This is the real story about Epstein. Sadly, no one cares that he facilitated rich and powerful men to SA young women. The real issue they are hiding is how much other illegal crap the US, Israel and England have been committing together for decades. If anyone says anything, we are called anti-semites. We are accused of being Muslim, like that is a bad thing. Or we are called communists or socialist scum. How many innocent lives have they destroyed and are still destroying?
I think that you misunderstand the dynamics of Epstein’s child sexual abuse scheme. Its likely purpose was to video important and powerful men in highly compromising situations, thus rendering them easily susceptible to blackmail by U.S. and Israeli intelligence services. As a result, Israel has gained inordinate influence over American foreign policymakers, possibly including the current POTUS.
This is the kind of comment that mistakes emotional intensity for information. You’ve bundled Epstein, three governments, vague “illegal crap,” and decades of undefined wrongdoing into one undifferentiated emotional mass — no actors, no mechanisms, no evidence, not even a falsifiable claim. It’s pure catharsis masquerading as analysis. And if catharsis is what you’re after, you’ve certainly joined the right movement.
The implication of both stories is that the American Government knew, allowed, facilitated and aided Epstein, his cover-up, and his eventual demise. Great work dropsite
This story underscores how the shadow networks of power, money, and intelligence often operate beyond democratic oversight. Epstein and Barak’s collaboration shows how “private” ventures can quietly reshape entire nations’ security structures. Chilling but essential reporting.
The piece makes you feel like you’re seeing “shadow networks,” but that’s just framing. Every fact in the story is routine: all African states buy foreign surveillance systems, most from China/France/UAE; ex-intel staff is standard across the entire industry; Côte d’Ivoire’s authoritarian drift long predates Israel; and Epstein’s role amounts to forwarding emails. Remove the atmospheric wording and nothing in the article shows hidden power — it just withholds context so ordinary behavior looks covert.
If Israel didn’t exist, would Côte d’Ivoire become a liberal democracy — or just add another foreign vendor alongside China and France to its existing list
Why does your story exclude the full global and regional baseline that would allow readers to distinguish ordinary procurement and networking from covert coordination, if not to encourage a specific geopolitical interpretation?
If Israel is active in roughly 14 out of 54 African countries, what justifies framing its presence in Côte d’Ivoire as geopolitically exceptional rather than one instance within a much broader, multi-vendor procurement landscape?
What concrete evidence supports the claim that Israeli vendors or Epstein influenced Côte d’Ivoire’s political repression, rather than simply selling tools that dozens of other foreign firms also sell across the region?
Can you identify a single document that shows Epstein being tasked, directed, or used operationally by Israeli intelligence, rather than simply being in proximity to Israeli figures?
Why does the article not explore or even acknowledge alternative explanations—domestic politics, French security dominance, Chinese digital infrastructure—before attributing causal weight to Israeli involvement?
If Epstein’s contacts spanned the U.S., U.K., Europe, the Gulf, Asia, and Africa, why does your article assign strategic intent only to his Israeli-linked relationships while treating all others as incidental?
Côte d’Ivoire’s authoritarian drift mirrors that of much of West Africa; why present it as evidence of Israeli influence rather than part of a well-documented regional political trend predating Israel’s involvement?
Surveillance firms worldwide are staffed by ex-intelligence and ex-military personnel; why was this universal industry fact excluded, and why are Israeli backgrounds presented as uniquely suspicious?
Given that China and France dominate Africa’s surveillance market, why does your piece center Israel as the decisive actor while omitting the far larger technical and political influence of these states in Côte d’Ivoire?
This is the real story about Epstein. Sadly, no one cares that he facilitated rich and powerful men to SA young women. The real issue they are hiding is how much other illegal crap the US, Israel and England have been committing together for decades. If anyone says anything, we are called anti-semites. We are accused of being Muslim, like that is a bad thing. Or we are called communists or socialist scum. How many innocent lives have they destroyed and are still destroying?
I think that you misunderstand the dynamics of Epstein’s child sexual abuse scheme. Its likely purpose was to video important and powerful men in highly compromising situations, thus rendering them easily susceptible to blackmail by U.S. and Israeli intelligence services. As a result, Israel has gained inordinate influence over American foreign policymakers, possibly including the current POTUS.
This is the kind of comment that mistakes emotional intensity for information. You’ve bundled Epstein, three governments, vague “illegal crap,” and decades of undefined wrongdoing into one undifferentiated emotional mass — no actors, no mechanisms, no evidence, not even a falsifiable claim. It’s pure catharsis masquerading as analysis. And if catharsis is what you’re after, you’ve certainly joined the right movement.
The implication of both stories is that the American Government knew, allowed, facilitated and aided Epstein, his cover-up, and his eventual demise. Great work dropsite
This story underscores how the shadow networks of power, money, and intelligence often operate beyond democratic oversight. Epstein and Barak’s collaboration shows how “private” ventures can quietly reshape entire nations’ security structures. Chilling but essential reporting.
The piece makes you feel like you’re seeing “shadow networks,” but that’s just framing. Every fact in the story is routine: all African states buy foreign surveillance systems, most from China/France/UAE; ex-intel staff is standard across the entire industry; Côte d’Ivoire’s authoritarian drift long predates Israel; and Epstein’s role amounts to forwarding emails. Remove the atmospheric wording and nothing in the article shows hidden power — it just withholds context so ordinary behavior looks covert.
I believe President Trump was a close friend of Epstein at this time. Could that be one of the reasons why he seems to suck up to Netanyahu?
Epstein besides being a pervert,is a rat that will do anything for money
Long ago, the local AM news station would trumpet "ALL NEWS ALL THE TIME 24 HOURS A DAY!" which was baloney.
With Drop Site, that phrase is coming true!
If Israel didn’t exist, would Côte d’Ivoire become a liberal democracy — or just add another foreign vendor alongside China and France to its existing list
Why does your story exclude the full global and regional baseline that would allow readers to distinguish ordinary procurement and networking from covert coordination, if not to encourage a specific geopolitical interpretation?
If Israel is active in roughly 14 out of 54 African countries, what justifies framing its presence in Côte d’Ivoire as geopolitically exceptional rather than one instance within a much broader, multi-vendor procurement landscape?
What concrete evidence supports the claim that Israeli vendors or Epstein influenced Côte d’Ivoire’s political repression, rather than simply selling tools that dozens of other foreign firms also sell across the region?
Can you identify a single document that shows Epstein being tasked, directed, or used operationally by Israeli intelligence, rather than simply being in proximity to Israeli figures?
Why does the article not explore or even acknowledge alternative explanations—domestic politics, French security dominance, Chinese digital infrastructure—before attributing causal weight to Israeli involvement?
If Epstein’s contacts spanned the U.S., U.K., Europe, the Gulf, Asia, and Africa, why does your article assign strategic intent only to his Israeli-linked relationships while treating all others as incidental?
Côte d’Ivoire’s authoritarian drift mirrors that of much of West Africa; why present it as evidence of Israeli influence rather than part of a well-documented regional political trend predating Israel’s involvement?
Surveillance firms worldwide are staffed by ex-intelligence and ex-military personnel; why was this universal industry fact excluded, and why are Israeli backgrounds presented as uniquely suspicious?
Given that China and France dominate Africa’s surveillance market, why does your piece center Israel as the decisive actor while omitting the far larger technical and political influence of these states in Côte d’Ivoire?