Baby-faced anti-Israel teen urges his 1M followers to support suspected DC terrorist in rant so vile TikTok pulled it —then doubles down on hate
An anti-Israel teen with nearly a million social-media followers raged on TikTok that people need to 'support'' the accused DC Jewish Museum killer, prompting the online giant to take the rare step of quickly yanking the post.
Guy Christensen — a baby-faced, keffiyeh-wearing 19-year-old from Pennsylvania who goes by the online handle 'YourFavoriteGuy'' — doubled down on his online rant to The Post on Friday.
'You will not hear me sympathize with war criminals,'' Christensen said by phone — referring to the two Israeli Embassy diplomats gunned down by alleged hate-filled anti-Israel assassin Elias Rodriguez.
Christensen — in a TikTok video Thursday that garnered more than 632,500 views before being taken down — said, 'I want to urge you first to support Elias' actions.'
3 Guy Christensen defended the terror attack on a Jewish couple in Washington.
guychristensen_/X
In his video, Christensen added, 'I do not condemn the elimination of those two Zionist officials who worked at the Israeli Embassy last night … and here's why.
'Israel has a live-streamed a genocide to the entire world the last two years,'' he said.
'You can not expect to do such a thing in this world without the people standing up to fight to stop you in any way they can, to resist against you,'' said the college freshman, who refused to say where he goes to school.
3 Elias Rodriguez allegedly screamed 'Free Palestine' after the killings.
Katie Kalisher via Storyful
Asked by The Post if his post could be interpreted as saying he supports the killing of the victims, the teen replied, 'I think the only people who are interpreting [that] as such are the people'' who are using the slayings of 'those two Zionist officials … as a pretense to silence critics of Israel.''
Christensen — who has previously indicated online that he is from Pittsburgh — called the dead man, Yaron Lischinsky, 30, a 'war criminal' in the footage, which included a Palestinian flag in the background.
'And the same was true for the woman,'' he said, referring to Lischinsky's dead girlfriend and soon-to-be fiancee, Sarah Milgrim, 26.
He meanwhile insisted Rodriguez was 'not a terrorist.
'He is a resistance fighter,'' Christensen said.
Follow The Post's coverage on Israeli Embassy staffers killed in DC
He added to The Post, 'I think it's very shameful that the media would rather cover Elias Rodriguez over the death of hundreds of Palestinians yesterday.''
TikTok still had Christensen's inflammatory video up early Friday afternoon.
A rep said in an email about a half-hour after a Post inquiry about it that the footage was taken down 'for violating our Community Guidelines.''
3 Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lichinksy were set to get engaged before they were gunned down.
Obtained by NYPost.
'We have removed the video that you shared for violating our Community Guidelines,'' the representative wrote.
'Our Community Guidelines prohibit anyone from promoting violent or hateful actors, and we do not allow conspiracy theories that are violent or hateful, such as denying well-documented violent events.'
Christensen told The Post that his video had been initially taken down by TikTok, then he appealed and won. After it went up again, it was taken down again, and he appealed and succeeded in his bid.
He said it was taken down a third time and that there would be no appeal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
13 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Shifting views and misdirection: How Trump decided to strike Iran
It was almost entirely a deception. Trump had all but made up his mind to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, and the military preparations were well underway for the complex attack. Less than 30 hours after Leavitt relayed his statement, he would give the order for an assault that put the United States in the middle of the latest conflict to break out in one of the world's most volatile regions. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump's 'two weeks' statement was just one aspect of a broader effort at political and military misdirection that took place over eight chaotic days, from the first Israeli strikes against Iran to the moment when a fleet of B-2 stealth bombers took off from Missouri for the first U.S. military strikes inside Iran since that country's theocratic revolution in 1979. Advertisement Interviews with administration officials, Trump allies and advisers, Pentagon officials and others familiar with the events show how, during this period, different factions of Trump's allies jockeyed to win over a president who was listing in all directions over whether to choose war, diplomacy or some combination. Advertisement Outsiders tried to divine which faction was ascendant based on whom Trump met with at any given time. Trump seemed almost gleeful in telling reporters that he could make a decision 'one second before it's due, because things change, especially with war.' All the while, Trump was making blustery statements indicating he was about to take the country into the conflict. 'Everyone should evacuate Tehran!' he wrote last Monday on Truth Social, the social media platform he owns. The following day, he posted that he had not left a meeting of the Group of 7 in Canada to broker a Middle East ceasefire but for something 'much bigger.' So, he told the world, 'Stay tuned!' These public pronouncements generated angst at the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command, where military planners began to worry that Trump was giving Iran too much warning about an impending strike. They built their own deception into the attack plan: a second group of B-2 bombers that would leave Missouri and head west over the Pacific Ocean in a way that flight trackers would be able to monitor Saturday. That left a misimpression, for many observers and presumably Iran, about the timing and path of the attack, which would come from another direction entirely. The strike plan was largely in place when Trump issued his Thursday statement about how he might take up to two weeks to decide to go to war with Iran. Refueling tankers and fighter jets had been moved into position, and the military was working on providing additional protection for U.S. forces stationed in the region. Advertisement While the 'two weeks' statement bought the president more time for last-minute diplomacy, military officials said that ruse and the head fake with the B-2s also had the effect of cleaning up a mess -- the telegraphing of the attack -- that was partly of the president's making. Asked to comment on the details of this article, Leavitt said the president and his team 'successfully accomplished one of the most complex and historic military operations of all time' regarding Iran's nuclear sites. She added that 'many presidents have talked about this, but only President Trump had the guts to do it.' A shifting tune Trump had spent the early months of his administration warning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against a strike on Iran. But by the morning of Friday, June 13, hours after the first Israeli attacks, Trump had changed his tune. He marveled to advisers about what he said was a brilliant Israeli military operation, which involved a series of precision strikes that killed key figures in Iran's military leadership and blasted away strategic weapons sites. Trump took calls on his cellphone from reporters and began hailing the operation as 'excellent' and 'very successful' and hinting that he had much more to do with it than people realized. Later that day, Trump asked an ally how the Israeli strikes were 'playing.' He said that 'everyone' was telling him he needed to get more involved, including potentially dropping 30,000-pound GBU-57 bombs on Fordo, the Iranian uranium-enrichment facility buried underneath a mountain south of Tehran. The next day, the president told another adviser he was leaning toward using those 'bunker buster' bombs on Fordo, while taking pride in both the bomb's destructive power and the fact that the United States is the only country that has the bomb in its arsenal. The adviser left the conversation convinced that Trump had already decided to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Advertisement At the same time, the president's team was closely monitoring how their most prominent supporters were reacting on social media and on television to the prospect of the United States joining the war in a more visible way. They paid close attention to the statements of Tucker Carlson, the influential podcaster and former Fox News host, who was vehemently opposed to the United States joining Israel in taking on Iran. Trump became infuriated by some of Carlson's commentary and started complaining about him publicly and privately. Political advisers to Trump had been swapping notes on various public and private polls examining the popularity of military action against Iran, noting that American support for an operation depended in part on how pollsters asked the question. While polls showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans did not want the United States to go to war with Iran, most Americans also did not want Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. The president was closely monitoring Fox News, which was airing wall-to-wall praise of Israel's military operation and featuring guests urging Trump to get more involved. Several Trump advisers lamented the fact that Carlson was no longer on Fox, which meant that Trump was not hearing much of the other side of the debate. Deliberations among administration officials about a possible American strike on Iran were in full swing by Sunday night, June 15, when Trump left for Canada for the G7 meeting. Trump seemed to his advisers to be inching closer to approving a strike, even as he told them that Israel would be foolish to try to assassinate Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. Advertisement Moreover, he said, if the United States were to strike Iran, the goal should be to decimate its nuclear facilities, not to bring down its government. The 'biggest threat to Opsec' By then, a small group of top military officials at the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida, had already begun refining attack plans on the Fordo facility and other Iranian nuclear sites that military planners had drawn up years ago. The planning was led by Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla, the Centcom commander, and Gen. Dan Caine, the chair of the Joint Chiefs. B-2 stealth bombers, based at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, are the only warplanes capable of delivering the GBU-57 bombs without detection by Iranian radar. B-2 bomber pilots have done extensive rehearsals for extended-range missions like the one before them -- crossing the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, refueling multiple times before syncing up with fighter jets for the final flight leg into Iran. But even as the military planning was being conducted in secrecy, each of Trump's social media posts seemed to be telling the world what was coming. The president, said one military official, was the 'biggest threat to opsec,' or operational security, that the planning faced. To build confusion into the attack plan, military officials decided to have two groups of B-2 bombers leave Missouri around the same time. One group would fly westbound, toward Guam, with transponders on that could be tracked by commercial satellite companies. Another group of seven bombers, carrying a full payload of bombs and with their transponders off, flew east toward Iran, undetected. Advertisement During a news conference Sunday, hours after the U.S. strike, Caine called the Guam feint a 'decoy.' Shaping the conversation By Tuesday, June 17, Trump had largely made up his mind to strike Iran. But he took his coercive diplomacy to a new level, issuing menacing threats over social media. 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' he posted on Truth Social, adding, 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there -- We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' He demanded, in all-caps, 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' By this point, several people in the anti-interventionist camp of Trump's advisers realized they most likely could not prevent the president from hitting the Iranian nuclear facilities. So, they turned their focus on trying to ensure the American war did not spiral into an expansive 'regime change' war. That day, June 17, Vice President JD Vance posted a long series of posts on social media that many within the anti-interventionist camp interpreted as him seeding the ground for a potential U.S. military operation and preemptively defending the president's likely decision. 'He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president,' Vance wrote in the widely shared post. 'And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.' Prominent activists began working to shape the conversation for what was likely to come after the bombing: a debate about whether or not to engage in a war intended to bring about new leadership in Iran. 'Regime change has quickly become the newly stated goal of this operation,' wrote influential activist Charlie Kirk, in a social media post two days before the U.S. strikes. 'America should learn its lesson and not involve itself in a regime change war.' Even as Trump was posting his own hawkish statements, he was becoming annoyed as he watched pundits on television telegraph his likely strike against Fordo. He was infuriated when The Wall Street Journal reported that he had already given a green light to putting the pieces of the operation in place but had not given the final order. On Thursday, Trump was joined for lunch at the White House by Bannon, one of the most prominent critics of U.S. involvement in Israel's war with Iran. Some wishful thinkers in the anti-interventionist camp interpreted the meeting as a sign that Trump was getting cold feet. Leavitt reinforced that sentiment when she delivered Trump's statement, not long after Bannon arrived at the White House, indicating that he had given himself up to two weeks to make a decision, a time frame he often invoked for decisions on complex issues when he had no clear plan. But Trump had already dictated Leavitt's statement before he met with Bannon. It was a calculated misdirection intended to buy some breathing room for the president while suggesting that no attack was imminent. Up through that point, Trump had been willing to continue to listen to those skeptical about the Iran strike, and to hear arguments about its possibly dire consequences -- including for oil prices, civil war in Iran and a possible refugee crisis, in addition to the prospect of retaliatory attacks that could bring the United States into a sustained conflict. On Friday, Trump left the White House in the afternoon for a fundraising event at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, his main summer retreat, further feeding the impression that no attack was imminent. But within hours, around 5 p.m. Friday, Trump ordered the military to begin its Iran mission. Given the 18 hours it would take the B-2s to fly from Missouri to Iran, he knew he still had many more hours to change his mind, as he did at the last minute in 2019, when he ordered airstrikes against Iranian targets and then aborted them. But few in his administration believed he would pull back this time. A one-off, or not A complex and highly synchronized military operation began. Many hours after the two fleets of B-2s took off in opposite directions, the bombers bound for Iran joined up with fighter jets and flew into Iranian airspace. U.S. submarines launched 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles on the nuclear facilities in Natanz and Isfahan. As the planes approached Fordo and Natanz, the fighter jets swept in front of the bombers and fired strikes meant to suppress any surface-to-air missiles that Iran might muster, Caine said in the Pentagon briefing Sunday. At 2:10 a.m. Sunday morning Iran time, the lead bomber dropped two of the GBU-57 bombs on the Fordo site, buried deep under a mountainside and hundreds of feet of concrete. By the end of the mission, 14 of the 'bunker buster' bombs had been dropped, the first time they had ever been used in combat. Pentagon officials said Sunday that the U.S. bombers and jet fighters never encountered any enemy fire. Hours after the American aircraft had departed Iranian airspace, Trump gave a triumphant speech at the White House saying that the mission had 'completely and totally obliterated ' Iran's nuclear capabilities. He suggested that the war could end with this one-off mission if Iran would give up its nuclear program and negotiate. By Sunday afternoon, however, U.S. officials had tempered the optimism of the night before, saying that Iran's nuclear facilities might have been severely damaged, but not entirely destroyed. Vance acknowledged that there are questions about the whereabouts of Iran's stock of near-bomb-grade uranium. He and Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed that a regime change in Tehran -- which could mean a protracted U.S. engagement -- was not the goal. But Trump, whose operation was the subject of praise in news coverage not just from allies but some of his critics, had already moved on, hinting in a Truth Social post that his goals could be shifting. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,'' he wrote, 'but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
One thing Aussie motorists should do
Australians are being warned that now is the low point in the petrol cycle and they should fuel up before prices rise in the coming days. With the price of Brent crude oil hitting a three-month high over the weekend as the Israel-Iran conflict escalates, surpassing $US80 a barrel, motorists are being urged to fill up. 'We will start to see the prices increase, but they are nowhere near as high as other economies have predicted,' NRMA spokesman Peter Khoury said. Mr Khoury said while the price of petrol was going up, it was not as much as some motorists feared, with on average drivers likely to pay 8 cents more a litre when fuelling up their car. 'Our regional benchmark – Malaysian Tapis – closed at $77 a barrel and we do expect it to go higher when the markets open tonight,' Mr Khoury said. 'But to put it in perspective, when we saw those really horrible record high prices back when Russia invaded Ukraine, Tapis was trading at $133 a barrel.' Australia motorists' fuel costs are based on Malaysian Tapis crude oil prices. While Tapis crude oil prices are influenced by the same factors as US brent crude oil prices, they do not necessarily trade at the same price. The price of Brent crude oil spiked to $US80 a barrel over the weekend after the US attacked and 'completely obliterated' three nuclear sites in Iran. Traders were worried about two major potential escalations in the conflict, with either the closure of the Strait of Hormuz or an all-out regional war negatively impacting the price of oil. Cutting off the Strait of Hormuz could send the price of oil above $US100 a barrel, as the 32km mile stretch is the primary route of exports from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE, and Kuwait. But the passage that feeds the world with about 30 per cent of its oil supply is still open, at least for now, pending a final decision by Iran's Supreme Council after Iran's parliament voted to close it. Mr Khoury said it was important that Australians educated themselves before they filled up, with motorists in Sydney facing the bottom of the cycle, while Perth prices are set to fall on Tuesday. 'The reason I say that is because there is always a spread of prices,' he said. 'People are really surprised. We've had people say I thought the prices would be sky high and they are not.'
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Strait of Hormuz: What is it, and could Iran close it?
The Brief Iran could retaliate after the U.S. attacked with a disruption at the Strait of Hormuz. A disruption at the major transit site could affect oil trade, significantly increasing the price we pay for gas here in America. Some 20% of all oil traded globally passes through the strait. The world is anticipating what comes next after the U.S. inserted itself into the war between Israel and Iran Saturday with a surprise attack on three of Iran's nuclear sites. Many are suggesting that Iran's next move could involve a disruption at the Strait of Hormuz, an international transit route. Here's what to know: On the map The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf that flows into the Gulf of Oman, where ships can then travel to the rest of the world. The Strait is in the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. By the numbers At its narrowest point, it is just 21 miles wide. The width of the shipping lane in either direction is only 2 miles wide. RELATED: US bombs Iran latest: Iran's nuclear ambitions 'obliterated,' Hegseth says By the numbers Some 20% of all oil traded globally passes through the strait, according to The Associated Press. Why you should care Anything affecting the strait ripples through global energy markets, raising the price of crude oil. That then trickles down to consumers through what they pay for gasoline and other oil products. Oil prices have already increased as the war between Israel and Iran has intensified, climbing by 21% over the past month. The backstory Iran has threatened before to close off the strait amid tensions with the U.S., and the disruption could be one way Iran retaliates after the U.S. bombed three of its nuclear sites on Saturday. Big picture view As of Sunday afternoon, several outlets had begun reporting that Iran's parliament had endorsed closing off the passageway. In a lesser move, Iran could cause a short-term blockage in the strait with its fleet of fast-attack boats and thousands of naval mines. It could also fire missiles from its long Persian Gulf shore. Any blockage would surely cause a fast-moving response from the U.S., which has its superior 5th Fleet stationed nearby in Bahrain. But even a relatively brief interruption could paralyze shipping traffic and spook investors, causing oil prices to spike and generating international pressure for a ceasefire. The backstory Airstrikes that began earlier this month by Israel targeted Iran's nuclear facilities and generals, prompting retaliation from Iran and creating a series of events that contributed to the U.S. attack. What they're saying Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a news conference that America "does not seek war" with Iran while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes have given Tehran the possibility of returning to negotiate with Washington. RELATED: Read full remarks of what Trump said about bombing Iran What's next The Trump administration on Sunday signaled a willingness to renew talks with Iran and avoid a prolonged war. RELATED: Who are Iran's allies? Meanwhile Iran criticized the actions as a violation of its sovereignty and international law. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Washington was "fully responsible" for whatever actions Tehran may take in response. "They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities," he said at a news conference in Turkey. "I don't know how much room is left for diplomacy." The Source Information in this article was taken from The Associated Press' previous reporting on the Strait of Hormuz, and from remarks at a press conference the morning of June 22, 2025. This story was reported from Detroit.
