#FactCheck - Old Ajman Fire Video Falsely Linked to Iran Drone Attack on Dubai Airport
Executive Summary:
The ongoing conflict between Iran and the US-Israel has entered its 19th day. Meanwhile, a video is being widely shared on social media claiming that Iran is carrying out continuous drone attacks at Dubai International Airport. The clip shows visuals of massive fire and explosion However, research by the CyberPeace has found the claim to be misleading. Our research revealed that the video has been available on the internet since 2020. In reality, the footage shows a fire at a market in Ajman, UAE, and not explosions at Dubai Airport in 2026. Although there were recent reports of a fire near DXB (Dubai Airport) following a drone attack, this video is not related to that incident.
Claim:
On social media platform X (formerly Twitter), a user shared the viral video on March 17, 2026, writing:
“Dubai International Airport – Iran is dropping drones continuously.”
Post link, archive link, and screenshot are given below:
Fact Check:
To verify the viral claim, we extracted keyframes from the video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research, we found the same video on a YouTube channel, where it was uploaded on August 6, 2020. The caption read: “Ajman fruits and vegetables market caught in fire.”
Based on this clue, it became clear that the viral video has no connection with the ongoing Iran-US-Israel conflict. In the next step, we searched using relevant keywords and found a report published on August 5, 2020, on the website of Gulf News, which contained visuals similar to the viral video.
According to the Gulf News report, a major fire broke out at a public market in the new industrial area of Ajman at around 6:30 pm. The blaze was later brought under control by Ajman Civil Defence with assistance from teams in Dubai, Sharjah, and Umm Al Quwain.
Conclusion:
Our research found that the viral video has been online since 2020 and shows a fire at a market in Ajman, UAE. It is not related to any recent incident at Dubai Airport.
Related Blogs
Introduction
Beginning with the premise that the advent of the internet has woven a rich but daunting digital web, intertwining the very fabric of technology with the variegated hues of human interaction, the EU has stepped in as the custodian of this ever-evolving tableau. It is within this sprawling network—a veritable digital Minotaur's labyrinth—that the European Union has launched a vigilant quest, seeking not merely to chart its enigmatic corridors but to instil a sense of order in its inherent chaos.
The Digital Services Act (DSA) is the EU's latest testament to this determined pilgrimage, a voyage to assert dominion over the nebulous realms of cyberspace. In its latest sagacious move, the EU has levelled its regulatory lance at the behemoths of digital indulgence—Pornhub, XVideos, and Stripchat—monarchs in the realm of adult entertainment, each commanding millions of devoted followers.
Applicability of DSA
Graced with the moniker of Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs), these titans of titillation are now facing the complex weave of duties delineated by the DSA, a legislative leviathan whose coils envelop the shadowy expanses of the internet with an aim to safeguard its citizens from the snares and pitfalls ensconced within. Like a vigilant Minotaur, the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, stands steadfast, enforcing compliance with an unwavering gaze.
The DSA is more than a mere compilation of edicts; it encapsulates a deeper, more profound ethos—a clarion call announcing that the wild frontiers of the digital domain shall be tamed, transforming into enclaves where the sanctity of individual dignity and rights is zealously championed. The three corporations, singled out as the pioneers to be ensnared by the DSA's intricate net, are now beckoned to embark on an odyssey of transformation, realigning their operations with the EU's noble envisioning of a safeguarded internet ecosystem.
The Paradigm Shift
In a resolute succession, following its first decree addressing 19 Very Large Online Platforms and Search Engines, the Commission has now ensconced the trinity of adult content purveyors within the DSA's embrace. The act demands that these platforms establish intuitive user mechanisms for reporting illicit content, prioritize communications from entities bestowed with the 'trusted flaggers' title, and elucidate to users the rationale behind actions taken to restrict or remove content. Paramount to the DSA's ethos, they are also tasked with constructing internal mechanisms to address complaints, forthwith apprising law enforcement of content hinting at criminal infractions, and revising their operational underpinnings to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and security of minors.
But the aspirations of the DSA stretch farther, encompassing a realm where platforms are agents against deception and manipulation of users, categorically eschewing targeted advertisement that exploits sensitive profiling data or is aimed at impressionable minors. The platforms must operate with an air of diligence and equitable objectivity, deftly applying their terms of use, and are compelled to reveal their content moderation practices through annual declarations of transparency.
The DSA bestows upon the designated VLOPs an even more intensive catalogue of obligations. Within a scant four months of their designation, Pornhub, XVideos, and Stripchat are mandated to implement measures that both empower and shield their users—especially the most vulnerable, minors—from harms that traverse their digital portals. Augmented content moderation measures are requisite, with critical risk analyses and mitigation strategies directed at halting the spread of unlawful content, such as child exploitation material or the non-consensual circulation of intimate imagery, as well as curbing the proliferation and repercussions of deepfake-generated pornography.
The New Rules
The DSA enshrines the preeminence of protecting minors, with a staunch requirement for VLOPs to contrive their services so as to anticipate and enfeeble any potential threats to the welfare of young internet navigators. They must enact operational measures to deter access to pornographic content by minors, including the utilization of robust age verification systems. The themes of transparency and accountability are amplified under the DSA's auspices, with VLOPs subject to external audits of their risk assessments and adherence to stipulations, the obligation to maintain accessible advertising repositories, and the provision of data access to rigorously vetted researchers.
Coordinated by the Commission in concert with the Member States' Digital Services Coordinators, vigilant supervision will be maintained to ensure the scrupulous compliance of Pornhub, Stripchat, and XVideos with the DSA's stringent directives. The Commission's services are poised to engage with the newly designated platforms diligently, affirming that initiatives aimed at shielding minors from pernicious content, as well as curbing the distribution of illegal content, are effectively addressed.
The EU's monumental crusade, distilled into the DSA, symbolises a pledge—a testament to its steadfast resolve to shepherd cyberspace, ensuring the Minotaur of regulation keeps the bedlam at a manageable compass and the sacrosanctity of the digital realm inviolate for all who meander through its infinite expanses. As we cast our gazes toward February 17, 2024—the cusp of the DSA's comprehensive application—it is palpable that this legislative milestone is not simply a set of guidelines; it stands as a bold, unflinching manifesto. It beckons the advent of a novel digital age, where every online platform, barring small and micro-enterprises, will be enshrined in the lofty ideals imparted by the DSA.
Conclusion
As we teeter on the edge of this nascent digital horizon, it becomes unequivocally clear: the European Union's Digital Services Act is more than a mundane policy—it is a pledge, a resolute statement of purpose, asserting that amid the vast, interwoven tapestry of the internet, each user's safety, dignity, and freedoms are enshrined and hold the intrinsic significance meriting the force of the EU's legislative guard. Although the labyrinth of the digital domain may be convoluted with complexity, guided by the DSA's insightful thread, the march toward a more secure, conscientious online sphere forges on—resolute, unerring, one deliberate stride at a time.
References
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_6763https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/three-of-the-biggest-porn-sites-must-verify-ages-under-eus-new-digital-law-1566874.html
Executive Summary
A video of Dr. Samir V. Kamat, Chairman of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), is going viral on social media. In the clip, he appears to claim that Prime Minister Narendra Modi instructed scientists to wash the Agni-6 missile with cow urine, and later use a mixture of cow dung and urine to prevent rusting. Research by CyberPeace Research Wing found that the video is a deepfake, created by manipulating original footage using AI tools. It was also shared by an account previously known for posting anti-India misinformation and is reportedly banned in India.
Claim
An X user named “Lovely” shared the video on May 1, 2026, alleging that Indian scientists were using cow urine and dung in missile development under government direction. The post used derogatory language and criticized India’s scientific community.
Fact Check
To verify the claim, we searched relevant keywords on Google but found no credible media reports supporting such statements by the DRDO chief. We then extracted keyframes from the viral clip and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. This led us to the original video posted by ANI on April 30, 2026. The footage is from the National Security Summit 2.0, where Dr. Kamat spoke about India’s missile development programs.
In the authentic video, Dr. Kamat discusses short-range ballistic missiles like ‘Pralay’, and advancements in hypersonic glide and cruise missile technologies, including scramjet propulsion. There is no mention of cow urine, cow dung, or any such practices.
Further analysis using AI detection tool Aurigin indicated an 88% probability that the viral video was AI-generated or manipulated.
Conclusion
Our research confirms that the viral video is fake and AI-manipulated. Dr. Samir V. Kamat never made any statement about washing missiles with cow urine. The clip is a deepfake created to spread misinformation and mislead viewers.
.webp)
Introduction
Social media platforms have begun to shape the public understanding of history in today’s digital landscape. You may have encountered videos, images, and posts that claim to reveal an untold story about our past. For example, you might have seen a post on your feed that has a painted or black and white image of a princess and labelled as "the most beautiful princess of Rajasthan who fought countless wars but has been erased from history.” Such emotionally charged narratives spread quickly, without any academic scrutiny or citation. Unfortunately, the originator believes it to be true.
Such unverified content may look harmless. But it profoundly contributes to the systematic distortion of historical information. Such misinformation reoccurs on feeds and becomes embedded in popular memory. It misguides the public discourse and undermines the scholarly research on the relevant topic. Sometimes, it also contributes to communal outrage and social tensions. It is time to recognise that protecting the integrity of our cultural and historical narratives is not only an academic concern but a legal and institutional responsibility. This is where the role of the Ministry of Culture becomes critical.
Pseudohistorical News Information in India
Fake news and misinformation are frequently disseminated via images, pictures, and videos on various messaging applications, which is referred to as “WhatsApp University” in a derogatory way. WhatsApp has become India’s favourite method of communication, while users have to stay very conscious about what they are consuming from forwarded messages. Academic historians strive to understand the past in its context to differentiate it from the present, whereas pseudo-historians try to manipulate history to satisfy their political agendas. Unfortunately, this wave of pseudo-history is expanding rapidly, with platforms like 'WhatsApp University' playing a significant role in amplifying its spread. This has led to an increase in fake historical news and paid journalism. Unlike pseudo-history, academic history is created by professional historians in academic contexts, adhering to strict disciplinary guidelines, including peer review and expert examination of justifications, assertions, and publications.
How to Identify Pseudo-Historic Misinformation
1. Lack of Credible Sources: There is a lack of reliable primary and secondary sources. Instead, pseudohistorical works depend on hearsay and unreliable eyewitness accounts.
2. Selective Use of Evidence: Misinformative posts portray only those facts that support their argument and minimise the facts which is contradictory to their assertions.
3. Incorporation of Conspiracy Theories: They often include conspiracy theories, which postulate secret groups, repressed knowledge. They might mention that evil powers influenced the historical events. Such hypotheses frequently lack any supporting data.
4. Extravagant Claims: Pseudo-historic tales sometimes present unbelievable assertions about historic persons or events.
5. Lack of Peer Review: Such work is generally never published on authentic academic platforms. You would not find them on platforms like LinkedIn, but on platforms like Instagram and Facebook, as they do not pitch for academic publications. Authentic historical research is examined by subject-matter authorities.
6. Neglect of Established Historiographical Methods: Such posts lack knowledge of a recognised methodology and procedures, like the critical study of sources.
7. Ideologically Driven Narratives: Political, communal, ideological, and personal opinions are prioritised in such posts. The author has a prior goal, instead of finding the truth.
8. Exploitation of Gaps in the Historical Record: Pseudo-historians often use missing or unclear parts of history to suggest that regular historians are hiding important secrets. They make the story sound more mysterious than it is.
9. Rejection of Scholarly Consensus: Pseudo-historians often reject the views of experts and historians, choosing instead to believe and promote their strange ideas.
10. Emphasis on Sensationalism: Pseudo-historical works may put more emphasis on sensationalism than academic rigour to pique public interest rather than offer a fair and thorough account of the history.
Legal and Institutional Responsibility
Public opinion is the heart of democracy. It should not be affected by any misinformation or disinformation. Vested interests cannot be allowed to sabotage this public opinion. Specifically, when it concerns academia, it cannot be shared unverified without any fact-checking. Such unverified claims can be called out, and action can be taken only if the authorities take over the charge. In India, the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) regulates the historical academia. As per the official website, their stated aim is to “take all such measures as may be found necessary from time to time to promote historical research and its utilisation in the country,”. However, it is now essential to modernise the functioning of the ICHR to meet the demands of the digital era. Concerned authorities can run campaigns and awareness programmes to question the validity and research of such misinformative posts. Just as there are fact-checking mechanisms for news, there must also be an institutional push to fact-check and regulate historical content online. The following measures can be taken by authorities to strike down such misinformation online:
- Launch a nationwide awareness campaign about historical misinformation.
- Work with scholars, historians, and digital platforms to promote verified content.
- Encourage social media platforms to introduce fact-check labels for historical posts.
- Consider legal frameworks that penalise the deliberate spread of false historical narratives.
History is part of our national heritage, and preserving its accuracy is a matter of public interest. Misinformation and pseudo-history are a combination that misleads the public and weakens the foundation of shared cultural identity. In this digital era, false narratives spread rapidly, and it is important to promote critical thinking, encourage responsible academic work, and ensure that the public has access to accurate and well-researched historical information. Protecting the integrity of history is not just the work of historians — it is a collective responsibility that serves the future of our democracy.
References:
- https://kuey.net/index.php/kuey/article/view/4091
- https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-editorials/social-media-and-the-menace-of-false-information
