reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @nxt888

@nxt888 - Sony Thăng

You’ve stacked so many half-truths and sleights of hand into one comment that it looks impressive at first glance. But if we slow it down, your whole argument collapses. 1. "Ok, so reject historical and ancestral land claims. Focus on land title. By that measure, the vast majority of land owned by Israelis is…owned by Israelis." You are doing a neat little trick here. You take today’s land registry, which is the outcome of expulsion, military rule, emergency regulations, and discriminatory laws, and then you point at the result as if it were a neutral starting point. If I kick you out of your house at gunpoint, declare you an "absentee," transfer your property to the state, and then the state sells it to me, guess what: On paper, I "own" your house. That is exactly how a huge share of "Israeli-owned" land was created: 1948 expulsions and flight under bombardment. Absentee Property Law to seize refugee land. "State land" reclassified away from Palestinian communities. Military orders closing off areas, then handing them to settlements. JNF and other bodies locking land for Jews only. You are pointing to the ledger at the end of the heist and saying, "See? All legal." The question is not whether the thief filed the paperwork correctly. The question is how the paperwork was produced. 2. "Don’t forget that Jerusalem was 2/3 Jewish in 1850…" Even if I grant you that statistic for a moment, it does nothing like what you think it does. First, we are talking about the city of Jerusalem, not the whole country. Second, those Jews in 1850 were overwhelmingly part of a long-standing, mostly non-Zionist religious community living inside an overwhelmingly Arab Muslim and Christian majority in the surrounding land. They were not a European settler movement with a charter to build an exclusivist state. They were not bulldozing villages in Lydda or Haifa. They were not running an army, an air force, and a siege. You cannot retroactively draft every Jewish community that ever lived in the region into your political project and call that "proof." By your logic, any neighborhood where one group once formed a majority becomes eternal license for a modern ethnostate. Cities change hands and demographics all the time. What does not change is the simple rule that you do not get to expel people, lock them out, and then use their absence as proof they have no claims. 3. "…and that 'free Palestine' started as a Jewish rallying cry in the 1920s against occupation…" Cool anecdote. Zero relevance. Words and slogans travel. That does not mean Zionists get copyright over the meaning of "Palestine" or "free." "Free Palestine" today is not a nostalgic nod to some 1920s Jewish protest. It is a demand to end a very present system of dispossession, siege, military rule, settlement, and apartheid that your side is enforcing. Pointing to a century-old Jewish usage of the phrase is not the flex you think it is. It just proves that once upon a time, even some Jews understood the word "occupation" differently than you do now. 4. "The majority of self-described Palestinians never set foot on nor owned land in Palestine/israel." You are hoping nobody notices how ugly this logic actually is. By your standard: A refugee’s grandchildren have no claim to the home or land their family was driven out of. A people whose villages were wiped off the map cease to be indigenous the moment they are forced into exile. A child born in a camp in Lebanon or Jordan is suddenly less "real" than a recent immigrant from Brooklyn who landed at Ben-Gurion last week. You say "never owned land," as if only private title deeds count. What about communal lands, village lands, grazing lands, orchards, waqf properties, urban rentals, generational tenancy? What about the fact that many of those records were literally seized, burned, or reclassified by the very state you are defending? And even then, you are dodging the core point: Palestinian identity is not a zoning register. It is rooted in continuous presence, culture, language, memory, and a documented pattern of forced removal. If you flood a country with settlers, expel the natives, and then say, "Look, most of them are now outside the borders so they do not count," you are not making an argument. You are just describing the crime and calling it a demographic fact. 5. "And if you want to apply this standard, you must be demanding that Jews receive Baghdad, Syria, Yemen, Iran…all places they had land owned stolen ahead of massacre and ethnic cleansing…" You just proved my point for me without realizing it. Yes, Jews in Arab countries suffered expulsions, pogroms, dispossession. Yes, they have legitimate claims for justice, restitution, and recognition. What you do not get to do is this: Take crimes committed against Jews in Baghdad, Damascus, Sana’a, or Tehran, And use them as a voucher to dispossess Palestinians in Jaffa, Haifa, or Hebron. Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis, Iranians owe a historical debt to the Jews they expelled and robbed. Palestinians did not sign that bill. You are basically saying: "Because X wronged us, we are now entitled to Y’s house." Imagine if every traumatized, dispossessed group on earth claimed the right to go pick some third party’s land and build an ethnostate there as compensation. You would call that madness in any other context. Justice for Mizrahi Jews and justice for Palestinians are not mutually exclusive. You could: Pursue restitution and recognition in the countries that expelled Jews. Build a shared, equal civic state in Palestine with full rights for all who live there and all who were expelled. Zionism chose a different path: Leverage Jewish suffering everywhere to justify Palestinian dispossession here. That is not moral math. That is laundering one injustice through another. To sum it up: You treat conquest-backed land titles as sacred when they favor you. You cherry-pick 19th-century city demographics as if that licenses 21st-century apartheid. You erase Palestinian refugees by blaming them for the fact they were expelled. And you wave Jewish suffering in Arab lands as a free pass to keep Palestinians in cages. If you really believed in land title, you would take seriously how much of that "owned by Israelis" land passed through the hands of a military governor first. If you really believed in ancestral ties, you would not pretend that fresh arrivals have a deeper claim than people whose grandparents are buried under the soil your state is still digging up. And if you really believed in justice for dispossessed Jews, you would not use their trauma as a shield for a project that is now doing to Palestinians exactly what you say was done to them.

@nxt888 - Sony Thăng

When an empire lets a federal execution play out in the middle of a neighborhood street, in the snow, on camera, and then tells you it did not happen, you are not watching strength. You are watching decomposition. For centuries, America trained itself on a single catechism: the white woman will be protected. She was the sacred siren. The alarm that summoned the mob. The alibi for the lynching tree. The moral shield for segregation, occupation, and war. They burned towns for her. They strung men up for "looking at her wrong." They marched armies across oceans "to defend her honor." Now look at what that myth is worth. A 37-year-old woman. A mother of three. A poet who wrote about life and care and small, ordinary things. Sitting in a red SUV on a Minneapolis street. Waving masked men to drive around her car. Surrounded by multiple ICE agents. Conflicting orders barked through the glass. One tells her to go. One screams at her to get out. A gloved hand jerks at the door. She inches forward to escape a scene that should never have existed. The muzzle rises. The windshield flowers with fractures. The snow drinks what the Constitution was supposed to protect. By the time her child’s school day is over, his mother is already a body in a hospital. Within hours, the president is online, turning her last seconds into a campaign prop. He tells the country she "viciously ran over" an officer the video never shows being hit. He swears the man is barely alive, clinging to life in a hospital bed, While the same footage shows him walking away intact and driving himself from the scene. The truth is not in doubt. It is simply discarded. And on the platform owned by Elon Musk, a platform already under scrutiny for AI-generated image abuse targeting women, the clip is fed into the machine. Chopped. Captioned. Wrapped in influencer sermons about "terrorism," "law and order," and "she had it coming." Trump lies. Elon lies. Their ecosystems repeat it. Not because they are confused. Not because they misread the angle. But because the goal is no longer to persuade. The goal is to train. To train millions of people to say "self-defense" when a federal agent in a mask empties rounds into a windshield on a residential street. To train them to call a terrified woman "a domestic terrorist" for trying to get away from men who have turned her neighborhood into a war zone. To train them to treat a dead mother as a special effect that can be edited in post. This is what doom actually looks like. Not a single night of collapse. A slow, public lobotomy. An ICE agent steps into the frame like an executioner, fires into a car, and walks away. Cable news debates his "split-second decision." The White House calls her death "a tragedy of her own making." Commentators cash in on the clip, lecturing the country about respecting armed men in masks. An empire that once promised to kill for its fantasy of the pure white mother cannot even pretend her life matters when the trigger is one of its own. The myth is gone. Only the machinery is left. Do not confuse that with stability. A state that can watch a mother shot in the head on camera, see the snow stained, hear the eyewitnesses, and still choose the official story over its own eyes is not confident. It is addicted. Addicted to impunity. Addicted to the feeling that there is no act so obscene that it cannot be laundered with the right chyron and the right post on the right app. If this is what they do to the people they were raised to see as "theirs," to the face they once swore to protect at any cost, imagine what they will continue to do to those they were taught to fear. To Black neighborhoods. To immigrants. To Muslims. To anyone who was never written into the myth at all. This is not law and order. It is a firing squad with HR paperwork. A kill shot with a press release stapled to it. And a country that chooses, deliberately, to believe the men who lie about the tape instead of the tape, to side with the gun instead of the woman it killed, is not choosing safety. It is choosing the grave over the mirror. And once you have trained a population to deny what the lens shows, what the blood on the snow proves, what the children without a mother will live with, you have already buried the republic. You are just watching how long the corpse can keep moving.

@nxt888 - Sony Thăng

You are not describing history. You are describing the American bedtime story about history. Let me remind you what actually happened on our soil, not in your textbooks. North Vietnam did not "invade" South Vietnam. Vietnam was one nation that foreign powers divided on paper and expected us to accept the way a prisoner accepts the shape of his cell. There is no "North Vietnamese people" and "South Vietnamese people." There is only one Vietnamese people separated by a imaginary line drawn by outsiders. You talk about 1954 as if the partition was destiny. It was not. The Geneva Accords mandated free and fair elections in 1956, so the Vietnamese could reunify peacefully. Eisenhower’s own intelligence admitted Hồ Chí Minh would win by 80 percent. That is why the United States blocked the elections. That is why your puppet regime was installed. That is why the country was carved in two to prevent democracy, not defend it. You call our president Hồ Chí Minh a "brutal scourge." Your CIA called him "the George Washington of Vietnam." The only thing dangerous about him was that he wanted a Vietnam not ruled by France, Japan, or America. But let us talk about the Gulf of Tonkin, since you think "the rest is history." There was no second attack. There was no assault on the Turner Joy. There was only American radar chasing ghosts in a storm, and a White House searching for the excuse it needed to unleash a war it had already decided to fight. McNamara admitted it. The NSA declassified the evidence. Your own navy officers testified the incident never happened. Yet from that lie came three million Vietnamese dead, eight million tons of bombs, Agent Orange burned into our soil and our DNA, entire provinces turned into moonscapes. And you still recite this story as if the United States came to rescue us from ourselves. Let me be very clear: America did not enter Vietnam to "help" South Vietnam. America entered Vietnam to prevent the independence of a country that refused to kneel to Western power. The people who fought the United States were not foreign invaders. They were farmers defending the same land their ancestors defended for over 2,000 years against the Han, the Tang, the Song, the Mongols, the Ming, the Qing, the French, and the Japanese. We were not fighting for communism. We were fighting for Vietnam. And we won. That is the part your version always forgets. You lost a war you cannot psychologically accept losing, so you rewrite it as a morality play where America tried to save a "good" Vietnam from a "bad" one. There was no good Vietnam and bad Vietnam. There was only Vietnam And the empire that tried to break it. The rest is not history. The rest is denial.

@nxt888 - Sony Thăng

You accuse me of distorting history, but every part of your argument depends on hiding what came first and inventing what came after. So let’s lay out the chronology you keep trying to smuggle past the reader. 1. "There was no Palestinian state." Correct. And there was no Israeli state either. So why does the absence of one justify the replacement of the other? Absence of a state is not absence of a people. Indigenous existence does not require a flag, an anthem, or a European diplomatic category. It requires presence, land, cultivation, continuity, and consent. Palestinians had all of that. Zionism did not. 2. "The land was Ottoman, then British." Exactly. Which means Zionism was never "returning to its own state." It was negotiating with empires that did not own the land they were promising. That is the definition of colonialism. Your logic would mean Native Americans had no land because Britain claimed North America on paper. You would never apply this logic anywhere else. You apply it here because it is the only way to sanitize displacement. 3. "Jews bought land legally." Some did. But over 90% of the land that became Israel was not acquired through purchase. It came from military conquest, mass expulsions, British imperial backing, planned depopulation, and the seizure of Palestinian property under martial law, all documented by Israeli historians such as Morris, Shlaim, and Pappé. Purchases were not the engine of the new state. Militarized demographic engineering was. 4. "Arabs rejected partition." Of course they did. Name one indigenous people in history who calmly voted to partition their own homeland so a foreign political movement could take half. Partition was not peace. Partition was expulsion on a map. It offered Jewish settlers 55% of the land despite owning less than 7% of it. Any people on earth would reject that. Vietnamese would. Irish would. Indians would. You would too. Rejection of dispossession is not aggression. It is the minimum dignity of any colonized population. 5. "Displacement happened because Arabs started a war." Even Israeli archives contradict you. The majority of expulsions happened before the Arab armies entered. By April 1948, over 200,000 Palestinians had already been expelled. Villages erased. Massacres committed. Land cleared. Plan Dalet operational. This was not a reaction. This was a blueprint. 6. "Walls came after suicide bombings." False. Occupation, expropriations, settlements, curfews, checkpoints, and military rule began decades before suicide bombings existed. You want violence to be the cause so colonialism can be the effect. History shows the opposite. 7. "U.S. vetoes are fairness." If Israel needed no protection, the U.S. would not have cast over 50 vetoes to shield it from accountability. A nuclear-armed state backed by the world’s largest superpower is not living in "survival mode." It is living in impunity mode. 8. "Jews are indigenous, Arabs rejected them, Arabs tried to exterminate them." The record is not kind to this myth. Zionist leaders openly advocated "transfer" long before 1948, and Ben-Gurion himself spoke openly of creating irreversible facts on the ground. Jabotinsky declared that coexistence was impossible without "an iron wall," and the Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi carried out massacres and expulsions to secure territory. Entire Palestinian communities were already being uprooted before any existential war had even begun. Israel’s own historians have documented this. You keep invoking Arab crimes to moralize Israeli strategy, yet you erase Israeli crimes to moralize your identity. 9. "Zionism is self-determination." Self-determination does not grant the right to: Engineer a demographic majority. Expel another people. Rule millions without consent. Annex their land. Impose separate laws, courts, and roads based on ethnicity. That is not self-determination. That is settler logic dressed as self-defense. 10. "I feel sad for you." People default to condescension when the argument collapses. You wrote a thousand words pretending the conflict began when Arabs resisted, and I am simply reminding you: A people resisting displacement is not the origin of the conflict. The displacement is. So let me end with the one line you cannot erase: Nothing you listed, not the rockets, not the wars, not the massacres, predates the core fact that Zionism arrived as a project of demographic replacement on a land already inhabited. The project is the cause. Resistance is the response. And you can stretch, twist, and suffocate the timeline, But you cannot reverse that truth.

@nxt888 - Sony Thang

🇺🇸JEFFREY SACHS: "In 2007, President Putin gave a very clear speech at the Munich Security Conference—very powerful, very correct, very frustrated—where he said: 'Gentlemen, you told us in 1990 that NATO would never enlarge. That was the promise made to President Gorbachev and it was the promise made to President Yeltsin. You cheated, and you repeatedly cheated, and you don't even admit that you said this. But it's all plainly documented, by the way, in a thousand archival sites, so it's easy to verify all of this.' James Baker III, our Secretary of State, said that NATO would not move one inch eastward. It wasn't a flippant statement; it was a statement repeated and repeated and repeated. Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the Foreign Minister of Germany, said the same story. The Germans wanted reunification, and Gorbachev said, 'We'll support that, but we don't want that to come at our expense.' 'No, no, it won't come at your expense. NATO won't move one inch eastward, Mr. President,' was repeated so many times in many documents, many statements by the NATO Secretary General, by the US Secretary of State, by the German Chancellor. Now, of course, all denied by our foreign policy establishment because we're not supposed to remember anything. Remember, this was all 'unprovoked'. So, back to 2007—Putin gives this speech and says: 'Stop. Don't even think about Ukraine. This is our 2,100-kilometer border. This is absolutely part of the integrated economy of this region. Don't even think about it.' Now, I know from insiders, from all the diplomatic work that I do, that European leaders were saying to the US, 'Don't think about Ukraine. Please, you know this is not a good idea. Just stop.' We know from our current CIA Director, Bill Burns, that he wrote a very eloquent, impassioned, articulate, clear, secret (as usual) memo, which we only got to see because Wikileaks showed the American people what maybe we would like to know once in a while but are never told—what our government's doing, how they're putting us at nuclear risk, and other things. This one did get out, and it's called 'Nyet Means Nyet' ('No Means No'). What Bill Burns very perceptively, articulately conveys to Condoleezza Rice and back to the White House in 2008 is: 'Ukraine is really a red line. Don't do it. It's not just Putin; it's not just Putin's government. It's the entire political class of Russia.' And just to help all of us as we think about it, it is exactly as if Mexico said, 'We think it would be great to have a Chinese military base on the Rio Grande. We can't see why the US would have any problem with that.' Of course, we would go completely insane (and we should, of course). The whole idea is so absurdly dangerous and reckless that you can't even imagine grown-ups doing this. What happens is, from what I'm told by European leaders and through long, detailed discussions, Bush Jr. says to them, 'No, no, no, no, it's okay. Don't worry. I hear you about Ukraine.' Then he goes off for the Christmas holidays and comes back—whether it's Cheney, whether it's Bush, whatever it is—and says, 'Yeah, NATO's going to enlarge to Ukraine.' The Europeans are shocked, pissed—'What are you doing?'"

@nxt888 - Sony Thang

The more innocent and just the cause, the more the crimes of the enemy are exposed in their true light. 🇵🇸Hamas is right. https://t.co/O7UlB82cI9

@nxt888 - Sony Thang

🇨🇺MIGUEL DÍAZ-CANEL: "History will not forgive the indifferent. And we will not be among them. It is time to put an end to the philosophy of plunder so that the philosophy of war dies due to lack of incentives." "More than 40% of the homes in Gaza have been destroyed, and hospitals have turned into morgues. Cuba strongly condemns the bombings against the population in Gaza and the destruction of their homes, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure. We repudiate the killings of innocent people as a result of the current escalation, which viciously attacks without distinguishing ethnicity, origin, nationality, or religious faith. We also share the pain for the suffering of Israeli civilian victims of the conflict, but we do not accept a selective indignation that seeks to ignore the gravity of the genocide being perpetrated against the Palestinians, presenting the Israeli side as the victim and disregarding 75 years of attacks, occupation, abuse, and exclusion. Nothing can justify what their army is doing against Gaza. Nothing can justify the serious violations of International Humanitarian Law they are committing. Israel violates each and every one of the UN resolutions and all of its obligations as the Occupying Power under the Fourth Geneva Convention, fully confident that the Security Council's paralysis on this issue will ensure its continued evasion of responsibility. Even in the current grave situation, the Security Council has been unable to call on Israel to stop the ongoing massacre. The United States vetoed a proposal in that body that simply called for humanitarian pauses in the confrontation to allow access to aid to Gaza and ensure the protection of civilians. Those who oppose an immediate cessation of violence in Gaza as a matter of utmost priority will have to bear the responsibility for the serious consequences this implies. But the position of the U.S. government is not surprising, as it has historically acted as an accomplice to Zionist barbarism, repeatedly obstructing the Security Council's action regarding Palestine and undermining peace and stability in the Middle East with its offensive exercise of the veto. A comprehensive, just, and lasting solution to the conflict inexorably requires the actual exercise of the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination and the building of their own independent and sovereign state within the pre-1967 borders, with its capital in East Jerusalem. There is no other effective way to stop this spiral of violence once and for all, save human lives, and chart a viable path to peace. Will the international community allow this unsustainable situation to continue? Or will it remain hostage to an arbitrary exercise like the right of veto that prevents it from acting as it should to stop the crime? A group of countries, including Cuba, proposed a resolution to the United Nations General Assembly, which was ultimately approved, demanding an immediate ceasefire, the urgent establishment of a mechanism to protect the Palestinian civilian population, rejecting the forced displacement of civilians, and advocating for the dispatch of emergency humanitarian aid. Every moment of inaction and passivity will cost more innocent lives. We must act immediately. We will continue to contribute in any way possible to legitimate international efforts aimed at ending this barbarity."

@nxt888 - Sony Thang

🇲🇾ANWAR IBRAHIM: "I am being criticised now, starting to be attacked by some circles in Europe, the United States and of course Israel. I said, as long as I am given a mandate by the people, I do not accept threats. We will still fight. I tell them, don’t ever dream of threatening us. Malaysia is a fiercely independent country. We decide what is right, we understand the meaning of freedom. We are with the Palestinian people in their struggle. Yesterday, today and tomorrow, inshallah. Malaysians were there from the days of Yasser Arafat, struggling for an independent Palestine until today, and we will continue without fear. Don’t ever threaten Malaysians. We have our rights to express ourselves. We condemn aggression, and still stay as a sovereign country." "It is Malaysia that the United States of America and Europe must learn (from). We talk about humanity, justice, human rights for the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians. We respect them as they respect us." "Where is the justice? Where is the humanity? Where are the democratic ideals and human rights that the West has been talking about? Where is the United Nations and the international voices? We are not asking for anything extra. We want the Arabs, the Palestinians, the people of Gaza to be treated as human beings. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop the killing. Give them food. Give them medicine. Give the babies the right to live. Is that asking too much?" "The level of aggression has reached the level of insanity. Women and children are butchered, hospitals and schools have been bombed. This is the height of barbarism in this world."