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- What's that little spin there? The "conservative voice" in question isn't believed because he (Tucker Carlson) has proven himself to be very untrustworthy. I don't know about the other "conservative voice/s" you mentioned that someone else took issue with.

It seems instead of researching (as you've told others to do) and responding fairly to what's been said about the source/s you've quoted more than once, you are blowing it off again, insinuating that it doesn't matter if you quote untrustworthy sources because "everybody else" says whatever they say too- then merely posting a link by a less right-leaning source and claiming it's the same.

If it's your assertion that Tucker Carlson and the NYT said the same things, why don't you go through and post where and how instead of just glibly tossing out research assignments whenever someone disagrees with you on something you've stated?

And now you are also insinuating that your sources are really only not being believed due to being "conservative" (re the face you posted above)?

This makes it seem like you are only open to stating what you already believe and wanting people to listen and consider what you post--- But not open to fairly doing the same yourself?

The reliability of the news sources people follow is basic and important, not "blow-offable" in a productive discussion. I think we all need to at least try to get to the truth and that includes fairly addressing points made in response to your posts that don't agree, not just "try to win." Otherwise, there's no point to even having a conversation. That's how I'm reading this, anyway.

Why not look up the sources you're following, that people have said are not reliable/trustworthy, and fairly try to determine if they actually are reliable/trustworthy or not, before assuming we're only saying that because they're "conservative?"

 

[LightBright]

LightBright said: Here’s a New York Times article in case people don’t believe conservative voices.
-----------------------
Wait a minute- What's that little spin there? The "conservative voice" in question isn't believed because he (Tucker Carlson) has proven himself to be very untrustworthy. I don't know about the other "conservative voice/s" you mentioned that someone else took issue with.

It seems instead of researching (as you've told others to do) and responding fairly to what's been said about the source/s you've quoted more than once, you are blowing it off again, insinuating that it doesn't matter if you quote untrustworthy sources because "everybody else" says whatever they say too- then merely posting a link by a less right-leaning source and claiming it's the same.

If it's your assertion that Tucker Carlson and the NYT said the same things, why don't you go through and post where and how instead of just glibly tossing out research assignments whenever someone disagrees with you on something you've stated?

And now you are also insinuating that your sources are really only not being believed due to being "conservative" (re the face you posted above)?

This makes it seem like you are only open to stating what you already believe and wanting people to listen and consider what you post--- But not open to fairly doing the same yourself?

The reliability of the news sources people follow is basic and important, not "blow-offable" in a productive discussion. I think we all need to at least try to get to the truth and that includes fairly addressing points made in response to your posts that don't agree, not just "try to win." Otherwise, there's no point to even having a conversation. That's how I'm reading this, anyway.

Why not look up the sources you're following, that people have said are not reliable/trustworthy, and fairly try to determine if they actually are reliable/trustworthy or not, before assuming we're only saying that because they're "conservative?"

Yikes you are scary. You seem to want to insult me more than you care about this issue, which is covered EVERYWHERE. I linked and read an article from your trusted source.

And you can find more news (and direct interviews) of this catastrophe in one of the numerous sources and organizations I mention in my several comments. Add Jerusalem Post. I’m not vetting things to suit your preferences. I’ve read/listened to all of them. You?

And LOL about me asking you to do research. I’ve summarized everything I’ve read for you and have given numerous facts AND THEIR SOURCES to educate YOU.

 

[seaurchin]

Yikes you are scary. You seem to want to insult me more than you care about this issue, which is covered EVERYWHERE. I linked and read an article from your trusted source.

And you can find more news (and direct interviews) of this catastrophe in one of the numerous sources and organizations I mention in my several comments. Add Jerusalem Post. I’m not vetting things to suit your preferences. I’ve read/listened to all of them. You?

And LOL about me asking you to do research. I’ve summarized everything I’ve read for you and have given numerous facts AND THEIR SOURCES to educate YOU.

Oh dear. Okay, first, I didn't intend to insult you. My post was fair and accurate, in my opinion.

It addressed how you are deflecting disagreements to your posts, while wanting others to seriously consider what you have to say.

That's not a two way conversation. It wouldn't even fly in a middle school debate.

And yes, it does seem that you think your role is "educate" others, as you've stated above. That's exactly the problem.

In my opinion, anyone who repeatedly lists Tucker Carlson as a news source is especially not in a position to try to teach but not try to learn.

In any case, I was addressing the "rules of engagement" in hopes of a more productive discussion. Since that's apparently not possible, and you instead see it as me insulting you, that leaves me nowhere else to go with this. So I guess we're done.