← Digital Social Hour
Loading summary
Transcript106 lines
- [00:00]
Suleiman
The claim is that Hamas hide behind tunnels, hide under hospitals, hide under schools. This is what Dave Smith says. This is fake news. Hamas don't do that. If you look at the videos where they said about the tunnels, they weren't even under hospitals. I've interviewed a large number of people from the west, not Muslims, who are doctors. For example, Dr. Mads Gilbert, who worked in Al Shifa Hospital, who said unequivocally they were given complete autonomy to walk throughout the hospitals. There was no closed areas. There was no Hamas there at the hospitals, and there was no underground tunnels. And those underground tunnels where their military personnel were, they weren't at the hospitals. They were away from the hospitals. And they got debunked on those things.
- [00:35]
Podcast Host/Announcer
That's crazy.
- [00:36]
Co-host/Interviewer
Yeah. Cuz I saw in the media the hospitals and the schools is where they would hide in the tunnels.
- [00:39]
Suleiman
That was a claim, but it's fake.
- [00:48]
Co-host/Interviewer
All right, guys, Suleiman, back on the show, just debated a Christian. It wasn't supposed to be a Christian debate, but it kind of ended up being that.
- [00:55]
Suleiman
I think it did cover a little bit. But I always try and stay away from those Christian Muslims debates because I feel like it causes animosity. So even after the show, he did tell me, he was like, oh, look, I debate this issue. I dismantled this point. And he was like, do you want to debate? I said, look, will it cause animosity between Muslims and Christians? He said, yeah. So I said, look, I don't want to debate. I don't want to debate anything that kind of causes animosity. I'm about bringing Muslims and Christians together. It's just that when the claim is being made that is Islam compatible with the West? I know that's just a weak position, something that has been propagandized by the media, by the public. And so therefore my main kind of angle is to try and debunk that position.
- [01:28]
Co-host/Interviewer
Yeah. You see the propaganda about Dearborn, Michigan right now.
- [01:30]
Suleiman
Yeah. That. Is that just an example of, like, extreme propaganda? Because if you look at Dearborn, Michigan, the crime rate is extremely low. Dearborn's crime rate within Michigan is very low, within the state is very low. And then within the United States of America is very low. So you've got a populace who commits low crime, who are. Who have integrated really well, and yet you've got people who are going there and attacking them both through media and then physically. And I'll talk about physically in a second. So through the media, when they're attacking them, they're like, oh, guess what they're doing, the Muslim call to prayer. Now that is something that's been propagandized. Because actually when this issue was brought up to the people in charge in Dearborn, Michigan said, okay, cool, we'll stop. Even though what we're doing is doesn't break the ordinance, rules within Dearborn will stop playing the prayer. And I think that's the kind of prudent thing to do because people are using it for propaganda. Although in the United States of America there is freedom of religion, there is freedom of expression. You go to New York, you'll see Jewish people overtly practicing their religion in synagogues, in the streets. And so is clearly an attack on Daybog in Michigan. And then the main propagator and promoter of that is Jake Language, someone who had debated and quite crushed quite easily. But he's like an Ashkenazi guy who is claiming he's Christian. But I spoke to even people within prison who were basically incarcerated with him due to Jan6 and all of them say that he has like mental health issues, he has delusions of grandeur. Apparently in prison he thought he was like some kind of messiah. Some kind of messiah. He was calling himself Ezekiel or Ezrael. No, Israel. He was calling himself Israel. So he's not someone who's respected within the community, someone who. And then he's doing it quite clearly for clicks. And then if you look at the people that, who went there with him, people like Cam Higby and Lance, I believe, both of whom got trips paid to Israel, who were part of the Israeli propaganda, who lied about the fact that food wasn't going into Gaza. And then they are the people who are essentially going into these areas with him. And in order to propagate hatred against Muslims. And Israel did a study two years ago. Sorry, not two years ago, sorry, two months ago. Now it's about three months ago. And what they said is, what's the best way to redirect conversation against Israel? Because the vast majority of the world is against Israel. Even in the United States of America, Paul showed that the vast majority are Americans against Israel and even right wing under 30 year olds are against Israel. So if you look at the right wing Republicans and we're at TP usa, the vast majority, you see the split within the MAGA movement. Those who are America first and those who are Israel first, under 30 year olds are very much now America first. And they've kind of rejected this notion of being subservient to Israel. And so they did this study to say how can we re change the kind of view that people have about Israel? And what they found is that actually the best way to do so is to basically spew hatred about Muslims, do propaganda against Muslims. And so then you're seeing that both in the United States of America and the UK for example, many of them are like, oh guess what, there's a takeover of the Muslims in the UK which is fake news. Like Muslims are 6% of the population. They don't hold any kind of strong positions of power. The two positions that people always hold to is, or basically highlight is the Mayor of London, Sadi Khan and Shabana Mahmood, who is the Home Secretary. Sadi Khan isn't someone who puts the positions of the Muslims first. He didn't even speak about the Gaza genocide till very late on. He's a very liberal woke person. So he actually is more aligned with the liberal woke positions as opposed to the Muslim position, which is conservative. Shabana Mahmud, ironically, is someone who used to do the pro Palestinian protests and as soon as she was made Home Secretary, she turned on Muslims and she actually banned pro Palestinian protest. She said that if you protest in the same place more than once, you will be banned. So what that demonstrates is actually when these people go into positions of power, they become subservient to Zionists. And actually it's the Zionists who control the United Kingdom. They control our government. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a self proclaimed Zionist. And so this whole idea notion is something that is claimed, but as soon as you push back, they have no answer for it. It's why most of these guys are afraid to debate me on this issue. It's why the most of these guys literally are within their own echo chamber and relay this idea and position without any kind of basically real evidence.
- [05:50]
Co-host/Interviewer
Do you think there's any truth to the $7,000 stuff?
- [05:54]
Suleiman
Yes, I do think so. So even before this kind of $7,000 thing came about, we all were well aware, even in 2023, this was before the Gaza genocide happened October 7, that many of these institutes were paying people and they do it through a multimode method. So they'll either do it through campaigns like through Prageru or Influenceables, where they'll basically play with people to say, look, this is our agenda point, this is our pro Israel position. All of you are going to be paid like 1000, 2000, 3000, $4000. This is the tweet we want. And they did this to propagate Zionism, to propagate Israel to demonize Muslims. Even, for example, Nick Fuentes, who you're well aware of, they've done campaigns against him, calling him a Fed. So this is well known campaigns. That's one aspect. Then the other aspect is that they'll pay people direct. So, for example, you'll know someone called Robert Shulman. Robert Shulman funded, for example, TPUSA. He's the guy who, if you remember, 48 hours before the assassination of Charlie Kirk, pulled his funding from tpusa. Yeah, it was because he wasn't happy about the fact that Charlie Kirk was platforming Tucker Carlson. And so Robert Shilman is one example of someone who not only pushes, has funded the idf, he also, for example, funds TP usa. He also funds hatred against Muslims. So he funded, for example, Laura Looma, he funded Tommy Robinson. Tommy Robinson is one of the biggest proponents against Muslims in the United Kingdom. He financially funded him. He funds Rebel Media, which is again another channel that funds basically anti Islam hatred. So what they do is they'll fund these people directly as well. So it's done through campaigns, is done through direct funding and also not just funding as well. What will also happen is like you want a good career. If you want a good career, even if they don't pay you direct, you know that if you basically present the Israeli position, the Zionist position, you'll have a very good route into Congress, a very good route into Senate, a very good route within politics. So this is well. And within the media. So this is something well known. Never mind the fact that within Congress and Senate, they'll directly through aipac fund their campaigns as well. And hence why AIPAC said, Look, 95% of the congressmen we back are within Congress, 97% of the senators we back are within Senate. And then even Donald Trump was massively backed by the Zionist lobby, Merriam Adelson directly. And this is not even through AIPAC funded, what you call it, Donald Trump. Trump to make sure that he gets into power and they do this. And again, that'll be an example of where it's not AIPAC money, it's someone who is a American, but basically holds Israeli positions ahead of American positions.
- [08:23]
Co-host/Interviewer
Do you think the biggest threat to the west is the Zionist movement?
- [08:27]
Suleiman
I would say they want, I wouldn't say they're the only threat, but I would say they are the biggest threat in the sense of immediate threat. So obviously I do think China is a threat. I'm not someone who is like pro China. I do think China is a threat, but I do. When you look at the Zionist lobby and you look at the accelerative nature of the threat. So for example, the economy has been harmed because of the foreign wars. The, when you look at within the culture, the left wing liberal ideas in terms of population collapse amongst the white population, in terms of the lack of religiosity within Western society, feminism, liberalism, all of these things are being pushed by Zionists. And so if you look at what is the biggest problem, you're seeing the destruction of the white race and Christianity in the West. So when you look at the birth rate, the birth rate is like what, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 in certain countries. And so what that means is imagine there's two people and for each of the two people you're only producing one person. That's immediately within one generation, the halving of a population. And so you're seeing the complete destruction of that that is happening. So I would say those are examples of an immediate threat within the west. And obviously they then use those controls to destroy and bomb the Middle east as well. So it's the destruction of all of society. So I'd say a major threat for sure. But long term, obviously there are other threats as well.
- [09:46]
Co-host/Interviewer
So do you see the white population dwindling down as a problem in America or do you think that matters at all?
- [09:51]
Suleiman
What I think it matters, I think the white population in America now I believe is 58% to 60% completely dwindling down.
- [10:00]
Podcast Host/Announcer
There's this new technology floating around that people cannot stop talking about. It's called the light system. Before you roll your eyes, it's not some gadget you strap on or supplement that promises the world. Every once in a while I come across something that actually stops me in my tracks. And the light system is one of those things. This isn't a supplement, it's not a biohack. It's a full on energy environment built to help your mind and body synchronize, recharge and operate at a higher level. It uses light patterns, color frequencies and coherent energy fields, all the stuff that your body naturally responds to to create a coherent energetic field around you. People are saying they feel more clear, more centered, more alive in their environment. And honestly the science behind it is fascinating as I've seen a lot of wellness tech. But the numbers coming out on this new study of the light system are actually insane. Researchers measured human sheik cells before and after sitting in front of the system. And get this, a 30 minute session boosted cellular conductivity by 61%. The study even showed increased conductivity in isolated DNA, which is associated with stronger structure and better repair pathways. The result? More clarity, more balance and more alignment. You could save $500. Now, if you go to thelightsystems.com and use discount code.
- [11:10]
Suleiman
Sean in the UK, I believe it's 75%. And I do think that it does matter because there's a certain. So, for example, America was created by white Protestant Christian men. They had a certain ethos and a certain idea behind it. Now, do I believe that, for example, there should be an ethnostate? No, I don't believe in ethnostates. I think bringing people in from different cultures, different societies, does benefit the community because you get the best of the best. You have innovation, you have ideas and thoughts from different people. But the problem becomes when you massively have a population completely change now, let's say you bring millions upon millions of Indians into the country. Now you're basically having Indian culture which supersedes or supplants Western society, Western ideals. I do believe that that changes the culture completely. And so you do need a majority population to remain as the kind of native population. I think that's extremely important because ideals come from their values come from, their morals come from there. So I do think there's a major problem.
- [12:10]
Co-host/Interviewer
Yeah, it's a tricky spot because we need immigration to keep the country running.
- [12:13]
Suleiman
Right.
- [12:14]
Co-host/Interviewer
Because our birth rate is so low. So you need to import the right amount of people and the right quality of people.
- [12:18]
Suleiman
Yeah, and that's the problem you've got. Because you've got the birth rate collapse and you're not. You're 100% right because you have the birth rate collapse, you're forced to. Basically, you're forced into immigration. There's like so many great books about this and for example, and even some science fiction books about this. And one of the books I like a lot is a book called by Olaf Stapleton and it's called first and Last Men. And what it talks about is different societies over time and how those societies become the best societies in the world and then they become destroyed. And one of the societies in there, what happens is there's a small population, it grows, and then they have industry, they have civilization, they have structure, they have infrastructure. And then what happens is some kind of world event occurs which decreases the society by 50% by decreasing the society, it totally causes a collapse of the society and people go back into the Stone Age. And the reason for it is because even though in the past you had less people or the current situation, the way society is molded, the way society is restructured now requires that number of people. And if you were to have a reduction of those people, it would actually cause people to the society to be destroyed and to essentially go back into stone age. So actually it's a much bigger issue than people realize how much of a population collapse is. So, yeah, I think I agree with you. Because of the major population collapse, you're forced into migration. If you don't, you're going to end up becoming like a third world country or something worse. And so it's kind of like a situation where population has been collapsed as immediately caused. You then need immigration. The problem we have in mass immigration is the society and culture changes. What I push back on isn't this idea of immigration is this claim that there is a mass migration of Muslims. That's what I'm saying. The lie is because if you look at the United States of America, the vast majority of immigration is from twofolds. Illegal immigration is obviously from Latin America. Those aren't Muslim countries, they're Catholic countries. And then if you look at legal migration, the number one country is Mexico. Again, that's a Catholic country, but not a Muslim country. The number two country is India. India is a Hindu country, it's not a Muslim country. And the number three country is China. China is an atheistic country, it's not a Muslim country. And the same is for Canada. Canada, the top two countries are India and China. Australia, the top two countries are India China. New Zealand. The top two countries are India and China. The United Kingdom. The top two countries are India and China. So this claim about mass Muslim migration, I'm saying that is fake. Not in terms of mass migration is fake. Of course there is mass migration happening.
- [14:46]
Co-host/Interviewer
That's interesting. That is very interesting. Yeah, you've actually dove into the numbers and realized that it's not Muslims taking over these parts of the world.
- [14:54]
Suleiman
Yeah, Just Muslims are not taken over numerically because the mass migration is from India and China. And also when it comes to positions of power, uk it's not Muslims in position of power. Actually you have more Jewish Zionists in positions of power in the U.S. muslims aren't in positions of power, it's Zionists who are in positions of power. Canada, the same thing. Australia, the same thing. New Zealand, the same thing. And so in reality, when they make this claim, it's fake news. And so they make the claim that they also in positions of power and they're impacting free speech. But if you look at The UK and the US who's impacting free speech. So in the uk, thousands upon thousands of people are arrested in the UK every week for their speech. You know why they're arrested? For being pro Palestine. You have doctors whose license have been taken away, have professionals whose license have been taken away. For example, I have many people on my show who are basically legitimate doctors, like Dr. Rahma whose license have been taken away just because she's against Israel.
- [15:49]
Co-host/Interviewer
That's crazy.
- [15:50]
Suleiman
And so this idea that there's a Muslim takeover yet there's no Muslims in positions of power that actually put Muslims first, mass migration isn't happening to Muslims and free speech is being impacted and people are being targeted for free speech. And there's two actually groups of people who've been tagged for free speech. The biggest group is people who are pro Palestine. And it's not just Muslims only. Even basically liberal white people are also being targeted for that. And the second group of people is obviously the far right as well, who are also being targeted. But it's not for Muslims is the main argument I'm making.
- [16:21]
Co-host/Interviewer
Yeah. Do you want to see more Muslims in positions of power in the West?
- [16:26]
Suleiman
No, I don't.
- [16:26]
Co-host/Interviewer
Okay, that's an interesting take.
- [16:28]
Suleiman
And the reason I don't is because when Muslims get into positions of power, they never ever, they end up harming the Muslim community. Really? Because what happens is people say, look, that Muslim is in a position of power. They use that to demonize Muslims and to attack Muslims. But that Muslim who's in positions of power, he doesn't put the interest of the native country first and he doesn't put the interest of Muslims first. So where's the benefit? So you got Sadiqn who doesn't put the Anshabanimud, who don't put the interest of Muslims first, who put the interest of, who don't put the interest of the native people first. And then those people are used as a mode to demonize Muslims. Or in the US as an example, Ilhan Omar. Ilhan Omar. When you look at her language, she annoys the native Americans, like the white Americans. She annoys Muslims with her kind of woke liberal positions. She annoys everyone. She doesn't benefit anything and it's like just harmful. Because what's happened in the US is like a large part of the Muslims who are in positions of power are, are these woke liberal Muslims. But they'll put the woke liberal agenda before actual Muslims. So for example, there was a debate between Wajahid Ali, who's like A media personality liberal in the US With Jillian Michaels. And he was calling her a white supremacist, even though she's not a white supremacist. She's a supremacist, but not a white supremacist. And again, this idea of doing it from a liberal perspective is doing it intentionally in order to harm Muslims. So, no, I don't want them in positions of power because they don't bring any benefit. There's no utility. It's only negativity.
- [17:58]
Co-host/Interviewer
Did you get nominated for Anti Semite of the Year?
- [18:01]
Suleiman
I didn't. I'm failing. I'm failing so badly. Like I was thinking, I've not been nominated. I've not been chosen.
- [18:06]
Co-host/Interviewer
I'm surprised.
- [18:07]
Suleiman
Yeah, I'm surprised as well. They did put my. Like, early on in 2023, they put my name on a missile and then used that missile to attack innocent Palestinians. Yes. Yeah.
- [18:16]
Co-host/Interviewer
Israel, put your name on a missile.
- [18:18]
Suleiman
Yeah, yeah.
- [18:19]
Podcast Host/Announcer
Holy crap.
- [18:20]
Co-host/Interviewer
That's crazy.
- [18:21]
Suleiman
It is crazy. And it was annoying because they use that missile to kill innocent people. And also I saw it as a threat. Basically say, look, your name's on a missile. You know, it's a threat against you. So they did do that. But no, they didn't put me under Anti Semitic of the Year. Now, I believe there could be one or two reasons for that. Either it's because they don't see me as a threat, which is possible anymore, or the other reason is that I'm very clear that I differentiate between and Zionists. I think the issue is Zionism, not Judaism. I think that there are Zionists and the vast majority are Zionists, but I believe the vast majority of Zionists aren't. And so some people argue, oh, guess what, you're being weak when you say that. But I disagree. I say that when you say it's a issue rather than a Zionist issue. You're basically hiding fact that there is a large number of Christian Zionists who also are Zionists. And a good example of that is, for example, Senator Mike Johnson. Someone like him, or Huckabee, someone like them, they're not. And I believe that the reason people do it is in order to defend them or to try and get podcasts with these Christian Zionists, because in reality, these people who believe that, who believe in this idea of Israel, who put people first, it's within their ideological belief as well. It's within their Christian belief. They believe that certain eschatological events need to happen in order for basically the Messiah to return. And so These Christian Zionists push the state of Israel not because of Judaism, but because of their own Christian Zionist belief. Because they believe the Raptor is going to come and then they need the Messiah to come. So if it's a part of your belief system, then you're the problem as well. How can you just blame Jews? So I believe that it's a Zionist issue as opposed to like a Jewish issue.
- [20:04]
Co-host/Interviewer
Yes. You make it distinct, you separate the two.
- [20:06]
Suleiman
Yeah, but not because of weakness. I think they're being weak because they're like, oh, you're being weak. You're afraid to say the truth. You're afraid to name the Jew. And I'm like, that's ridiculous. I'll talk about where Judaism has an issue. You saw it in the debate. I'll talk about how there's issues within the Talmud. But if you are going to say Zionism is solely issue when non Jewish people are also part of it and then you're going to say, oh shabazzgoy, I believe that's a form of weakness. You're hiding the fact that they are also Zionists. And I believe that your position also, or their position is that position of weakness.
- [20:35]
Podcast Host/Announcer
I don't really chase trends anymore.
- [20:37]
Co-host/Interviewer
I just want clothes that work, feel good and last. I stopped buying a lot of clothes and started buying better ones. Stuff that fits right, holds up and I actually wear.
- [20:45]
Podcast Host/Announcer
That's why I've been going with Quints.
- [20:47]
Co-host/Interviewer
They've got basics. I actually use organic con sweaters, cream polos, lightweight jackets. Stuff that holds up to daily wear and still looks good, quality, solid and everything's built to last. What makes Quince different is how they do it. They work directly with top factories. Cut out the middleman. And you're not paying for brand Markov, just quality clothing. And they only part partner with factories that meet high standards for craftsmanship and ethical production. Refresh your wardrobe with quince. Go to quince.comDSH for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.comDSH now available in Canada too. Free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comDSX. What do you think of the America first movement led by Nick Fuentes?
- [21:37]
Suleiman
So Nick's a friend of mine.
- [21:39]
Co-host/Interviewer
Yeah.
- [21:39]
Suleiman
I think the movement is extremely important because for far too long and they do this in the uk, they do this in Europe where they'll make this issue of Israel, they'll make this issue of Zionism. A solely a liberal left wing issue. And so they'll be like, oh, guess what, it's a walk issue, it's a liberal issue. The Green Red alliance, they'll try and make it into that. Even though when you look at Muslims, Muslims are neither liberal and neither are they conservative. And so someone like Nick Fuentes is a very important person. And I saw his importance in 2023 when he wasn't even that big. And the reason is because he demonstrates that being anti Israel, being anti Zionist, or for him being anti Jewish isn't solely a left wing issue. It's a holistic issue. It's the idea and notion that they need to put America first. Israel has completely occupied the United States of America. And what he does is he makes the issue into a non left wing issue first thing. But also more important than that, the left wing is very occupied. They'll be afraid to talk about, have certain conversations. They won't have conversations about the Talmud. They won't have conversations about October 7th. So if you look at it, I'm the number one guy who debunks the lies about October 7th. People from the left and people from the right are afraid to platform me because. And the reason is because they don't want to have that conversation. They don't want to have the conversation that they lied about the beheaded babies. They don't want to have the conversation that the claims about the mass is fake. They don't want to have the conversation that Israel killed the vast majority of their people on October 7th. They don't want to have those conversations. And so someone from the left like, and someone I like, by the way, Cenk Uwe, I like him a lot, very nice guy. But he'll be like, oh, it's a horrific massacre. But without ever talking about the specifics about what happened October 7th, someone like Anna Kasparian will say the same thing. Someone like Dave Smith, who's allowed on tpusa, his position is the closest to Zionism that you can have. And he'll be platformed. Now, he's not a Zionist, obviously. I appreciate all the things that he said about Palestine. But for example, he agrees with him about October 7th. He agrees with him about the resistance, he agrees with them about Hamas. All of these things are lies. And so when these.
- [23:42]
Co-host/Interviewer
Wait, Hamas is a lie, you said?
- [23:43]
Suleiman
Yeah, yeah.
- [23:44]
Co-host/Interviewer
What do you mean by that?
- [23:46]
Suleiman
So, for example, he'll say that on October 7, Hamas committed a massacre. The aim was to target civilians. This is fake news. Or the fact that basically they hide behind civilians. This is fake news because on October 7, the Hamas are very clear. First of all, in the charter, they make it look like they want to kill. The charter says the opposite. The Hamas charter says that we want to basically fight against the state of Israel because they occupy and oppress us, but when we are in charge, we're going to have a state that gives equality. And they mentioned this specifically for Muslims, Christians and Jews. So they want to stay where Muslim, Christian, Jews live in equality, which you don't have in the state of Israel. They're going to have unity, that they're going to have security and they'll be able to practice their religion, something that doesn't happen in Israel. Christians are spot on. Christians are oppressed, Muslims are abused. So. So that doesn't happen in Israel. This is what Hamas said. The second thing is in October 7th, they actually said that the reason that we're going in is because we're going to go to the kibbutzes, we're going to go to military outposts, we're going to get Israeli military personnel, we're going to take them back to Israel, and then we're going to exchange them for Palestinian hostages, men, women and children that are held in Israeli prisons without trial. And so they said that that was the objective. The objective was never to attack or kill innocent civilians. Now, did innocent civilians die? Of course they did. No one's denying that. But how many were killed by Hamas? So my claim is there was 1,150 people killed. About 400 of them were actual military personnel. So that leaves about 700 of those. The vast majority of them were killed by Israel through the Hannibal Directive, through short artillery fire. This was confirmed by witnesses like Yasmin Porat. And then the ones that were killed by Hamas either were killed accidentally, but there are a few incidences, I'd say about four or five that I've seen through the video, because I've seen every single video. There are about four or five which looks like that there is intentional killing. But again, we don't know what happened before that video, what happened after that video, what the context is, whether they put the gun out first, whether they were about to fire. But that being said, it does look like that in that video. But those specific four or five people, of course, I do believe that there should be a trial. They shouldn't be killing innocent civilians. That goes against the code of ethics of war within Islam. They shouldn't be taking civilians as hostages as well. I think that goes against code of ethics of war within Islam. But that being said, their argument is that if they were to leave them in Israel kill that it deployed the Hannibal directive, and Israel would have did kill a vast majority of their own people. So that's where I disagree with them. And also, the claim is that Hamas hide behind tunnels, so hide under hospitals, hide under schools. This is what Dave Smith says. This is fake news. Hamas don't do that.
- [26:21]
Co-host/Interviewer
Really?
- [26:21]
Suleiman
If you look at the videos where they said about the tunnels, they weren't even under hospitals. And I've interviewed a large number of people from the west, not Muslims, who are doctors. For example, Dr. Mads Gilber, who worked in Al Shafar Hospital, who said unequivocally they were given complete autonomy to walk throughout the hospitals. There was no closed areas, there was no Hamas there at the hospitals, and there was no underground tunnels. And those underground tunnels where their military personnel were, they weren't at the hospitals, they were away from the hospitals, and they got debunked on those things.
- [26:52]
Podcast Host/Announcer
That's crazy.
- [26:52]
Co-host/Interviewer
Yeah, because I saw in the media the hospitals and the schools is where they would hide in the tunnels.
- [26:56]
Suleiman
Yeah, that was a claim, but it's fake.
- [26:57]
Co-host/Interviewer
Wow. People don't even question it.
- [26:59]
Suleiman
Yeah, people don't question it. We debunked it on X. But then obviously what they do is they do these media campaigns, they do these propaganda campaigns, and then they make sure that they're able to propagate these lies.
- [27:07]
Co-host/Interviewer
Yeah, you'll only see a screenshot of the headline on X. Yeah.
- [27:10]
Suleiman
There was one video where Hagari, who was the head of the military, goes in and he gets like this calendar and he's like, look, here's the hospital and here is the rota of the Hamas people. And it was just in Arabic, the days of the week.
- [27:24]
Co-host/Interviewer
What?
- [27:25]
Suleiman
So in Arabic, the days of the week, he thought, guess what? The people at Durham, they're going to think that that's the name of Hamas personnel who are guarding the hospital. And then they got debunked because it was literally just a calendar with the days of the week.
- [27:37]
Co-host/Interviewer
That's crazy. So who's actually winning the war then,
- [27:39]
Suleiman
in your opinion, in terms of what way?
- [27:42]
Co-host/Interviewer
Israel, Palestine.
- [27:43]
Suleiman
Okay, so it depends what you mean by winning. So if you mean by winning that Israel managed to murder a lot of people, because that was really the Israeli objective, then Israel has managed to murder a lot of innocent people. If you mean what the Israeli objective was, where Israel claim that their objective was to dismantle and destroy and kill. Destroy Hamas that was their first objective. And their second objective was to return the hostages. So in terms of the second objective, they've been able to do that now, although it took two years to do so. Although Hamas already on October 9 said that we're willing to give you all the hostages back, Israel said no. So on October 7th, October 7th happens two days later. Hamas say, we're going to give you back all the hostages. Israel say no.
- [28:30]
Co-host/Interviewer
Wow.
- [28:31]
Suleiman
They don't want the hostages back. They want to basically kill as many people as possible in Gaza. So it was never about the hostages. But if you said that was an objective, that they vocally said that that was an objective they achieved, even though it was achievable two years earlier. The second objective was to dismantle Hamas. They were never able to do that. Hamas actually were never dismantled. According to the US State Department, they actually say that after October 7th till now. Hamas have more members now than they did in October 7th. So if the aim was to dismantle Hamas, that didn't work because they got more people. So in terms of the objectives, they failed in terms of what their stated objectives were. But in terms of the verbal objectives, non stated objectives, I do believe that they succeeded, which was to kill as many people as possible. They've killed hundreds of thousands of people, innocent people in Palestine. Also, if you look at the peace deal that's happened, I don't think that's a positive deal for the Palestinian people. That's a positive deal for the Israelis, because the Gaza takeover where Trump is in charge, what Trump has done is he's put the control over that. To Jared Kushner, his nephew, who is a Zionist, and to the Tony Blair Institute, Tony Blair being the guy who was responsible for the killing of millions of Iraqis in Iraq. But also if you look at the Tony Blair Institute, the biggest funder of the Tony Blair Institute is who it is, Larry Ellison. Larry Ellison is he financially funded the idf. He's the biggest funder of the idf. He's the bogus funder of the Tony Blair Institute. He's going to take over that. And as you know, he's now also taken over TikTok. Him and David Horowitz. Horowitz being again another big funder of the idf, another one who propagates anti Islam hatred through the David Horowitz Freedom center, is taking over TikTok. Larry Ellison, as you know, has taken over CBS, where he put Barry Weiss in charge, giving $150 million for a podcast which has lower viewers than you. I Saw, if our podcast is. If our podcast is worth 150 million, yours is worth what? 200 million? 300 million? 400 million. And he put her in charge of CBS. He's taken over Paramount. There's discussions about possibly taking over Warner Bros. He's trying to do it. A hostile takeover. Warner Brothers. I believe he's in conversations of taking over cnn. But Larry Ellison is taking over the entirety of the media based on instructions by Jonathan Greenblatt, who is a left wing Zionist. Larry Ellison being a right wing guy who has control over the Trump administration, but they're also taking over Gaza as well.
- [30:56]
Co-host/Interviewer
So Ellison is the new Soros.
- [30:58]
Suleiman
Ellison is more powerful than Soros. Powerful, yeah, without a doubt. I think Soros is powerful. And he's another Jewish guy.
- [31:04]
Co-host/Interviewer
He crushed the UK economy.
- [31:06]
Suleiman
He did.
- [31:06]
Co-host/Interviewer
He's got a lot of power.
- [31:07]
Suleiman
He's had a lot of power. Not just him also. The right wing design is also Coward destroyed the UK as well. If you look at someone like what's his name again? Slips on my. Listen, the guy in Treasure, Fox News, I forget his name begins at M. I can't believe I forgot his name, but I know it. But I just except my mind. But anyway, he's. And he's in charge of talk tv. And if you look at it, he is the guy who pushed through his media channels because he controlled the newspapers, he controls the media, he controls all of these different aspects. He's the one who pushed a lot of the things that harmed the US UK economy. He pushed Brexit. Brexit harmed the UK economy. He pushed the Ukraine, Russia war. He pushed the COVID lockdowns. He pushed the Gaza genocide, the Gaza war. Gaza war. So all of these things are massively impacted and harmed the UK economy. And that was the right wing and the left wing Zionists who did that. Wow.
- [32:01]
Co-host/Interviewer
So we got to keep an eye on Ellison. Yeah, him and Bill Gates, for sure. That's another one.
- [32:06]
Suleiman
Yeah, for sure. So they both do it from both sides. Yeah, I would say Soros and then Larry Ellison are the biggest guys. And like they're both guys and definitely Zionist.
- [32:15]
Co-host/Interviewer
It seems like when you have so much money, I mean, could just do whatever the fuck you want.
- [32:20]
Suleiman
Well, this is the problem because in reality what people need to realize is it's not the politicians who are in charge, it's the billionaire class in charge. People like, as you said, Larry Ellison, people like Peter Thiel, people, people like Elon Musk. So if someone like Peter Thiel can get someone like J.D. vance find him at university, prop him up and give him a job initially, then put him in as a senator. Within two years, make him the Vice President of the United States. And now in TP usa, people are talking about how he is going to be the President of the United States. That's an example of someone who is a puppet for these billionaires, and he's basically put them in positions of power. And you see it, for example, J.D. vance, you see Peter through Palantir with his mass surveillance, they've basically controlled the politicians. So I'd say, yeah, the biggest people who people need to be worried about is these billionaire classes.
- [33:13]
Co-host/Interviewer
It's almost like politicians now are groomed. Right?
- [33:16]
Suleiman
Politicians are groomed, they're chosen, and then they're put in positions of power. And so these examples we gave are those people who they choose is in positions of power. And other than in 2016, when Donald Trump won, the data quite clearly shows that whoever has the most money behind them, whether they're in Congress, whether they're in Senate, whether they're the President of the United States of America, the one who has the largest amount of money behind them are the ones who win the election.
- [33:39]
Co-host/Interviewer
Wow. So it's pay to play.
- [33:40]
Suleiman
It's just pay to pillar.
- [33:40]
Co-host/Interviewer
Yeah, Whoever's got the most money. That's crazy. Yeah. Yeah. Obama seemed very groomed to me, too.
- [33:45]
Suleiman
Oh, yeah, Obama was someone who also was groomed. He was chosen. Funny enough. I know people say he's gay. That's possible. There's also other reports that say that actually during his college years, he used to sleep around a lot, and he is actually with a white woman. Obama? Yeah. There were reports that when he was in college, he used to sleep around a lot, and he used to sleep around with basically white women. And then they basically groomed him and said, look, you know, if you want to be basically in a position of power, if you want to be the President of the United States, you need to make sure you're not with a white woman. You need to make sure that you're with a black woman. And then they brought it together with Michelle Obama, and then that's when he had the presidential run.
- [34:19]
Co-host/Interviewer
That's crazy. Yeah. It makes you really wonder if these, like, marriages are arranged half the time.
- [34:25]
Suleiman
Oh. I mean, we're in TP usa, right. It's quite clear that the marriage between Erica Kirk and Charlie Kirk was arranged. She seems like she was either his handler or she was basically. They both were extreme Zionists. They were all pushing the Zionist position. And so this is where I've had a lot of pushback because on social media, because people are trying to, in my view, re present Charlie Kirk as being something he wasn't. He was an extreme Zionist. He was pro Israel. She was an extreme Zionist. She was pro Israel. They used to celebrate the Shabbat. They used to both say Shabbat Shalom. And I believe that what's happened on social media through Candace is this kind of attempt to represent him as someone who wasn't pro Israel. When he was the most pro Israel person there is.
- [35:11]
Co-host/Interviewer
He was very. Do you think he was questioning it? Do you buy that narrative that he was questioning it at all near the end or not?
- [35:16]
Suleiman
I get a lot of pushback on this and it's easy to say that he was because you get virality. I don't think he was changing his view. If you look at it, he was the most pro Israel person throughout. He was talking about how it was funny that there was no buildings left in Gaza up until recently. He said, he was basically saying that in July he said that, guess what, there's no starvation in Gaza, which is one of the biggest Israel talking points. He was demonizing Muslims up until days before he died. So this claim that he was changing his position is fake. The basis of the claim is a couple of things. They mentioned, they mentioned his podcast with PBD, but his podcast in PPT was 2023. Right? That's the first thing. And actually there is a lot of Zionists who hold the position that he holds that there was a stand down order because they want to give this idea that Israel is impenetrable, that no one can get through it. And that's part of the Zionist agenda to basically make it look like the Palestinian could go against Israel and succeed. The second point that they make is the claim that, you know those text messages that came out 48 hours before because he said, I've got no, I've got no choice but to leave the pro Israel position because of donors. Robert Shulman, the person we mentioned. But I believe that what that was is he was trying to leverage his donors in order to get the money back because he wasn't platforming Tucker Carlson or to get other donors. And so you know, like how you're in a job and you say, look, I want to, you know, you would say, oh, look, I'm going to leave, I'm going to leave. But you're not really going to leave. You just want to leverage it. So I think Charlie Kirk was just Leveraging in order to get his donors, but in reality, he was never leaving the pro Israel position. I think the people who are claiming that I think is extremely weak because if you look at his output, it clearly isn't the case. Now, the only other point that I would say is a strong point is the Iran position. But if you look at the Iran position, he supported Trump in terms of the bombing of Iran and he supported Trump in terms of not having regime change in Iran. So his position was the Trumpian position. It wasn't anything else. Now, is it the same as the Israel position? No, it's not. Because Israel won a bomb, want to go to war with Iran. And so that position, you could say he kind of slightly digressed from Israel, but he didn't digress away from the Trump position. And is your position that Trump is anti Israel? No, he's not. So I don't. Again, I think these arguments are being made about him are extremely weak.
- [37:29]
Co-host/Interviewer
I think a big part of why he supported Israel was because he was Christian too.
- [37:33]
Suleiman
Well, it was because he was a Christian Zionist. And if TP USA and his entire organization was built on this Zionist and Christian Zionist money, it would be almost impossible for him to change his position from a financial perspective. And as you said, you're quite right. It's also his ideological belief. He's a Christian Zionist. Now, there are certain things that, for example, Candice claims that he was, for example, you know, conducting certain Catholic positions. That's fine, but he was also conducting certain positions. He was basically following the Sabbath. Right. He didn't do it all the time, but he did it sometimes. But so then it's like this claim that he's changing. I just disagree with it.
- [38:10]
Co-host/Interviewer
We'll end off with Candace. What do you think of all the Candace drama lately?
- [38:14]
Suleiman
That's, again, my opinion is going to be controversial because I believe that the Candace position and the Ian Carroll position are extremely weak on the vast majority of points. And I debunked a lot of those points. His position is weak in terms of some of the arguments they present. They present some of those arguments as factual, even though they based on weak evidence.
- [38:35]
Co-host/Interviewer
Yeah.
- [38:35]
Suleiman
The flights, for example. The flights. It was shown that actually 60% of the flights were in a different continent. There's for example, he said the note that was left between Charlie Kirk. Sorry, between Tyler Robinson and Land. Okay, Netanyahu, let's go with that one first. So the Netanyahu letter. So for a very long time, Candace Owens was saying, guess what? Release the Netanyahu letter, release the Netanyahu letter, you're going to see that their position wasn't pro Israel. But then what did we find out when he released the seven page letter? It was a love letter to Netanyahu, wasn't it? It was a love letter to Netanyahu. It was the most pro Israeli letter you can have. He was saying, guess what? Let's work together to manipulate the American public because Americans are now becoming anti Israel. Let's work together to manipulate Americans, do hasbara on them to basically become pro America. The final point is they're saying, oh, that let him. What, do you trust Netanyahu? No, I don't trust Netanyahu. But if that's a fake letter, Candace Owens can release the real letter or release evidence that she has that someone else has the real letter that will debunk Netanyahu. But she stopped talking about the letter. The other one is that they say, you know, Tyler Robinson, he was basically pushing, you know, there was that messages between Tyler Robbins and last week.
- [39:46]
Co-host/Interviewer
Right.
- [39:46]
Suleiman
Well, there's three possibilities, right? And this is the point they say that's evidence, right? So either it's real, which is possible. The other possibility, and I do think it looks fake. The other possibility is. But this is, I understand when I say that it's based on speculation. The other possibility is that Lance Twiggs and Tyler Robinson got together and faked it. And actually Lance Twigs and his basically transgender boyfriend was also involved and other people were involved as well. So it's possible that they faked it. Or the third possibility is the FBI faked it. All three of those possibilities are there. Ian Carroll goes to that and says, oh, guess what Kash Patel is saying makes no sense. But what Kash Patel is saying does make sense. But what you're saying is you disagree with it. Because what Kash Patel is saying is that the letter was left under the keyboard. Then what happened was Lance Twigs destroys the letter, throws it in the bin. They then are able to use forensic to say, look, that letter didn't exist. And then they interrogate Lance Twiggs in the FBI. And then she says, yeah, look, this was the content of the letter. So what he says makes sense. What you're saying is that you disagree with him. Either you think he's lying. Well, what you're saying he's lying, but there's no evidence from you to say that he's lying. So again, there's this lack of understanding of what evidence is and what speculation is. So what Candace Owens and Ian Carroll are doing is speculation, and that's fine. They can say what we're doing is speculation, but it's not evidence. Their strongest argument is based on the gun, the 30 yard six. Their claim is that a 30 yard six couldn't do it. Now, I agree with them that when you speak to a vast majority of people, it does seem like a 30 yard six couldn't do it. But is it impossible? That's where I disagree. I think there is a possibility. When you look at some of the experts that they put forward, Chris Masterson, I believe one shot, both of them say that there is a possibility you could have a scenario where if it's an old gun, there's a yawning that happens, a tumbling that happens on the Gobola. There is a possibility that it could be done. Is it a high possibility? No, it's not. And so therefore, they're going to have to present an evidence, the prosecution, to show how this possibility could be a lot higher. Looking at, it's going to be hard to convict Tyler Robinson based on expert evidence because the possibility is very low in my mind.
- [41:51]
Co-host/Interviewer
So it'd be hard to convict him yourself.
- [41:52]
Suleiman
Yeah, I do think so. Because in the court of law, you need a balance. You need beyond reasonable doubt. Right. Is there reasonable doubt that that bullet and that gun can do that? I think there is. There is an element of doubt there.
- [42:04]
Co-host/Interviewer
It's always a blast with you, man.
- [42:06]
Suleiman
Yeah. So it's different in terms of court of law.
- [42:08]
Co-host/Interviewer
Yeah.
- [42:08]
Suleiman
And difference in terms of evidence and difference in terms of speculation. So where I disagree with Ian Carroll and Tyler and Candace Owens is they're presenting certain things as evidence when it's just speculation.
- [42:18]
Co-host/Interviewer
Agreed. Yeah. It's a fair statement. Well, dude, it's always a pleasure with you.
- [42:20]
Suleiman
Great talking so much. Thanks for having me.
- [42:22]
Co-host/Interviewer
Check him out, guys. We'll link his X below. Peace.
- [42:24]
Suleiman
Thank you.
- [42:24]
Podcast Host/Announcer
Thanks for watching all the way to the end, guys. It means a lot. Please click here if you want to watch the next episode and please subscribe to the show. It helps us get more guests and helps grow the brand.