TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @Fx1Jonny

Fx1Jonny
Posted - December 17, 2024 at 6:08 PM
Saved - March 17, 2025 at 3:54 AM

@Fx1Jonny - JonnyUtd

Just finished the entire interview. So America has funded Netanyahu/israel to the tune of $7TRILLION in the last 30 years!! And people think Netanyahu doesn’t run/own America?! Bunch of lemmings! Protect Jeffrey Sachs at all costs, 1 of few American Patriots left 👏👏👏👏

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

Jeffrey Sachs on how Joe Biden has been the most destructive president in American history, and how Donald Trump can repair the damage. (0:00) The Regime Change in Syria (8:48) What Is Greater Israel? (21:45) Were Americans Involved in the Overthrowing of Assad? (34:26) War With China by 2027 (40:22) Biden’s Attempt to Sabotage Trump (46:10) The Attempted Coup of South Korea (51:20) Jeffrey Sachs' Warning to Trump of Potential Nuclear War (55:18) Will We See the Declassification of the 9/11 Documents? (1:07:11) Will Trump Pardon Snowden and Assange? (1:16:43) The Most Important Appointment of Trump’s Cabinet (1:26:29) Biden’s Attempt to Kill Putin (1:35:58) Can Trump Bring Peace? (1:45:44) Is War With Iran Inevitable? (1:51:21) Why Corporate Media Hates Jeffrey Sachs Includes paid partnerships.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims that recent events in Syria are the culmination of a 30-year effort by Israel, led by Netanyahu, to reshape the Middle East. This effort, detailed in a 1996 document called "Clean Break," aims for a "greater Israel" by dismantling governments that support Palestinians. The speaker references a plan for "seven wars in five years" presented to General Wesley Clark after 9/11, listing Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan as targets. The speaker asserts that the U.S., influenced by the "Israel lobby," has been carrying out this plan, with Obama initiating the Syrian war in 2011 via Operation Timber Sycamore. The speaker says Netanyahu views any support for Palestinian groups as a threat to Israel's control over Palestine, motivating the need to destroy opposing governments. Greater Israel encompasses the annexation of the West Bank, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem. The speaker alleges that the U.S. has funded and armed Israel, leading to geopolitical isolation and endless war in the Middle East. The speaker says the U.S. blocked a Syrian peace agreement in 2012 because it demanded Assad's immediate removal. The speaker concludes that the New York Times and mainstream media avoid historical context to give a "free hand" to the security state. The speaker fears the next target is Iran, potentially leading to World War III, and urges President Trump to change course.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, first of all, thank you. So many things have happened in the last two weeks. I keep thinking, Speaker 1: where's Jeff Sachs? Wanna know what Speaker 0: I wanna know what this means. So the most dramatic, and from my perspective, unexpected thing that happened was all of a sudden, the government in Syria changed. There was regime change in Syria. Who did that? Why? And what does it mean? Speaker 1: Well, it's part of a thirty year effort. This is Netanyahu's war to remake the Middle East. It's been a disaster. It continues to be a disaster. But as Netanyahu himself said after Assad left, we have remade the Middle East. And so it has to be understood as something that didn't just happen in a week, but has been an ongoing war throughout The Middle East. And maybe the right way to understand what's happened with Siri is to think back to a really remarkable occasion when Wesley Clark, the general who headed NATO Yes. Went to the Pentagon just after 09:11, and famously he was showed a piece of paper that said we're gonna have seven wars in five years, and he was completely dumbfounded. He said, what does this have to do with anything? And he was told that the the neocons and the Israelis are gonna remake the Middle East. And the seven countries on the list are very telling. They were Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and then in Africa, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan. And seven countries. We've been at war in six of them now. And I mean we, The United States, on behalf of Israel, including in Syria. And so what happened in Syria last week was the culmination of a long term effort by Israel to reshape the Middle East in its image. It started with Netanyahu and his American advisors in 1996 in something called Clean Break, which was a political document that the Americans and Netanyahu made when Netanyahu became prime minister. After 09/11, it went into full gear with the Iraq wars being the first of those wars. Speaker 0: Clean break, what does that refer to? Speaker 1: Clean break is we're gonna make a clean break of the Middle East. A break with the past. We're gonna break with the past. We're not gonna have land for peace, which is the idea that Israel would have a Palestinian state next door. No. We're going to have greater Israel, and we're just going to bash anybody that doesn't like it. And we're going to do that by bringing down any government that supports the Palestinians. It's a rather shocking amount of hubris. It has been, in my view, a complete disaster for The United States and for The Middle East. It has been Netanyahu's MO since 1996 actually, and he's been prime minister more than half the time since then. And The United States goes to war on his behalf. And what happened in Syria is the culmination of that effort. So seven wars in five years. Netanyahu came to The US in '19 in 02/2002, excuse me, after 09/11. Actually, he came in 09/20/2001, if I remember correctly, and gave a speech that said, there's terrorism, but you don't fight the terrorists, you fight the governments that back the terrorists. That's the idea. So you go to war. You don't just have a kind of an anti terrorism effort, you go to war. And the first of those wars was Iraq, but Syria was supposed to be exactly the next war. And the timeline was this remarkable idea of seven wars in five years. According to all of the understanding that we now have from lots of insiders, from documents, from the archives, what happened was The US got bogged down in Iraq. There was the insurgency. We didn't move onward to the next war, which was to be Syria, which was to happen already twenty years ago. But in 2011, what really brought Assad down last week started under Obama. And, yes, and this is also interesting. It doesn't really matter who's president. This is long term deep state policy. Obama ordered the CIA to overthrow Assad. So that started in 02/2011. Speaker 0: But why would Obama want to overthrow Assad? Speaker 1: Because Israel has run American foreign policy in The Middle East for thirty years. That's how it works. We have an Israel lobby. We have this clean break strategy. We have a plan for seven wars in five years. And what's interesting is they actually kind of carry out this madness. They don't explain any of it to the American people. They don't tell anybody, but you can watch step by step. We've had six of those seven wars. The only one that hasn't happened is Iran, and if you watch every day now, the MSM, the mainstream media is pushing for US war with Iran. Netanyahu's pushing for war with Iran. They're really trying to get this started to make seven out of seven. But Obama, you know, for no particular reason by the way, but he launched two of these wars on the list of seven. He launched the war to bring down the Libyan government, Muammar Gaddafi, in the fall of or he the war started in March 2011, and he and Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, said Assad must go in the spring of twenty eleven. I remember scratching my head at the time saying, oh, that's interesting. How are they going to do that? Syria was a normal functioning country at the time. Despite whatever you read, whatever propaganda is said, Syria was a normal functioning country. I recently dredged out a report by the International Monetary Fund on Syria in 02/2009 that praised the Syrian government for its reforms and its rapid economic growth, and looked forward to continued years of economic development. In other words, it was not this wasteland or this battlefield. It was an actual normal country. Speaker 0: Was it a threat to The United States? Speaker 1: It was no threat to The United States whatsoever, but it was deemed to be by Netanyahu a threat to Israel because of a simple reason, which is that Netanyahu wants to control all of Palestine, wants to rule over the Palestinian people, does not want a Palestinian state, and that has led to militant opposition. That's led to Hamas, that's led to Hezbollah, that's led to other groups. Netanyahu's theory is, well, we're never going to allow a Palestinian state, so we have to bring down any government that supports those militant groups against us, because our core aim is greater Israel. That's not much of a worthy cause, by the way. Having a Palestinian state next door and having peace could have saved probably a million lives by now over the last thirty years. But that's not Netanyahu's crazy ambition, is What is greater Israel? Greater Israel means, depending on how crazy the people are, either that Israel controls not only its geographic territory, but that it essentially controls or annexes the West Bank, the Golan Heights, which they've just enlarged Gaza. Speaker 0: Golan Heights being part of Syria historically. Speaker 1: It was part of Syria. It's claimed by Israel, and now with an expanded territory, and East Jerusalem. So everything that was captured in 1967, Netanyahu explicitly said, we're never giving that back. Now there are two motivations for that. One, Netanyahu says, not safe to give it back because he doesn't want to negotiate any kind of peace or any state of Palestine. Then there are religious zealots, I would use even stronger terms, who use the book of Joshua, which is two thousand seven hundred years ago that said, well, God gave us everything from the river in Egypt, meaning the Nile, to the Euphrates. And there are zealots in Israel, and they're in the government who believe, yes, this is God's ordinance. We're going to take whatever we want. Speaker 0: So the Niles the Euphrates would include what? Speaker 1: Well, if you take the greater view of this, it would include Lebanon, it would include Syria, it would include part of Iraq, it would include part of Egypt, and some of these people actually quote the Bible and say, we're gonna do this. And it's it's a little sad and absolutely terribly frightening, But I'd say the more narrow vision is what they call from the river to the sea, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. That's taken as pro Palestinian chant, but it's exactly the opposite. It is the greater Israel literal vision of the government of Israel. It's the literal idea. There happen to be 7,000,000 Palestinians there. That's a minor problem. Maybe they can be ethnically cleansed. Maybe they can be thrown out. Maybe they can just be ruled in a military dominant way. Of course, probably well over 100,000 have been killed in the most recent war by Israel. Official count 45,000 of bodies claimed from the rubble, but we know that there are a lot more that have died since this war in Gaza began. But all of this is to say this greater Israel idea says we can't make peace with the Palestinians, so anyone that supports the Palestinians is by definition a mortal threat to us, and when you have a mortal threat you must destroy it. And so this is the opposite of diplomacy. It's war, and as Netanyahu crowed last week, it's war to remake the Middle East. It's all spelled out, by the way, in very clear ways, but you have to dig for them. You have to find them. You have to understand that this is long standing. You have to understand that each president has played part of that role. So when we come back to Obama, he started the war with Syria in 2011. I can remember actually vividly the call that Assad must go. And I did scratch my head. I was actually I think it was on Morning Joe when it was said, and I was asked by Joe Scarborough, what do you think? And I said, well, that's pretty odd. How's he going to do that? It turned out it was going to be thirteen years of mass war, 300,000 dead, and destroying a country. That's what it turned out to be. But Obama signed an order called Operation Timber Sycamore. People should look it up. You can find it online, but you can't find it in the mainstream media because it's not discussed. But it was a so called presidential finding that the CIA should work with Turkey, with Saudi Arabia, with others to overthrow the government of Syria. So that was the plan. We went to war. We had This is what led to Benghazi, correct? Benghazi is Libya. So Libya Speaker 0: I understand. Speaker 1: Yes. But it was the same time Speaker 0: in '20 My understanding was the reason there were so many American intel assets there was because they were moving arms from Libya to Speaker 1: Oh, sorry. Yes. If you say it that way, one of the first things was to establish a ratline, so called, from Libya to Syria. Absolutely. And Seymour Hirsch wrote a terrific piece explaining all of that. Speaker 0: That was never explained I mean, I worked at a news organization at the time that made a lot out of Benghazi and the death of a US Ambassador, and what was the Obama administration thinking? They were so negligent, but there was never any discussion about what they were doing there in the first place. Speaker 1: No. None of this is explained, of course. This is it's none of the public's business. This is our business. We're the war machine. You stay out of this. So none of this is explained. Interestingly, the whole Syrian operation I I think I counted right that the New York Times mentioned Operation Timber Sycamore, I think three times in the twenty tens. So a war that cost billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, CIA operation, covert action, links with Libya, never explained, never discussed. And even when the government falls last week, no background given. You know, we're supposed to have amnesia. We're not supposed to understand that what happens is the result of long term plans that have been pretty disastrous. And by the way, as I've said, Israel has driven so many American wars, and we say, absolutely yes. That's our greatest ally. These have been at huge cost to The United States. Cost of trillions of dollars, cost geopolitically, but somehow we gave away our foreign policy to Israel years and years ago, and it's been absolutely devastating. And it's interesting to go back and watch Netanyahu speak to the American people. Go look at a video clip of 02/2001, '2 thousand '2. In 02/2002 in October, he comes and testifies in the Senate, and there's a nice clip of him promising how wonderful the war in Iraq is going to be because Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. He says, a % certain. Complete lies, by the way, and they knew that they were lies at the time. And it's going to be wonderful. We're going to topple that dictator, and then dictators are going to be toppled everywhere, and the young people of Iran are going to rise up. This is his idea. Together with his US Political Consultants, together with neocons in the US government for the last twenty five years, they have never apologized for dragging The United States into countless wars in The Middle East, spending trillions of dollars running up US debt, and doing what? Creating chaos. So just to go back to the seven countries, because it's worth remembering. Lebanon, it barely exists as a functioning country right now. Syria, it's going to be picked to pieces. Don't believe well, it's obvious in what we're seeing every day. Territorial integrity, yeah. Israel's just invaded from the Southwest into deeper Syria. Turkey from the North, Russia has its area, The United States, and the Kurds have their area. This place is just going to be a battlefield for years to come. Iraq. We know what happened with Iraq. Trillions Of Dollars, a complete destabilization of the country. Look at the other three wars. The United States broke apart Sudan. Why? Well, Sudan was an enemy of Israel, so we have to break apart Sudan, so we supported the South Sudanese. Now we have the real trifecta, massive civil war in Sudan and massive civil war in South Sudan. In other words, we broke apart the country, and now there's civil war in both halves of the country. Somalia basically doesn't exist as a country. Libya, it doesn't exist. It's a battlefield. It's a war zone. So that's six out of six. And Netanyahu's crowing. Now we go on to Iran. Speaker 0: Do ever feel like you can't trust the things you hear or read like every news source is hollow, distorted, or clearly just propaganda lying to you? Well, you're not imagining it. If the last few years have proven anything, it's that legacy media exists to distort the truth and to control you, to gatekeep information from the public instead of letting you know what's actually going on. They don't want you to know. But there is, however, a publication that fights this that is not propaganda, one that we read every month and have for many years. It's called Imprimis. It's from Hillsdale College in Michigan. Imprimis is a free speech digest that features some of the best minds in the country addressing the questions that actually matter, the ones that are not addressed in the Washington Post or NBC News. The best part of it, it is free. No cost whatsoever. No strings attached. They just send it to you. Hillsdale will send in Primus right to your house. No charge. All you gotta do is ask. Go to TuckerforHillsdale.com and subscribe for free today. That's TuckerforHillsdale.com. The only way this stays a democracy is if the citizenry is informed. You can't fight tyranny if you don't know what's going on. Imprimis helps. It's free. Don't wait. Sign up now. Speaker 1: Who's paid for all this? You have. I have. Of course. This is where does $28,000,000,000,000 of debt come from? We've paid probably $7,000,000,000,000 if you add it up according to Brown University studies, for example. Something like $7,000,000,000,000 has gone into this. Israel couldn't do this for one day. Israel, you know, Netanyahu, we are lions. Yeah. Right. You are liars, but we are the ones funding you, arming you, paying for all of this. That's The United States. And this is weird to me because we say, yes, to defend our ally. No. No. We're doing their foreign policy, which makes no sense, which doesn't lead to any peace, which leads to basically a war zone across the Middle East, and we say this is good for us. Why is this good for us? What's The United States getting out of any of this? We haven't gotten anything out of any of this except massive geopolitical isolation. The most recent votes in the UN, for example, put The United States alone, alone with Israel. And I shouldn't exaggerate, we have Micronesia on our side. We have Nauru on our side with its 12,000 people, maybe a couple of other countries. The whole rest of the world is saying, what is going on? Endless war in The Middle East. Well, this is because we're defending someone with some seventh century BC vision of what they want their country to be. Speaker 0: Were Americans involved in the overthrow of Assad last week? Speaker 1: Of course they were, because this has been an ongoing operation. Whether they were involved in the final days, I don't know. They were involved in the in the 13 nonstop. Speaker 0: I don't understand how. Speaker 1: Actually, let me tell you an interesting story, by the way. The war started in 2011. It was called the was portrayed as always as the CIA does as a local uprising and the freedom fighters, and it was said this was Syrians protesting against Syria. That's always how any CIA regime change operation works. There may also be local opposition, but the CIA is the it provides the armaments. It provides the flow of heavy weapons. It provides the financing. It provides the training. It provides the camps. It provides the political organization. So this started in 02/2011. In 2012, there was already a bloodbath underway, and a lot of people dying, and a lot of civilians dying, and a lot of ancient historic sites because this is the Fertile Crescent. This is the birthplace of humanity itself, of civilization being destroyed. And so a very senior global diplomat that I knew very, very well was tasked with trying to find peace. Peace, nice idea. Maybe we don't need the bloodbath. And I met him in the spring of twenty twelve, and he said it failed. And said, why did it fail? He said, well, we had a full peace agreement, but it was blocked by one party alone. We had the different forces in Syria, we had the regional, but it was blocked by one who was blocked the United States government. Why? Well, because their condition was that Assad must go on the first day of the agreement rather than a political process. Everyone else agreed on a political process, but The United States said, no, no, this is regime change. Assad must go on the first day, and that was not possible. So that was the end of the attempt at peace. So we should understand this was an American operation. Speaker 0: But never under What I didn't understand and still don't understand is why we're all required to hate Assad. I'm not speaking for myself, I don't have strong feelings about Assad one way or the other. Apparently he's protected the Christian, so I'm grateful for that as a Christian, But I I don't am I required to hate Assad? Tulsi Gabbard went and met with Assad. She's been attacked ever since. Has anyone ever explained why Americans should hate Assad? Speaker 1: Because every regime change operation we ever do, we have to make sure that the opponent is the worst villain since Hitler or Hitler reincarnate. Speaker 0: Some ophthalmologist from London is a bloodthirsty dictator. I never Speaker 1: I didn't really have to say this, and this is part of the psyops or the info war that goes along with regime change operations. This is completely typical. And we're told if we don't stop him now it's only going to spread, and He'll be in Des Moines. Exactly. The Nicaraguans were going to be in Harlingen, Texas, remember. You know, standard fare. It's so pedestrian, such bad script writing that you can't believe it's still Speaker 0: rolling Why doesn't someone at the New York Times just ask the obvious question, which is why am I supposed to hate Assad exactly? Why is it somehow a test of my loyalty to The United States where I think of Bashar al Assad? Like, who cares? Like, what that's such an odd that's such a core question. I've never heard anyone ask that. Speaker 1: Can I can I laugh when you mention New York Times? Because they won't cover any historical background of any conflict at all, because all of this is aimed at a free hand for the security state, a free hand for the military. Speaker 0: But why would the New York Times be parodying the security state? Speaker 1: Well, I think that's a question that goes back decades, partly because it's staffed in part by probably people from the intelligence agencies. We've known that for years. Worked at Speaker 0: the New York Times. Speaker 1: Who? But we know in the past that CIA just had reporters on the payroll. I mean, they do or not now, I have no idea, so I'm not making a current claim, but we know that that's a historic fact. We know historically that with very rare exceptions, the New York Times has just followed the unnamed official sources, that this is the whole MO. This patriotic newspaper follows what it's told to do, and it doesn't ask questions. It has not asked any questions about any of these wars in recent memory, not about Ukraine, not about the the wars raging throughout The Middle East. As I said, I think there was one full page actually about Operation Timber Sycamore in 2016. You would think that something that got us into a war of thirteen years where we spent billions of dollars, where hundreds of thousands of people died, even at this stage there would be a kind of page or a box explaining the historical background to this, but it didn't exist. I actually wrote, I have to say I wrote to one of the reporters saying, couldn't you mention a little background? He said, oh, very interesting idea, Mr. Sachs. So I'm waiting. Speaker 0: You wrote to a New York Times reporter. Speaker 1: Well, know these people for decades. Yeah. And by the way, not only do I know them, and some I like very much, by the way, and some have been classmates of mine long time ago, and they know things that they don't report, and that's also important to understand that what they will say in private is the opposite of what their newspaper says, and I mean literally the opposite. So that's very worrying to me because we operate foreign policy in secrecy. We do not have any kind of democratic oversight of foreign policy. There's no explanation of it. There's no accountability for it. It's in very few hands. It's not in good or reliable hands. It's not explained. We gave over Middle East foreign policy to Israel a long time ago, not to US interests, but to Israel's interests, that is the Israel lobby. And we don't hear questioning of this at all, of course not from the government, not from the Congress, not from oversight by any democratic institutions, nor does the mainstream media, which fewer and fewer people are interested in because they don't get any facts from it, look into these issues. Speaker 0: What happens next in Syria? Speaker 1: Well, there'll be continued war, and now the the drumbeat is for war with Iran. Anything is possible. Netanyahu dearly wants The US to go in and bomb Iran. Probably some of president Trump's advisers will feel the same. The incoming administration is a mix of old school hardliners and people with a very different perspective, so there will be an internal battle for the heart and soul of the new administration. But there will be some who say, yeah, now's time to carry on the war. Hezbollah and Hamas have been weakened. Syria has fallen. The air defenses are gone. Now we can fly and do in Iran. Of course, all of this is a profound delusion, and that's I think really important to understand. We've had six wars so far, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Libya, Six out of the seven that were on the list shown to Wesley Clark. Not one of them has led to stability, to peace even, much less to geopolitical interests being solved. So it's not like we're finding solutions to anything. Yes, it has allowed at unbelievable cost Israel to hold on to the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and Gaza as if that's some kind of grand strategic aim of The United States, or justifiable in the face of international law and nearly global opposition to such thinking, but it doesn't lead to any answers, and there's no way to, quote, defeat Iran. Even if we went in and bombed Iran, Iran has strong allies. Iran has Russia and China as allies. Iran is part of the BRICS. Iran has a military relationship with Russia. Of course, we have even crazier people who think we're going to defeat Russia. But Russia has 6,000 nuclear warheads, of which 1,600 are deployed. It has its new hypersonic Arashnik ballistic missile, which travels at Mach 11. It has other hypersonic weapons. So yes, we have people in The US who in their mental blindness Think about continued escalation all the way to nuclear Armageddon. They really do. They're very ignorant people, and they're around in high positions. And so when you ask what comes next, what comes next is whether President Trump can change course. This is the most important question facing The United States, and there are several different factions in Washington right now that are fighting for ultimate say. There's a piece by Mitch McConnell, our octogenarian who is completely living in a delusional past, who has a lead article in Foreign Affairs magazine calling for America to commit to primacy, and he calls for a massive military buildup to get ready for every kind of eventuality with Russia and China, that's the old school, and it remains very powerful. And it's got very powerful interest because it's the biggest business in Washington, about $1,500,000,000,000 of annual spending for the military machine, and Mitch McConnell absolutely represents that. Then there are groups that say, you know, we don't really have any fundamental conflict with Russia, and Russia's no real threat to us, but China's the real threat, so we should end the war in Ukraine, something I completely agree with. But we should do it so that we build up and get ready for the war with China. And this is kind of the middle ground, which is A war with China. Speaker 0: A country that manufactures all of our antibiotics. Speaker 1: Everyone is talking about war with China in Washington by 2027. And it's so weird as if we just are trying to rush headlong into complete destruction, but we have official documents, navy strategy saying we must prepare for war with China by 2027. We had a major article in the New York Times, which I actually once upon a time read with interest. But in any event, it was a story about the Pentagon preparing for war with China. And I I wrote the reporter, this is another I know these people for decades. So I wrote the reporter, and I said, thank you for writing that story. I was happy to read it now because there'll be no time to read it after the war. We'll all be dead, so I'm glad that we have the story now. And the reporter wrote back to me right away, said, oh, Jeff, the editor I had put in three times that the Pentagon doesn't want this war, but the editor took it out three times, and I don't really know why, and I didn't notice that in the hurrying to finish the piece. Do you understand that? You're one of our world's great journalists, person writing a front page story about war, and she's written three times the Pentagon doesn't want it, and the editor takes that out all the time, and she didn't recognize that. That's the New York Times. I don't know even what that means. Speaker 0: Well, that's when you quit. I mean, you can't allow that. Speaker 1: This is so amazing. But, yes, so there is a group gearing up for war with China. It's unbelievable. Nuclear superpower with a much larger army on their shores. I mean, the whole thing is beyond belief. Then there is a group, there actually is a group that says, hey, we don't need war with anybody. We're not threatened. The United States is more secure than at any time in history and any time that a country could be secure. We have two big oceans. No one can attack us. We have every amount of deterrence. China does not threaten us and could not threaten us. And so what are we talking about war this way? Why are we in war with Russia in Ukraine? And that is a US Russia war as everybody should understand. Why are we at war all over the Middle East? And that is a US war. We've got absolutely troops on the ground in the I mean, we have troops on the ground of course, but we have forces on the ground. They're often CIA or covert. But, yes, this is our wars. We're paying for them. We're financing them. We're arming them. We're the intelligence, if you can use that word. Why do we need a war with China? And so there are people who say, hey, why don't we make business, advance technology, actually have some attention to our economic needs, not go bankrupt in the process. And that group is also part of the Trump incoming team. And this is probably the most consequential question that a country could face, is which of these different voices will prevail in this new administration? Speaker 0: This time of year we are focused on our families because we're apt to be with our families, celebrating together. And it's the time of year where you might ask yourself, what happens when you're gone? What's left behind? Well, protect your family's future and peace of mind with a product called Policygenius. Policygenius has one goal, to make it easy to find and buy life insurance so your loved ones have something when you're not here. Something that you use to cover debts and expenses if something unexpected happens because unexpected things do happen. With Policygenius, you don't need to struggle to do this. You can find life insurance policies that start at $292 per year for a million dollars of coverage. Some options are a % online, and that lets you avoid unnecessary medical exams, which is always good. Policygenius combines digital tools with the expertise of real licensed agents. You compare quotes from America's top insurers side by side for free, and there are no hidden fees. Their licensed support team helps you get what you need fast so you can get on with your life. Join thousands of happy Policygenius customers who left five star reviews on Google and Trustpilot. So secure your families tomorrow so you have peace of mind today. It's easy. Go to policygenius.com/tucker to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. Again, it's policygenius.com/tucker. I've never felt more uneasy than I have in the last few weeks during this period between the election and the inauguration, and it does well, it doesn't seem like it is a fact that the outgoing administration is trying to accelerate conflict to leave the incoming administration in charge of a bunch of different wars, especially with Russia. I have Speaker 1: to say yeah. My I think the Biden administration has been the worst of our governments in modern history. And that's saying a lot because I'm a complainer, so I don't generally praise administrations. I like to think of myself as a responsible tough grader, and I haven't given high marks to any administration from Clinton onward. I I think they've all been failures. But Biden's administration has been a complete shocking disaster, which has brought us closer to nuclear war, brought us into more conflict, didn't have one iota of diplomacy. I don't count diplomacy meaning you go talk to a junior ally. I mean diplomacy meaning you talk to someone on the other side to figure out how escalate. We know, you know very well, and you heard it recently from the Russian foreign minister, that our secretary of state and the Russian foreign minister have not spoken at all for years. This is the most mind bogglingly stupid approach to our security and survival imaginable. And as far as we know, and this is what what what Lavrov said in his interview with you, Biden and Putin have not spoken once since February 2022. It's just unbelievable. What to not even speak, to not try to understand each other's position, to not discuss, to not try to find a way out, when now the most accurate assessment is that there are at least a million Ukrainians dead or severely wounded since February 2022 when The United States hasn't lifted a finger, not even one time, to try to talk to the other side. So, yes, this has been a shockingly terrible government. Biden, we don't know really. You may know, I don't know whether he's compas mentis. I don't know whether the guy thinks. I'm told till four in the afternoon he can still function to some extent. I don't know if it's true. But Jake Sullivan, Anthony Blinken, I regard as complete failures. Sullivan's job is our security. He's not made us any more secure. He's made us profoundly insecure, and we're getting closer and closer to nuclear war. And the only way we avoid that realization is to laugh away every statement, and President Putin said it again today, by the way, that we are absolutely mocking Russia's serious red lines. Is that really for our security that we don't have a discussion about them even, and we're not. And everything, yes, is escalating. We see little fires being set all over the neighborhoods of these war zones. And it's not only throughout The Middle East and the drumbeat for war with Iran. It's not only Biden authorizing the use of long distance strikes into Russia, which as President Putin has accurately said and has not been denied by The United States, are actually US strikes on Of course. Russia. But this is incredible. How would we feel if Russia were attacking The United States? Would we say Speaker 0: And trying to kill the president. Yes. We are trying to kill Putin right Speaker 1: Would we say that's just fine? Don't worry if Americans are getting a little upset about that? But that's literally what Biden has approved. And then we see hot spots around. You have to be, you know, really into this to be following them, but in the country of Georgia in the South Caucasus region, there's a little typical regime change maneuver that's been underway in recent weeks. It will not succeed, but the aim was to destabilize that region. The hand of The US is absolutely clear in that. We see in Romania another bizarre episode where a presidential election was in its second round, and the lead candidate was saying we should end the war with Ukraine, and the Supreme Court of Romania annulled the election, claiming Russian interference. And so that candidate that was calling for peace could not win election. We're seeing those kinds of events all over. What are we seeing in South Korea? In South Korea, of course, we saw something that we don't understand that's also mind boggling, which was an attempted coup by the president of Korea, President Yong, who called out the military to surround and arrest the parliament. And ultimately the coup failed and the president was thrown out of office. But why he made that coup is not absolutely clear, and The US reaction was bizarre. The US said, we're watching with concern. That was all. It didn't say anything about restore constitutional order or we're against the coup or anything else. And there was a glimmer of possible reason. I don't want to overstate any certainty on this because this is of course also not analyzed properly or made public, so we don't have the information. But the week before the military action, the coup attempt, there was a visit by the Ukrainian defense minister for armaments from South Korea, something that The United States has been pushing very hard for. The United States has been trying to get South Korea to ship arms to Ukraine because The US inventories are depleted, and South Korea, under its law, cannot do so because it cannot ship arms to belligerents that are engaged in war, and the parliament opposed it. The parliament president does not have a majority in the parliament, or the former president, and the opposition opposed the armaments. So there's some possible relationship with this that when Yoon declared martial law, he said that the opposition was siding with North Koreans. That was his statement, and some read that as a way to clear the way for South Korea to enter the Ukraine war with massive arms shipments. I don't know whether that's the case, but it wouldn't surprise me if that's the case. Maybe we'll find out. It happens that the acting president was my first PhD student at Harvard now. So I go back with him forty four years, which is nice. Amazing. Yeah, just a coincidence. Speaker 0: That's amazing. I meant to ask you, why did Russia stand aside as Assadfel? Speaker 1: I think that it was a, first of all, a military choice because Russia is in the midst of a very tough war along a 1,200 kilometer front in Ukraine, and it did not want to divert any major military effort in in that direction. Second, the the proximate reason why Assad fell was that the main military backing of Assad was Hezbollah forces and the Iranian the Iranian guard, And they had both been especially Hezbollah had been very badly mauled by Israel in the last month and a half, and had pulled its reinforcements from Syria to reinforce Lebanese positions. And so Assad was left without the backing of Hezbollah forces, several thousand, which was the bulwark of his military. I think a third reason is that Russia doesn't think it's leaving Syria, that this isn't the end of the story. And immediately, the supposed new force in Syria, the HTS, said that it wants Russia to stay and to keep its bases in Syria. Russia has a naval base and a small one and a and and an airfield. And Russia has redeployed its forces from within Syria to both of those bases, but is probably not leaving. So I think from probably a strategic calculus, Russia just regards this as a temporary step on a path to continued conflict, and that this was not the time to get into another major front. Yes. And that that would be my my assessment. Speaker 0: So we've got a little over a month between now and the inauguration. Clearly, noted, the Biden administration is trying to make decisions that are irrevocable and deepen the war between The United States and Russia, and then all these other things. If you were the Trump people right now before the inauguration, what would you be doing? Speaker 1: Well, I would first be clear. Under the constitution, Biden is president till January 20. I think it's right to say that Biden should not put America into further insecurity. He's done enough damage. And so I think it's right for every political figure to say to Biden, you're at the end of your term, and the world is very dangerous. You do not have a mandate to increase the danger. You should never have authorized the use of ATAKEMs and other US missiles in deep strikes into Russia. Stop further provocations now. So I hope that politicians of both parties, and think President Trump can also make this clear, it's not to take over the government until January 20, but Biden absolutely, in my view, is without legitimacy to further endanger us, and they should prevent any actions from abroad that threaten American security, of course, but I don't see those happening. I think the biggest risk right now is continued US provocations of the kind that we've been discussing in Ukraine, in The Middle East, in the periphery of Russia, in the Far East, stop any further provocations. The idea of somehow tying Trump's hands is completely illegitimate constitutionally and politically, and it's a disastrous approach. We're not playing a game of two people or a game of two administrations. We're trying to survive at a time of perhaps maximum global peril right now. So just to say, most experts that look at this think we're closer to nuclear war than we have ever been, and I refer often to the doomsday clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which is the graphic to demonstrate how close or how far we are from nuclear war, and that doomsday clock puts the clock at ninety seconds to midnight, which is the closest to nuclear Armageddon that it has ever been since the clock was first rolled out in 1947. So I think it behooves those people who are making the decisions in the Biden administration to stop imperiling Americans at this point, and to understand that their job right now is to keep things stable, to give power over to President Trump on 01/20/2025. Speaker 0: One of the promises of the new administration is massive declassification, pardons for Speaker 1: Please, if it could only be, this would change so much. Speaker 0: So one of the things that I'm interested in learning about is nine eleven, because I think it's important to understand why that happened, and I think my guess is that one of the reasons so many documents from nine eleven are still classified twenty three years later, it's hard to imagine why, is because they tell a more detailed story about why Al Qaeda struck The United States, and it seems clear it was a response to, and I'm not defending it, of course, obviously, but it was still cause and effect, and the cause was American foreign policy, was response to that. A, do you think that's true? And b, if it is true, then how afraid should we be about future terror attacks given what we've been doing? Speaker 1: Well, let me say something about declassification. We had one and only one close look at the CIA in its entire history of the last '77. '19 '70 '4. And that was actually '74, '70 '5. It'll be the fiftieth anniversary this coming year of the church committee. Yep. It was the only time that there was even a partial look inside what the CIA had been doing. What they uncovered was a viper's nest of stupidity, evil, disaster, and of course unbelievable unaccountability. They uncovered, of course, numerous assassination plots. They uncovered an absolutely shocking and awful program called MKUltra, which was a massive warped program to, for trying for mind control, where they took innocent people, vagrants off the streets of Times Square, and shot them up with drugs, or drove them to suicide through sleep deprivation, every kind of shocking thing you can't even make up, and that made for great movie series like the Bourne series, which is about MK Ultra in fact. Now, that was 1975. We've gone fifty years of further secretive operations. I've mentioned one of them, the timber sycamore, but that's one of many. I've seen many myself by accident because I'm not in the security field, I'm an economist. But I'm around lots of governments. I'm all over the world. I've seen coups with my own eyes. I've seen The US role in these coups. I've seen things that are absolutely disgusting, not because people are showing me secret documents. I don't even want to see those, by the way. I see them because I happen to be told or shown or walked around the Maidan soon after a coup overthrew Yanukovych, and people explain things to me, which I found completely awful about American complicity in all of this. I had a president in the Western Hemisphere say to me, Jeff, they're going to take me out. And I said, no, no, no, no. We're going to everything's going to be fine. And the CIA took them out in broad daylight. And so we have no review of any of this. We have gone to war repeatedly on false pretenses. We have gone to war repeatedly in so called covert operations. They're not covert to the people being affected. Well, that's right. But we just hear denials. We hear stupidity from The New York Times, a complete imbecility, childishness that they don't want to ask any single question. What about the Maidan? What was the US government doing there? Well, it's easy enough to find out. What were the decisions taken in overthrowing various regimes? What about a number of assassinations that we have every forensic reason to know were conspiracies that The US never allowed to be understood. Whether any of this is ever found, I don't know. But if it is, it would change the course of America back to a true republic, because what happened in this country is that we were overtaken by the security state, and we became a system of confidentiality and unaccountability. And it's a big massive machine, and a lot of people are paid to keep quiet or to salute whatever the military industrial complex or the intelligence agencies are doing without asking questions, because when you have 1 and a half trillion dollars a year spent on that, you're a pretty big business, and it has affected the universities, the think tanks, of course the Congress, which asked no questions of any serious kind. And so major major events of fundamental significance for our insecurity take place without any truth telling at all. So all of this is to say it may be the most important thing that President Trump could do would be to open up the historical record so that we understand what has really happened, because we are ninety seconds to midnight. We are closer to nuclear war than ever. We have a military machine in the service of the Israel lobby, or in the service of the military contractors, or in the service of the deep state on its own, or for whatever other crazy idea, and we just don't have democratic deliberation or accountability about this. But we could. If we did, we would change the direction of this country. Speaker 0: For thirty five years, Liberty Safe has been the number one manufacturer of safes made in this country, American made, from start to finish. They make high quality gun safes, I've got one, vault doors, home safes, handgun vaults, whatever you need to protect the things you value. And, again, I can tell you from personal experience, these guys know what they're doing. I use Liberty safes. The things that I don't want stolen. The things that really matter. My father's shotguns, the documents that I've gotta have, and a lot more. I'm not gonna tell you what else, but you need one. Prime rates are way up. And if you have anything you would like to protect that you need to protect, Liberty Safe is the way to do it. Now Liberty Safe has over 350 dealers nationwide who specialize in delivery and installation and answering any questions you have. If you've got somebody to protect, they've got a way to protect it. Visit libertysafe.com. Pick out what you need, and be sure to use the code Tucker at checkout to let them know that we sent you. They'll take care of the rest. Liberty Safe is a product we fervently believe in. With Liberty Safe, you are always protected. Well, the system is designed with accountability at the heart of it, and we have oversight committees in the House and the Senate that are supposed to be making certain that the intelligence community, the IC, is operating in accordance with the Constitution of The United States. That's their job. Speaker 1: They don't they obviously don't do their job, but what they do is very interesting. Our system of government is actually rather ingenious. It's ingenious because you can buy a piece of government at very low cost. If the military industrial contractors just buy off a couple committees, that's enough because they're the only ones that have responsibility. Yes. If the health insurers just buy off the health committees in the House and the Senate, that's enough. If the Israel lobby just gets its hold on a couple of committees, they run American foreign policy in The Middle East. So what I have found to be ingenious about our completely corrupted political system is how inexpensive it is to buy your corner of the story. You don't control everything. No one controls everything. But if you want to control health care, it's a couple committees. If you want to control the military industrial machinery, that's just a couple of committees. And so there is no oversight, and there won't be oversight until there is public oversight. Nobody oversees themselves, and the idea that a few congressmen, and I know some of them, that they're really constraining anything that the CIA or the intelligence community does, no way. We've talked about it before, Well, they're puppets of it. Completely, and they're funded They need some scrutiny. They're funded by it. They're puppets of it. There are almost no independent members of our congress. Almost everyone is on the take. Rand Paul is my one exception. I think he's the most principled member of our Congress in both houses. He really believes honesty in small government, and wants to know the truth. And I'll give an example of the complete lack of oversight, and something we may know, something we talked about. Okay, where did that pandemic come from? The evidence is now overwhelming, though still not definitive, that it was made in a US lab. This is overwhelming. Even the report of the House Committee that issued a report a couple of weeks ago says, yes, there was obviously a lot of cover up and a lot of unanswered questions, and a lot of engagement of US Scientists in this, and we know that the US government lied up the wazoo on all of the question of the origin of SARS CoV two, the virus that made the pandemic and has lied until today. We know that the intelligence agencies know a lot that they haven't said. So this is another area. Could we actually have some some honesty? Could we actually have some transparency? Could we actually look at something where a pandemic took perhaps twenty million lives worldwide. Where'd that come from? Especially since the evidence is now overwhelming that it was a laboratory creation with US Scientists and US funding playing a huge role in this. Speaker 0: Do you think the new president will pardon Edward Snowden and Julian Assange? Speaker 1: No. Snowden is a remarkable person. Don't know Julian Assange. Do know Edward Snowden, and he is an absolutely remarkable person. And yes, he is a hero because he told us what the government was actually doing towards us. And of course, the security state, which really runs America, therefore immediately branded him as the worst villain. But we found out more from Snowden about the risk to our freedom than from just about anybody else. And Julian Assange, you know, I almost every day I invoke a memorandum that he enabled me to see, and you to see, and all of us to see, that explains the Ukraine war better than anything else, and Julian Assange deserves all of the credit for this. And it's also an interesting story, if I may just say in one minute. Our current CIA director, William Burns, in 02/2008 was The US Ambassador to Russia. And when he was US ambassador to Russia, he understood completely, perfectly that The US push to expand NATO to Ukraine was disastrous. Pure provocation, crossing Russia's red lines, likely to create a civil war inside Ukraine, and a possible war between The United States and Russia. And he wrote a memo back to Condoleezza Rice, who our secretary of state. And the memo said that the entire Russian political class opposes NATO enlargement, and for real reasons. And that memo famously became known as niet means niet. No means no. Don't play games with this. This is real. This is a red line. Okay. Something like this should be understood by the American people. We've just spent around $200,000,000,000. We've just caused deaths of perhaps six or 700,000 Ukrainians on completely false pretenses, on false pretenses that, as the New York Times has wrongly stated unendingly, that the war in Ukraine was, quote, unprovoked. Not only was it provoked, The US provoked it, and not only that, our senior diplomats knew that, knew that at the time and wrote about it. Now, this memo makes this perfectly clear. Anyone can go online and type William Burns, niet means niet, cable, and you will come up with this cable, and then you can read why in 02/2008 we knew that the deep state push for NATO enlargement was mind bendingly stupid, dangerous, provocative, and likely to get us into disaster, which it did. How do we even see that memo? Do you think that a congressional committee called Condoleezza Rice and said, could we have the documentary evidence to understand the choices you're making? Of course not. There's no oversight when it comes to security issues. We are already in a security state that has no resemblance to democracy whatsoever. But Julian Assange enabled us to see it. So we have to express gratitude for that. This is the truth. If you don't want leaks, don't have a world run where every consequential fact is hidden from the American people, and it enables one disaster after another. And just to make clear how disastrous this is, Bill Clinton, who was in my view a completely ineffectual president in a long list of ineffectual presidents, came to office in 1993 when the doomsday clock was at seventeen minutes from midnight, meaning that it was the farthest away from nuclear war in the whole history of the nuclear age. Every single president, starting with Clinton, brought the doomsday clock closer to Armageddon, so we went from seventeen minutes to midnight to ninety seconds to midnight with no accountability or explanation at all. Speaker 0: Do you think it's fair to say that anyone who opposes pardons for Ed Snowden and Julian Assange should be looked at with suspicion, or is it actually an enemy of the country? Speaker 1: Well, I think that they may just be ignorant or don't understand, or maybe they're New York Times readers. In other words, there a lot of people who really don't understand the situation right now, don't understand how dangerous it is, don't understand how lawless it is, don't understand how we're driven by these long term aims that are absolutely disastrous. I thank Mitch McConnell, by the way, for writing his essay that the goal is primacy. Too late. If our goal is primacy and we pursue that like this octogenarian who can barely function anymore says we should, we'll all get blown up. We'll move from ninety seconds to midnight to sixty seconds to midnight to thirty seconds to midnight and goodbye. Because we can't have a world where The United States says, we're in charge of everything. If you aim that way, we will end up with World War three that will not go well. Speaker 0: Well, we're we're begging South Korea for munitions, so the truth is we don't have the power to affect that anyway. Speaker 1: But you know, this is the interesting thing. Already, you could know back in 2014, don't overthrow the Ukrainian government. You could know in 2015, honor the Minsk agreement that would end the war. You could know in 2021, negotiate with Russia because actually Ukraine I won't even say Ukraine. The United States cannot win a war in Ukraine against Russia. We knew that, but these are not clever people. Jake Sullivan's not a clever person. They don't understand. They're like terrible poker players that somehow are sitting at the grand slam of poker. They don't know what they're doing, and they're bluffing, and they're betting, and they're doubling down with our money, by the way. And so, yes, you could know this primacy thing. Come on. What does it even mean in a world of multiple nuclear superpowers? That's right. What does it even mean? It means we just ignore all of that till we're all blown to smithereens? No. But, you know, Mitch McConnell barely functions anymore. But he's got the big story in Foreign Affairs about how we need to preserve primacy. So there's a lot of momentum and ignorance and deep state arrogance. Who the hell are you to tell us you don't even read the secret files, you know? This is really where we have been for a very long time. Since 1991, the deep state, the CIA, and others have been trying to defeat Russia. Since 1991, Netanyahu's been with American military remaking the Middle East. It's been a disaster on both fronts. It's made America drastically less secure. But they continue this group in power, and there's a chance that President Trump could change this. This is the most promising single reality of his government if he chooses rightly. He has to understand. He's got a completely divided team, and he's got a completely divided landscape in Washington, and I think he knows the deep state is not going out with a whimper. It's gonna fight for its prerogatives. Are people you know worried about a terror attack in The US? I don't know. They don't tell me, and I'm frankly myself more worried about World War III. Yes. Speaker 0: So you said the president has assembled a divided team. One person who I think is pretty close to his stated objectives on foreign policy is Tulsi Gabbard Yes. Who he's nominated to be director of national intelligence. The entire Senate Intel Committee appears to be against her, like I think every member. Speaker 1: And that shows that she is completely on the right side. Speaker 0: Well, that's exactly right. Do you think she'll make it? How important is it that she make it? Speaker 1: She's probably, and I don't want to jinx anything, she's probably the most important appointment of the Trump administration. Speaker 0: Does seem that Speaker 1: way. She is incredibly intelligent, incredibly honest, incredibly committed to US security, and would do a superb job. So that's why she's being opposed, because the forces that are worse than mediocre, that are right now on top of a $1,500,000,000,000 a year machine, that have been running disastrous wars, that have been bringing us closer and closer to doom, don't want any accountability. And what Tulsi Gabbard would represent is competence, honesty, forthrightness, and not having been a party to all these failures. Speaker 0: So if you're the incoming administration, how hard do you fight for her nomination? Well, she's critical because this Speaker 1: is the most important question facing The United States today. We have many important questions. We have major financial, social, political, economic, institutional questions. But the most important question facing us is, is a country that potentially is more secure than any country in the history of the world going to do itself in by a self provoked World War III, and we're on that course. And five presidents have been on that course through their incompetence and their obedience to an unaccountable deep state. And President Trump is coming in saying that he's going to change direction. He says every day that he wants to be president of peace. By the way, I think the greatest thing that could happen is four Nobel Peace Prizes for president Trump. He could end the war in Ukraine. He could end the war in the Middle East, not by bombing Iran, that would do the opposite, but by enabling a two state solution in the Middle East, and the wars would all end. He could end the talk of the war in East Asia, which would be the utter disaster and folly, by recognizing that we shouldn't be meddling in China's internal affairs, and Taiwan is an internal affair of China. And he should be restoring a framework of nuclear arms control. I give him four Nobel Peace Prizes for that. If he chooses that direction, he'll be the most consequential president in in our modern history, perhaps in our history, because he will reestablish security for the American people. If he follows the hardliners, we're just he's just gonna add yet another years of bringing us closer to doom. Speaker 0: How how is the Ukraine war settled? Speaker 1: The Ukraine war is settled literally in one call, just as he says, because all he has to do, really all he has to do, is pick up the phone and call president Putin and say, you know, that thirty year effort to expand NATO to Ukraine and to Georgia was ridiculous, unacceptable, unnecessary provocation, and it's led us to this juncture. I'm against it. I'm going to say it publicly. We're going to end this adventurism, and you stop fighting today. And the fighting will stop that moment actually. Then there will be details, and the details are where the borders will be drawn exactly. But the war will end. The war will not end, by the way, by saying, let's have a ceasefire. That's a meaningless statement. As you heard repeatedly from Foreign Minister Lavrov, and as I know, and as that anyone thinking about this knows, this isn't about a ceasefire. This is about a cause of this war. And the cause of this war is that Russia does not want The US and its missile systems on its 1,200 kilometer border with Ukraine right now. And Biden was so stupid, and I'm using the term, it's of course, it sounds I don't know how it sounds, but it's true, that he couldn't say that and avoid the war, though it was obvious how to avoid this war, Obvious how to avoid this war. But Biden couldn't do it. He was that's why I say he's been such a terrible president. And I think that President Trump wants to do it this way. Now, again, he's got people around him of many different views. Some say, promise them just ask for a ceasefire. Freeze the conflict. Armistice. Korean solution, 1953. This is completely beside the point. Russia isn't gonna freeze the conflict. It's actually winning on the ground. But why is it fighting? It's fighting because it does not want this regime, which was installed by The United States in 2014, to have US bases, NATO, US weapons, and missile systems on its border. And the fact that Biden just proved the point by saying, yeah, we'll fire the missiles into Russia, make it all the more clear why they're concerned about this. This isn't an idle threat. This isn't some dumb thing. This is they're being hit right now by US missile systems, by US by US personnel firing these missile systems. So it's not an idle threat. So people who say freeze the conflict, they don't get it. People who say, and there was an initial statement, NATO will not enlarge for at least x years. Somebody said ten years. Somebody said twenty years. This is also completely ridiculous. Then another idea. Well, we'll give Russia this territory, Donetsk and Lugansk and maybe Khersonan's Aparisia and and Crimea, but all the rest of Ukraine will be part of NATO. Of course not. It's the same deal. This is ridiculous. So if you understand what this is about, where it came from, why it continues to this moment, there is one phone call that ends it, which is get to the underlying cause of the war. The underlying cause of the war, going back to a decision that Bill Clinton made in 1994, is the decision to expand NATO to Ukraine, and by the way, they want to expand it to the South Caucasus to Georgia, which is also in turmoil right now. It's very interesting, Tucker, that Zvigniew Brzezinski spelled this out to the letter in 1997, and it's fascinating to read his account All wrong. He got it completely wrong, but he spelled it out. And what he said was in his book, The Grand Chessboard in 1997, we should expand NATO eastward. We should expand Europe eastward, and we should ask the question, what will Russia do? Russia won't like it. So Brzezinski spends a whole chapter, what will Russia do? And he asks the question, well, could Russia ever align with China? Nope. That's not gonna happen. Could Russia ever align with Iran? Nope. That's not gonna happen. Russia's only choice is to accede to The US action. So in 1997, it was perfectly clearly understood. What is the strategy? What are we gonna do? And what will happen? The only problem is it was wrong. This is the only problem. He got it completely wrong. And you can go back and to his credit, he wrote his prediction. It's wrong. But why are we still playing that game until today? Why did Biden exactly continue on that failed course? Because he's a failure. That's why. Because he didn't understand, because he's surrounded by mediocrities at best. Speaker 0: The Biden administration has tried to kill Vladimir Putin. That's a fact, I think. And they funded separatist groups within Russia, going back before Biden. Speaker 1: Well, this has been by the way, CIA opts to to have separatist groups everywhere. And fascinating, just if I could mention, because it's it's almost humorous except that it's so tragic. There was a I don't remember the exact name, but something around 1998 called the Chechnya Friendship Committee. Chechnya, okay. Burning issue for The United States? I dare one in a million of your listeners to know exactly history, because who knows? Who cares? But if you look at the Chechnya Friendship Committee, it was the Blue Ribbon Committee of American neocons. Spig Brzezinski right there. Everyone that wants the hard line. Why? They couldn't care for one iota of a moment about Chechnya. Of course not. They wanted to break up Russia. Everything is antagonism. So they funded Islamic extremism. So they funded the jihadists everywhere. And by the way, it's not even we made Al Qaeda. I think everyone understands this. We made Osama bin Laden. We made this the overthrow in Syria where they're saying, oh my god, it's HTS. Why do you think this was what Obama tasked in twenty eleven, twelve? Jihadists. Speaker 0: So what would happen if they succeeded in killing Putin? I mean, I I don't understand why that would be in America's interest to have 6,000 nuclear warheads, unsecured floating around in a country that's 20% Muslim and very complicated, and like that seems like the last thing that you would ever wanna do. When he's the most pro western leader in Russia. Speaker 1: Yeah. Let me address it in a little bit different way. In the last year, the leaders of Hamas wanted to make peace with Israel, and their political negotiator was a man named Hania. What did Israel do when the peace feelers came out? They assassinated him to make sure that there would be no attempt by Hamas to make peace. Nasrullah of Hezbollah For real? For real. He's the one that they killed at the inauguration of Speaker 0: Yes. I remember because that was Speaker 1: after He was the political negotiator for Hamas, and they wanted to try to find a peace. Israel hates the idea that there would be negotiations with Hamas. The idea is to remake the Middle East through war, not through a peaceful negotiation. Then Nasrullah in Hezbollah wanted to make peace with Israel. What did they do? They killed him, of course. This is this is a basic point. Kill the peacemakers. This is very important to understand. You assassinate the people that might want to negotiate. And we This was something that JFK learned, Speaker 0: I think, the hard way. Speaker 1: Well, this is the modus operandi of the CIA, and it's the modus operandi of Mossad, and it's the modus operandi of this deep state, which is you're not aiming for peace. You're aiming for primacy. You're aiming for dominance. You're aiming to remake the region in your image. You're resisting any call for compromise. Yitzhak Rabin, when he wanted to make peace, he was assassinated, killed the peacemakers, but what we know is that this is state action. We know this in The United States, killed the peacemakers. We know it of Mossad, rise and kill, And they've done it repeatedly in front of our eyes. So it's not the harshest enemy you try to kill. It's the one that threatens you not with war, but with diplomacy. That's what they dislike. They don't want peace. They want primacy. This is really a different thing. Where is it getting us? Since the whole thing is completely delusional, it's getting us closer and closer to nuclear annihilation. How could anyone think you killed the president of a nuclear superpower? Of course, it's the most mind boggling, wrongheaded idea. I have no information about that. What I do have information about is the ones that they actually kill. By the way, I also know through lots of lots of discussions, and I can't go into all of them because I just have been lucky to have fascinating discussions. Iran has been asking for peace and for reaching out to the Biden administration for the last two years. How do we take that? Oh, they must be vulnerable. Now we must kill them. That's the idea. Speaker 0: It's so weird. Iran is reaching out Speaker 1: for peace now. Iran has been for two years. There have been talked to an intermediary recently. I've talked to many diplomats in in the last in in in most recent months. By the way, there's an astoundingly oh my god, an astoundingly insightful episode that was reposted of PBS NewsHour with Robert McNeil interviewing Henry Kissinger and Jack Matlock in 1994. So this is the thirtieth anniversary of this show, and the show was on NATO enlargement. And Matlock, who was The US Ambassador to The Soviet Union and a wonderful diplomat and a very, very smart, fine man, was saying in 1994, don't provoke. We have peace now. Don't expand NATO. We've said we won't, we shouldn't, and if Russia ever becomes belligerent again, of course we would reconsider and take action. But right now there's no belligerency. There's no reason to provoke. Kissinger is incoherent actually, which is unusual. But Robert McNeil kind of can't even fathom what Kissinger is saying until Kissinger finally stumbles out with the statement, and I won't get it exactly right, but he says something to the effect, if you can't provoke Russia when they're weak, how are we gonna provoke them when they're strong? And it's just such a weird idea that there's no moment when you could actually try to make peace, because if they're weak, definitely don't make peace, because if you try not to provoke them then, well, then you won't be credible when they're strong. And so the idea is you always must be aggressive. So Kissinger was saying in 1994, of course, we need to expand NATO. And, yes, Russia won't like it, but they're weak now so they can't resist. Later on, by the way, he came to understand that expanding NATO to Ukraine was just too far. He actually did reach that understanding in 2015, but watching him in 02/2004 is very interesting because 02/2004 was the year that the decision was made. And this is also something very important to understand about our foreign policy. It's not that a president comes in and then we have a new foreign policy, and then another president, we have a new foreign policy. These things are very deeply set courses. These wars in The Middle East go back thirty years. This war against Russia actually goes back to 1945 at the end of World War two, but in the current version goes back to 1991, and by plan to 1994 when Clinton laid out the NATO enlargement. And then Brzezinski spelled it out for the public in 1997, but it was decisions already taken. So we can watch Kissinger in 1994 explaining, yeah, if Russia's weak, take advantage of them. It's this is the time to take advantage of them. This is what gets us into such unbelievable insecurity. We could be the safest people in the world in history. No one could conceivably attack us, and yet we're ninety seconds to midnight. Speaker 0: Do you have any expectation that will change? Speaker 1: I'm counting on President Trump to change this. I think his instinct is right. I think his sense is right. I think he doesn't like war. I really do. Know, he Oh, he doesn't. He displayed that in the first term, and he said that repeatedly now. This is the best thing we have going for us. Now in his first term, he hired a lot of very irresponsible people that like war, or that like duplicity, or that like the deep state, or that like accountability, unaccountability, like John Bolton, one of my least favorites among all of these. Fair. And Trump hired them. So the question now is probably not his deep sense, which I think is absolutely right, but now his tactical sense inside the US government, please don't let the deep state continue on a path that it's been on, and don't let the normal hardliners, because Washington is filled with people who have been on the payroll of the military industrial complex their whole careers. Don't let them dominate policy. And the incoming administration is such a mix right now. And we see that the clarity of those who want to control this, how hard they're being, how harshly they're being opposed, like Tulsi Gabbard. Or let me say Bobby Kennedy, though his department is health, but he understands this peace side as well very clearly. These are the ones that they're fighting because we've been for, I'd say, again, thirty years at least, and arguably basically eighty years since the end of World War two on a particular jag, which at least Mitch McConnell does us the service of naming by its name, which is primacy. And if we continue on that course, Trump will fail, and The United States will be gravely endangered. And if he reverses that course, he stands to be a great and historic president. Because there's so Speaker 0: much at stake, you sort of wonder what the people who oppose that kind of reform would do. I mean, the national security state has been willing, eager to use violence abroad again and again and again, murdering people. As I said, trying to murder Putin. Would they or are you concerned that they would be willing to use that domestically? I think there's no doubt that they've used Speaker 1: assassinations at home. I'm of the view that JFK was the first clear case of that at home. This is a long, long story, and some people roll their eyes at it, but I've spent much of my life reading, studying, examining this. I think it's quite arguable for Bobby Kennedy the same way, and I don't think that there have been scruples inside about keeping prerogatives. At the same time, the situation is better now in one regard, thirty years of failure. So it's not as if the course that we're on is giving us these great benefits. The United States needs to change course for our own security. We need to change course for our own finances. We're not in good shape in this country. Yes. When 75% or so of Americans repeatedly say America's on the wrong track, they're correct at that. And they say that now. That's the latest Gallup findings. And they're completely right. So this is not the exuberance, and I would say the hubris, of 1991. And I was there then as an economic specialist and an adviser, unpaid and informal, but an advisor to President Gorbachev, and an advisor to President Yeltsin, and an advisor to Ukraine's President Kuchma, on how to stabilize their desperately destabilized economies, and how to move to market systems. And The United States was not interested in peace. We had this hubris that history had ended, we had won, and now America would run the show. The difference today is that we're thirty three years after the end of the Soviet Union. We tried the neocon approach for thirty years now. We have engaged in all of Netanyahu's wars. We went to war in Ukraine. Everything that was predicted has been proved wrong. The neocons failed time and again. They didn't remake Afghanistan. They didn't remake Iraq. They did not remake the Middle East. They did not call Putin's bluff and enter Ukraine with NATO. They did not enter Georgia with NATO. They completely misjudged how we would push the rest of the world into unity, as I mentioned was Big Brzezinski saying Russia will never side with China on this, well, of course he got wrong the most fundamental diplomatic change of our age, the rise of China and the creation of group that does not want US hegemony, and a group that is increasingly integrated in production, in military, in security, in diplomacy. So we are at a time where the failures are self evident if people open their eyes, and the American people know it, in fact. So it's not even convincing the American people, oh, it's worse than you think. No, they know. They want their own problems solved. Yeah. How about jobs, some housing, reduced crime in my neighborhood, keep the inflation down? Could you keep the debt from destroying American public finances? They're not interested in Mitch McConnell's primacy continuing. He's an octogenarian. Go. Done. You're you're done. It's time for something different. So in this sense, it's really possible for this administration, this incoming administration to change course, because it doesn't require a massive public education. It requires honesty. It requires seeing down the deep state internally. It requires making sure that the key appointments that want competence, honesty, and security for America actually get the job. And of course, it requires President Trump following through on his profound main insight, which is that there is no reason for war with Russia. There's no reason for war with China. And I want him really to know, really to know there's no reason for war with Iran. Speaker 0: None. But every week, every day, Fox News tells me that there's some, you know, assassination attempt by Iran. They're sending drones from their ships offshore over our country to scope it out for future attacks. I mean, Iran is presented in The US media as the aggressor trying to kill Trump, for example. Speaker 1: I don't know if those Fox reporters have the chance to speak with the Iranian senior officials or Well, that's not allowed. Middle East Officials. I do. I do all the time. Am able to ask questions, to check facts, to understand circumstances. I speak to lots of people engaged all over the Middle East on these questions, and it's simply not true. So the first thing one should do, period, in this world is talk to the other side. And if Donald Trump has that, this would be the farthest reach, but if he has that impulse with Iran too, he will be perhaps amazed, perhaps gratified, but he would do a huge service for the American people, huge service for the American people. Speaker 0: My sense is that a war with Iran feels inevitable. I'm obviously opposed to it, but tell us how you think Speaker 1: that would go if it happens. There's nothing inevitable till it happens. Speaker 0: And so thank you. Speaker 1: This is extremely important. A war with Iran will be World War III. So that's the point. Iran is not alone, and it will not remain alone. And so if we go to war with Iran, we are expanding the war with Russia. With Russia, we are at a possibility of peace, but we're also at a possibility of nuclear war. They're both very close. And if we go to war with Iran, we make the war nuclear war all the more likely. Speaker 0: Do you think that the people pushing us toward war with Iran understand that? Speaker 1: No. No. I think that they're following a plan, clean break, 1996, and a plan, 1991, '7 wars in five years, that has been deep set and that has been Netanyahu's baby all the time. Netanyahu I regard as one of the most delusional and dangerous people on the planet, and he has engaged The United States so far in six disastrous wars, and he's aiming to engage us in yet one more. But Netanyahu's track record is just about the worst of any person on the planet right now in terms of damage done, and we should be able to understand that. And we have a lot of rhetoric in this country standing up for Israel. We're not standing up for Israel. We are engaging in war on Israel's behalf all over the Middle East. That's a completely different thing. I believe in security alongside a state of Palestine, which I know completely could be possible and achievable and peaceful, and ending this risk of World War III, and could have prevented the million or so deaths that have come from Netanyahu's wars up until now. And the Arab states have been saying this repeatedly since 02/2002. It's called the Arab Peace Initiative. Anybody can look it up. They repeat it they repeat it basically nonstop in in the last two years. The Iranians want peace. I know that as well. And so the whole game is to make claims about the other side and to say if you talk to the other side, oh, you're a traitor. That's what they say about Tulsi Gabbard. She talked to Assad. Well, what about that? Isn't that amazing? Speaker 0: But I just again, just to refer back to the core of it, I don't understand when Assad became our enemy and why and why should I go along with that? Speaker 1: It was almost a flip because there were nice words said about him by Hillary Clinton one year, and then the next year exactly the opposite. Because these are mind games that are played for reasons that are not said directly. Speaker 0: And that have no bearing on American national security or aren't motivated by a desire to protect The United States. There's nothing to do with that. Speaker 1: Of course not. Nothing that has happened in The Middle East has been for American national security. None of it. Not one of these wars. These have been Netanyahu's wars. Watch him cheerlead. Speaker 0: Why does I mean, it's just amazing how few Americans many Americans love their country and would willing to lay down their lives for it in half, but how few are willing to say what you've just said? Speaker 1: Because they're told repeatedly the opposite. And you can be told anything can be sold, even not that people believe it, by the way, but they don't hear the correct story anywhere in the mainstream. They hear things that don't quite make sense to them. And by the way, this is one of the points of info war. The public didn't believe the official narrative about JFK's assassination. The public didn't believe the official narrative about RFK's assassination. The public didn't believe the official narrative about COVID. The public didn't believe the official narrative about Iraq. The public doesn't believe these things, but it doesn't hear the coherent explanation from the New York Times or MSNBC or CNN or anybody else. No one actually tries to explain. And so what hangs out there is something completely unsatisfactory, but it doesn't have an alternative explanation. And if you don't have the clarity of the alternative, then this miserable, phony, in for war approach, it fills the space. And they're not interested in convincing us because we don't have any say in any of these issues. They're interested in doing what they want to do without being stopped. That's the difference. Speaker 0: When was the last time you appeared or wrote for a mainstream publication or television channel here? Speaker 1: It was the day that I was on Bloomberg, and I said The US blew up Nord Stream. Speaker 0: That would I remember that, and they cut you off. Speaker 1: And they cut me off, and then berated me for several minutes while I was watching on the screen, but cut off, and that was the last moment. Speaker 0: But The US did blow up Nord Stream. Speaker 1: Pardon me? You were telling the truth. Of course. And exactly who did it when is something that would be easy to find out in five minutes, so that's not even hard to find out. But you haven't appeared on any Not once, because that's not quite true. You know, if it has nothing to do with foreign policy issues, it's just an economics question once in a while. But basically the mainstream follows the security state line. Speaker 0: But so, I mean, and they're acting against their own intricate. This is not flattering, but it's just true. Whenever we do an interview with you, it gets millions of views, and people love it, and we make revenue off it, and it's like it's good business to have you on, I happen to agree with you, and think you're wise, but it's not like people don't want to hear what you're saying, lots of people do. We've proven that. Speaker 1: People want to hear some explanation. Speaker 0: No, but you specifically, so you were a fixture on different channels, NBC, for example. And so when they ban you from those channels, they're hurting themselves because viewers wanna watch you. Well, it's just I know that because I have you on. So how exactly does that order go out do you think? Do know the mechanics of keeping you off? Like one day there's just a bulletin, you know, no more Jeffrey Sachs, or how does that work? Speaker 1: I need to ask you, because the phrasing, the official lines, kind of the stupidities and sillinesses on almost any story of the kind that we're talking about get repeated across the mainstream space very, very quickly. And not only on The US side, but generally in the British media as well. And so there's certainly some there's an official narrative, of course. So this is part of the story that senior White House briefing Jake or somebody else briefs, and that becomes the meme. That becomes what you have to defend. You have to defend your continued access. You have to be good loyal citizen of this. By the way, there are lots of contracts that go out with the military industrial complex. This is a trillion and a half dollar a year business, not a small business by the way. It's real business. It's lots of think tanks. It's lots of academic centers. It's lots of people on hire. It's lots of contracts. It's lots of that all you don't get any I mean, I don't want any of that, but you don't get any of that if you're standing outside that. None of it. So people make decisions. I think one of the best lines of modern history is the line of Sinclair Lewis that you can't convince a person to believe something when their salary depends on believing the opposite. Yes. And that's a real thing. People have jobs. They don't they just don't want to get out of line. They don't necessarily believe, but they don't want to get out of line. And it's very worrisome, and we thought that checks and balances of the US government would be a stabilizer, and especially that we would have voices in Congress that would be able to ask real questions. And we have in the past. We had Frank Church. We had J. William Fulbright, who was not only brilliant and a critic of American foreign policy, he was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Who do we have now? Well, we have Rand Paul, but and we had Tulsi in congress, but basically almost nobody now. They're scared, or they don't wanna talk, or they're paid for by, who knows, RSX or Northrop Grumman or or General Dynamics or Boeing or somebody. So they don't even ask questions. This is the reality. Speaker 0: Jeffrey Sachs, thank you very much. Speaker 1: Great to be with you as always. Great to be with you. Thank you.
Fx1Jonny
Posted - November 7, 2024 at 10:39 PM
Saved - November 8, 2024 at 12:20 AM

@Fx1Jonny - JonnyUtd

EXTREMELY GRAPHIC WARNING ⚠️ ⚠️⚠️ This is what israel does to Palestinian kids! SHE IS NOT KAMAS, SHES JUST A CHILD!!! https://t.co/YNZDAbSqVO

Fx1Jonny
Posted - October 15, 2024 at 6:14 PM
Saved - October 15, 2024 at 7:35 PM

@Fx1Jonny - JonnyUtd

ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING SCENES!! The IGF chase Palestinian children through the street and then start shooting them, 1 child is wounded they then abduct him!! Fucking monsters!! https://t.co/7aJEXX2NQ8

Fx1Jonny
Posted - October 11, 2024 at 5:27 PM
Saved - October 11, 2024 at 7:50 PM

@Fx1Jonny - JonnyUtd

Everybody take a good hard look at what these bastards do to Palestinians! Imagine this is your life for 1 day?! But this is how it is everyday for Palestinians 😡😡 https://t.co/vJtnmAlYn8

Fx1Jonny
Posted - October 5, 2024 at 11:26 PM
Saved - October 6, 2024 at 11:11 PM

@Fx1Jonny - JonnyUtd

This is a little adorable girl from Gaza. Her innocence breaks my heart 😢💔🇵🇸 https://t.co/hrPKgdDpwf

Video Transcript AI Summary
**Turkish Summary:** Konuşmacı birine "Merhaba" diyor ve onu "çok tatlısın" diyerek övüyor. Ardından, "Açayım mı? Bunu seni yerim ben" diyor. **English Translation:** The speaker greets someone with "Merhaba" and compliments them by saying "you are very sweet." Then, they say, "Shall I open it? I'll eat you up."
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: İster misin? Merhaba. Merhaba. Çok tatlısın ama sen. Çok tatlısın. Açayım mı? Bunu seni yerim ben.
Fx1Jonny
Posted - July 30, 2024 at 4:59 AM
Saved - July 30, 2024 at 11:24 AM

@Fx1Jonny - JonnyUtd

I wonder why this footage never saw daylight? They’ve been lying to the public for 20 years! Now they’re doing it again with the “Trump Assassination” imo anyway. https://t.co/FhmM6yDFHC

Video Transcript AI Summary
There were multiple explosions reported before and during the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. Witnesses described hearing loud blasts and rumbling noises, with some speculating about the presence of explosive devices. The collapses were accompanied by a series of explosions and a sound like gunfire. The sequence of events led to confusion about whether the noises were caused by explosions or the buildings collapsing. The chaos and devastation were evident as people described hearing continuous explosions and feeling the impact of the collapses.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As we were getting our gear on and making our way for the stairway Give me your phone number. There was an, heavy duty explosion. The whole building just collapsed on us inside the lobby. Is that a secondary explosion? Yes. It was. That was it. Planet from Yeah. Definitely a secondary explosion. Speaker 1: I heard a second explosion and another rumble. Speaker 0: An hour later than that, we had that big explosion from much, much lower. Speaker 2: It just went baboom. It was like a bomb went off, and another explosion came out. Right? And it's just everyone flying. Speaker 3: There were numerous secondary explosions taking place in that building. It was con there were continuous explosions. Speaker 4: No. The first the first explosion and there was a second explosion in the same building. There were 2 explosions. Okay. Speaker 5: Federal agencies that were down there do believe that there was some sort of explosive device somewhere else besides the planes hitting. Speaker 6: There was another explosion that took place, in one of the towers here. So obviously, he according to his theory, he thinks that there were actually devices that were in the building. Speaker 0: There was a secondary explosion, probably a device you'd have planted before or on the aircraft that did not explode until an hour later. Speaker 7: Then there's those secondary explosions and then the subsequent collapses. Speaker 2: That the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings, which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down. Speaker 1: Now that's the first time we're hearing that. So 2 planes and explosives that were in the building. Is that correct? Speaker 2: That is the working theory at this point. That Speaker 0: A huge explosion now waiting to put on all of us. It sounded like gunfire. You know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, and then and then all of a sudden, 3 big explosions. Speaker 8: About 50 consecutive bangs, and it went fell down like a waterfall. Speaker 6: And we heard the noise, associated with an implosion. Speaker 2: We heard a very loud, like, blast explosion. We looked up, and the, building literally began to collapse before us. Speaker 3: We heard a loud explosion. And at that point, building 2 was collapsing. Speaker 8: At that point, we heard a large boom. You know, I looked up and just saw the building coming at us. Speaker 0: Do do you know if it was an explosion or if it was a building collapse? To me, it sounded like it, to me, it sounded like an explosion. There was another major explosion. The build the building itself, literally, the top of it came down. Speaker 2: All of Speaker 7: a sudden, you hear explosion, and you could Speaker 9: see the building starting to Speaker 0: collapse. Huge explosion that we all heard and felt. Speaker 2: We understand now there has been Speaker 1: a secondary explosion on tower 2. According to the Associated Press, another building that has either been attacked or exploded. Speaker 10: Or the tower rather Speaker 2: that has collapsed that we are told collapsed because of a third explosion. Speaker 10: And about an hour later after that, there was a huge explosion at the base Speaker 11: of the south tower. That's the One World Trade Center, and part of the building collapsed. Speaker 1: We could hear a rumble, which was about 5 seconds long preceding the actual collapse, and then a boom, when each of those towers collapsed. Speaker 0: Just seconds ago, there was a huge explosion, and it appears Speaker 2: right now the second world trade tower has just collapsed. I was about 5 blocks away when I I heard, explosions. Speaker 7: And then you heard from far away, boom. Boom. And you heard the boom. Speaker 2: Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Speaker 5: It was all by floor instead of popping out. Speaker 1: It was like was it it's it's an identity. Speaker 2: Yeah. What plans? Speaker 0: Take our building. Speaker 2: From the corner, boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Just like 20 straight hits. And as the bombs were gone, people just started running. Speaker 12: And I sat there and watched a a Speaker 2: few of them explode and and it just started going pop. It just started going boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Speaker 12: And he goes, how fast? I go like firecrackers.
Fx1Jonny
Posted - July 17, 2024 at 11:45 AM
Saved - July 20, 2024 at 6:27 AM

@Fx1Jonny - JonnyUtd

They tell us it’s not a genocide. Meanwhile everything Israel says is genocidal. Literally everything! https://t.co/iLCGTnImp6

Fx1Jonny
Posted - July 18, 2024 at 4:28 PM
Saved - July 18, 2024 at 6:48 PM

@Fx1Jonny - JonnyUtd

1 of thee most heartbreaking pictures I’ve seen in 9 months. Her older sister slips away whilst continuing to hold the oxygen mask to her baby sister. If this doesn’t shatter your heart into a million pieces you are not human!! 😭💔🇵🇸 https://t.co/I5Z8AwLkgW

Fx1Jonny
Posted - June 18, 2024 at 6:35 PM
Saved - June 19, 2024 at 12:21 AM

@Fx1Jonny - JonnyUtd

Israel showing us everyday that they are “the only democracy in the Middle East” You decide for yourselves… https://t.co/PVM2y3SUoq

Fx1Jonny
Posted - June 15, 2024 at 6:39 PM
Saved - June 16, 2024 at 2:03 AM

@Fx1Jonny - JonnyUtd

Omfg!! Settlers set fire to this young boy!! This is not fucking living ffs this is just a jungle of brutality and slaughter!! This was in the West Bank btw! https://t.co/sCu6HDFGf7

JonnyFX1
Posted - May 23, 2024 at 7:58 AM
Saved - May 23, 2024 at 9:35 AM

@JonnyFX1 - JonnyUtd

So here in this video you will see a completely unarmed Palestinian turn around and calmly walk away from a FEMALE IOF SOLDIER. She then takes aim completely unprovoked and shoots him and he falls to the ground! Where were the “rules” here??? https://t.co/DmQwKrraBL

JonnyFX1
Posted - May 4, 2024 at 6:11 AM
Saved - May 4, 2024 at 7:59 PM

@JonnyFX1 - JonnyUtd

What the F?!! These IOF are the sickest most brutal people on earth! That mf volleyed that lady in the head!!! https://t.co/FU33qhSL1H

JonnyFX1
Posted - December 19, 2023 at 10:54 PM
Saved - February 6, 2024 at 4:41 AM

@JonnyFX1 - JonnyUtd

Killing 20000 civilians and depriving them of basic necessities to life isn’t a text book genocide? Yeah you are actually insane!

@BenGreenJeru - Ben Green

@K4rmaRules @ruta_estrella @JonnyFX1 Nope. Check the meaning.

JonnyFX1
Posted - December 11, 2023 at 8:07 AM
Saved - December 11, 2023 at 4:11 PM

@JonnyFX1 - JonnyUtd

Never forget and never forgive Israel America and my disgusting government the UK! All are responsible!! https://t.co/e2ExURIFQc

Video Transcript AI Summary
We strongly oppose an immediate ceasefire as it allows the killing of children. This is a war specifically targeting children.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We do not support calls for an immediate ceasefire. We do not support calls for an immediate ceasefire. Allowing the killing of children. This is a war on children. We do not Support calls for an immediate ceasefire. We do not support calls for an immediate ceasefire.
JonnyFX1
Posted - November 30, 2023 at 9:05 PM
Saved - December 1, 2023 at 12:44 PM

@JonnyFX1 - JonnyUtd

This is absolutely disgusting, this is sickening, how are they allowed to get away with this?!!! It’s just a consistent relentless never ending suffering on the Palestinians, this must stop ffs!!! https://t.co/vOMfkPNR0H

Video Transcript AI Summary
In a widely viewed video, an Israeli policeman pins down a young teen while another officer repeatedly stomps on his head. The teen, Tarek Abu Hader, a 15-year-old from Tampa, Florida, was held for three days without charges before being released. His face remains swollen, with black eyes, stitches on his lip, and deep marks from the plastic handcuffs. This disturbing incident has gained significant attention worldwide.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The video that has been seen around the world. 1 Israeli policeman pinning a young teen down while the other repeatedly stomps on his head. They drag him away motionless, but not before delivering 1 more brutal kick to his head. 15 year old Tarek Abu Hader from Tampa, Florida was held for 3 days without charges, then released. This morning, his face is still swollen. He has black eyes, stitches on his lip, and deep marks from the plastic handcuffs. I remember This is the video that has been seen
View Full Interactive Feed