Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Assessing the continued misrepresentations about Hamas and Gaza by Tucker Carlson and Retired Lt. Col. Anthony Aguilar

Trial judges across the country regularly tell juries that in assessing the credibility of a witness, they can apply the legal maxim, “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.” They put this in plain English by instructing that “if you decide that a witness has deliberately testified untruthfully about something important, you may choose not to believe anything that witness said.”

In recent weeks retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Tony Aguilar has sought to make a bit of a name for himself by widely publicizing his inflammatory charges that the U.S. and Israel are engaged in intentional war crimes in Gaza. I discussed some of the flaws in his testimony in “Laundering Hamas Propaganda” (Aug. 5, 2025). The majority of that article was focused on Aguilar’s embellishments in a July 31 interview with Tucker Carlson.

Aguilar has now participated in a follow-up interview with Carlson that again brings to mind the above legal maxim. Because I have not been to Gaza, I cannot directly contradict from personal knowledge some of his allegations. But, aided and encouraged by Tucker Carlson, Aguilar makes some claims that are so patently wrong that they show that the “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” caution is appropriate here. That is true whether he is intentionally lying or is just unacceptably sloppy. Each reader will have to be the judge of that.

A transcript of the video is here. https://singjupost.com/transcript-lt-col-tony-aguilars-interview-on-the-tucker-carlson-show/#

A brief note to readers

My approach for this and other articles is to provide support for my statements and conclusions, rather than just to offer conclusory statements of fact or opinion and expect readers to accept them as the gospel. I take this approach, in part, because I don’t want to be guilty of the ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy. So, for example, instead of just offering a conclusory statement such as ‘Lt. Col. Aguilar said such-and-such and he is wrong,’ I generally try to include precisely what he said, often with verbatim quotes, and then document why such-and-such is wrong.

That approach will usually result in a lengthier article than one that simply states the author’s conclusions without more. So, if you prefer the shorter version, I apologize for the lengthier analysis, but I provide that in the hope of convincing readers that my analysis and conclusions are sound.

If you have any views on the preferred approach, please do sound off in the comments, which I am opening to all readers, not just paid subscribers.

More of Aguilar’s incorrect and unsupported claims

War? What war? Hamas isn’t shooting at anyone.

Tucker Carlson set the stage by questioning whether there really is a war going on in Gaza, or whether the IDF is just killing civilians:

TC: What’s happening in Gaza is often described as a war. And you said you heard and saw small arms fire, mortars, artillery barrages, but they were all coming from the IDF. Did you see counter fire? Were they fighting against an armed enemy? Was it actually a war? Did you ever see any Palestinians committing acts of violence when you were there?

Aguilar’s answer to Carlson’s four questions was essentially, “No, no and no.” Here he is:

I have never in the entire time that I was there at every site seen an armed Palestinian. . . . Not one.

I didn’t see many enemy out there. I didn’t see any enemy out there.

Note that Aguilar’s claim of no “enemy out there” is inconsistent with his claim that Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) and Israel committed war crimes by locating relief sites in the middle of a “combat zone.” But he continues:

[A]nytime you hear anything about who may have been shooting, … within Gaza it’s either the Israeli Defense Force or UG Solutions [UG Solutions was the security contractor for GHF].

Hamas is not even shooting! So, who is the IDF fighting? Tucker and Aguilar both agree on the answer: They’re just murdering kids.

TA: [F]or the most part, they’re fighting an enemy now at this point that are women and children and old men. It’s not hard to defeat and annihilate an enemy when your enemy, the majority of them are under the age of 15.

TC: It’s easy to shoot kids.

This is so ludicrous that it scarcely requires rebuttal. This newly released video, and many others, give the lie to the notion that there is no war, just the murder of unarmed civilians.

Warning shots are “not a thing” and the U.S. does not use them.

In his first Carlson interview Aguilar said that the IDF and American contractors sometimes shoot over the heads of refugees or into the dirt at their feet to control and prevent them from accessing unauthorized areas. These are what normal people, including the U.S. military, would call “warning shots,” although Aguilar eschewed that term, denying that there is any such thing as a “warning shot.” He claims that the very idea of “warning shots” is essentially a myth. He claims — and apparently expects us to believe — that the U.S. military never uses then. He even claims that firing warning shots would be a war crime under the Geneva Convention. Here is his exchange with Carlson.

TC: So if you fire live ammo, was there live ammo being fired? [With his multiple references to “live ammo,” was Carlson suggesting that the security forces should load their weapons with blanks instead of live ammunition?]

TA: Absolutely. . . . Even the lawyer for UG Solutions who spoke against me said that “Aguilar is a liar. Though our forces may shoot warning shots at their feet and over their heads, we don’t shoot at them.”

Well, thank you, Mr. Contract Attorney, for admitting to a war crime on the record. Because shooting at an unarmed population, targeting, shooting at them, shooting in their direction intentionally to control them is specifically prohibited in the protocols of the Geneva Convention.

* * * *

TC: IDF have machine guns and they’re firing live rounds.

TA: Firing live rounds. When you hear UG Solutions or anyone talk about a quote unquote “warning shot,” there’s no such thing as a warning shot.

TC: I’ve never heard of that before. What does that mean?

TA: The United States military doesn’t use it because firing a bullet is firing a bullet. . . .

There has to be a threat. And the process of that threat where unless you are engaged in active combat, you feel a threat. It’s typically you, you have signage like “Hey, don’t go past this point.” Right? Then you shout, show, and then you shoot. And when you shoot, you shoot to kill. You’re not shooting a warning shot. Warning shot is such a misnomer. It’s not a thing.

Aguilar promotes at least three blatant falsehoods in this exchange.

• He claims that there is “no such thing as a warning shot.” No one does it because “its not a thing.”

What utter nonsense. Every soldier in the world except, perhaps, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Tony Aguilar knows that warning shots are both common and legitimate. Indeed, sometimes they are necessary to save civilian lives. The U.S. Naval War College publishes “International Law Studies,” which published Warning Civilians Prior to Attack under International Law: Theory and Practice:

“State practice and military legal manuals include warning shot as a legitimate method of issuing warnings.”

• Second, he claims that the U.S. military never uses warning shots as a control measure.

More nonsense. To take just one example, an officer with extensive experience in Iraq described to me the escalation protocols they employed if a vehicle was following them too closely because of the danger of car bombs. They would first try to wave them off; next they would fire a warning shot in front of the car. If that didn’t dissuade the driver, they would fire at the car’s engine block. If all else failed (or if the car accelerated with obvious hostile intent) they would shoot to kill.

• Third, Aguilar claims that warning shots are “specifically prohibited in the protocols of the Geneva convention.

Still more nonsense. There simply is no such prohibition in any of the Geneva Conventions or Protocols. If there were, the U.S, Navy would not be teaching it at the Naval War College. Aguilar, of course, did not cite any such provisions and Carlson never pressed him on this point.

The horrors: We are using “Green tipped ammunition”! But it’s the IDF’s fault.

According to Aguilar, the use of “green-tipped bullets” is improper for the military when engaged in humanitarian relief operations. He and Carlson tout “green tipped” bullets as some sort of barbaric weapon far outside the permitted norms for U.S. military ammunition.

Aguilar first raises the spectre of “green tipped bullets” in response to a Carlson comment about using “live ammunition.”

TC: Bullets are these 5.56 rounds.

TA: They are not only 5.56 rounds, they are 5.56m 855 Green Tip Steel core armor piercing rounds.

A short time later he repeats the exact same description of the bullets while tossing in a claim that U.S. infantry units does not equip their troops with fully automatic rifles when they are engaged in a humanitarian mission:

And when they first handed it to me and I looked at it and the options were safe, single, fully automatic, I was like, “Whoa, this is serious.” Not even the United States Army infantry [Interjection by TC: “No, I know.”] gives weapons that are fully automatic for humanitarian assistance.

Let’s stop right there. That is a lie. [Sorry, sometimes I have to call his statements what they are instead of bending over backwards to give him the benefit of all doubt by labelling his comments as “misstatements” or with some other innocent-sounding tag.].

The U.S. Army infantry is most certainly equipped with standard “weapons that are fully automatic” even when they are on a mission that involves humanitarian assistance for civilians. Here is a photo of American paratroopers on a humanitarian relief in Haiti. Contrary to Aguilar’s made-up charges, the second soldier clearly is carrying a fully automatic SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon).

Let’s resume with the transcript where we just left off:

TC: Loaded. They give you ammunition as well.

TA: 210 rounds of M855 Green Tip steel core armor penetrating ammunition.

TC: Why green tip ammo?

TA: I really don’t… Well, again, the Israelis gave us that.

TC: But is there a reason?

TA: You wouldn’t give someone that type of ammunition in a very closed condensed space like that unless you either had no regard for human life, civilian human life, or you were intentionally trying to kill civilians at distance.

When we were given that ammunition, I thought it was absurd.

More lies. “M855 Green Tip” is not “armor piercing ammunition” and it is not limited to “trying to kill civilians at a distance.” It is the standard issue ammunition both for the M-4 and the Squad Automatic Weapon. Perplexity AI confirms this with a good summary:

The M855 green tip is the standard 5.56mm NATO round issued by the US military and has been widely used for decades. . . . The M855 is the benchmark issue ammunition for US service rifles such as the M16 and M4, and is commonly referred to as “green tip”

* * * *

US Army-issued M855 green tip rounds are not officially classified as armor piercing per U.S. law and ATF regulations. The core of the M855 bullet is primarily lead with a small steel penetrator at the tip, which gives it better penetration against light barriers compared to standard FMJ ammunition, but it does not meet the legal definition of armor-piercing ammunition, which requires the core to be made entirely of certain metals like steel, tungsten, or similar materials.

Bullets with the green tip are simply the standard issue bullet. The only reason for the green tip is to allow quick identification of the type of round. Armor piercing rounds are marked with a black tip and tracer rounds with a red tip.

An honest answer to Carlson‘s question, “Why green tip ammo?” would have been, “Because that identifies it as the standard, general purpose military ammunition. The green tip distinguishes it from red tip tracer rounds or black tip armor piercing rounds.” What was dishonest was Aguilar’s “I don’t know” and his attempt to ‘blame’ the Israelis for supplying such dreadful ammunition, coupled with his claim that the green tip identified the 5.56mm bullets as armor piercing and was intended for “intentionally trying to kill civilians at distance.”

Aguilar: Officers order their soldiers to kill unarmed children.

I have seen other reports that IDF was shooting unarmed civilians, including children. Aguilar makes similar claims:¹

TC: Were there officers aware of the fact that they were shooting kids?

TA: I believe that they were. They were all aware. And I. And I think that . . . at the lower level it’s starting to come out now. Every day there are more and more IDF soldiers that are returning home.

A lot of the IDF that are there that are serving are coming out and saying, like, “Yes, we were ordered to shoot the children. We were ordered to shoot.”

TC: By their officers.

TA: By their officers, by their units.

I am not here to whitewash the IDF if they have engaged in such conduct. I cannot personally dispute such claims because I lack personal knowledge of every fight that has occurred in Gaza. But I will be one of the last persons to deny that in time of war, when threats are coming from every direction, officers and men can sometimes lose their sense of perspective and apply unacceptably loose rules of engagement or even outright murder. For the U.S., Lt. William Calley immediately comes to mind. If they do, they should be compelled to answer for that. I should note, however, that the Israeli government denies these claims. This factual dispute about such an inflammatory charge should trigger objective readers’ consideration of whether they should apply the “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” maxim.

Another issue with the way that Aguilar raises this allegation is that he apparently did not see and therefor has no first-hand personal knowledge of such killings (“I believe that they were.”).

But, if Aguilar did see or even become aware of such actions while he was there, then what should he have done? I think that any experienced combat leader would say that he should have taken immediate corrective action to make sure that his soldiers did not engage in such and unacceptable situation.

Aguilar did not. None of the messages that he sent to the operators under him addressed this issue. When asked about this, he claimed that his Signal messages to the men working under him were limited to “messages of encouragement.” The men were tired, stressed, and “really run down.” So, Aguilar didn’t want to discourage them. He says he therefore sent his “gripes” only to the leaders above him. If I observed any of my soldiers murdering children, I would characterize my report as more that a “gripe.”

Aguilar constantly touts himself as an experienced, competent and moral combat leader. But a leader’s responsibility is not to be a cheerleader. If a real leader sees or hears of murder or other war crimes being committed either by his unit or by others nearby, it is his responsibility to take preventive action. No if, ands, or buts. Decisive action. Even if war crimes are committed by another nation, a leader must caution his troops that they MUST NOT engage in such crimes. Anything less is a dereliction of duty.

Aguilar’s motives?

I will not speculate about Aguilar’s motives either for going to Gaza or for his vindictive crusade against GHF. But his claimed explanation is shaky.

After Aguilar retired from his $130,000+ position as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, he went to work part time in the lawn and garden section of Lowe’s Home and Garden. There he was found himself “giving recommendations on weed eaters, what plants to buy.” He says that he “found it very therapeutic,” and that “I was not looking for a life of stress. I was not looking for a life of attention.”

All he wanted to do, he says, was “spend a lot of time with the family.” He wanted to be a leader for his son’s Cub Scout den and devote his life to “being a good father, raising a good family.”

Stop a minute and ask yourself: How does this supposed life plan to live a simple life of devotion to his family, square with his spur-of-the moment decision to leave his family and go to one of the most war torn and dangerous places on earth?

“Not looking for a life of stress”? After his termination, Aguilar threatened GHF that, in his own words, “I can be your best friend or your worst nightmare.” He has now implemented that threat by making the rounds with friendly media outlets and leftist politicians. Does that sound like a man looking to enjoy a stress-free retirement?

None of this makes sense, but it does cause me to consider (again) whether he is being truthful about his supposed lack of motives and everything else. “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus”?

Finally, throughout his interviews with Carlson, Aguilar attacks GHF and its Executive Chairman, Johnnie Moore, as incompetent, lying war criminals. He admits that “I have never had any contact from anyone within the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation at all, period.” Despite that, he says they should be fired and replaced by that paragon of neutrality, the United Nations.

The United Nations mechanism should be put back in full force today. The United States should stop. Do not spend another dime on the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation because it is not achieving any modicum of a goal of feeding anyone. It is not. It’s proven that it’s a failure.

But Aguilar reveals his true vindictiveness by seeking to foment more harassment and potential violence against Johnnie Moore. He encourages his allies to “continue the protest, go to his house and protest because he is lying to the American people.”

What a charlatan.

1. These excerpts include non-substantive edits for clarity.