pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @didiplaywell OP 29 Sep \ parent \ on: Slander To Debunk (aka STD), The Show - Ep 4: Saifedean, the Gish Galloper Politics_And_Law
I get that there was a conflict of interests. But trying to frame it as "Kirk was assassinated by the jews for making some critics against them" do not makes any sense. Why would you kill the one guy in the right that still stands for you, and make sure only the full blown anti-semites remain? There's plenty of public figures in the US who, contrary to Kirk, devote their time to speak ill of the jews. There's also plenty of high profile public figures that have expressed the exact same points of Kirk. All of them are fine, but Kirk was the problematic one to be eliminated by the jews themselves? It just doesn't add up.
Sure it makes sense. He was one of the few who was extremely reliably very favorable to pro-Israel policy.
AND he had a huge following among the youth - far larger than any other conservative youth influencer.
He had begun to reverse course on Israel. Not anywhere near 100%. But if you look at the links above, he was definitely becoming far more skeptical, and was also very upset at the negative feedback he got from Israeli-linked donors at ANY criticism of Israel, no matter how mild.
Also, he was requested to un-invite Tucker Carlson from his events. But he refused. He had been welcoming people like Tucker Carlson and Dave Smith at his events, for talks and debates. These are people who kept on bringing up inconvenient facts about Gaza.
So yes, I do believe that Israel had a reason to eliminate him.
And they also had a good reason to do it while they still could, while they could still lionize him and make him a martyr. Israel is well known for assassinations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations#2020s
And just last year they killed 42 people and maimed more than a thousand via a pager attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Lebanon_electronic_device_attacks
reply
This is what isn't adding up. You first state that:
He was one of the few who was extremely reliably very favorable to pro-Israel policy.
But then you state the opposite right below:
There's loads of right wingers that are completely and absolutely pro Israel.
It's either one or the other.
Then, about
But if you look at the links above, he was definitely becoming far more skeptical
I did saw the links and it's not what I saw. In his latest interviews right before his death he was adamant that he stood with Israel in their battle and that he wanted them to win against the terrorists.
I get he had a large youth following but he was nowhere near public figures like Tucker Carlson who has much more blunt views on Israel. It's not like they would have "killed all possibilities of the USA being against Israel once and for all", like if Kirk was key for such a purpose or something. Kirk, the one guy with the most dialogist stand among the right, killed to ensure more dialogue and a closer relationship with Israel. It do not makes any sense. Kirk's assassination what has stupid and pointless as the deranged person who committed it: it was a pure act of folly and fanaticism.
Israel is well known for assassinations.
Your links point toward missions against military targets. In war you, indeed, kill. Should I present you with the list of "assassinations" the US army committed during WWI? WWII? Korea? Vietnam? Irak? soon Venezuela, etc. What you point at makes no sense.
reply
I should have said "He was one of the few who was extremely reliably very favorable to pro-Israel policy AND HAD A HUGE MOSTLY YOUNG FOLLOWING".
That's the main difference. The older conservative crowd is still reliably pro-Israel. The young conservative crowd is starting to not be anywhere near as pro-Israel anymore. If Charlie Kirk - formerly VERY pro Israel, was starting to criticize Israel, that's a big deal, and a big problem for Israel.
Regarding your statement "In his latest interviews right before his death he was adamant that he stood with Israel in their battle and that he wanted them to win against the terrorists"
... I invite people to directly look at the articles and videos I mentioned.
Max Blumenthal has some great in-depth reporting on this topic. Here's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4vHODyPZPk. And here's an article on his news site, The Gray Zone: https://thegrayzone.com/2025/09/12/charlie-kirk-netanyahu-israel-assassination/.
Also here's a link to a previous video I posted that is very relevant:
17 minute interview with Charlie Kirk from about a month ago. Look at his face.
reply
Not only I directly saw the sources you point at but I also saw exactly the video you just posted, in which what I said is repeatedly confirmed, with insistence from both Kirk and Kelly, and with great emphasis every time. Israel killing Kirk for his pro stance not only on their right to defend themselves but, in his own words, for the importance for them to win, simply, do not adds up.
reply
You're lying by omission here.
Here's the video in question (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2qn0mvSCig)
He does talk about his life being changed in Israel, he wants Israel to win, etc.
HOWEVER the critical component of the whole thing is that in the past few months, the Israel lobby started to viciously criticize him about having Tucker Carlson at his event, and also moderating a debate between Josh Hammer (pro Zionist) and Dave Smith (anti Zionist).
He seems pretty rattled by these accusations. And sources have said he was afraid of assassination by Mossad.
Here's some quotes from the transcript:
But then all of a sudden, I host a person, I moderate the debate mind you, and I give equal time to Josh Hammer, equal time to a pro-Israel advocate, and my moral character is being put into question. And so I just think it's a hyper-paranoid, 'we're just going to try to, we're going to just stamp out everything' type of practice. But it goes to the point where, for example, I have less ability sometimes online to criticize the Israeli government without backlash than actual Israelis do. And that's really, really weird, isn't it, Megan?
And it's offensive. It's offensive to those of us who have been out there defending them in many instances against critics on our own side. And now you have a couple of comments like, 'Well, what about this? Well, has it gone on too long? Like, is it time to wrap it up?' And the thing about Epstein is just so bizarre. I don't know who he was an agent for. It might have been Israel or an asset, or it might have been nobody. But we're allowed to speculate about that. It's like there's some 'you can't go there' when it comes to Israel.
reply
I saw that video, and I saw the part corresponding to your excerpt. I'm not the one omitting anything here. You are. The only part of your argument that could be meaningful is "sources have said he was afraid of assassination by Mossad". Yet, conveniently, right there, "sources" are omitted. While all actual, existing sources simply talk about his (understandable) discontent, yet, again, underpin his unwavered support for Israel in the war, making it senseless for israel to having him eliminated while leaving alive and well a guy like Tucker Carlson, who has a much more blunt stance on Israel. Again, it all makes no sense at all.
reply
Also saying "Why would you kill the one guy in the right that still stands for you?" Is just pure silliness.
There's loads of right wingers that are completely and absolutely pro Israel. And left wingers as well.
reply