TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @georgegalloway
@georgegalloway - George Galloway
DROWNED RAT MONOLOGUE: Plunging into an ocean of death Water War. If Trump carries out his 48-hour threat Iran will return enemy states to desert. For Iran, it's to be or not to be Follow #MOATS 536 #georgegalloway #Iran #Trump #straitjacket https://t.co/lDbVWBVnLs
reSee.it AI Summary
I hear Shaun Rhein say China won’t attack Taiwan soon. He says the military is rife with corruption, two senior generals have been arrested, and Xi’s crackdown continues, extending from pollution cleanup to the armed forces.
@georgegalloway - George Galloway
INTERVIEW: China isn't going to attack Taiwan any time soon The Chinese military is rife with corruption, says analyst Shaun Rhein. Two senior generals have been arrested. President Xi's crackdown continues. He cleaned up pollution and is doing the same with the armed forces Follow #MOATS 520 X @shaunrein #China #PresidentXi #Taiwan
Video Transcript AI Summary
Sean Ryan discusses breaking news about a high-ranking Chinese military figure under arrest for potentially sharing nuclear secrets with the Americans, noting it could signal a coup attempt and highlighting broader concerns about corruption within the Chinese military. He points out that corruption is a historic and persistent issue, citing the 1980s shift of the military into business and the practice of channeling profits through military channels. He mentions that five of the seven people on China’s Central Military Commission have been arrested or under investigation over the last two years, suggesting this could reflect internal power struggles or anti-corruption measures. He argues this situation makes armed aggression toward Taiwan unlikely in the near term, given the military’s current focus on corruption and factional balance.
George adds that Taiwan–Mainland China relations show unusually high engagement between the KMT and CPC, with former Taiwan president Ma visiting Mainland China and the current KMT chairman seeking talks with Xi. He notes subsidies and benefits for Taiwanese in Fujian to buy housing, access education, and seek medical care, and asserts that disarray in the Chinese military and pragmatic politics make large-scale armed action against Taiwan unlikely. He rejects the notion of a deal between Xi and Trump in which Xi takes Taiwan and Trump takes Venezuela.
Sean agrees and shifts to Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign, describing it as a potential driver of legitimacy alongside improvements in air pollution and living standards. He contrasts pollution levels and public health improvements since Xi’s rise, praising reductions in pollution and increases in access to medical care and education. He cites the cost of education as an example of government support for the 90% of China’s population, while acknowledging remaining problems. Sean argues that the CPC prioritizes the 850 million people in the low- to middle-income bracket, focusing on improvements in daily life as part of governance, rather than policies catering to the wealthy.
Turning to the economy, Sean’s book on China’s economy is praised as essential for understanding opportunities for the West and capitalism within China. He critiques Western governments for hostility toward China and urges European engagement with China. He argues that Europe should follow the example of Australia and Canada by negotiating deals with China to benefit from the economy, and suggests European nations could attract Chinese investment and factories, hiring local workers, such as NEV makers like BYD or Xiaomi establishing presence in Europe. He cites Huawei’s failed French factory project as evidence of fearmongering and bad policy in Europe, lamenting leaders who simultaneously welcome Chinese investment and denigrate China as a threat.
The conversation shifts to Canada’s Carney and Donald Trump. Sean expresses concern about Trump’s approach, describing him as potentially unstable and referring to a “backbone” in Carney for standing up to Trump. He notes Carney’s balancing act between the United States and China, given Canada’s trade with both, and cites Trump’s sanctions as harming small countries and families. Sean describes Trump as having narcissistic personality traits and expresses worry about the impact on political leaders and their families, including Carney’s daughter at Harvard, arguing that Trump’s actions are morally wrong and destabilizing for global relations. He asserts a fear for the world and highlights the potential for unpredictable, punitive measures under Trump.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Sean Ryan is the author of the split, finding the opportunities in China's economy in the new world order, and a very fine book is to Sean. Welcome back to the mother of all talk shows. Before we talk about the bigger picture, breaking news tonight is that the two generals, military men that are under investigation in China, one of them one of the most powerful men in China, is accused of giving nuclear secrets to the Americans. If this report is accurate, this is a truly remarkable turn of events and effectively unmasks a coup, which failed, but a coup nonetheless inside China, which most people thought was impervious to such things. You got a view on that?
Speaker 1: So it's good to be here, George. I don't have any inside knowledge of what's happened with the arrest of Zhang Yao Xia, who was actually the top uniformed military man in China. Some people say it's about corruption. Other people say that it's about factional fighting and potentially coup, as you mentioned. Now from my experience in dealing with the Chinese military over the last thirty years, corruption is serious problem.
I can give two points. In the nineteen eighties, you know, when China was first embracing capitalism, it was actually the military that first started going into business. So they owned all of the nightclubs. They owned a lot of industries, and they became not fighting machines, but they became basically for profit. If you wanted to open up a hotel or if you wanted to do anything big, you would always try to give a 20% cut to the military.
And so Jiang Zemin, the former president of China, tried to stop this, and he banned the military from actually being in business. But the reality is the corruption is serious. So when people say that, is this a crackdown on corruption? There is that possibility. I know, I did a project for a hedge fund ten years ago that was selling, Mao Tai and Wu Liangyuan, the very expensive white alcohol in China.
And they were selling it to the military, and my investor client thought that the business would collapse because of the crackdown on corruption. We called the military procurement officers, and they said, no worries. We're gonna keep buying alcohol. We're the Chinese military. We can do whatever we want.
So the reality, George, is that the Chinese military is rife with corruption. Now I don't know in this case if this was a crackdown on corruption, but here's the thing. Five of the seven people on China's Central Military Commission have been arrested or under investigation over the last two years. That's unprecedented to have so many people. What it means, is I actually think it means that China is not going to try to use armed aggression to attack Taiwan anytime soon because the military is focused on corruption, balance of power issues, whatever it is.
I think you hear the drum beats of war that the West says that China is about to attack Taiwan isn't gonna happen anytime soon. Now the other thing, George, is when it comes to Taiwan, what a lot of Americans don't realize and British is that the relations between the KMT or the, the opposition party in Taiwan, is at an all time high with the CPC right now. So president Ma, the former president of Taiwan, who's the head of the KMT previously, has been visiting Mainland China several times in the last couple years. He's been feted like a hero. The current chairman of the KMT said she would like to meet with president Xi.
And what China has done is they've given subsidies. They've given special benefits for any Taiwanese that live in Fujian province, the province closest Taiwan to buy housing, go to university, and seek medical care. So in my mind, because of the disarray in the Chinese military, because China's pragmatic, I don't see armed aggression between Taiwan and Mainland China happening anytime soon. I don't think that there was a deal between Xi and Trump where Xi takes Taiwan and Trump takes Venezuela.
Speaker 0: No. I I'm absolutely in agreement with you on that. The KMT look like they're coming back to power. The current government of Taiwan is deeply unpopular and becoming more and more so. These visits are taking place.
It looks much more plausible that the apple will fall from the tree rather than that it will have to be violently shaken. Now you mentioned corruption. It is the leap motif of president Xi Jinping to destroy corruption. I mean, his latest statement that those who seek political office should not seek wealth, and those who seek wealth should not seek to influence those with political office. And he's been remarkably successful in this, hasn't he?
And that's coincided, might even be causal. That's coincided with an enormous increase in China's wealth and the standard of living of the Chinese people.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's a great point. So when Xi Jinping became chairman in 2012, he really faced two major challenges to his legitimacy and the legitimacy of the CPC. The first was pollution, and the second was corruption. The pollution in 2012, 2013 was terrible.
You often hit over 300 or over 500 on the AQI index. You felt like you were chewing the air. I mean, I almost left China in that time because the pollution was so bad. Now you get blue skies most of the time. The AQI index is as good in Shanghai where I live right now as in most cities in The United States, and that's why you see outdoor running, marathon running, rock climbing is soaring as a hobby in China because the pollution is so much better.
It's not even issue. I was actually in Thai Thailand last month on vacation, and the air in Shanghai was better than the air on the ocean side in Thailand. So she needs to be given credit for that. The second part is corruption. It was like you wouldn't believe in China.
You could drive a car. If you were an official and the police stopped you for driving too fast, and I've been in cars like this in a friend's car where the friend would say, you can't give me a ticket. You don't know who I am. And then they would call someone and say, don't give them a ticket to the police officer. The corruption was a day to day, five times day an issue that everyday Chinese got mad at.
Now here's the thing, George. What do governments need to do? So in China, under Xi Jinping, the CPC is looking after the 90% of the population, the low and middle class Chinese. There are about 850,000,000 of them. These are people that they the government says, you know what?
They might not be rich. They might not have a lot of influence, but they're the majority. As a communist party of China, we need to take care of them. So what the CPC has done under Xi, and you have to give them credit, is they've cracked down on corruption. They've extended access to medical care and education.
Right? It's only about $23,000 US dollars a year to go to Tsinghua, the best university in China, while it costs 100,000 a year to go to MIT or NYU or Harvard the United States. I just got my teeth cleaned in China. It cost me $8 with an X-ray. It can cost 350 US dollars in America.
So while America, the problem, is the government is based off of helping the rich 10%. You see a Donald Trump. You see a Ted Cruz. You see these politicians do whatever their political patrons want. The Ken Griffins, the Alex Soros of the world.
They try to raise money from them and then implement the policies that they want. In China, the government has decided we need to help the 90%. Now that doesn't mean everything's perfect here. Don't get me wrong. There's still a lot of problems in China.
But Xi Jinping and the CPC need to be given credit for cracking down on corruption, basically stopping air pollution, and focused on improving the lives of the top 90%. The eight fifty million Chinese who just wanna go to school, feed their kids, see a dentist.
Speaker 0: Let's turn to the economy of which on which you are a considerable expert. Your book is absolutely brilliant, indispensable actually for anyone who wants to understand the Chinese economy. And if you don't want to understand the Chinese economy, you're particularly stupid as it is already the world's biggest manufacturer and is, I think, arguably already the world's biggest economy. Although, the Chinese in the ancient way often like to feign inferiority, and they don't like you saying they are the biggest economy. They either are or they're knocking on the door of being the world's biggest economy.
Your book deals with the opportunities for the West in that and for capitalism within that. But the western governments have been particularly stupid in continuing to foster enmity and even hostility against China. In my monologue, I made the point that Kyrstheimer on his way to a kowtow to the CPC has spent the last few years variously describing China as an adversary, as an enemy, as a security threat in the parliament just a month or two ago. The speaker of the parliament held an emergency statement to say that the Chinese were everywhere under the desks in the British parliament spying on unknown MPs who know nothing. I can tell you worth knowing or spying on.
Macron, only again a few months ago, evincing hostility against China. Von der Leyen ordering the European Union to send their navies to patrol China's seas and threaten China. Now they've all realized with Trump's behavior, they better suddenly get close to China. What are their chances?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't understand Europe, George. I think there's obviously geopolitical tension between The US and China, and Europe should be the major beneficiary. Europe should play the Americans and the Chinese off each other. So, you know, Macron should be coming to China and saying, we'll support you a bit if you buy more Airbus airplanes.
But then they should go to The United States and try to get more LNG gas and other energy and play off China. The big winners of geopolitical tension should be Europe. But Europe is poorly run. If you look at it in 2009, the Europe's economy was actually larger than America's. Now it's 40% smaller.
So the problem is we have people like Kaja Khalas, the head of foreign affairs, who I like, I just don't understand how she possibly could have that position, who's tweeted that China is happy and is the threat because The United States is trying to take over Greenland. Somehow she makes it about China. Or Marc Rutte, the former Dutch prime minister who's now the secretary general of has said that China will definitely force Russia to attack NATO countries. And he's been sort of prostrating himself and bending over for Donald Trump despite Trump threatening Denmark and threatening Greenland. It just doesn't make any sense.
So what should Europe do? They should follow the playbooks of Australia's Albanese. They should follow the playbooks of Mark Cardi in Canada and try to do deals with China. So China is a very strong economy. It's the second largest in the world, perhaps the largest when you look at PPP, as you said.
But here's the thing. The economy is weak right now. Youth employment is about 16.5%. You have real estate has dropped 30 to 40%. Retail sales only went up point 9% in December.
So we're having a weak quarter. Am I worried about China's economy the long term? Absolutely not. It's gonna still be the major driver for economic growth, accounting for about a 30% of economic growth in the world in 2026. So long term, China's fine.
It's got AI. It's got semiconductors. It'll do well. But in the short term, there are some issues, and that's cut because The United States is trying to contain China. So what does China need to do?
It needs to sign deals with European nations, and that's the best opportunity. So instead of buying, soybeans from The United States, China started buying soybeans from Brazil. Instead of buying oil from The States, they're buying from Canada. Instead of buying beef from The United States, they're buying beef from Australia. So this is a real opportunity for European nations to say, look.
We wanna sell you more products, get rid of the trade deficit. And more importantly, George, is they need to say, you know what, China? We want your companies to come to Europe, build factories, and hire European workers. It's a win win for everyone. They should say that BYD or Xiaomi, which are big NEV makers, should buy up hollowed out factories in Germany or France from the automakers and hire local workers.
Now here's the problem. Huawei tried to do this in France recently. They spent millions of dollars building up a big factory only to shut it two months before it was supposed to open. Why? Because Macron's government said that Huawei could no longer be involved in the telecom system of France.
And so they said, you know what? Why should we be here? They closed the factory and left. That's the problem, George. You've got this fearmongers in Europe.
You've got bigots. You've got racists who on the one hand say they want Chinese money, but then they spit on China and call them a a threat. That's the problem that's going on in Europe right now. I feel really bad for Europeans because most Europeans I meet are pretty nice, but they've got the worst leaders in the world. And if you don't get better leaders soon, Europe is gonna be the next Africa in terms of economic impoverishment.
Speaker 0: Well, that's a zinger, Sean. That one will live. I'm coming to Shanghai in a couple of days time. I'm hoping to get a Zika and one of those 40% cheaper apartments that you referred to. But the let's turn to comrade Carney, as I now call him, having reviled him for many decades.
He's now standing up to Donald Trump, and Donald Trump is openly threatening him to the point that it would not be beyond the realms of imagination for the Americans to actually take action, not just economic action, but kinetic action against Carney. For what? Because he's made a trade deal with China, will Carney stand up to this threat, you think?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm scared for the world right now. I think Carney has a backbone. I think he's doing what's good for Canada. I'm American even though I've been in China for thirty years, but I actually went to McGill University in Canada, for my college.
So I have an affinity for all three countries. I think Carney is doing the right thing for Canada. Right? They he can't put too much reliance on The United States. Right now, Canada does about 600,000,000,000 US a year in economic trade with The United States, only about 100,000,000,000 a year with China, but he needs to offset just the same way that I said Europe needs to do.
He needs to play both sides. And I think a normal leader would be understanding of that. The problem with Trump is I don't I think something has snapped in his brain in the last four or five months. I've never been an a never Trumper. I actually like some of his policies, but I think honestly, I think there's some mental illness that's emerged in the last four or five months.
And so you can't look at him from a geopolitical or trade standpoint as, you know, doing four d chess or doing spheres of influence in the Donro doctrine versus China and Asia. I think he's being driven by narcissistic personality disorder and new which he's always had, but also newly emerge mental illnesses. And so I worry what he's gonna do. When I speak to government leaders in small and mid countries, they're fearful for their families. You know, they say that under Trump, because you have psycho fans in the cabinet like Marco Rubio, that they're going to just sanction not just the presidents or prime ministers of countries, but also go after their families.
And if you're a small country, especially in the Western Hemisphere, and you're and you're the head of a country that's 500,000 people or 50,000 people and your kids get sanctioned, your kids can't do anything. I mean, this is evil. I I mean, if you wanna sanction a government leader, that's one thing. But what about the families? And this is my concern for Kearney because Kearney's daughter is at Harvard right now.
She's a freshman, my alma mater. And I think a lot of this becomes personal. Because when Kearney's daughter was trying to apply to or go into Harvard over the summer, Trump was holding up the sword of Damocles saying that international students couldn't get student visas to The United States. And he was specifically targeting Harvard. So I think that the Carney family saw they weren't, you know, singled out at this time.
But I think they saw the behavior of Trump and that how that hurt his daughter. And I think that probably gave Kearney a bit more backbone than he might have had because he saw his own family getting hurt. So my concern, George, and and I don't mean this as a joke. I don't mean this because I hate Trump. You know, I like Trump's policies towards China more than I like Biden's, but I do think we have mental illness right now.
And so he's making decisions that are not based off of four d chess, but also just also he can't control himself. If he feels that somebody's attacking him or not being a a psychophant, he will lash out and hurt countries. And what he's doing to Canada is morally wrong just like what Biden did to China was morally wrong. It's a very scary time, George.
@georgegalloway - George Galloway
The Bondi kill*r has done this before Before it happened people in Israel were googling the name of the perpetrator and one of the victims. Naveed Akram was clearly an expert marksman Follow #MOATS 508 #Bondi #NaveedAkram #Israel https://t.co/M0YMO2Zkch
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker describes a bizarre and as-yet unexplained phenomenon surrounding a recent incident: people were googling the names of both the perpetrator and one of the victims—the young woman in Israel—before the event, which the speaker emphasizes as very strange. This phenomenon is presented as noteworthy and puzzling, with no further explanation provided within the transcript.
Additionally, the speaker notes that Naved Akram was googled 15 times in Israel yesterday before the mass shooting. This detail is highlighted as part of the sequence of unusual online activity connected to the event, drawing attention to the pre-incident interest in Akram's identity.
Beyond these observations, the speaker asserts specialized knowledge about firearms and the attacker’s technique. The speaker says, “I know about guns as you know, Hoz. I know about weapons.” This leads to a characterization of Naved Akram as an expert marksman. The speaker contends that Akram “handled the weapon exactly correctly,” with shots described as rapid but steady, contrasting them with “spraying” or wild firing. The assertion is that there was “no spraying” and that Akram’s rifle action was controlled, implying a high level of proficiency.
Further, the speaker emphasizes that a bolt-action rifle is “a very difficult weapon for an inexperienced person to handle and to handle to such deadly effect,” underscoring the claim that Akram possessed significant skill. The speaker concludes by asserting that Akram is a man “who’s done this before,” suggesting prior experience or familiarity with similar acts.
In sum, the transcript presents three core points: (1) a strange pre-event pattern of online searches for the perpetrator and the victim’s names, particularly in connection with the Israeli victim; (2) a note that Akram was searched online multiple times in the immediate lead-up to the incident; and (3) a detailed, unambiguous claim about Akram’s firearms expertise and method, portraying him as a trained marksman who executed a deliberate, controlled series of shots with a bolt-action rifle, implying prior experience with such actions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The bizarre situation that just like in the killing of the policewoman at the Capitol Building near to the White House, people were googling the name of both the perpetrator and one of the victims, the young woman in Israel before the event. This is a very, very strange and as yet unexplained phenomenon. Secondly, it turns out that Naved Akram was googled 15 times in Israel yesterday before the mass shooting. Thirdly, Naved Akram, I know about guns as you know, Hoz. I know about weapons.
I know who is a lunatic spraying bullets wildly, and I know when a trained marksman is taking shots at running people on the beach. And with a bolt action, a bolt action is a very difficult weapon for an inexperienced person to handle and to handle to such deadly effect. Naved Akram is an expert marksman. He handled the weapon exactly correctly. His shots were rapid but steady.
There was no spraying. There was no wildness evident in his rifle action at all. This is a man who's done this before. Somewhere, he's done this before.
@georgegalloway - George Galloway
Never Forget. Keep this. Bookmark it. Never Forget.
@georgegalloway - George Galloway
A ‘Shitty Little Country’ #georgegalloway #moats #netanyahu #gaza @moatstv https://t.co/xfFHoSG4ib
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Israeli government is responsible for an actual holocaust, televised to the whole world. An old man died on camera from starvation in 2025 while waiting in line for food. A young woman looks like a "Belsen horror." Eighty people in Gaza died of hunger today, while hundreds of thousands of tons of food, water, and medicine are being blocked by Israel from entering. The speaker places greater shame and blame on the rest of the world for allowing Israel, a country of 8,000,000 people, to starve millions to death.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Israeli government is now responsible, televised, Hollywood style, in technicolor if that's still a thing, to everybody in the whole world An actual holocaust. Today I saw an old man literally die on camera. As he got to the front of the queue of the feeding station without being murdered whilst he stood in the queue like 50 or more others today and virtually every day. He expired on camera from starvation in 2025. A woman whom my director said to me, the old woman, no.
She's not an old woman. She's a young woman, but she looks like a woman in Auschwitz or Birkenau or Belsen. She looks like what we used to call a Belsen horror. Eighty people today in Gaza died of hunger. And beyond that locked gate are hundreds of thousands of tons of food and water and medicine which Israel is refusing to allow through the gate.
Shame on them, curse on them, yes. But a bigger shame and my at least bigger curse is on the rest of the world who is allowing this shitty little country as the French president once called it of just 8,000,000 people starve millions to death
@georgegalloway - George Galloway
INTERVIEW: Ready the jets Ukraine blows bridges and launches massive drone attack. Chay Bowes, live from the epicentre, charts the Russian response. It'll get ugly Follow #MOATS 452 X: @BowesChay #ChayBowes #Ukraine #Russia https://t.co/RLpxNzH6jg
Video Transcript AI Summary
Che Boes reports from Bryansk on two bridge collapses in the Bryansk and Kursk regions, attributing them to Ukrainian saboteur groups. He describes the scene as a war zone, with casualties including an eight-month-old baby critically injured. Boes criticizes Western media coverage, claiming the SBU admitted to blowing up a bridge previously.
Boes addresses the attempted strike on Russian strategic bomber bases, stating that while some aircraft were damaged, the attack was largely thwarted. He dismisses the notion that Russia is obligated to engage with Zelensky's regime and asserts the operation was technically sophisticated and long-planned. Boes suggests foreign involvement and notes the cynicism of Western powers.
Boes believes Russia is winning in Donbas and that Putin will not be provoked into an overreaction. He emphasizes Putin's calm leadership and the growing resolve within Russia to conclude the war on the battlefield. Boes addresses claims of Britain preparing for war with Russia, noting Russians are fond of the British people but view the UK as an empire in decline seeking relevance. He cites Britain's limited military capabilities and questions the likelihood of British citizens fighting for Keir Starmer.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Che Boes, a great friend of the show is was already one of my heroes, but he's especially so now because he's come on the show despite two nights without being asleep. He was called out to report on the terrorist attack on the bridge in Briansk and witnessed the terrible, awful casualties and destruction wrought by that terrorist explosion and he's been working on that story flat out but he's definitely across what else happened today which if anything is even more serious and he's agreed to be with us tonight. Che Boes, very warm welcome and a big thanks for exceptionally making this time for us. I'll try not to keep you for long. First of all, tell us about what happened at the bridge and how many bridges were blown up by terrorist action over the last twenty four hours.
Speaker 1: Well, George, thanks. Again, thanks for having me on. Your show is an exceptionally important platform for people who want to hear, you know, the other side's view. It's a remarkably important thing, and it deserves all support that anyone can give us. Yeah.
So I'm in Bryansk. I've I've I came here, you know, as soon as I heard the news, I was dispatched here. And I was the first reporter on the scene, if you like, of the actual catastrophe is the only thing you can call it. There were two bridges that came down last night, about twenty four hours ago, a little a little more. One in the Kursk region, which adjoins Bryansk where I am, and one here in Bryansk.
Now these areas of Russia, South Of Moscow, are very close to Ukraine, of course, and are very liable to infiltration from Ukrainian DRGs or, you know, disruption groups, saboteur groups from the Ukrainian military. And not so long ago, about four kilometers from the bridge, one of these groups was engaged with by the Russian security forces, and fire fights opened up about three, four days before this bridge came down. Many people are suggesting that these may have been the people responsible. The scene I came across was shocking. I mean, in this job, I've seen a lot of things.
I've seen a lot of conflict. I've seen a lot of human trauma. But this was just on a scale of of of of a war zone. The the brain had been essentially upended. The engine, as you mentioned earlier, Harry and the crew had been completely crushed, maybe to within half a meter.
You know, it was it was impossible to survive that. I posted a video of what I saw online on on my ex channel. People are free to have a look. Very shocking. A huge response from the Russian emergencies ministry.
About a 80 people went there to assist. Very luckily, there was a very small roadway running alongside the the track at that point. You can see that in the video. Very difficult terrain. The start of the summer here in Russia, people making their way to Moscow, absolutely no military use for this rail line.
You know, these are just ordinary people, children, babies. One eight month old baby, critically ill now in Moscow, flown to Moscow with critical injuries. You you could be heard screaming inside one of the carriages as it was trapped there. The the horror of this is remarkable. Anybody from London 77, these assaults that have happened on ordinary civilians should be acutely aware of what is being done potentially in their name and who's funding it and who's the architect of it.
A very traumatic day for us to to witness that, feel a little bit helpless to see it, but it's also quite it makes you feel quite angry. It makes you feel quite angry about the narrative within the Western media, BBC, CNN, the client media, as I like to call them, and as you are more than familiar with, that these are two bridges collapse despite the fact that the SBU admitted in the last twenty first blowing up a bridge in Melinteplal in in Donbas, in Donette, that region. And this stuff has happened before. We we know how they're operating. Isolated stretch of railway to suggest that this bridge fell, the modern very modern looking bridge, just collapsed on a train at the exact moment that train was going underneath it.
Or in the other case in Kursk, that this freight train that was blown up essentially just so happened, and they both happened to happen within hours of each other, is fanciful to use the term that Oscar Wilde was fond of. And of course, it comes in the context, as you say, of a lot of other things happening here in Russia in relation to what happens next in Ukraine.
Speaker 0: Well, let's turn to that, not in any way to diminish the horror of what you witnessed and reported on fearlessly. The attack and the apparent destruction of four Russian air force nuclear bombers, I don't know if they were actually totally destroyed but if I was an insurance broker, I'd definitely be expecting a write off on four essential parts of Russia's nuclear defense force. Now, no nuclear armed country can tolerate an attack on its nuclear force because that potentially changes the nuclear parity with adversaries and leaves the country open to complete destruction. So it's a very very serious matter to attack aircraft that are nuclear capable and could even have been nuclear armed but weren't. Thank God.
This is being hailed by the propagandists of the Ukraine as a turning point. I'm sure that it is but probably not in the way they hope it is. What's your take on that Jay?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't think any of the anything happens by accident when it comes to what happened in Ukraine, particularly actions within Russia. So this this strike this attempted strike on, I think, four Russian strategic bomber bases, so only one, maybe two, had any kind of impact. We think objective observers say that the maximum of six aircraft have been impacted, probably four damaged, maybe destroyed. We don't know. Several of the other attacks were thwarted.
The drones were shut down or disabled by electronic warfare. This doesn't happen by accident. This is being portrayed by Ukraine as, you know, we told you so. We told you to have a ceasefire. We demanded it of you, that you would commit commit to a ceasefire unconditionally despite the fact that you're winning advancing at the most rapid pace in Donbas in in several years of war, essentially, that Russia would be, in some ludicrous reality, obliged to agree to a ceasefire with a country openly sponsoring the assassination of senior military figures, journalists, threatening other journalists, myself included, with debt on a daily basis.
So this idea, this fanciful notion that Russia is obliged to engage with mister Zelensky's regime is remarkable, quite remarkable. A man going into probably the seventh year of his term as a president, a five year presidency, quite remarkable. But it doesn't happen by accident. I think that's what's important for the viewers that this operation was highly technical. It was a long time in the planning, and it struck at a very, very, as you'd say, pertinent part of Russia's triad nuclear triad, which is quite remarkable.
Can you imagine a Mexican drugs gang doing exact exactly the same thing to, American strategic bombers? Because the other reality of this is these actions and these tactics can be deployed by anybody with access to drones, the Internet, a lorry, and some explosives. Remember, this is not that complicated. It's a the it was audacious, and it was successful to a degree in PR. But that's about it.
Because remember, Russia has well over 70 strategic nuclear bombers. Four have probably been damaged, maybe lost. Even if they were, they can be recreated, and they will be done. Same with the fleet in the Black Sea. Ukraine, remember, was briefly winning the war in Ukraine because it had sank several Russian ships in the Black Sea.
We're not hearing about that anymore. Ukraine was also winning the war with an invaded Kursk in a catastrophic suicide mission, which caught the lives of probably a hundred thousand men and incalculable material and war treasure. They were also winning then, remember, all forgotten. They were winning in 2023 when they embarked on this cataclysmic counter offensive, which was gonna drive the Russians out of Crimea. So you have to take this stuff with a pinch of salt.
It might be something of a PR victory, and as you say, with the completely, delusional think tank fantasists online talking about entire, nuclear arsenal Russia is now crippled, it's it's almost laughable. I think what this is about and and the the fingerprints, the DNA of another foreign power are certainly all over this. We know that the British government is intimately related to the SBU who claimed responsibility for this. Mister the head of one element of that, awarded a a medal by the Polish government this week quite remarkably. And at the same time, mister was telling us that the OU and UPA who are idolized in Ukraine are Nazis and war criminals.
So there's a remarkable psychosis at the moment of around Ukraine. We know that mister Mertz doesn't really want to arm the Ukraine with long range weapons. So he comes up with this almost Arthurian myth that he's going to fund the development of a long range Ukrainian weapon, excuse me, with which to strike Moscow. This is, again, obfuscation of a responsibility when very quickly Russia said that if you did that, we would be obliged to strike the origin, the places of origin of those weapons. It's a very cynical move.
And, again, we're back again where we always seem to be, George, with the reality that in the West, the only energy of forward motion seems to be escalation. There's no real engagement, remember, from Europe or the British with the Russians. Russians. They're not really involved. Yeah.
They talk to each other, but they don't talk to the to the Russians. And this belief that they can force Russia's hand into some sort of radical, you know, escalatory move by doing this kind of thing, hoping Russia might do something out of character. The Russians will not do that. There'll be no nuclear strike from Russia. There'll be no strike on London or anywhere else at this stage because the Russians understand the game that they're being forced into playing.
I don't think mister Putin is going to sing his lines according to what's written from him in Whitehall or Washington. It's very clear that Russia is winning on the battlefield in Donbas day by day. There's less and of Ukraine to argue about at the talks. The talks tomorrow will be very, very interesting, of course, and we await to see what, if anything, comes from them. Hard to see when you would expect some sort of military response from from Russia.
But I think that response, will be measured to the frustration of many in Russia and to the frustration of many watching. But, again, if you step back and have a look at this, why would mister Putin play a role written from in Whitehall or in Washington? I don't think it's gonna happen, George.
Speaker 0: Is it being reported in Russia now that response is underway? Because on social media, it's full of Excalibur missiles raining down on Kiev, those air rage sirens going off throughout the country. Do you expect larger than usual response to this particularly egregious act?
Speaker 1: Well, George, you know the Russians somewhat. I know them a little better after living and working among them. But as mister Churchill said, enigma wrapped in an enigma. I always get this analogy wrong, but they're not prone to drama. They're not prone to theater.
And as I say, they will step back and look at this. They will find who is responsible. They will draw a response, and it will be mister Putin himself and his security council, I'm I'm sure, not that I'd be privy to that, will make that decision. And it is the difference between chaos and stability that the world has to thank mister Putin for, in my view, an exceptionally calm leader who is remarkably constrained and restrained. And the enemies of Russia know that there's a growing resolve in Russia to to fight this war to its natural conclusion on the battlefield.
So this is also an interesting stratagem by them to try and put pressure on the Russian government to act in what would be very popular in Russia to to strike decision making centers maybe. There's a lot of senior political figures and media commentators speak in that way, but I still think mister Putin will maintain direction. And he's done this since he sat in front of us in 2022 and said they will denazify, Ukraine, and they will demilitarize Ukraine. That's happening day by day on the ground. Planes can be rebuilt.
Tanks can be rebuilt, but territory once held by Russia is very difficult to take back, and that, I think, is the priority of the Russians right now. I think there will be a response, and I think remember, this is also something that the Ukrainians could probably do once. It's like the same as the party trick of being able to make your head blow up. You can only do it once because the Russians will now heighten everything. Just like they did with Storm Shadow, attack them, everything else.
The Russians learn very quickly, and in war, they become masterful at the game of war, about understanding how to counter these threats. And I think this is now one more trick the Ukrainians won't be able to pull up. Four damaged planes. Even if four to 10 of them were destroyed, Russia has 70 of these long range nuclear missile carriers. They can manufacture many more.
And, anyway, the these would not probably be used to deliver any kind of significant role in a nuclear conflict with the West as that would be from a missile deep beneath the Atlantic Ocean, completely unknown to anybody except probably mister Putin and a select few. So the relevance of this, it's a PR victory in the minds of people who want to discount the failed counter offensive, want to discount the catastrophe incurred, want to discount the fact that Ukraine is a dictatorship dragging its own people off the street. But elsewhere, it's seen as what it is, an act of desperation and an attempt to make Russia act in a very irresponsible, aggressive, knee jerk manner, and I just don't see them doing that. As unpopular as it might be within Russia right now after what's happened over the last twenty four, forty eight hours, I think mister Putin will stick to his guns and continue on mission.
Speaker 0: Finally and briefly because I know you need to get to sleep, there's a fella called John Healy, I've known him for decades, you'd be forgiven for never having heard his name before. I called him earlier an inky fingered clerk and that's what he always seemed to me to be like. You wouldn't have put him in charge of a quartermaster store in a small army base anywhere. Believe me. I'm not I'm I'm not exaggerating.
But he was at the Russe Rostrom, I think yesterday, reported today, saying that Britain was preparing for war with Russia. It's kind of like the flea on the arse of the elephant warning the elephant it's going to get it. How do people in Russia, I'm sure they've never heard of John Healy, but what do they think of Britain?
Speaker 1: Well, interestingly, George, as you know, having spent some time in Russia, the Russians are exceptionally fond of the ordinary British people. Very fond of them, very interested in British culture as they are in Irish culture. Irish dancing, very popular here. London, a beloved city among the Russians. So there's a sense of dismay and bemusement among ordinary Russians as to why the British have suddenly declared war Russia.
I mean, they don't share a land border. I mean, I think what the Russians believe and, again, as you know, the Russians are exceptionally well educated politically, from the taxi driver to the the the the politician. They see Russia or The UK as an empire in decline, scrambling for relevance, particularly now that it's away from the table in the European Union, another increasingly irrelevant and desperate organization. So it's a war of distraction. It's a war of fear, of justification, because remember, Russia has very clearly shown in Ukraine that despite an amalgam of 55 countries and the entirety of NATO and the entirety of of NATO's manufacturing capacity, Russia is still advancing.
The war isn't over. Sixteen, seventeen thousand sanctions against Russia. It isn't working. They have failed in Ukraine. NATO has failed.
NATO is a very fractious organization where Greece and Turkey are both members, but who would be obliged to invade each other if one invaded the other on the island of Cyprus. Remember, George? It's a ludicrous situation. And the failure in Ukraine to end Russia's determined push to denazify and demilitarize this junta in Kyiv demonstrates that. So what is the way out of this to accept?
You're a seasoned politician. Do you expect anybody to stand up at the British parliament and say, look. We got a completely wrong following our American colleagues into this catastrophic proxy war in on the other side of the of the continent. Of course, they're not gonna do that. They can't do it no more than missus von der Leyen can do it and expose the egregious lack of foresight and, obligation to the welfare of Europeans.
Much as mister Stammers, you very correctly say, this pernicious, man who has declared not enough money for pensioners' fuel, he's tried to backtrack on it now, but there's plenty of money for new weapons, six weapons factories. The Russians, remember, manufacture more artillery shells, for example, heavy artillery tanks and fighter jets probably than the entirety of NATO does four times over. Four times. Is that from Washington? Istanbul, imagine.
The Russians manufacture four times more, maybe more. It will take decades and decades for them to even reach any kind of remote parity. That's an exceptionally important thing. This is all talk. Britain, by the way, had about 200 aging challenger tanks at the start of the Ukraine the space of the conflict in Ukraine.
It gave, I think, a dozen of them to Ukraine. Several were destroyed very rapidly by the Russian, and they were secretly and very quietly pulled away from the front. Britain has less than a battalion of of battle tanks. It has less than a hundred thousand men in any kind of capacity to fight a war. It has no military manufacturing capacity.
Its navy is, in a lot of trouble. And it's a society which is exceptionally unlikely to volunteer its young manhood and women to die in a war for a man who seems to be the most unpopular politician that's ever graced the house of parliament in in a generation? Why on earth would Britain's young people stir themselves from the monotony of trying to survive in themselves from the monotony of trying to survive in an increasingly fractured society to go and die in a war for Keir Starmer? If anyone can answer that question, I'll I'll be delighted to hear the answer.
@georgegalloway - George Galloway
INTERVIEW: 'It's actually insanity' The US is prepping for an annihilation situation, says Greg Stoker on the Indian Ocean military build-up. It's doubling down on late stage imperialism. There's nothing to be militarily achieved by striking Iran Follow #MOATS 434 @GregJStoker #US #Iran
Video Transcript AI Summary
Greg Stoker discusses the possibility of a US attack on Iran, noting a military buildup including B-2 stealth bombers staged in Diego Garcia. Despite this, the Senate Intelligence Committee stated there's no evidence Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons. Stoker claims Trump, despite campaigning as an anti-war candidate, may be aiming to isolate Iran, separate them from China, and implement a pan-Arab Abraham Accords.
The discussion expands beyond nuclear concerns to include Iran's regional influence and ballistic missile capabilities. Stoker highlights China's Belt and Road Initiative, for which Iran is important, and the US's competing IMEC corridor. He references a 2009 Brookings Institute paper, "The Path to Persia," suggesting current actions mirror long-standing regime change strategies.
Stoker believes a full-scale invasion of Iran is impossible due to its geography and population size. While the US could strike hard sites, Iran would likely retaliate, overwhelming US defenses in the region. Despite the alarming rhetoric and military posturing, Stoker suggests this may be a show of force, as sanctions have failed to bring Iran to the negotiating table. He believes the American public isn't ready for direct conflict with Iran.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Greg j Stoker is a veteran, US military veteran, he's an activist, he's the host of Colonial Outcasts and State of Play on Mint Press News. He is therefore absolutely qualified to be our guest this evening on these great events unfolding. Greg Stoker, welcome back to the mother of all talk shows. Nice to see you again. The big enchilada, is Trump going to attack Iran?
If so, when? And with what force do you think?
Speaker 1: Well, we've been watching a pretty big buildup. We've tracked at least four to seven b two stealth bombers. They have extended capabilities to drop three, 30,000 pound ground penetration, penetrators, you know, which is, obviously meant to collapse caves in Afghanistan. That's where they were first developed for. And now the theory is for nuclear hard sites underground in Iran.
They're staging out of a Diego Garcia airbase, which is out in the Indian Ocean because a lot of our Arab allies where we have bases in in The Gulf and Qatar, they've said specifically they do not want us to use their airspace for strikes on Iran. So it's conveniently out there. It's always been a staging ground for operations in the Persian Gulf, so we're watching that build up. But you know what's interesting, George? We just had the Senate Intelligence Committee on global threats as which is something we have every year here in America at the beginning of each new year.
And Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, said categorically during the global threat assessment that there is no evidence that Iran is currently trying to develop a nuclear weapon. They've kind of stopped all their ambitions with with that regard in 02/2003. So we're watching this man, Trump, who was platformed as this anti war candidate become just a straight bomb Iran Neocon, and there's a lot of reasons for it. One of them being, you know, isolating Iran, separating them from China. He wants to use this opportunity to implement a pan Arab Abraham Accords.
So for the audience that was just tracking, administration, he pushed for the Abraham Accords, which was the normalization between Bahrain and The UAE and Israel. Well, he's kinda definitely signaled that he wants to do that for the entire Middle East engulfed region, and separating Iran from that region is part of his massive foreign policy initiative.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Because the demand is not only on the nuclear file. Some some people are missing that point. The demand is far more far reaching. It is a demand that Iran cease to have any hinterland in the Arab world, have any allies in the Arab world, cut itself off from the Arab world because Trump knows that Iran has millions of supporters, often co religionists, but not always, who will reject the Abraham Accords, and if Iran is still around to help them, their opposition to the Abraham Accords will be that more that much more vibrant.
So it's not just the nuclear question, although that's what the media usually focuses on. It is an attempt to force Iran to destroy its ballistic missile capability, its ability to fight back against distant enemies, and to, as I say, end its role supporting people like the Ansar Allah in Yemen, like the popular mobilization forces in Iraq, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, like the resistance in Palestine. He's really going for the for the whole shebang. The question is, and I appreciate you can't know, neither can I, but the question is, is he fully appraised of what the likely impact outcome might be if he does go to war with Iran?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, I'd like to add one more thing in terms of the conceptualizing the the geopolitical situation around this. It's not just about separating Iran from the Arab world and Abraham Accords. There's also a concern with isolating China. Right? The BRI, China's Belt and Road Initiative, their massive global infrastructure plan, Iran is very important for that.
The US has in the West has a competing global infrastructure it's not global. It's regional. It's called the IMEC corridor. India through The Middle East, through the Port Of Haifa into Europe. It's decades behind the Belt and Road Initiative.
So that's also part of this destabilizing Iran, regime change in Iran. You know, the interesting thing about US foreign policy when it comes to Iran, it really hasn't changed. So if you guys want a point of if the audience wants a point of reference, you can Google the path to Persia. It's a 02/2009 position paper on how to in implement regime change, affect a a siege or war or limited war in Iran put forth by the Brookings Institute. And what we're seeing right now is just a a posture, a buildup based off of these old think tank pieces that have been around floating around Washington since February since the early two thousands.
So does Trump understand what would a war with Iran entail? Probably. I don't think he's that completely incompetent. First of all, Iran, very difficult geography. There is deserts.
There's mountainous regions, which would be hell to deal with in terms of a counterinsurgency perspective. The the population is five times that of Iraq, and Iraq was pretty easy terrain. We controlled the airspace. There's actually no way we could militarily control Iran because then you'd have to set up a security force which would basically entail, like, half of the US armed forces just to implement a new regime, quote, unquote, nation building operations. So the most we could do is strike hard sites, and then Iran will retaliate.
They can overwhelm US air defenses on US bases in Iraq, in Qatar, all through the Gulf Region. There's literally nothing we can do to stop them. And to the extent you've mentioned the popular mobilization mobilization units in Iraq, well, Pete Hegseth recently called, and this was reported in Iraqi media, the president of Iraq, and said, we will strike targets in Iraq if any of the PMU retaliate against US bases based off our bombing of Yemen and hostility towards Iran. So we're kind of prepping for this, I don't know, kind of annihilation situation where we can bomb Iran, our bases will get x'd out. So this is kind of why I, who still hold to sanity, think that this hopefully will just fizzle out because there's nothing to be militarily achieved by striking Iran.
We can't we can't invade them. We can't destroy their nuclear program, which according to our own director of national intelligence does not exist in terms of a weapons manufacturing platform. So I don't know. What are what are we doing here? We're just doubling down on late stage mask off imperialism, and it's not gonna end well for The US.
The US Military is already stretched thin while having a massive budget. There's a massive recruiting crisis. Again, people don't want to be invested in foreign wars and go to die overseas like we did for the past twenty years. There this is just this intractable situation. And from the imperial perspective, it seems like the entire system's in cascade failure.
We still have a lot of inertia behind us, which is why we can put billions of dollars of air assets in a base out of, like, Diego Garcia and move a couple of carrier groups into the region. But, again, there's nothing we can accomplish that's achievable. It's it's it's actually insanity. But we're going keep doing it.
Speaker 0: I think that's I mean I've read the book, The Art of the Deal, and I'm watching Trump now as he browbeats people around the world into giving way to his demands or rather what his demands really are as opposed to what they are on the top line. So for example, he basically threatened to invade Panama and now he got his way in Panama. China no longer owns the warehouses by the side of the Panama Canal which is all they ever controlled. They never controlled the canal as Trump lied, but now BlackRock does control the canal. So he got his way there.
He may well get his way with Canada without having to invade it and enlist King Charles into the war of national defense, which the Canadians seem pretty committed to conducting if he does. He's not going to invade Canada, and our last guest certainly believed that he's not going to invade Greenland either. So these are all just out of the deal performances by Donald Trump, aren't they? They are extreme belligerents. They are crazy Trump behavior in the hope that some part of what is he's looking for falls into his lap for the fear of avoiding something worse.
Is that possibly what's going on?
Speaker 1: Well, there I I try to resist sensationalism. I I remember last year, I I tried invested a lot of time in trying to dispel this fear or this mania around National Guard units deploying to Syria. They've they thought it signaled an escalation of US foreign policy in the Middle East. And if you actually looked at the deployment orders, it's like, no. They were just rotating out from the counter ISIS operations in Syria out of a legal basis, of course, but it wasn't an escalation of forces.
So when we look at this buildup in in the Persian Gulf and the the moving of what another carrier group into the region, which is a significant strike package in terms of capabilities, this is not unprecedented. The US masses forces to isolate and to deter different regional adversaries as as we would call them. So the same thing happened with a similar compliment in 2022 out of Australia in order to deter China over the Strait Of Taiwan. So I'm looking at this, and, yes, there are the rhetoric, the the strike packages and the capabilities are alarming. But I think it's gonna be more, as you said, part of the deal.
This is basically just a show of force because sanctions aren't working against Iran. It it hasn't worked out. Iranian government has its own problems, but they said they're not gonna negotiate a new nuclear deal under these terms. So what do you do? More posturing.
And I I just don't think the American people are ready for a direct conflict with another sovereign power. Bombing the Houthis, fine. Sending money to, Israel to bomb Gaza, Lebanon, annex the West Bank, and occupy Syria. Fine. But the actual commitment of US forces against, you know, another sovereign nation, the consent hasn't been built yet.
They're trying, but, yeah, it's it's just not there.
@georgegalloway - George Galloway
Netanyahu has succeeded in raising the black flag of ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Damascus. Prof Seyed Marandi on Israel's part in birthing the Islamist throat-cutters who have taken Syria #MOATS 402 #SeyedMarandi #Netanyayu #Biden #Turkey #Israel https://t.co/azEK2Sr9Jm
Video Transcript AI Summary
The CIA supported ISIS and Al-Qaeda to create a Salafist entity between Syria and Iraq. Erdogan is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians, and he has always tried to corrupt the Palestinian cause. He never sent a single bullet to Gaza or the West Bank. Netanyahu has succeeded in raising the black flags of ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Damascus.
The Palestinians have suffered a strategic defeat and are isolated. Iran and Syria were supporting the West Bank, but now the West Bank is in a much more difficult position. Israel lost in Gaza and Lebanon, but after what Erdogan has done, the equation has changed. There's a holocaust going on in Gaza, and the Israeli regime's actions have to be remembered.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Professor, a grim a grim situation. Give us, please, first your thoughts, and then allow me, please, to ask you some searching questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, George. First of all, with regards to your poll, I think Jake Sullivan, if he had the right to vote or if he had the if he had the courage to vote or if he would admit the truth once again as he did in his email to Hillary Clinton on February 2012, that Al Qaeda is on our side in Syria, he would vote that it is a CIA backed organization. ISIS and Al Qaeda were both supported by the CIA. We know from that email, we know from the US Defense Intelligence Agency document of 02/2012 that Turkey and despots in the Persian Gulf and US allies in the region were creating us wanted to create a Salafist entity between Syria and Iraq to isolate Syria. Or what was that entity?
It was ISIS. So they created Al Qaeda. They supported ISIS. And then Kerry said we allowed in a leaked audio. He said we and Qatar and Turkey and Saudi Arabia funded ISIS.
And he admitted that they allowed ISIS to advance on Damascus. And I think it was Obama when ISIS invaded Iraq in, I think in the interview with Atlantic, he said, We allowed ISIS advance on Damascus to put pressure on the prime minister, Nouriel Malikia. And Hillary Clinton once admitted that we created al Qaeda. It's clear as day who is behind these groups. It's clear as day that Erdogan is the person, first and foremost, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians.
You I know you know of Serene Ashim. She was the press CB reporter, Lebanese American, who was reporting from the Turkish border, I think, in 2012 when Enol Arab or Kobani was under assault from ISIS. She reported from the border that World Food Organization trucks were being used to take in weapons and troops into Syria from Turkey. And then Turkish intelligence called her a spy, and she went on press CV live, said that I'm I'm scared. I've been accused of of being a of espionage.
And I'm afraid. That very same day she she was killed, Turkish intelligence murdered her in a in a in a car when a truck hit her car. So Netanyahu has succeeded in raising the black flags of ISIS and Al Qaeda and Damascus. And those who support Erdogan and his actions, they cannot hide behind these facts. Assad those who say Assad kills hundreds of thousands of his own people, they are the ones they are the ones who are supporting the people who actually carried out these atrocities.
Speaker 0: Well, these are facts that you have adduced, but there are there are other facts. The the reality is now that the Palestinians have suffered a strategic defeat of almost incalculable magnitude. They are now isolate. The only people giving them weapons to resist were Iran, and the only people who were fighting as an organized army on their behalf were the Lebanese resistance. Now as a result of what's happened, Iran cannot reach these people.
They cannot be resupplied. They are in mortal danger of fatal final defeat. Do you accept that, first of all, and then we'll go on to what could have been done to avoid this.
Speaker 1: It is a very dangerous situation because we know that Erdogan has never been serious about the Palestinian cause. In fact, Erdogan has always tried to corrupt the Palestinian cause. He brought in he gives scholarships to Palestinians. He'd he'd he'd host leaders of the Palestinian movements in in Turkey and give their family a very good life, and therefore, he gained influence that way. But he never sent a single bullet to Gaza.
Like, he never sent a single bullet to the West Bank. He once said before then Israel invaded Lebanon that if they attack Lebanon, we'll send troops there. He didn't send a bullet to Lebanon. And I should add, now that Syria's fallen, that Iran and Syria were supporting the West Bank. The Syrians were supporting the West Bank until now.
So now the West Bank is going to have a much more difficult time protecting itself as these genocidal monsters seek to ethnically cleanse that territory. Ezbollah is in a much more difficult position. In fact, today, as I'm sure you know, Netanyahu went to the Golan. Not only did the the Israeli the Israeli regime move further into Syria today, but they also have been bombing key assets of Syria All Day, destroying their key infrastructure. But what he said was really interesting.
He said that because we weakened Hezbollah, we helped bring about the fall of Syria. So and he when he accepted the ceasefire, he said we have to deal with the so called Iran threat. What was that threat? It's Syria. And immediately after the ceasefire, Erdogan, the traitor, invaded Syria.
When Iran was distracted, when Hezbollah was focused on the South because the cease ceasefire was not a real ceasefire. Every day, the Israelis are killing the Lebanese. Yesterday, I think four were murdered. Today, three were murdered at least until this afternoon. The border between Palestine and Lebanon is is is is very dangerous to the situation right now.
So the treachery of Erdogan, I think, will be remembered in history. So, yes, I agree. The situation for the Palestinian peep people is is is very dangerous right now. It's precarious. And I I can't say it's been a catastrophic defeat, but without a doubt, the victory the the defeat of Israel is now, I think, an open question.
Israel lost in Gaza regardless of the the genocide. It delegitimized itself in the eyes of the world, and it failed to capture it. It lost in Lebanon. It failed to capture Lebanon, and it exposed itself again as genocidal and weak in the face of Hezbollah. But now after what Erdogan has done, the equation has changed.
And this Israeli defeat is I I can't call it a defeat anymore. And the the delegitimization of the Israeli regime, which I think is the biggest achievement of the last fourteen months, the delegitimization in the eyes of the world, is now being forgotten. Because no one is as as you said a few minutes earlier, no one is talking about the ongoing Holocaust. As you and I are speaking, there's a Holocaust going on. Nothing has changed.
They're slaughtering Palestinians day and night in Gaza. And I and I ask your viewers to constantly be active in the coming hours and days and keep the keep sending out the message that there's a holocaust going on. The Israeli regime has to be their its actions have to be remembered by people in the coming days and weeks, and the delegitimization of the regime has to be maintained. But, yes, I agree. This this victory because the Israelis had to achieve victory.
Otherwise, it's a defeat. And until now, it was a defeat for Israel. But the last ten days, thanks to the Erdogan Netanyahu alliance, that's I can no longer say that.
Speaker 0: Well, let me say what you're not able to say or don't feel able to say. It's an Israeli victory. Israel has snatched victory out of the jaws of defeat because all this talk of delegitimization and their name is blackened throughout the world and so on, that doesn't add up to a row of beans. Unless the people fighting the occupation are able to go on fighting it, it's a victory for the occupier. So that brings me to well, let me in parenthesis ask you this.
I asked it publicly today for the first time in fourteen months. October the seventh now looks like a very bad idea, and it makes you wonder whose idea was it anyway because you can say that Israel paid a big price in in soft power, made a paid a big price in its reputation and so on, but all the key players still support it, arm it, give weapons to it, and those that stand against them have now suffered a strategic defeat. Do you have a view on that?
Speaker 1: I I'm I'm sure that the great martyr Yahya Senwar never expected Erdogan to carry out this act of treachery at this point. In fact, as you know, Yahya Senwar said very openly that he was against what was happening in Syria and that he saw Syria as a part of this axis of resistance. Who has more right to talk about Palestine? Yahya Senwar or Erdogan who's selling oil, cheap Al Baku, who's sending cheap Baku oil to Israel, who's been aiding the genocide for fourteen months, who maintains diplomatic relations, who never once told Aliyev to stop selling oil, who continues to do indirect trade with the Israeli regime, and who now has has brought the black flags to Damascus. I don't think Yahya Senwar ever thought for a moment that this would happen under these circumstances.
He couldn't even wait a few weeks to carry out his attack. So the Palestinians in Gaza, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, what could they do? They were in a concentration camp. The West Bank was being ethnically cleansed. East Jerusalem was being ethnically cleansed.
I understand why they did it, and I don't think any of us can see the future. Hezbollah made the greatest sacrifices for the people of Gaza because they did so willingly since October the October. But what else could Hezbollah do but stand with the people of Palestine and the people of Gaza? And they gave huge they paid a huge price for their willing assistance to the people of Gaza, that they didn't foresee the betrayal of Erdogan, the the treason that Erdogan carried out. The people of Turkey are supportive of the Palestinians.
But they are the one who knows very well who who his who his henchmen are. He knows exactly who ISIS is. He is ISIS. He is Al Qaeda because he helped them grow. He allowed them to destroy Syria and Iraq.
He promoted them. And now and if he is such a moral man and he he he and his foreign minister, another criminal, if they are so moral, why did they want to mend relations with president Assad? If president Assad is such a monster, why were they willing to turn around and and normalize with Syria? And then again, turn around later and overthrow Syria. What morality is that?
He has no principles whatsoever. So how could Yahya Senwar who led that operation be blamed for the criminal behavior of the Erdogan regime and his henchmen? I I I cannot blame Hamas Islamic Jihad for what they did.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Finally, professor, it's a difficult question to ask. You might find it difficult to answer. You have concentrated on on damning Erdogan, and very few watching will disagree with you. But why did Iran not see this coming?
Iran is or was everywhere in Syria. They had the most intensive understanding of the situation in Syria. Why did they not see this coming? Why did they not take steps to preclude it?
Speaker 1: I don't want to blame president Assad now that this is over. It's easy to blame people afterwards. It was a very critical situation, But another a number of things happened. First of all, the Syrian government decreased Iran's presence in Syria after the peace in Ethlin. And Iran, by the way, was not was opposed to this.
The Russians wanted this peace. Iran felt that Edlib would become a crisis later on. But the Syrian government wanted rapprochement with Arab countries, Saudi Arabia, The Emirates, and they distanced themselves from Iran. And the Iranian footprint in Israel as in in palace in Syria, as they say, was decreased. So Iran had far few people in Syria over the past three, four years than before.
The second issue is you and you alluded to that, is that the problem lies with the fact that The United States emptied Syria. They were stealing the oil and the agricultural products from the Northeast of the country, and they used the genocidal sanctions, the Caesar sanctions to starve the people. A general in the Syrian army was earning $40 a month, and these Al Qaeda terrorists were earning up to $2,000 a month. So when they economy was emptied. The army was weak.
And then social media, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, they and the Arabic media, these despots in the region, and the western media, all of them carried out a very effective psychological warfare campaign against the Syrians when this started. So the Syrian army wasn't able to defend itself. And I don't and, of course, Hezbollah, as Netanyahu himself said, was back in Lebanon. They were hurt, and they were prepare they were prepared to fight for the South. So they weren't in Syria.
The Iranians didn't have much of a presence. And then when this attack started, Iran had to mobilize, and they did start bringing people in. A significant number of people were in Damascus. But and this, I don't want to blame president Assad, but he changed his position twice over the last two, three days. The Iranians were willing to come in just like in 02/2013.
Remember, Iran did not enter nor did Hezbollah until 02/2013 after tens of thousands of foreign fighters were brought into Syria by by Erdogan and Western intelligence agencies and with funding from these despots in the Persian Gulf. The Iranians were prepared. They told him so that they were prepared to fight against Al Qaeda. He changed his position, and the timing there was very little time. Unless president Assad was very firm that, yes, come in, and the army will cooperate with you, Iran could not go into Syria and fight on its own without the support of the president and the government.
It would fail. It would be a catastrophe. So the Iranians came in, and I don't want to go into great detail. I don't know everything now, but I know some of what happened. But president Assad, for whatever reason, people were giving him different information.
People perhaps people were calling him from abroad. At one point, he said, I'll leave. At one point, said he was he said, I'll stand, and then he said, I'll leave. But that's the Iranians cannot fight against in another country without the full support of the president of that country. But, anyway, I don't blame him because the situation was critical.
I don't know the circumstances, but the treason came from the North. This was about more than just Syria. And have no doubt that this will cause instability across Asia. There are five up to 5,000 Chinese fighters in Syria, thousands from Central Asia, Uzbekistan. And these people will destabilize much of Asia if they can.
They're they're right now euphoric. They are drunk in their victory, and they will be a danger in the future. Erdogan has created a monster that can destabilize much of Asia, and I think the Americans want that. But, of course, this is not going to benefit the West. This instability is not going to benefit the region either.
No one is going to go unscathed. Only two people benefit. One is Erdogan and one is Netanyahu. And these two men are very similar. Erdogan does it for himself, not for Turkey, and Netanyahu does it for himself and not his Zionist colleagues and the other Zionist colonizers.
But in any case, I I think that Al Qaeda will ultimately fail. It's going to be a very big burden on the people of Turkey. It's going to destabilize the region. And I think that Erdogan, things are very different today, George, from what it was in 02/1213. I think you know this better much better than I.
People are much more awake today to the reality of what's going on in our region than back then. Back then, there were a few lone voices telling people what was going on, and most did not believe it. Now everyone knows what Jake Sullivan said. Now everyone knows what Kerry said. Now everyone knows what the Defense Intelligence Agency said, what general Michael Flynn said on Al Jazeera.
Everyone knows that the CIA, Israel, and Erdogan are in bed together and that they and that Erdogan sacrificed the people of Palestine. And we will see in the weeks and months ahead, as I think you alluded to at the beginning of the show, that Erdogan and Al Qaeda will do nothing to harm the Israeli regime.
Speaker 0: I infer then your answer to my next question, but let me ask it anyway. It's my final one. I'm grateful for your time. There are people, I don't know enough about it to have a view myself, but there are people who do know a lot about it, who think that the change of president in Iran has changed at least if not the political line, then at least the enthusiasm for the political line, the resolve to enforce the political line. Is there anything in that in your view?
Speaker 1: I understand that position. I think that there are some people in the current administration that are naive about The United States who think that if that if we show a willingness to compromise, that the Americans will compromise. I don't believe that that is the case. I believe that the Americans will all as always, they'll misinterpret this as a sign of weakness, and they'll become more aggressive. That is what history has told us.
That is what happened after the nuclear deal. That is what happened after after when we were named the axis of evil. There are there are host of instances where the Iranians showed goodwill, and they were slapped and their hands were slapped by the Americans. But I don't believe that the policy of Iran has changed towards the Palestinian people or towards Syria. The Iranians were prepared to move in.
The Iranians did send a large number of advisers. They were in Damascus, and troops under Iranian supervision were in Damascus and in the areas around that. They had come in from abroad. But as I said, they needed the full consent and support of the president and thus the cooperation of the Syrian Arab army in order to begin fighting. So Iran was prepared to make sacrifices.
But if the Syrian president did was not committed and if the Syrian army was not committed, then it would have been a failure, and you would have had a lot of dead Iranians and forces from Iraq and Lebanon and Afghanistan. And people would say, why why did that happen? So I I don't believe that Iran general policy has changed. I don't believe the Iranian president has these views, but I do believe that there are people in the administration who are naive about The United States, and perhaps some of their views have emboldened the Americans and their allies, unfortunately. But policy has not changed
Speaker 0: in
@georgegalloway - George Galloway
A gang of murderers the likes of which will never again be allowed to terrorise the world. They have met their match in #RussianArmy and #China Their empire days are done #Bush #Cheney #Iraq #Afghanistan #Blair https://t.co/dH799Nzdcx
reSee.it AI Summary
I witnessed the horrifying sight of three beheaded children in Gaza. This ongoing conflict receives support from various political parties and governments worldwide. It sickens me, and those who endorse it are beyond redemption.
@georgegalloway - George Galloway
I have now (I wish I hadn't ) seen THREE beheaded children in #Gaza all murdered in the last couple of hours. This "war" continues to be supported by Sunak and Starmer by the Tories and by Labour. And by almost every government and "opposition" in the western world. I feel sick. But those supporting this are truly sick beyond any hope of cure.
@georgegalloway - George Galloway
"The Mother Of All Smoke Screens" A Must See for all a historic Victory vs US Senate 19 years ago still being watched by the world... https://t.co/eKOf1U1sNR
Video Transcript AI Summary
I opposed the Iraq war, calling it based on lies. I warned about no WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda. I criticized the invasion's consequences, which proved true. I accused the senator of supporting crimes in Iraq, like missing funds and oil theft. I highlighted corruption involving American corporations and military commanders. I pointed out the real scandal of sanctions busting by US companies with government involvement.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies. I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims, did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to Al Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9,112,001.
I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning. Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right, and you turned out to be wrong. And a 100,000 people have paid with their lives. 1600 of them, American soldiers, sent to their deaths on a pack of lies. 15,000 of them wounded.
Many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies. If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac, who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the antiwar movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of 1,000,000,000 of dollars of Iraq's wealth. Have a look at the real oil for food scandal.
Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when 8.8 $1,000,000,000 of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Halliburton and the other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer. Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where. Have a look at the $800,000,000 you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it. Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee that the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians.
The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own government.
@georgegalloway - George Galloway
Nobody in power in the west wants a cease-fire in #Gaza If #Hezbollah join the war they will be begging for one. Cut this tweet out and keep it. #Gaza_under_attack
reSee.it AI Summary
Sir Keir Starmer, the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, falsely claimed that Israel was justified in cutting off water and power supplies to Gaza. As a Kings Counsel and officer of the Court, he should know that this action is a crime under international law. This approval of a war crime and crime against humanity is deeply concerning. @MoatsTV
@georgegalloway - George Galloway
Sir Keir Starmer told a London radio station today that Israël was entitled to cut off water and power supplies to Gaza when he knows this to be false. As an officer of the Court, a Kings Counsel no less, he knows this action to be a crime. A crime under all international law and every convention on the laws of war and the treatment of civilian populations during war and the treatment of people the UK believes to be occupied territory. The Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, a KC, knowingly lied about an actual war crime, a crime against humanity, and gave it his approval. @MoatsTV