Khalil Mahmoud

[LightBright]

I’m not sure what was edited out, but I looked it up and it’s quite horrific. “They” are trying to smear him and discredit him now. A green beret with a purple heart, speaking out against the war crimes the IDF is committing in Gaza, and they’re trying to smear him. Despicable.

Telephone89, Lt. Col Aguilar states he was told that “The client” is the IDF. Americans (80% recently retired special forces or law enforcement) are being hired by a clandestine private company on behalf of the client (IDF) to distribute aid at only 4 locations down from 400 food distribution sites in Gaza. This equates to one meal every three days for each Gazan. Lt. Col. Aguilar states that the UN relief agencies are best suited to do this type of thing but have been stopped. Food is waiting in palettes for distribution.

So the solution that the US is funding is not adequate. It is staffed solely by Americans. The claim is adequate food aid but it’s actually starvation. Doctors Without Borders says as much.

Important to note that IDF bases are located near the food distribution sites, they are located in active war zones (recipients of aid are endangered) and Americans are administering the food aid sites, not the IDF, they are clients only.

So USA is complicit to numerous Geneva Convention violations.

 

[Lookinagain]

I'm not saying which story is true or false, but there are also reports out there saying that Aguilar made “false claims with no basis in reality.” Just in case people want to read both sides of the situation.

 

[LightBright]

I'm not saying which story is true or false, but there are also reports out there saying that Aguilar made “false claims with no basis in reality.” Just in case people want to read both sides of the situation.

Yes I went over the claims that Aguilar was a disgruntled employee. He responds to them. He also says his best friend also a retired Green Beret, quit after one day, Jake Wood the first CEO of this organization quit the first day of deployment due to inadequacies of the operation (The Guardian covers that), and Boston Consulting Group a PR firm hired by the organization fired several employees possibly over leaks that they had modeled the costs for outmigration and resettlement of Gazans outside of Gaza as compared to keeping them where they live (Financial Times). There are four other whistleblowers but they are anonymous. Lt. Col. Aguilar is a West Point Grad, Special Forces trained, deployed to military operations numerous times and has a Purple Heart. I don’t think he’d be lying, but yes, there are numerous rebuttals to his allegations and his responses to be heard.

 

[LightBright]

Here’s a New York Times article in case people don’t believe conservative voices.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/27/world/middleeast/gaza-hunger-doctors-nurses.html

 

[Ella]

I’m not sure what was edited out, but I looked it up and it’s quite horrific. “They” are trying to smear him and discredit him now. A green beret with a purple heart, speaking out against the war crimes the IDF is committing in Gaza, and they’re trying to smear him. Despicable.

As stated, it was just the name of a politician to comply with the policies here.

 

[seaurchin]

LightBright said: Here’s a New York Times article in case people don’t believe conservative voices.
-----------------------
Wait a minute- The "conservative voice" in question isn't believed because he (Tucker Carlson) has already been clearly and hugely proven himself to be highly untrustworthy.

It seems instead of researching (as you've told others to do) and responding fairly to what's been said about him, you are now insinuating that (1) It doesn't matter if he is highly untrustworthy because "everybody else" says whatever he says, too- this is the same reaction you had last time, by the way. Blowing that off and continuing to quote him,

And now you are insinuating that his is merely being picked on because he is "conservative" (re the face you posted above).

So, you are only open to stating what you already believe but not open to considering or admitting when you might be wrong, then?

If so, there's really no point continuing because that's not a conversation. That's only a one-way discussion. But you want your points to be listened to and considered?