Axios reported in February that the top Democrats who worked on the report concluded that Harris “lost significant support because of the Biden administration’s approach to the war in Gaza.”
If that’s the case, it’s not reflected in the document that CNN published on Thursday morning.
Hinzu kommt ein Faktor, der politisch bislang erstaunlich wenig diskutiert wird: KI-Systeme lernen, welche Inhalte besonders starke emotionale Reaktionen auslösen. Angst, Wut, Empörung und moralische Zuspitzung erzeugen Aufmerksamkeit, und Aufmerksamkeit ist die eigentliche Währung digitaler Plattformen. Dadurch entsteht ein Mechanismus, der gesellschaftliche Spannungen systematisch verstärken kann.
Die eigentliche Gefahr liegt dabei weniger in einzelnen Falschmeldungen als in der dauerhaften Veränderung öffentlicher Wahrnehmung. Wenn Menschen permanent mit emotionalisierten, algorithmisch optimierten Inhalten konfrontiert werden, verändert sich schrittweise die Art, wie politische Realität wahrgenommen wird. Komplexe Zusammenhänge werden auf Schlagworte reduziert, Gegner moralisch entwertet, Unsicherheit in Feindbilder übersetzt.
(2007)
5 Example: Dr. Ayman al Zawahiri
As-Sahab is the video production branch of Al Qaeda. They periodically release videos designed to remind people of Al Qaeda’s existence, issue threats, recruit members, and potentially act as a covert channel for triggering terrorist cells. Many of the videos by As-Sahab appear to have been manipulated.
On 20-Dec-2006, Dr. Ayman al Zawahiri (#2 guy in Al Qaeda) released a video. USA Today covered the video release with a headline story (Figure 25).24 USA Today’s description of the video says, “He wore a black turban and white robe … he had a rifle behind his right shoulder that was leaning against a plain brown backdrop.” While this is a valid description of the As-Sahab video, the picture used by USA Today did not show that image. Instead, USA Today used a picture from another video, dated 28-Sept-2006. This is an example of a mislabeled image.
The picture that USA Today chose to use with the story includes many other interesting features. First, it came from the IntelCenter (www.intelcenter.com) – an organization that tracks terrorist activities. The IntelCenter placed their logo in the top-right corner of the video. However, the company name is clearly cropped – likely by USA Today. A comparison with the same frame from the actual video shows many other observable differences. In particular, the IntelCenter adjusted the color and sharpness of the picture (Figure 26).
(…)
5.1 Other Al Zawahiri Videos
The video from 28-Sept-2006 was not the only manipulated video. In fact, many of the videos featuring al Zawahiri test positive for chroma-key masking. Consider the video released on 27-July-2006 (Figure 27).26 This video appears to show al Zawahiri sitting in a video studio.
When this video came out, many Americans became enraged at the US government. The main strife was generated
by a single argument: if al Zawahiri is sitting in a studio making videos, the why can’t we catch him? The answer is simple: he is not in a studio.
(…)
5.2 Back in Black
Claiming that there was a chroma-key background is not the same as actually seeing it. On 22-Jan-2007, the SITE
Institute (www.siteinstitute.org) – an organization that tracks terrorist activities – announced that they had
intercepted an Al Qaeda video before it had been publicly released; SITE released it. Three days later, As-Sahab
also released the video. ….
Nov 2, 2010
(August 5th, 2007)
At the Black Hat computer Hacker‘s conference held in Las Vegas last week, Neal Krawetz of „Hacker Factor“ showed how easily the MSM has been tricked into believing the fake images that al Qaeda has offered to further their propaganda. Krawetz specifically referred to two images, one the July 27, 2006 image of al Qaeda second in command al-Zawahiri supposedly sitting in a modern television studio. It was an image that had the tongues of the MSM and pundits alike wagging. How is it, they clucked, that al-Zawahiri could be sitting in a modern television studio yet still could not be found?
Krawetz demonstrated how the elements of the two images, however, are special effects and not real.
Seyyed Abbas Araghchi wrote on X that during the intense negotiations that took place at the highest level over the past 47 years, Iran entered into negotiations with the United States in good faith to end the war. But just when Tehran and Washington were only a few steps away from reaching a memorandum, Iran faced Washington‘s greed, constantly changing goals, and threats of a blockade.
„In intensive talks at highest level in 47 years, Iran engaged with U.S in good faith to end war,“ the top Iranian doplomat wrote, adding, „But when just inches away from „Islamabad MoU“, we encountered maximalism, shifting goalposts, and blockade.“
„Zero lessons earned,“ he stressed.
In August 1964, as Cold War tension continued to fuel Washington’s obsession with the aim of stopping communist expansion in Southeast Asia, a brief naval encounter off the coast of North Vietnam rapidly triggered full-scale U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.
Within days, President Lyndon B. Johnson received very broad congressional support to wage war, and officials justified this decision with reports of two unprovoked attacks on American destroyers that were operating in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Years later, as declassified evidence exposed errors and deliberate gaps in the reports, it became increasingly clear to many historians that the incident had not occurred exactly as described and that American leaders had, in significant ways, manipulated facts to justify the decision to send more forces to war.
(May 25, 2024)
The Gulf of Tonkin incident in August 1964 marked a pivotal turning point in the United States‘ involvement in Vietnam. What began as a limited, covert conflict rapidly escalated into a massive, decade-long war that would claim the lives of over 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese. At the heart of this transformation was a murky naval skirmish off the coast of North Vietnam that was shrouded in confusion, miscommunication, and outright deception.
The events of August 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin have long been a source of controversy and debate among historians, policymakers, and the American public. The incident raises profound questions about the use and abuse of intelligence, the manipulation of public opinion, the accountability of political leaders, and the proper role of Congress in checking presidential war powers.
(7. Juni 2017)
Ohne auf alle in der Dokumentation dargestellten Entwicklungen und Hintergründe einzugehen, beleuchtet diese u.a. die jahrzehntelange Taktik des „Wahrnehmungs-Managements“ (perception management), die Manipulation der Öffentlichen Meinung, die Lenkung vermeintlich verfeindeter oder sich gegenseitig bekriegender Gruppen durch die gleiche Hand (befördert durch die Unfähigkeit zu dreidimensionalem Verständnis von Politik, links vs rechts, progressiv vs reaktionär, oben vs unten) die gezielte Konfusion jedweder Opposition und die permanente Formwandlung der Macht und der Mächtigen, um sie nicht greifbar und damit unangreifbar erscheinen zu lassen.
Die untenstehenden und in der Dokumentation über die Jahrzehnte genannten Beispiele sind im Zuge der Entwicklung von informationstechnischer Technologie, weltweitem Einsickern von kapitalistischen (Denk)Strukturen und deren Verschmelzung („Globalisierung“), sowie Terrorkrieg in den letzten bald sechzehn Jahren praktisch auf jedes Land bzw jede Region übertragbar.
“Not only is it contentious in itself, what remains even more contentious is the fact that no one seems to agree about what everyone agreed about, or didn’t agree about,” Pinfold told Al Jazeera.
“We don’t know what Iran agreed to, we don’t know what both sides think they agreed to,” he added, noting the further complication that various parties which were either attacked or involved in the fighting were not represented.
Iran says they have 10 points. The US says it has 15 points. The problem here is a dilemma that there is no single document that anyone can refer to for what both sides are going to discuss.
(March 5, 2026)
UK officials said that there were no injuries and “minimal” damage but the Iranian made drone strike has brought the conflict onto European soil.
In a statement on Wednesday, the UK Ministry of Defence said: “The Ministry of Defence can confirm that a Shahed-like drone which targeted RAF Akrotiri at midnight on 2nd March was not launched from Iran. In the last 24 hours, the UK has resupplied air defence systemns to British and allied bases across the reigion– including UK-built air defence missiles.”
In comments first reported by state media, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told EU Council president António Costa that Iran has „the necessary will to end this war“ but expects certain guarantees in exchange.
Pezeshkian also said on Monday that any end to the war in the Middle East must „guarantee the security and interests of the Iranian people,“ according to comments first published by the state news agency IRNA and reported by regional media.
The official drew parallels with two previous rounds of negotiations held in the spring and winter of 2025, characterising them as deceptive.
In both instances, the official stressed, the United States had no genuine intention to engage in meaningful dialogue and subsequently carried out military aggression against Iran. (…)
The official outlined five specific conditions under which Iran would agree to end the war. These include:
– A complete halt to „aggression and assassinations“ by the enemy.
– The establishment of concrete mechanisms to ensure that the war is not reimposed on the Islamic Republic.
– Guaranteed and clearly defined payment of war damages and reparations.
– The end of the war across all fronts and for all resistance groups involved throughout the region
– Iran‘s exercise of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz is and will remain Iran‘s natural and legal right, and it constitutes a guarantee for the implementation of the other party‘s commitments, and must be recognized.
(…)
Traders reportedly placed $580 million in oil bets minutes before Donald Trump‘s post on Iran talks, triggering sharp moves in crude and stocks and raising questions over the timing of the trades
(February 27, 2026)
Hu Bo, Director of SCSPI and Research Professor and Director of the Center for Maritime Strategy Studies, Peking University (and a longtime friend of our newsletters!) tells me he is “100% sure” these recent images released by MizarVision on current US-Iran military posture originated from U.S. and European satellites, not Chinese ones.
Hu says his judgment can be confirmed by the satellite ephemeris, which SCSPI mentioned in its tweet.
(February 28, 2026)
Shortly before the attack, the Chinese satellite company MizarVision, which has published imagery of U.S. force buildups in the Middle East, reported that American fighter jets in the region were “all in position” and that there were no signs of large-scale activity. The company also suggested that any Israeli preemptive strike would likely be carried out independently. Both assessments appeared to be incorrect after it became clear the campaign was a coordinated Israeli-U.S. operation.
A drone which hit Britain‘s Royal Air Force Akrotiri base in Cyprus was not launched from Iran as many had initially assumed, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has revealed.
Officials reportedly believe the „Shahed-type drone“ evaded detection by flying low and slow on Sunday. It hit a hangar used by American U-2 spy planes and burst into flames.
There were no casualties and the MoD said there was „no damage to equipment inside the hangar“.
But the UK has still not confirmed where exactly the drone was launched from – and who was responsible.
Western officials insisted the drone was “not fired from Iran”.
An source said: “We have acquired that drone and we can confirm that it is a Shahed-type drone.
“We do know that drone was not launched from Iran.
“Based on type of drone and its range and ability, Defence Intelligence can confirm that that drone was not launched from Iran.”
Earlier Healey had signalled the drone was airborne for more than an hour.
(21 house ago)
The drone that hit the UK‘s RAF Akrotiri airbase in Cyprus on Sunday night was not launched from Iran, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Defence has said.
However, it added the drone was „Shahed-like“, referring to Iran‘s cheaply produced signature drones, which have been deployed en masse by Russia in Ukraine.
The UK’s Ministry of Defence has ruled out Iran as the source of the drone that struck RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus on Sunday night, though it said the unmanned aircraft bore the hallmarks of Tehran’s signature Shahed design — the low-cost drones Russia has used extensively against Ukraine, as SkyNews reports.
Taktiken, Techniken und Verfahren
Informationsmanipulation und Einflussnahme aus dem Ausland sowie Akteure, die Desinformation verbreiten bzw. Informationsmanipulation und Einflussnahme aus dem Ausland betreiben, setzen eine Vielzahl von Taktiken, Techniken und Verfahren ein, um Informationen zu manipulieren und die öffentliche Wahrnehmung zu beeinflussen.
Die am häufigsten verwendeten Taktiken, Techniken und Verfahren sind u. a.:
– Polarisierung durch die Förderung extremer Meinungen, um Konflikte innerhalb einer Gesellschaft zu verschärfen, was die demokratische Debatte erschweren kann
– Manipulation von Inhalten, indem authentische Informationen oder Medien verändert werden, wie das Bearbeiten von Bildern oder Videos, um ihre Bedeutung zu verändern
– Erstellung erfundener Inhalte, wie gefälschte Websites, die echte Quellen nachahmen, Deepfakes und KI-generiertes Ton- und Bildmaterial
– Schaffung falscher Narrative, Identitätsbetrug und die missbräuchliche Verwendung diplomatischer oder institutioneller Konten in den sozialen Medien
– Diskreditierung zuverlässiger Quellen und Umdeutung von Kontext
– Erweiterung der Reichweite durch den Einsatz von Bots, Trollen oder koordinierten Netzwerken, um die Sichtbarkeit und Glaubwürdigkeit von Desinformation künstlich zu steigern
– Einsatz von Cyber-Tools, einschließlich Hacking und anderer Cyberaktivitäten, um Informationen zu stehlen, zu verändern oder zu erfinden
(February 15, 2026)
(February 14, 2026)
It appears to come from pro-Israel propagandist @HillelNeuer
, executive director of @UNWatch
. (Says also Grok.👇)
(February 9, 2026)
the common enemy of humanity is THE SYSTEM that has enabled the genocide in Palestine, including the financial capital that funds it, the algorithms that obscure it and the weapons that enable it.
(February 14, 2026)
She will continue to expose Israel’s crimes whether she is the UN’s Special Rapporteur or not. My message to them is simple: Francesca Albanese may be even more successful in shining light on Israel’s genocide if you strip her of her UN role. Beware what you wish for!