This account @abdullahfromuk is impersonating a man who stopped a knife attack in London's Leicester Square. His original account handle was ZartashaPti and he has been tweeting pro-Imran Khan content in Urdu and English for most of his account history.
The account @abdullahfromuk has since been deleted.
Quick tip. If you type "to:ZartashaPti" or "to:fanof_putin" into the Twitter search bar it will direct you to tweets sent to that account, but you can see it now directs you to abdullahfromUK (useful in checking for suspicious accounts if you know their old username)
The Marc Owen data seems pretty full legit. If you do the search (to:ZartashaPti) in the Twitter search bar, you will see tweets sent to the original user name.
In other words, the to:ZartashaPti account changed his twitter username to impersonate the Abdullah in the report...
As for the shirt, really? If this was a psyop in ANY way, I mean, organized by serious forces that can manipulate media, etc, would they have Abdullah do the interview NOT in a bloody shirt? That makes no sense. Even someone doing a simple prank would have that level of thinking.
Maybe Abdullah did not get bloody or maybe even he changed his shirt. Is there any evidence to imply that Abdullah was photographed within minutes or even 20 minutes of the incident? Then, just how long do you think he is going to walk around in a bloodied shirt? Hours?
You are identifying inconsistencies, and that is good. But then, you need to consider all possible explanations, and not just gravitate to ones that suit your suspicions.
I read no where that the knife attack was 'frenzied'. The blood on teh pavement seems obvious.
The BBC report says
"The (Met Police) force added the girl required hospital treatment for "serious" but not life-threatening injuries, while her mother's wounds were "more minor".
We can imagine all sorts of scenarios, including blood going everywhere, but the imagination isn't helpful unless it leads us to information and data. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that abdullah had to be bloodied up (he wrestled the suspect, not the kid), that the shirt he is wearing in the photos is the shirt he wore anyway, and that there had to be a lot of blood everywhere more than what is apparent in photographic evidence.
Depending on where a knife wound lands, the victim might shed a lot of blood, or not a lot of blood. Most will also be soaked by the victim's clothing, not splattered all over the walls. Concrete is porous and after a very short time, blood will not be as apparent as a carpet, or polished floor, for example.
At least, that's how I read the situation. An important challenge with filtering data and information is to NOT hold any assumptions as facts before they are seriously corroborated. Some folks leap to the assumption that the incident was a psyop and then after that point, all they see are things that make sense BECAUSE they made that original assumption and are working from there.
That's what we mean by confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is holding some assumption or belief as the pinpoint and then only seeing or interpreting information after that in that context.
E.g.
He's a colored immigrant, and perp is a Caucasian brit. Too convenient. MUST be a psyop. Oh, abdullah said the perp had blood on him. But the video shows no blood. More evidence that its a psyop. BBC reporting on it. Must be a psyop. Abdullah account looks like he has some political agenda. More evidence that its a psyop.
So the preconcieved ideas, assumptions or beliefs lead the evidence, and not the other way around (which it should).
Anyway, interesting topic and tragic incident (if real).
The Great Awakening. We KNOW we have been manipulated and that they are still trying to manipulate us. The challenge is to find HOW they are trying to manipulate us, without thinking everything we see is pure manipulation.
https://x.com/JacquiB80644876/status/1823060864800264632
Someone already addressed this point. See:
https://x.com/marcowenjones/status/1823023635382358185
The account @abdullahfromuk has since been deleted.
see this thread: https://x.com/marcowenjones/status/1823031327198781859
The Marc Owen data seems pretty full legit. If you do the search (to:ZartashaPti) in the Twitter search bar, you will see tweets sent to the original user name.
In other words, the to:ZartashaPti account changed his twitter username to impersonate the Abdullah in the report...
As for the shirt, really? If this was a psyop in ANY way, I mean, organized by serious forces that can manipulate media, etc, would they have Abdullah do the interview NOT in a bloody shirt? That makes no sense. Even someone doing a simple prank would have that level of thinking.
Maybe Abdullah did not get bloody or maybe even he changed his shirt. Is there any evidence to imply that Abdullah was photographed within minutes or even 20 minutes of the incident? Then, just how long do you think he is going to walk around in a bloodied shirt? Hours?
You are identifying inconsistencies, and that is good. But then, you need to consider all possible explanations, and not just gravitate to ones that suit your suspicions.
I read no where that the knife attack was 'frenzied'. The blood on teh pavement seems obvious.
The BBC report says
We can imagine all sorts of scenarios, including blood going everywhere, but the imagination isn't helpful unless it leads us to information and data. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that abdullah had to be bloodied up (he wrestled the suspect, not the kid), that the shirt he is wearing in the photos is the shirt he wore anyway, and that there had to be a lot of blood everywhere more than what is apparent in photographic evidence.
Depending on where a knife wound lands, the victim might shed a lot of blood, or not a lot of blood. Most will also be soaked by the victim's clothing, not splattered all over the walls. Concrete is porous and after a very short time, blood will not be as apparent as a carpet, or polished floor, for example.
At least, that's how I read the situation. An important challenge with filtering data and information is to NOT hold any assumptions as facts before they are seriously corroborated. Some folks leap to the assumption that the incident was a psyop and then after that point, all they see are things that make sense BECAUSE they made that original assumption and are working from there.
That's what we mean by confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is holding some assumption or belief as the pinpoint and then only seeing or interpreting information after that in that context.
E.g.
He's a colored immigrant, and perp is a Caucasian brit. Too convenient. MUST be a psyop. Oh, abdullah said the perp had blood on him. But the video shows no blood. More evidence that its a psyop. BBC reporting on it. Must be a psyop. Abdullah account looks like he has some political agenda. More evidence that its a psyop.
So the preconcieved ideas, assumptions or beliefs lead the evidence, and not the other way around (which it should).
Anyway, interesting topic and tragic incident (if real).
The Great Awakening. We KNOW we have been manipulated and that they are still trying to manipulate us. The challenge is to find HOW they are trying to manipulate us, without thinking everything we see is pure manipulation.
I suspected that screenshot might have been from the now deleted account.
Havent looked into this much as you can tell. Youre probably right...thanks for looking into it.
Insert 'are we the
baddiesbullshit spreaders' meme