Greta Claims A SECOND ‘Drone Attack’ On Her Floatilla… Are You Buying It?

The Tunisian’ Government has already dismissed her original claim of a ‘drone strike’ as unfounded. Is the second one in as many days any more plausible?

There is no question that a fire erupted on Greta’s boat in their floatilla. The unanswered question is, what caused it?

Greta and her supporters have been quick to allege that a ‘drone strike’ was employed against her and her boat, presumably to derail her mission. Scribes loyal to her cause, like those at the ‘Guardian’ have been more than happy to weigh in.

Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, posted video of the burning Alma and said it indicated a drone attack.

“Video evidence suggests a drone – with no light so it could not be seen – dropped a device that set the deck of the Alma boat on fire,” she wrote on social media. — Guardian

Another European outlet also made reference to the unfounded speculation of the UN partisans, but unlike the Guardian, they were honest enough to include the dissenting opinion offered by Tunisian authorities.

“According to preliminary findings, a fire broke out in the life jackets on board a ship anchored 50 miles from the port of Sidi Bou Said,” he said.

Reports of a drone are “completely unfounded”, the national guard said in a statement on its official Facebook page, suggesting that the fire may have been caused by a cigarette. — France 24

Yours truly couldn’t help but notice that The Guardian goes out of its way to mention both Gaza and Climate in their appeal for financial support in an article that just ‘happens’ to offer one-sided reporting about the events on Greta Thunberg’s boat. Coincidence, surely. Funny how the wording of the appeal suggests everyone ELSE is biased and compromised. Something, something about a plank and an eye.

Like most of the stories that cross our transom, a big part of the ‘real’ story concerns the ‘official’ coverage itself. Reuters gave this banal description of an alleged second drone attack.

The Global Sumud Flotilla, an international aid initiative to deliver vital supplies to Gaza, said on Wednesday that one of its boats was attacked by a drone at a Tunisian port, the second such strike in two days.
The GSF, which is seeking to break Israel’s naval blockade and deliver humanitarian aid to war-torn Gaza using civilian boats, said in a statement that all passengers and crew were unharmed.

‘Second’ strike? Slow down there, Reuters. We’re still not entirely convinced about media claims of the first one.

Internet sleuths did their thing and found some holes in the ‘drone’ theory.

Update: It seems the vessel in question, or perhaps a nearby one, fired a flare that ended up landing on it.

That’s even funnier than a cigarette. Let’s break it down:

1. Drone strikes don’t produce red or purple light. Flares do.

2. Drone munitions don’t ignite mid-air.… https://t.co/yQFXKa7fCa pic.twitter.com/yBBz8KjT5V

— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) September 9, 2025

What Greta and her loyal scribes would somehow have us believe is that Tunisia, a nation whose demographics are 98% Arab Muslim, would have its official government lie so as to downplay the incident of an alleged drone on behalf of… Israel, I guess?

We are also supposed to accept that not one but TWO drone strikes have fallen on the boat with ZERO injuries and neither attack successfully caused enough damage to repair, let alone sink the boat they are currently aboard.

They’re claiming a drone? With merely ‘cosmetic damage’ to a stationary target anchored 50 miles off the coast in good weather?

We’ve seen drone warfare take out entire tank platoons. But somehow we are expected to accept that her little putt-putt miraculously survived not one, but TWO ‘drone attacks’ that neither engulfed all aboard in a fireball, nor scuttled their precious SS Minnow to the bottom of the Mediterranean?

It’s just ‘coincidence’ that we’ve got these two failed ‘attacks’ that just happen to be exactly the sort of news stories that might generate maximum victimhood exposure and victimhood status while she’s trying to get the world to notice an activist act for Gaza whose ‘aid’ for Gazans is almost entirely symbolic.

C’mon, Greta. It’s not 1990 anymore. The world has caught on to the tricks of the trade of professional activists. Generating a buzz and getting noticed, and getting an emotional reaction is far more important than the particular facts and arguments of any given cause one might support.

What folks at the Guardian don’t realize is that their own fawning, one-sided coverage of this story actually moves them away from the goal expressed in their fundraising. Suppose they can play fast and loose with the facts of a meaningless story about a harmless fire on a celebrity activist’s boat. Why should we believe they care about reporting honest facts about other stories they have shown themselves emotionally invested in?

Let’s face facts: this flotilla was right next door to Libya and all the chaos Hillary left behind after the killing of Gaddafi. If someone in Tunisia REALLY wanted to ‘take out’ that boat? It would be long gone by now.