George Galloway Considers Whether ISRAEL Assassinated Charlie Kirk

You definitely had a motive. Let's be honest, Mr. Netanyahu. He said, not me, that he was afraid that Israel might harm him. He said, not me, that the pro-Israel donors were now abandoning him and threatening him. >> Recently, George Galloway considered the question of whether Israel murdered Charlie Kirk. And in this clip, he points out some things he believes points in that direction and some of the inconsistencies in this investigation that a lot of people are talking about. George Galloway, in my eyes, is a hero for his anti-war stances. Don't know if whether we'll agree or disagree on this one, but let's check it. Please like the video and subscribe to the channel. Let me deal first of all with the charge laid by Benjamin Netanyahu, by the ADL in the United States and by pundits here in the United Kingdom. You don't get to say that it is anti-semitic to suspect the hand of Israel in the slaying of Charlie Kirk. partly because you have slain assassinated more political leaders than any other country on the earth just in my lifetime. Don't make me go back to Lord Mo. Don't make me go back to Count Bernard of Sweden. Don't make me go back to the British sergeants hanging booby trapped in the orange groves in Jaffa. Don't make me go that far. Let me just stick to my own political life lifespan. You Israel have been assassinating people all over the world. All over the world in Europe, in the Middle East, and further a field all of my political lifetime. You >> Yeah, he's right about that. Actually, I don't know for sure whether Israel has assassinated more people than any other country, but they sure as hell have assassinated a lot. And if you don't believe me, just take a look at this and you can say Wikipedia is not an appropriate or good source. But even Wikipedia breaks this down immensely. And it made news recently when Israel changed from having just a master list of Israeli assassinations to making it broke down by the decades. So you can see here on the left side you have the six 50s60s7s 80s 90s 2000s 2010s. I think this represents hundreds of political figures that Israel has assassinated often on the bankroll of the United States. And this goes all the way down. I'm scrolling here. This is what it looks like all the way down to the 2020s. And you have at the very bottom you have some of the most recent which were part of that hostage negotiating team in Doha. So yeah, he's right about that. I don't know that that means we should connect this with Charlie just based on that. But certainly Israel has a track record of murdering political people of prominence all over the world. That is true. >> Assassinated almost half of the government of Yemen just 10 days ago. You don't get to say that it's anti-semitic to suspect you might have had a hand in assassinating Charlie Kirk when you told us to marvel at your persip and at your ingenuity, your engineering skills and your patience when you waited years to explode every pagar. in Lebanon. >> Yeah, I mean, he's right about assassinating half of the Yemeni government, a story that's basically been totally swept under the rug, more so even than the strike on Doha, the hostage negotiators that were to meet with Israeli officials in Doha recently. Um, that Yemen story has gone away and it was a political assassination, defying every aspect of international law. Of course, there's special carveouts for Israel in the United States eyes where that doesn't matter. If it's whatever Netanyahu wants to do, bomb seven of his neighbors since October 7th and acted genocide in Gaza, no matter. No matter for the US and Netanyahu in that relationship, the US is going to look the other way. The Israel lobby is kind of going to control Congress and the bureaucracy in that direction. And you know, that's just politics. Because that's just foreign policy in America, which is putrid if you ask me. >> Man, woman, and child, notwithstanding. You don't get to say how good you are at killing, but call it anti-semitic if somebody suspects that you may have killed Charlie Kirk, especially when there are some reasons to suspect that you might. Yeah, it's certainly not innately anti-semitic to discuss this question or to discuss whether Israel has killed people of prominence in the political world. It has. I mean, anti-semitism is a blungeon designed to, you know, sidetrack from actual conversation about things like that. So, whatever you think about Israel's culpability and Charlie's assassination, it's not anti-Semitic to talk about this. That's absurd. And if so, you know, basically everything is anti-semitic. But that's the way the word's gone, right? You can just attribute that to anything that's critical of Israel or even asking questions about, you know, serious events where there seems to be a lot of holes in them. >> And they're multiply by the hour when you scrubbed or caused to be scrubbed from YouTube. the entirety of the episode of Charlie Kirk when he openly states that you stood down on October the 7th, that it was an inside job, that you were responsible for the events on October 7. Where is it? Where is it, Mr. YouTube? Who told you to scrub that edition? All right. So, this is incorrect and I will show this. This episode is still up and I don't use that term lightly. >> It's right here. This is was on the PDB podcast. This actually happened on October 12th, 2023. It hasn't been scrubbed. I've seen a few people repeating this claim that that episode where he does question the narrative of October 7th and possible fornowledge allowing that to happen. that happened on this episode which was 5 days after the October 7th attack. Just want to make that clear. This wasn't scrubbed. I don't know where the story came from. I've heard more people than George repeat it, but it's not right. It is on YouTube. I just went to the URL now. I've highlighted this in other videos. But it's also helpful to notice that Charlie after, you know, raising questions about that, I think there were prominent media articles at the time about how could this occur both in the New York Times and the Times of Israel. He did double down on being pro- Israel after that. Just two days later, he made this tweet. Um, he said he unequivocally stands with Israel and its right to defend itself. He said, "Israel has every last right to kill every Hamas terrorist." And this was basically his mantra for 22 months. So this narrative that he was recently turning against Israel because of that, it's just false. And in some ways, I think it refutes that case more than it supports it. He did raise questions about October 7th, as have many people, even prominent conservatives have to some extent on this. But he went on to defend Israel repeat pro-Israel propaganda for the next 22 months after that. So just wanted to make that clear. That is circumstantial evidence that Israel wants to disguise the fact that Charlie Kirk, formerly a slavish supporter of all things Israel and a proponent of some mythical, unbreakable Judeoch Christian civilization had begun to turn decisively against you. He had begun to call the Epstein affair for what it is. He said the Epstein affair is Mosad. Epstein is Mosad. >> All right. So, in clarifying this, he did not say Epstein is Moad. He was asking questions about the possibility in the clips I have seen that Epstein could have worked for Mossad. And when he talked about that, he listed it in an array of options, including being an American intelligence asset. I'm not aware of any case in which Charlie Kirk categorically said Epstein's a Mossad asset. He that didn't happen from the clips that are circulating about this. I'm not saying that's impossible, but I haven't heard a clip where he's so declaratory about that. And there's a difference between that and saying, "Hey, that the possibility is on the table." And by the way, I'm not saying it's not at least interesting that he's entertaining that possibility. That's a, you know, something that Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens have entertained. Candace Owens has gone beyond that believing he has worked for Israel. But just, you know, noting that as a possibility doesn't make him stand out in a panel ple of some right-wingers. I know it's it's not enough if you ask me, people are tating that possibility because I do believe there is a lot of circumstantial evidence for that. We've talked about it profusely and routinely on this channel, but it's different than him just saying Epstein was Mossad. That didn't happen. >> He said, not me, that he was afraid that Israel might harm him. He said, "Not me, that the pro-Israel donors who had fattened his Turning Point USA organization to the tune of $40 million were now abandoning him and threatening him." All right, so this is half true. You know, according to that Greyzone article, and I'll put it up here, where I believe he's sourcing this information from, and Harrison Smith's revelation on Twitter that a source close to him told him that he felt threatened by Israel. That is true. According to Harrison Smith's unnamed source close to Charlie Kirk. Now, another unnamed source that talked to Max Blumenthal for the Grey Zone said he felt threatened by backlash that happened after, you know, donors were upset about him, you know, platforming people like Tucker Carlson and Dave Smith at his recent Turning Point USA event and were threatening, frightening him. But I want to be clear, it doesn't note that he felt threatened by that. that isn't even in this article that this is sourced from. If he's going off this article, and I assume he is, he doesn't feel threatened in terms of his safety or anything like that. He was frightened by the backlash according to this. And you know, Candace Owens thought he was going through a spiritual transformation. I can't wait to see what she presents on this. Supposedly, she's going to feature some information on this on her channel. But yeah, there was there was notable information in this piece about a rift widening between Charlie and some of his donors on coverage of Israel and, you know, platforming these people at a major event where Tucker Carlson and Dave Smith, you know, got more pops and applause than the Zionists that were there by a younger conservative crowd. And that was of concern to these donors. I have every reason to believe that, but I don't have any reason to think he felt threatened. Now, he was on Megan Kelly's show where, you know, he complained that people talked about the fact that he has less or he he talked about the fact that he has less of an ability to criticize Israel than an Israeli despite the fact that he had been such a friend to Israel. And if you listen that that whole interview in context, there's lots of pro-Israel propaganda there, too. But he does, you know, highlight this. So, I I think it's a mixed bag, but I don't have reason to believe he he felt his safety was threatened. You know, there might have been financial ramifications if some of the donors pulled out. That could be true. And he was frightened. But this is not akin to saying he was threatened in the physical sense. And maybe, you know, George said that in the financial sense. That could be true. But just wanted to give more clarity there. with complete financial collapse of his organization because he invited Tucker Carlson, the world's preeminent broadcaster to speak at a turning point event. >> All right. So, there's no event or there's no evidence that he suspected a complete financial collapse of his organization in any of these pieces with the unnamed sources including the gray zone. That's not something that's been reported associated with this that I've seen. Again, if there's something else pointing in that direction, I want to give George the benefit of the doubt. Drop it in the comments if you've seen it. But I've seen no allegations from any unnamed source that talked to the Greyzone or Harrison Smith that he feared a financial collapse of Turning Point USA. And I don't think anything else supports that. By the way, this was a very rich organization receiving a huge amount of money from a lot of donors. And you know, if something refutes that, I'd entertain that and change my position. But Charlie never claimed that from what I saw, even according to this unnamed source in these articles in the course of the latter part of this year. He said, "Not me, that it was passing strange, that it was perfectly permissible to criticize Israel in Israel, but that he and others like him on the conservative right in the United States had to be bullied, bludgeoned, browbeaten, bribed, or threatened with the removal of bribes if did the same. He said all of these things. >> He did say the last thing that is part of the Grayson piece and that was part of his interview with Megan Kelly that is in that interview and that does raise eyebrows to some extent. That's what's driving a lot of this narrative. You know, it's some of the clips like that within that interview that are driving it. He did express that. He did express chagrin and complain about that with Megan Kelly who by the way did the same. And both of them push back against that mentality of holding them to those confines in regard to Israel. >> And he's not alone. Israel has lost. Candace Owens has lost Tucker Carlson has lost Steve Banner. There is a massive hemorrhage of support for Israel on the American right. >> I agree with that. You see it right now with Marjorie Taylor Green rightly calling what's happening in Gaza genocide, saying that's America last, that's Israel first. It's not what she signed up for. Thomas Massie saying the same for a while. That is the case in addition to younger conservative activists who every poll show are being less inclined to innately support Israel than older generations. You might say too little, you might say too late given their whole shtick is supposed to be put America first. Supposed to be MAGA, not Israel first, but America first. >> Amen. But that's what's been happening. And there was a very real fear on the part of Shapiro and other slaves to Israel in the United States that Kirk with his millions of followers might go the way of Candens, another conservative figure that used to love Israel, now cannot abide. Israel might go the way of Ducker Carlson, might go the way of Steve Bannon. So, you definitely had a motive. Let's be honest, Mr. Netanyahu. It would have been a catastrophe for you if Kirk's current late trajectory over the last days and weeks of his all too short life were to continue down the road that may have turned him into your enemy. >> I agree. It would have been a catastrophe for pro-Zionist forces in the Israel lobby for Charlie to truly turn against Israel. and stop supporting Israel. But I also know that in the last, you know, days of his life, he was doubling down on some of the pro-Israel propaganda. On that Megan Kelly show that a lot of people site, he talks about that you can't trust the pictures coming out of Gaza because it's just Hamas propaganda. Both him and Megan agree on that. On July 29th, he posted a lengthy video on Twitter doubling down on this idea that Israel wasn't starving anyone in Gaza. there wasn't starvation. You know, a lie that Netanyahu repeated around that time. He posted a video that was something like 12 minutes breaking that down. We're not going to watch that, but if you want to look on his timeline, July 29th, he posted that video, you know, saying that this is, you know, anti-Israel propaganda. So, there were a lot of steps where he was backing Israel during this stage, but I have no doubt if he truly turned against Israel, that would have been a major deal. He would be probably the third most influential figure on the American right to do that with Candace Sans and Tucker Carlson coming before him and he was more impressionable on younger people and through the turning point organization. That group and a demographic is innately turning against Israel. So part of me thinks like it's more significant that Candace and Tucker did because their audience is an older demographic generally than than Charlie's from everything I've seen. But still I do buy into that. It would have been seen as a catastrophe for Zionist if he truly did turn against Israel. >> And there's lots of forensic and circumstantial reasons for believing that the fellow they've got under arrest, who the governor of Utah recently in the last hour or two pointed out has not confessed to the murder of Charlie Kirk. Therefore, he's the alleged murderer of Charlie Kirk. There's many questions. >> Agreed that there's many questions with the narrative they're giving us. The FBI narrative should never be trusted by default, and this one's no different. You know, there were mixed messages about whether or not he confessed, but it looks like his family turned him in for this, and that he hasn't confessed to American authorities, at least according to the FBI. But it sounds like all basically everyone around him that's close to him that's cooperating with authorities are saying that he did do this and are cooperating. Um whether you think that or not about Israel's culpability that seems to be true >> which I and Jackson Hel and Chris Hedges will all be probing over the course of this show this evening. But some of them are such a standout, I really should mention them in the monologue. You see, when I look at the face of the man going up the stairs without a rifle, and I look at the face of the guy, the psy turn him in. His father, a right-wing Republican MAGA donor, turned him in, said that he confessed, though the youth is now denying that. When I look at the two faces, cheat by jaw, juxtaposed. I very very much doubt whether these two faces are the same. >> All right. In that statement, it's hard for me to tell if he's talking about the picture they're displaying right now because that picture, I have no doubt that they are the same just as a layman looking at this, but I think he's referring to the pictures captured, you know, on the stairwell compared to pictures that we've seen of this shooter in other parts of life before this. And it is notable to know that one of those pictures that was captured of him on the stairwell was AI enhanced to produce a face that was not the same one that was captured on the stairwell. And that is what a lot of people are going off to say, hey, this definitely isn't the same person. Um, you know, I'm not an expert in analyzing these sort of things, but we do know that one of those pictures was enhanced, and that's drawing a lot of conclusions like they're absolutely not the same person. When you discover that the fellow who we are told is the killer was receiving visitors with outofstate plates in the weeks before the events at the university in Utah. When you look at the not one but two decoys that emerged from the crowd in the tumult after the foul assassination. One of them Zen a Zionist Jew saying, "I did it. I did it. Shoot me. Shoot me." The same man who was convicted under the terrorism acts for falsely claiming that a marathon was going to be bombed in the aftermath of the horrific crime that took place at the Boston Marathon some years before. The same man, Zen, who says he was an eyewitness to the horrific terrorist attack on 9/11 coming under, as it is, increased scrutiny all the time. When you wonder why in all of Utah, not even 1% of the population is Jewish. Scarcely more will be identifying as Zionist than of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Mr. Zen happened to walk into Charlie Kirk's event and when Kirk was assassinated claim that he was the assassin. >> All right. a lot a lot on this and I've looked into this guy, these two decoys per se, and there are some oddities about it. I won't speak to the license plate thing. I'm not sure about what that refers to. Maybe I'll dig deeper into it. But I looked at Zen and his past and this guy is considered something of a gadfly in Utah. He shows up at all sorts of political events. He's been charged with a lot of crimes, including trespassing at various people. And he was one of the two, you know, so so-called decoys arrested. I don't think it's, you know, mysterious why he happened to go to this event. Apparently, he goes to tons of events like this. He is known for showing up and occasionally being disruptive or arrested at events ranging from political speeches in general. That fits this mo completely. And this is from the Salt Lake Tribune, by the way. If you want to look into this article, here is the headline. But he's been arrested several times for this. And yeah, it is very odd for him to say that he was the shooter and make a big scene and saying, "Shoot me, shoot me, shoot me. I believe that's this guy who that was." I have no I have no information on him being a Zionist Jew. I'm I'm trusting that that might very well be the case, but I don't think it's the case that, you know, why he just mysteriously stumbled into this event. He lives in Utah and it sounds like from this article he's well acquainted with law enforcement in the re in the region and he's been arrested at many of these events. And beyond that, I don't know how you connect him to Israel. If you're saying he's a Zionist Jew, fair enough. But I've seen no attempt to con like basically link him to the Israeli government. You know, I guess that's a linkage if you're going to promote Israel. But I I just haven't seen much concrete linking him to the government or showing, you know, any kind of money trail or that he was involved in with the shooter. If you do believe that Tyler Robinson is the shooter, has he been connected to the shooter in any way? Not that I've seen. Um, just some things to think about here >> and invite people to shoot him. When you consider the questions over the gun, the questions over where the gun was procured, the questions over whether discord did display, what the government in the US claims that it displayed, but which Discord denies ever appeared on their platform. When you discover that the bodyguards that were guarding Charlie Kirk were all of them involved in the most bizarre baseballstyle hand signals in the literal seconds before the fatal shot was fired. When you >> All right, on the hand signals thing, we have seen the video. It does appear to be hand signals. Some people in security and law enforcement have weighed into that and say, "Yeah, they do look to be hand signals." But there's no reason to me to demonstrate it had anything to do with the shooting. Charlie wasn't moved in any way into a specific location. Nothing seemed to have changed between the moment of them making the hand signals and not. And I guess there's no way to say that that means, you know, beyond the shadow of the doubt, they couldn't have been something relating to the shooting. But I'm not seeing any kind of change. Charlie was seated at that position essentially for most of the event, you know, after throwing out hats essentially to the audience. And, you know, there wasn't much movement. You know, he moves back and forth if you view that film. But again, I I don't see how that would have been very pertinent when it comes to say, you know, taking the shot 10 minutes prior to that. It it doesn't seem like this moved anything in regard to the shooting or that anyone again has made any attempt to connect those people to Israel or connect those people to this shooter. I just haven't seen any concrete proof for that. Now, a lot of times security details communicate through walkietalkie. So, that's interesting. But at any rate, I'd love to hear from these guards and their explanation for it such that we don't have to wonder. But there's nothing to me that indicates that means like anything needed to change. Like the shooter had, you know, direct view of Charlie from that roof in generally the same position for a long time before that. And that's the truth. Consider the implausibility of this runt Robinson having scaled a drain pipe, changed his clothes, picked up a rifle someone had dropped for him that presumably he'd never fired before, and with one single shot pierced fatally the vital organ. in the throat of Charlie Kirk. When you consider the photographs, video of somebody running with a handgun in the crowd, handgun out in the crowd in the immediate aftermath of the event when you consider the drone. >> All right. Um, the handgun thing first. Let's talk the handgun thing first. With the handgun thing, this strikes me as, you know, I I hate to say it. It sounds like a Brit that's oblivious to US culture, especially in the US West. And I hate to even say that cuz I think George Galloway is a hero, especially in regard to foreign policy. But I think this statement's a little bit ignorant. I looked into this. Utah has open carry, and that's a big part of life in America, including and in the West. So, it wouldn't be that out of reason for someone that looks to protect themselves and others at people like events like this hearing a shot to take their handgun out of their pocket and at least, you know, be with a heightened awareness of that their lives may be in danger and there to be, you know, a response potentially to save lives. And I looked into this on campus where Charlie was shot. Utah Valley University. Right here on this site, it confirms that they comply with the state law with regard to weapons on campus. They do allow people to carry weapons openly on campus under Utah's concealed weapon law. That's called a constitutional carry law. It allows students, employees, and other people on campus to open carry there. It does say that they don't permit it except for those kind of stipulations, but that's part of the law in Utah. Now, so that's just one thing we need to recognize here is that there's really easy justification to back that there. As far as him never shooting this gun, I don't know that that has been proven. I don't think that we know that for sure that he had never seen this gun before. um this mouser. And uh you know, people have talked about stuff like you can't see him jumping down from the roof with the gun. I've heard other people say you can see the gun in that picture. And looking at that, it's kind of nebulous to me. It's ambiguous as to whether or not you could. They say he disassembled the mouser, which I've been told is tough to do. Um but yeah, I I don't know. I think we need to look more into details regarding that. I don't have all the answers there, but I don't think that we know necessarily like he never shot that before. So, which passed over the murder site within 30 seconds of the fatal shot being fired. When you recognize that Israel had motive and that Israel had the means and that Israel had the opportunity, you realize that there's every reason to suspect the hand of Israel in this crime. As it happens, I myself don't believe that they were responsible for the murder of Charlie Kirk. I'm merely saying that you'd be a fool not to entertain the possibility that they were. >> All right. I mean, all in some I think this narrative is a little sloppy still. I think there are some interesting questions. There's no doubt that Charlie was asking more questions about Israel toward the end of his life. And whether a motive existed, I mean, I think that Netanyahu would have benefited and is benefiting now from propagandizing Charlie trying to pull him further to, you know, being such a pro-zealous Israeli zealot than he actually probably was. But he was an Israeli zealot for most of his life. He supported Israel. I I presented evidence to that in this video and my previous videos. He did start to ask some questions. He was frightened by how some donors responded to him platforming Tucker Carlson and Dave Smith. I have no indication that he felt, you know, his life was in danger over that. And in the podcast, people are citing to say that he was he had turned against Israel completely. I just I'm sorry. I don't buy that. Watch that Megan Kelly interview. watch that Ben Shapiro interview. There are some interesting moments in that interview of him, you know, asking questions which, you know, even doing that would disrupt and, you know, make people like Ben Shapiro and Mark Levvin angered about that. But they're filled also with pro-Israeli propaganda. I talked about the July 29th video and things like that. You can see lots of this. Um, yeah, I mean, it's a big deal his influence over a large portion of the conservative right. However, it's notable that lots of that conservative young right that he is influential over is moving away from Israel. Anyways, you know, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ben Shapiro are out there propagandizing right now, calling him the most fierce Zionist martyr, trying to pull back and recapture the American right, seeing where it's headed and seeing the lack of support for Israel. So whether or not you think there was a motive, I wanted to just call balls and strikes in this video. Again, I think George is a hero for his stances against war. We'd have many many differences, especially in regard to economics, but I think George is great. I love the the guests that he generally has and the subjects he discusses. We see this one a little bit differently. And just the thing that sticks out to me is that, you know, from the second half of this clip on, it talked a lot about inconsistencies in the narrative. And I do want to make it clear, I think there are a lot of inconsistencies in the FBI narrative. We don't have all the answers on all the questions. There are, you know, reasons to doubt the FBI, the murderous agency that it is, and their official story about how he changed his clothes a few times, disassembled, then reassembled this rifle. Things like that are very odd and, you know, should with have more scrutiny pointed at them. and you're seeing some of that scrutiny, but very little of that part of this clip seems to link those things to Israel. So, if you're going to make an assessment that Israel was culpable for that, I think it behooves you to link these oddities and this shooter, if you think that this is shooter, the shooter to Israel. And if you don't think this is the shooter, I think it behooves you to link who you think the real shooter was to Israel if you're going to be so dead set on this narrative. And don't get me wrong, I have no problem talking about this narrative. I don't think discussion of this narrative should be prohibited, but I it's hard for me to believe how someone can be so sure compared to any other scenario that there's no other possible scenario than Israel did it based on some circumstantial things without trying to link the actual shooting and what evidence there are for the shooting to Israel. I would like to see that. And I've seen no serious attempt by people that are so dead set on this narrative to link it to the actual shooting. They're just going off, you know, some statements and circumstantial things that much of the conservative right has said, especially lately, and wouldn't necessarily prove Israeli culpability. This isn't an Israel first channel. I think the Israel first mentality is toxic. I think Netanyahu is committing a genocide on the bankroll of the US and the whole US-Issraeli relationship is backward. We don't need any part of it. But you can think that and have some doubts about this narrative until more things are concrete about it. I think there's some astrourfing in this narrative. I think it's pretty sloppy. I went through piece by piece where I could. There are some areas I have to still delve deeper into. The drone thing and the license plate thing I haven't heard of and I've been following this narrative and this story pretty closely. Let's see what Candace So says today. But I do want to hear from you. Let me know down below. Was my analysis fair-minded? Do you agree with George? You know, he says at the end he doesn't think Israel is culpable. They just have a motive. You know, what do you think about that? Let me know in the comments down below. Please like this video, subscribe to the channel, subscribe to George. He's heroic. Love his anti-war stances. And please consider becoming a YouTube member. If you click the join button below, you can help support my channel. And in return, I'll give you access to all my videos before they go live to the general public on YouTube. And until I see you guys next time, no more war, no more debt, no more inflation, and no more empire. Peace out, guys. Catch you in the next one.