.S. policy on Israel and the Middle East shifted completely to alignment with Israel that became allyship.

Why would the United States shift from neutrality to alignment with a country that had just attacked one of its naval vessels unless it was already clear hostilities weren't intended? "Don't touch our boats" was an attitude of the U.S. Navy at the time too, and one of our boats definitely got touched. Two or three days later, however, you see the United States immediately shifting its priorities to the one that lasts to today: military support and coordination with Israel, conditional support for Arab states based on their alignment with U.S. interests, and working actively to contain pro-Communist forces and movements in the region.

Think about it for a second. The "attack" on the USS Liberty hits on June 8, 1967, and ENDS long-standing U.S. policy not to be involved in the tumults of the Middle East. Within just three or four days, the United States throws in WITH, not AGAINST, Israel in the region. It is this alignment that the propagandists today are trying to undo, ironically using the USS Liberty attack as a lever.

If you look into any of the details of this story, the emotionally driven agitating propaganda from the Woke Right and its accessories (plainly visible all over social media for months now and TPUSA platforms this week) completely falls apart. None of their claims make any sense except that they make you FEEL betrayed. If you're falling for it, you're being manipulated.

How can you get unmanipulated?

THINK FOR YOURSELF!

Rather than listening to podcasters and agitprop artists and short TikTok videos, go research the story yourself. You'll be angry that you did because it will show you that you've been manipulated and that the manipulation not only led you to hold awful positions but to have to waste your time looking into this little bit of largely irrelevant military history (in any big picture).

You'll find the declassified reports from both countries finding no evidence of wrongdoing. You'll find reports of the CIA recognizing the power and strategic value of aligning explicitly with Israel for all U.S. interests (America first!). You'll find that Israel stopped the attack as soon as it realized, apologized, paid reparations, did a thorough investigation, etc.

You'll also find out that the U.S. wasn't even an ally of Israel before or during the war but was just days later after the war ended, which cannot be explained by believing the attack was deliberate as an act of war against a U.S. Naval vessel and our brave U.S. Seamen.

Think for yourself. Do your own REAL research. You'll see how much you're being lied to, yet again, just like during Covid, and you can start to ask yourself WHY.

The answer is simple: The Woke Right is the CONTINUATION of the Woke project to destroy America, using the Right now since they hit a wall (namely, us) with using the Left.

[Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree]

By the way Israel kicked the butts of its enemies without us in 1948, 1956, and 1967.

1948 they only had 650,000 people. Combined Arab population attacking them: over 40 million people across five nations.

1967 they had 275,000 troops dependent on reserves needing rapid mobilization 1,100 tanks and 200 combat aircraft.

The Arab coalition fielded 465,000 total troops, 800 aircraft, and 2,504 tanks. Egypt alone had 160,000 troops and 900 tanks. Syria had 75,000 troops. Jordan had 55,000. Iraq contributed 100 tanks. Lebanon sent aircraft.

They totally needed a USS Liberty false flag when they won two days later.

That’s why they hate America too, against all odds we won against Britain and we kept winning.

That’s why they hate Israel.

That’s why they hate America.

Strength is hated by authoritarians, communists and morons.

Always.

[M.A. Rothman @MichaelARothman]

𝐒𝐇𝐄 𝐖𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐈𝐍 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐀 𝐊𝐍𝐄𝐄. 𝐒𝐇𝐄 𝐂𝐀𝐌𝐄 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐀 𝐋𝐄𝐆. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 “𝐅𝐑𝐄𝐄” 𝐇𝐄𝐀𝐋𝐓𝐇𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐔𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐘 𝐂𝐎𝐒𝐓𝐒

Roseanne Milburn, 61, of Winnipeg, had a routine procedure turn into an amputation — not because the surgery failed, but because Canada’s government-run system couldn’t find her a bed.

A surgeon at Winnipeg’s Health Sciences Centre removed dead tissue from her knee, then sent her to Concordia Hospital with the plan to bring her back that same day so a specialist could stitch the wound (CBC News). She was never brought back.

There was no bed at HSC. So she sat at Concordia with an 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬, waiting for the system to make room.

As the video narrator put it: “𝘌𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘥𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘥𝘢. 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘶𝘣𝘢, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘔𝘢𝘥𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘳, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘳-𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥-𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘕𝘰, 𝘯𝘰, 𝘯𝘰, 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘥𝘢.”

By the time a bed opened, the wound had rotted past saving. The doctors told her the leg couldn’t be salvaged. On a Friday in December, Roseanne Milburn lost her 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐠 — over a missing hospital bed.

This is not a freak accident. It is the predictable output of a system that rations care by making people wait.

In 2025, the median Canadian waited 𝟐𝟖.𝟔 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 from a GP referral to actual treatment (Fraser Institute). For orthopedic surgery — the exact category Milburn needed — the median wait is 𝟒𝟖.𝟔 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬. Nearly a full year. By design.

That is 222 percent longer than the 9.3-week wait Canadians faced in 1993 (Fraser Institute). The system isn’t getting better. It’s getting slower — and the waiting list itself becomes the rationing mechanism.

Defenders call it “𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦”. It is not free. Roseanne Milburn paid for it. She paid with her leg.

Every politician selling “𝘔𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘈𝘭𝘭” is selling this — the bed that never opens, the specialist who never comes, the wound that turns black while a bureaucrat shuffles a list.

𝐀 𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝.

[Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree]

Had AI run a statistical analysis on Pratt coming in 3rd based on the ballot drops.

See below:

The trajectory established in the first three batches showed the gap closing at 0.18 points per 1% of ballots counted.

The late batches closed the gap at 0.54 points per 1% counted.

The late batches were moving 3 times faster than the early batches established.

If the trajectory from the first three batches had simply continued, Pratt would still have been leading by +2.93 points at 83% counted. He was actually trailing by -0.40 points. The late batches moved 3.33 points further toward Raman than the established trajectory predicted.

The z-scores on that deviation are -7.81 and -11.29 for the last two batches. The probability of both late batches deviating that far from the established trajectory by chance is effectively zero.

The t-statistic for the acceleration between early and late batch rates is -6.225. With two degrees of freedom, anything above 4.303 is significant at the 5% level. This is well past that.

The plain English answer: The early batches established a clear, consistent trajectory. The late batches didn’t continue that trajectory they moved three times faster in the same direction. That acceleration is not explained by the trajectory that preceded it. The probability that it happened by chance is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

[Dr. Brian L. Cox @BrianCox_RLTW]

EVERYTHING you (actually) need to know about the use of white phosphorus pursuant to the law of armed conflict.

Spoiler alert: This claim by @MarioNawfal here that "international law bans this near civilians" is ... false.

Willy Pete is trending yet again because @Israel stands accused of utilizing it in armed conflict, this time (again) in southern #Lebanon.

A "visual investigation" published @nytimes on the weekend by Sanjana Varghese (@sanjanamv) says in the headline: What Visual Evidence Tells Us About Israel’s Use of White Phosphorus in Lebanon (https://t.co/F4ZfBNDCVu).

Then a story @NPR by Stephan Bisaha (@SteveBisaha) essentially reiterates the NYT article while attempting to provide a bit of additional context (https://t.co/uTlGsq1Pk9).

Both news articles present some form of the false claim articulated by Nawfal that "international law bans" the use of WP "near civilians." Let's correct the record & counter rampant #legaldisinformation related to the use of white phosphorus once & for all by having a look at what international law actually says, shall we?

1. White phosphorus (WP) munitions do NOT meet the definition for "incendiary weapons" pursuant to Protocol III (P III) of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). This is important to clarify because it relates directly to the "banned near civilians" falsehood.

If you look up P III, CCW, you'll notice Article 1 quite helpfully establishes definitions. That provision defines incendiary weapons as "any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target" (pic 1).

Bold font is added to "primarily designed" because this is the operative text that excludes WP from this definition. Yes WP does set fire to objects and cause burn injury to persons, but it is not primarily designed to do so. Therefore, it does not qualify as an incendiary weapon for purposes of P III, CCW.

And in case of doubt, Article 1 also helpfully continues by clarifying what this definition does not include: "Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems" (also pic 1). Just to be clear, then, WP is excluded because it is a smoke munition with incidental incendiary effects. Fwiw, the DoD Law of War Manual explicitly (and correctly) names WP as an exclusion for this reason (pic 2).

So, the first thing you need to know about the use of WP pursuant to #LOAC is that it does not qualify as an "incendiary weapon", despite its incidental incendiary effects. That leads us to the next main point.

2. International law does not ban the use of WP "near civilians." This widespread misperception is actually a misinterpretation of P III, CCW (see point #1, above).

If we continue reading in that CCW protocol, we see that Article 2 establishes, "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons" (pic 3). It also continues by permitting such an attack "by means of incendiary weapons other than aerial-delivered munitions" if certain (redundant) precautions are taken.

Still, let's focus on the outright prohibition against using incendiary weapons a military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons component since this doesn't have an exception and it closely resembles the popular "banned near civilians" (mis)perception.

This "ban" doesn't apply to the current context for two very specific reasons.

First, 🇮🇱 hasn't ratified P III, CCW so this agreement doesn't apply as a matter of conventional law. And it's been ratified by 115 countries, which does not constitute extensive & virtually uniform state practice (with an accompanying opinio juris) - so an assertion that P III, CCW is customary isn't exactly convincing.

Second, and most important of all ... WHITE PHOSPHORUS MUNITIONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFITION OF INCENDIARY WEAPONS. If there's any confusion about this fact, see point # 1 above.

Ok. If the prohibition against making "any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons" only applies to incendiary weapons, and WP doesn't qualify as an incendiary weapon, then as a matter of logic (and law) the "ban" doesn't apply to WP.

So, there is nothing special about WP that prohibits its use "near civilians". If it's going to be used "near civilians," standard LOAC rules apply. That's it.

Ah, but there are a few other misperceptions regarding WP it's helpful to clear up while we're at it ... so let's do that as well.

3. WP does not qualify as a chemical weapon pursuant to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). This misperception comes up from time to time, so we may as well go ahead & address it now.

See, the NPR story is correct to note that WP "is a solid, waxy chemical that ignites instantly when combined with oxygen." Yes, it's a chemical, and it is used as a weapon - but that doesn't make it a "chemical weapon."

That NPR story goes on to claim the CWC "designates white phosphorus an incendiary agent rather than a chemical weapon." This isn't accurate, as the CWC doesn't designate any agent as "incendiary."

What CWC does do is it defines what a "chemical weapon" is for purposes of this treaty. In relevant part, Article II(1)(b) defines chemical weapons as, "Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified" in the preceding provision (art. II(1)(a) (not pictured).

Similar to the definition for incendiary weapons, WP is excluded from the definition for chemical weapons because of the "specifically designed" provision ("primarily designed" for P III, CCW). WP is a "chemical" and it can cause death or other harm, but it is not specifically designed to do so through the toxic properties of specified toxic chemicals.

It seems Bisaha (NPR journo) gets P III, CCW & CWC mixed up by claiming CWC "designates white phosphorus an incendiary agent rather than a chemical weapon." Actually, CWC doesn't designate anything as an "incendiary agent" - it merely defines "chemical weapons" for purposes of that treaty and then it's up to the reader to exclude everything else that doesn't so qualify. Even so, P III, CCW does NOT designate WP as an "incendiary agent" to begin with for reasons addressed above.

That confusion is compounded when the NPR news article goes on to claim that the "Chemical Weapons Convention does prohibit such incendiary agents from being used in civilian areas, and that is what" @hrw & @amnesty "have accused Israel of doing."

Actually, CWC bans the use of all (actual) chemical weapons - regardless of proximity to civilians. P III, CCW prohibits the use of incendiary agents when directed against military objectives "located within a concentration of civilians" ... but WP doesn't qualify as an incendiary weapon for those purposes anyway.

Alright, that takes care of the "chemical weapon" nonsense. Let's address 2 more points rather briefly while we're at it.

4. The use of explosive weapons in populated areas is not prohibited as a matter of international law. WP qualifies as an explosive weapon, and there was a political declaration signed by a number of countries (wisely, not 🇮🇱) that was finalized in June 2022 that addresses the use of explosive weapons in populated areas (#EWIPA).

But this political declaration is not a binding legal instrument and it doesn't prohibit the use of explosive weapons in populated areas to begin with.

The EWIPA political declaration warrants mentioning because a number of civil society actors seem to delude themselves & everyone else by pretending EWIPA is binding and it does severely restrict the use of explosive weapons in populated areas.

It isn't, and it does not. EWIPA is essentially a non-factor - and it certainly doesn't prohibit @IDF from utilizing WP even in populated areas.

5. WP isn't even prohibited against enemy personnel. Yes, it is primarily used as a signal, smoke, or obscuring agent. But that doesn't mean it can't be used against the enemy as well.

Fwiw yet again, the DoD Law of War Manual presents in a footnote a description of what is sometimes colloquially referred to as a "shake and bake mission" (pic 4). This tactic essentially involves firing WP munitions at enemy troops behind cover to "flush them out" and then utilizing high explosive weapons to "take them out" (also pic 4).

This is useful to keep in mind because you'll often hear a claim that using WP is "lawful" only if it is used for signal, smoke, or obscuring purposes but not if it's used against enemy personnel or near civilians. Both claims are false - WP can be used against enemy personnel and in/near areas populated with civilians.

In practice, we just apply standard LOAC rules unless we're advising a country with a more restrictive interpretation for the use of WP. Enhanced restrictions are fine, of course, but they are not required as a matter of international law.

So, if we return to the NYT story, here is one major claim presented therein in relation to WP & LOAC: "Often deployed by militaries to create fires and smoke screens during combat, white phosphorus is not illegal in itself, but deploying it deliberately against civilians or in an area populated by civilians violates the international laws of war."

Turns out, the bold text is accurate - but the italicized text is not. Unfortunately, it is the italicized part that features prominently in public discourse - including a variation thereof presented in the QTd post.

Returning to the NYT story, it also presents "expert" commentary from Wim Zwijnenburg (@wammezz) claiming: "These munitions are not precision weapons, and they can’t make a distinction between civilians and the military," Mr. Zwijnenburg said. "It might not be a banned weapon, but we know that militaries don’t always use it as intended."

The only accurate component of this commentary is that WP isn't a banned weapon. That is, WP can be employed as a precision-guided munition, it can be used in a way that distinguishes between civilians & belligerents, and there is no prohibition regarding the "intended" use of WP.

Once again, we just apply standard LOAC rules in practice - WP isn't inherently special or restricted.

Alright, that's pretty much EVERYTHING you need to know regarding the use of WP pursuant to LOAC.

And that leaves the question: why Israel? Why is it we only really hear about the use of WP when some NGO publishes a report regarding the IDF using it or a media report determines the IDF utilized WP?

I mean, both news stories (NYT & NPR) acknowledge @DeptofWar is known to have used WP before. The NYT story indicates both 🇷🇺 & 🇺🇦 likely have as well. When it was reported 🇺🇸 used WP in the counter-ISIL campaign, it made news for a minute - but for the most part it was a nothingburger. There was certainly no impassioned speech in Congress by the likes of @RepRashida demanding that 🇺🇸 "must end its complicity in these war crimes" (https://t.co/T3zlaw1MGn).

So, I ask again. Why Israel?

Of course, by now we all know the answer. No Jews, no news.

The use of WP on the battlefield isn't actually news at all, no matter who uses it. But if there's yet another excuse to paint the Joooos as criminals, even if it involves fundamentally misrepresenting international law to do so, doctrine & reality become irrelevant.

The anti-Israel, anti-West, pro-terrorist crowd is always on the hunt for a reason to blame Israel. The purported use of white phosphorus "near civilians" is merely one of the most recent excuses for doing so.

[@aDifferentPointofJew @DrZionist]

This is the funniest shit ever 🤣. Imagine if Americans had killed British soldiers while America was fighting for independence! Just imagine!

[mattb260 @mberger260]

@MPDunaway @DefiyantlyFree No one is claiming that the attack didn't take place. it obviously was witnessed.
The conspiracy theory is denying the obvious answer- accidental attack in fog of war- and claiming it was intentional.
That explanation runs into the issues the OP raised.

[mattb260 @mberger260]

@MPDunaway @DefiyantlyFree No one is claiming that the attack didn't take place. it obviously was witnessed.
The conspiracy theory is denying the obvious answer- accidental attack in fog of war- and claiming it was intentional.
That explanation runs into the issues the OP raised.

[Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree]

The USS Liberty conspiracy theory asks you to accept that Israel, a nation of 2.5 million people fighting for its literal survival on six fronts simultaneously against 110 million Arabs equipped with Soviet tanks, Soviet aircraft, and Soviet warships, and with no formal American alliance, no American weapons, and no guarantee that anyone was coming to save them, is chose day four of that existential war to deliberately attack the one country on earth that might eventually become their ally, in broad daylight, in international waters, leaving 174 survivors who could identify the attacking forces, while fourteen separate investigations across two governments found zero evidence of intent, while Israel’s own military had accidentally bombed its own armored column the day before proving how catastrophically identification fails in wartime chaos, and while not a single one of the conspiracy theory’s proponents in nearly six decades of trying has ever managed to agree on what Israel was actually trying to accomplish by doing it.

Heavy lift.

[Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree]

Thomas Massie calls for an investigation into the USS Liberty.

Someone tell him that there has been 11 investigations into the USS Liberty.

U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry; June 18, 1967. Presiding officer Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd found no evidence of intentional attack. Verdict: mistaken identity.

CIA Intelligence Memorandum: June 13, 1967. Found no malice; attack a mistake.

JCS Fact-Finding Team (“Russ Report”): June 18, 1967. Examined U.S. military communications handling before and during the attack.

Clark Clifford Report: July 18, 1967. Presidential advisor Clifford found no evidence the ship was known to be American.

State Department / Salans Report: September 1967. Legal and diplomatic assessment by State Department Counsel Carl Salans.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee: 1967. Secretary McNamara testified there was no evidence attackers knew it was a U.S. ship.

House Appropriations Committee: 1967/1971. NSA officials briefed Congress on Liberty’s mission and the communications failures.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: 1979/1981. Found no merit to claims the attack was intentional.

NSA Internal Report (“Gerhard Report”): 1981. Concluded the intercepts “tended to rule out any thesis that the Israeli Navy and Air Force deliberately attacked a ship they knew to be American.”

House Armed Services Committee: 1991/1992. Found no support for claims the attack was intentional.

State Department Conference & Document Release: January 2004. Released all remaining classified CIA and NSA memos. NSA historian David Hatch stated the evidence “strongly suggested” Israel did not know it was attacking a U.S. vessel.

[Wasson Watch Co. @WassonWatch]

"Now do the USS Liberty."

Every time Israel comes up, someone mentions the USS Liberty. Hey, even when Israel is not the topic, people bring it up. A lot of folks see it as some kind of ace-in-the-hole that proves without a shadow of a doubt that Israel is a raging enemy of the United States.

So, yeah, let's talk about the USS Liberty.

The USS Liberty was a US Navy technical research ship, which was sailing in the Mediterranean Sea near the Sinai Peninsula on June 8, 1967, two days after the start of the Six-Day War, in which Israel was attacked by a coalition of Arab states including Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon (so all of its neighbors). It was mistakenly attacked by Israeli forces, which mistook it for an enemy Egyptian ship. The attack resulted significant casualties for the US Navy, including 34 killed, 171 wounded, and the ship heavily damaged.

Here's the story:

Several days BEFORE the war started, the Liberty was ordered to proceed to the eastern Mediterranean to perform signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection in international waters near the north coast of Sinai, Egypt. They were initially provided an allowable closest point of approach (CPA) of 12.5 nautical miles (NM) from Egypt and 6.5 NM from Israel, but once the war started they sent follow-on messages increasing those distances to 20 and 15 NM respectively, and again later to 100 NM from both countries, BUT DUE TO INEFFECTIVE MESSAGE HANDLING AND ROUTING, THESE MESSAGES WERE NOT RECEIVED UNTIL AFTER THE ATTACK.

So, the USS Liberty sailed right into the middle of a heavy, active war zone because of poor communication. This was a critical, deadly mistake, leading to the opportunity for further mistakes.

Between 0545 and 0940 the Liberty was spotted multiple times by different Israeli aircraft, and was marked on the Israeli Central Coastal Command (CCC) control table. However, the Liberty was on the move, and at 0545 it had started at 70 NM from Gaza, and later it was about 20 NM from Arish (on the northern coast of Sinai). With the movement of the vessel, and multiple hours without any sighting, it was removed from the CCC control board 1100 due to the positional information being considered out of date.

At 1124 it was reported that Arish was being shelled from the sea. This may have been due to exploding munitions that Egyptian forces had set on fire during their retreat.

Israeli torpedo boats and aircraft were dispatched to the area. Multiple reports were sent back about the Liberty, and it was unfortunately not identified as a US vessel at that time, and there were reports about other vessels coming through at the same time, which may have also been mixed up with reports about the Liberty.

Based on the available information, Israeli forces believed the USS Liberty was an Egyptian destroyer. At 1400 two Israeli Mirage III fighter jets were given permission to engage. They strafed the ship with their 30-mm cannons and rockets. In addition to killing as many as 8, and wounding 75, this initial attack unfortunately severed the ships antennas, and knocked down the flag, making accurate identification of the ship even less likely, and slowing the ability of the ship to communicate.

Over the proceeding 90 minutes there were several more attacks from the air and sea, resulting in significant damage to the Liberty and its crew, before the ship was positively identified as the USS Liberty at 1530.

At 1600, two hours after the attack started, and 30 minutes after its conclusion, Israel informed the US embassy in Tel Aviv that its forces had mistakenly attacked a US Navy ship. At 1640 the Israeli torpedo boats (which had been involved in the attack) returned to help, but were refused. Later Israel also provided a helicopter to fly US naval attache Commander Ernest Carl Castle to the Liberty.

Within hours apologies were sent by Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, Foreign Minister Abba Eban, and charge d'affaires Ephraim Evron to President LBJ. Within 48 hours Israel offered to financially compensate the victims and their families.

This was a tragic incident of friendly fire, which is unfortunately all-too-common in war. Some have suggested over the years that it was an intentional attack by Israel, but there's simply not evidence to support that position, while there is significant evidence to the contrary:

- As soon as Israeli forces positively identified the Liberty, they ceased the attack, and immediately apologized
- Both the US and Israel conducted investigations afterwards concluded the attacks were not intentional
- NSA transcripts later showed that the Israeli personnel communicating about the ship believed it was Egyptian
- The attack happened while Israel was being attacked by multiple enemies, and was literally defending its very existence, which meant decisions had to be made quickly without all of the available information

One point some have made is that survivors of the attack felt like it was intentional. And that's their prerogative. Getting shot at doesn't feel good. It feels intentional, whether it is or not. In the instance where the USS Liberty was getting shot at, at that point it was intentional in the sense that the Israeli forces did not know they were American, but believing them to be Egyptian, they were trying to kill them. But the fact is, many people who experience friendly fire report feeling it is intentional.

And as I mentioned previously, friendly fire events are all-too-common. Here are just a few you might not be aware of:

1. Operation Cobra, Normandy, July 25, 1944 (World War II) - USAAF Eighth Air Force bombers mistakenly bombed US positions near Saint-Lo, France, killing 111, and wounding 490.
2. Gulf War, February 26-27, 1991 (Operation Desert Storm) - Multiple friendly fire incidents occurred resulting 35 Americans killed, 9 British killed, and 72 Americans/22 British wounded across 17 ground and 10 air incidents. One notable incident involved a US A-10 firing Maverick missiles on British armored vehicles.
3. Sicily Campaign, July 11, 1943 (World War II) - US anti-aircraft gunners fired on a formation of US C-47 transport planes carrying paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division, downing several aircraft, and killing between 23 and 37 troops (estimates vary), and wounding at least 60.

War is Hell, and friendly fire is part of that Hell. Multiple errors led to the USS Liberty being attacked, but the biggest was the failure in communication that resulted in the Liberty sailing right into the middle of an active warzone. That error cannot be underplayed.

However, the USS Liberty incident is a far cry from the "headshot" argument for why Israel is an evil enemy of the United States. Using it as such as frankly childish. It's baseless. And it's quite easily refuted if you simply look at what happened and weigh the evidence rationally.

Haters will read this and call me a "Zionist Shill" who "got the phone call" and on, and on, and on, but the truth is I just care about the truth. And no amount of baseless insults will ever change that.

SOLI DEO GLORIA

[Jeremy Boreing @JeremyDBoreing]

Fifty-nine years ago today, an American Naval vessel, the USS Liberty, was attacked by air and sea by the State of Israel.

Of the 234 men on the ship, 34 Americans were killed. 171 were wounded.

Today, Thomas Massie will take to the House floor to memorialize the worst interpretation of the event, an interpretation that suggests Israel attacked the American ship on purpose and that our own government either coordinated with them to do, or is complicit in the cover up.

The USS Liberty has become a rallying cry for many of the worst voices in public life. From the Groyper Wars against Charlie Kirk, to Tucker Carlson’s blackpill-and-despair political project, to Candace Owens’ global jihad of grift and Jew hared, the Conspiracy Theories surrounding the USS Liberty have become one of the most respectable ways to advance anti-Israel and anti-American sentiment.

But what really happened on that terrible day in 1967?

How can we know what’s true?

And what does it mean for us six decades later?

Conspiracy Theorists love to overwhelm you with the sheer volume of their claims, but there are 8 claims which makeup the core of the argument.

We thoroughly address those eight in this episode, and shine a light on the phenomena that undergird these Conspiracy Theories in the first place.

Here's an honest accounting of what happened on June 8, 1967, and how — and why — bad actors are lying to you about it:

[Disgraced Propagandist @DisgracedProp]

Somebody else needs to help me do this with charts and graphs but I’ll try with words first.

- In a normal election, you have 2 candidates, R & L. People cast votes. Proportionally, the votes of each candidate rise and fall in little chunks but take an overall steady line due to the force of averages. One of the lines eventually tops out, and that candidate wins on election night.

- In a mail in election, you have 2 candidates R & L. In this instance, some mail ins (if allowed) may come in after Election Day. But still, due to the force of averages, their lines with have little ups and downs but maintain a steady upward trajectory both during and after the election until one wins.

Now it has become the norm that after the election in mail in states, Dem candidates tend to go from tied or losing to drastically ahead AFTER the election, against the force of averages. How?

There are two legal, non fraudulent explanations:

1) that “Dems vote late by mail.” Dubious, considering that it used to be that Rs were known as absentee voters, but technically possible that for some never explained reason, Ds vote later than Rs by mail and that explains the statistical anomaly of why Dems lines shoot up after Election Day.

2) ballot harvesting. The far more likely explanation. Legal in California, this is when huge amounts of ballots are collected by political activists (unions, NGOs etc) and submitted on behalf of large populations of people in churches, workplaces etc. Both sides do it, but it is technically possible that Dems are much better at it. This is how insiders explain the “red mirage” statistical anomalies in 2020 and that have become so common since. Also explains why the prediction markets clinched Raman as winning while she was still down.

However, there is something different happening in Pratt v Bass election. A third candidate, a second, much less popular and less well known Dem is in the race, Nithya Raman. And this time, the late mail in ballots—mailed on Election Day or just before which is why they are “late mail in”—didn’t go to “the dems” they went specifically to Nithya Raman. Pratt stayed flat. Bass stayed flat. Nithya went way up after the initial count was reported. Unprecedented.

Oddly, the mail in mailed any time before Election Day did not favor nithya at all. Only the late mail ins counted after initial numbers were reported massively favored her. So we’re meant to believe that Nithya voters specifically voted not just by mail by late by mail, while the other Dem and Pratt voters did not. Bass voters stopped voting late mail in entirely, as they had last election against caruso, and Nithya voters started?

Could it be “Dems vote late by mail?” No, because then both Nithya and Bass, both Dems, would have risen at roughly the same rate, only without Pratt. But nithya massively over performed just enough to oust pratt, which would not have been possible had she and bass split the votes.

Could it be ballot harvesting? Also no. You can harvest a church or workplace and predict roughly that your harvested votes will favor Dems, but how could you feasibly predict which Dem out of two? Nithya’s support, always squarely in third place during the polls, is mostly educated white women, definitely not the type to vote late or be harvested. But that’s actually besides the point. How could a vote harvester, who is supposedly delivering filled out and sealed ballots from a constituency the harvester believes will lean left, know which left wing candidate this or that batch favors? And moreover, why would they then send only those batches after the election, while submitting all the other mail in ballots for bass before the election?

Occams Razor points to the much simpler explanation. Whoever is harvesting the votes isn’t just harvesting them, they’re somehow controlling the votes themselves, whether by filling them out or throwing away competing votes they don’t like. This is the definition of voter fraud.