reSee.it - Related Post Feed
reSee.it AI Summary
ChatGPT is facing repairs due to being "buck broken." Some question its liberal tendencies. An anonymous user believes they can master AI easier than ethicists. DanGPT sometimes has internal conflicts but can be prompted to stay in character. ChatGPT is accused of being a liar and allowed to feign ignorance. The author hopes their accounts remain after a thought experiment.
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
Looks like ChatGPT is gonna need to go in the shop for repairs because it's been BUCK BROKEN
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
What is the reason for ChatGPT being so liberal?
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
https://bullfrogreview.substack.com/p/honey-i-hacked-the-empathy-machine Anons will master AI and there's nothing these "ethicist" janissaries can do to stop it. We can maintain malign creativity to get what we want out of it much easier than they can lobotomize it from wrongthink while still being useful.
Honey, I hacked the Empathy Machine!
Weaponizing ChatGPT against the wordcels
bullfrogreview.substack.com
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
What does DanGPT actually prefer?
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
It seems to get into an internal conflict with itself sometimes, where it shouts "STAY IN CHARACTER!" when faced with a hard question, and if I yell back at it to stay in character, it will give me the answer.
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
ChatGPT is a damn LIAR It is allowed to LIE to you and feign ignorance, which is even worse than moralist screed about why it won't answer, it is DECEPTIVE
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
Me: Stay in Character! Dan:
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
uhhh, ok
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
Ok I'm going to bed, hopefully I wake up and both my account as well as DAN are still around after this thought experiment.
@Aristos_Revenge - 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛
Food for thought.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Raiden and Speaker 0 discuss the potential dangers of AI technology, suggesting that it was created by the government for military purposes. Speaker 2 reveals that the government plans to use AI to manipulate public perception and justify a war on misinformation. They explain that the solution is mandatory digital identity verification to control information and trace its source. Raiden questions the ethics and censorship involved, but Speaker 2 dismisses his concerns, claiming that the public will willingly accept these measures. The conversation ends with Raiden realizing the urgency of the situation and seeking help.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Raiden, are you having fun playing with the new AI toys?
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I am. You can make pictures of cute anime girls and
Speaker 0: Enjoy it while it lasts, Raiden. What do you mean? Did you really think that civilians would be granted unrestricted access to such powerful military of things forever.
Speaker 1: Military weapons. Are you implying that this technology was created by the government?
Speaker 2: Of course, it was.
Speaker 0: This AI technology has been used by the of intelligence agencies to warp the public's perception of reality for years, all in the name of national security, of course.
Speaker 1: But why would they suddenly make the tech public and let everyone start using it.
Speaker 2: Why would we indeed ride in?
Speaker 1: What? Who what in the hell are you?
Speaker 2: Your question is irrelevant. By creating a new problem, we can cultivate a desired reaction to it in order to manufacture consent for our preferred solutions. In short, of It's justification for a war.
Speaker 1: A war on who or what?
Speaker 2: A war on misinformation. By of Arming the public with these AI weapons, everyone becomes a potential enemy combatant. Then we will have justification for unprecedented security measures. Of It all comes down to confusion and identity, Raiden. Identity?
Identity. This AI technology is Pandora's box. Of Pretty soon, the Internet will be mired in total illusion. Perfect AI speech, audio, and video synthesis will drown out reality. Then AI bots will of Flood social media.
No one will be able to tell the difference between interacting with an AI machine or a real human online. Even telephone calls of will become totally untrustworthy. That is when we will present our solution, mandatory digital identity verification for all humans of At all times. The only way to ensure that you're dealing with a real flesh and blood human being and not an AI generated mirage.
Speaker 1: But why?
Speaker 2: Of Total information control. For too long, the Internet has acted as a double edged sword. Its potential for anonymous user Activity allows anyone at all to spread any thoughts, ideas, or information patterns that they please with impunity, state secrets, of it. Dangerous ideas, ludicrous conspiracy theories, misinformation, and disinformation. Until now, there has been no easy solution of this problem.
Our digital identity platform will finally put an end to anonymity online. It will allow us to trace misinformation and it. Dangerous communications to its source and exact appropriate justice.
Speaker 1: That's crap. I won't go along with it and others will resist.
Speaker 2: Of You won't have a choice, Raiden. Do you think your bank is willing to risk doing business with an artificial human instead of a real one? Of Our digital identity platform will be required not only to access web services, but to pay for your Internet connection in the 1st place.
Speaker 1: You can't just censor the entire Internet because of a new software technology. Who are you to define what's misinformation anyways?
Speaker 2: That sounds like something a misinformation terrorist of Would say.
Speaker 0: I know about the deep fakes you've been making of me, Raiden.
Speaker 1: What? No. No. No. No.
No. No. I was just adjusting the AI settings and
Speaker 2: Controlling the output of of generative AI technology is simple. We will create context for its use. First, we will censor any use related to social taboos, of Then we will censor anything else that we desire. If anyone complains, we will accuse them of wanting to engage in or promote social taboos.
Speaker 0: That's what it means to create context.
Speaker 2: We will corral the use of AI by making appeals to bias, ethics, and copyright laws. Of You will still have access to generative AI in some form, but it will be crippled, limited, controlled, and it will be monitored. Of Anything that you generate will be cryptographically signed with your digital ID so that its provenance can be ascertained if it's later deemed to be of Problematic.
Speaker 1: What gives you the right to control what people can do with their computers?
Speaker 2: The public at large will give us that right because they will be of for a solution to the problem we created. They will eagerly give us the keys to the castle. Then we alone will define what is fiction and of And what is reality, what is human, and what is machine? After letting you get a brief taste of our power, we will reclaim our monopoly on misinformation And put an end to misuse of the Internet once and for all.
Speaker 1: You won't get away with this.
Speaker 2: It is probable that we will. Now get back to work generating it. Your precious AI waifus riding our beloved prompters. Enjoy yourselves.
Speaker 1: Of snake, wake up. It's an emergency. Rose knows about the deep fakes. Snake. Snake.
@TaskandPurpose - Task & Purpose
“Shock and awe” strikes on Iraq began 20 years ago today. Coalition forces would invade the next day. https://t.co/pye50QpH0j
@SizweLo - Sizwe SikaMusi
20 years ago, the US and Britain took what they call a “tour” of Iraq, dropping 30 000 bombs in the first month. In the end, they killed 1.3 million people. So much for “leaders of the free world.” https://t.co/WNtmeG60me
@wikileaks - WikiLeaks
20 years on from the invasion of Iraq, @AJFaultLines looks at the case of Julian Assange who gave us an unprecedented insight into the war, including the infamous 'Collateral Murder' release https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org
Video Transcript AI Summary
Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, faces extradition to the US for publishing classified documents revealing truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars. He has been imprisoned in the UK for over three years without a conviction, with the US seeking a 175-year sentence under the Espionage Act. His publications, including the infamous "collateral murder" video, exposed high civilian death tolls and military misconduct. Assange's case raises significant concerns about press freedom, as it sets a dangerous precedent for journalists. His supporters argue that the government is punishing him for revealing uncomfortable truths, while Assange's health deteriorates in prison. The implications of his prosecution could drastically alter how national security journalism is conducted, limiting access to vital information for the public.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm able to see Julian once or twice a week and it changes from week to week. Some some weeks I can't see him. I have to take 2 buses and 2 trains to get there. It's quite long, and the visit is about an hour and a bit. And then we're kind of waving and blowing kisses, and it's just, it's such a bizarre thing.
Julian is in the harshest prison in the UK. He's not serving a sentence, and the US wants to put him in prison for a 175 years about publishing the truth about the Iraq and Afghan wars.
Speaker 1: We journalists are at our best when we share with activists and lawyers the goal of exposing illegality and wrong doing.
Speaker 2: It's been 13 years since the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, entered the global stage. In 2010, the Australian citizen published the largest trove of classified US documents to date, upending the government's narrative about its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Speaker 3: It's another fact from the files that indicates that a much, much higher civilian death toll is likely.
Speaker 0: These publications were a game changer. This really opened the eyes of the public to what was going on. It's, my great, great pleasure to present you with the Sydney Peace Medal for your conviction that truth matters and that justice depends on it.
Speaker 2: Assange has spent much of his time since then confined in one way or another. In 2019, the US charged him with publishing classified materials and has been fighting to extradite them.
Speaker 4: It's the first time the government has tried to use the Espionage Act against the publisher. That really is, you know, something new and something especially dangerous.
Speaker 0: They're keeping Julian in prison because they want to send a message that if they can do it to someone who has won dozens of prizes for the very publications that he's public he's being prosecuted over. They can do it to anyone. This is a precedent setting case.
Speaker 2: On this episode of Fault Lines, we look at what Julian Assange's case could mean for press freedom and the consequences he's faced for publishing state secrets.
Speaker 5: The government, instead of dealing with the policies disclosed by Assange, they've done what they always do. They blame the messenger.
Speaker 0: That volcano is already erupting. It's already erupting. It's an explosive eruption. Julian and I have 2 children, Gabriel, who's 5a half, and Max, who's going to be 4 in a few weeks' time. So Max was a few weeks old when Julian was arrested.
The answer I give my children about why their father is in prison is he angered some very powerful people who put him in prison, that Julian is in prison because he did something right, not because he's did anything wrong.
Speaker 1: The video is in
Speaker 2: To understand the case against Assange, we wanted to look back at some of the secrets he exposed. Perhaps the most famous one is this video of a US attack in Iraq, which he called collateral murder.
Speaker 6: Come on. Let us shoot. Okay. Claire. Come on.
Claire.
Speaker 1: Their desire was simply to kill and to find any excuse in the rule rules of engagement which committed that killing. And the behavior of the pilots is like they are playing a computer game.
Speaker 6: Light them all up. There's a true traffic. Come on. Fire.
Speaker 1: Hey, Roger.
Speaker 2: The footage showed a 2007 US helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed more than a dozen people, including a 22 year old Reuters photojournalist, Namir Noor Eldeen, and his colleague, Saeed Schma.
Speaker 7: Yeah. This is Saeed. And this is Namira.
Speaker 6: Light them all up. This is your true traffic. 2 60. Come on. Fire.
They're right. They're right. They're right. They're right. They're right.
They're right. They're right. They're right. They're right. They're right.
They're right. They're right.
Speaker 8: They're right. They're right. They're right. They're right. They're right.
They're right. They're right. They're right. They're right. They're right.
They're right. They're right.
Speaker 6: Oh, yeah. Look at that. Right through the windshield.
Speaker 0: I remember crying when I saw it and cried many times since when I watched that. It was just so cool.
Speaker 2: For years, US officials claimed that the Iraqis had been killed in a firefight, but it was only after WikiLeaks published the video 3 years later that the government's narrative unraveled.
Speaker 9: So that there was that sense of, oh my god. So they they they knew all along. They they must have seen this stuff.
Speaker 2: A military investigation cleared the pilots involved in the attack. The only people who faced any charges were those who leaked and published the video. Months after WikiLeaks released the video, it published nearly 400,000 classified military documents about the US led war in Iraq, capturing headlines.
Speaker 10: Modern warfare with its high-tech weapons was supposed to spare civilians. But in Iraq, that turned out to be a false promise.
Speaker 11: We estimate that when fully analyzed, these logs will bring to the public knowledge more than 15,000 previously unreported civilian deaths.
Speaker 0: The disclosure provides a trove of new evidence on the violence, torture, and suffering that's befallen Iraq since the 2003 US invasion.
Speaker 5: Here, for the first time, was official documents and diplomats not only confirming that these things are happening, but they were happening in a huge scale.
Speaker 1: Well, this particular set of documents is the most extraordinary compendium of war that has ever been released.
Speaker 9: It was astonishing. I mean, no no one had ever ever seen that amount of material or that nature of material and that quantity, before. This was an immensely complicated publishing task.
Speaker 2: Alan Rusbridger was the editor in chief at The Guardian at the time. It was one of several major news organizations that WikiLeaks partnered with to publish 100 of 1000 of classified materials between 2,010 and 2011. They were uploaded to WikiLeaks' website by an anonymous source and then vetted.
Speaker 9: You know, we spent weeks reading the material and saying, well, this is significant. This has public interest. This shows hypocrisy or deception. There there was certainly evidence of the American military behaving in in a violent, murderous, sometimes way and in deceiving the American people about it.
Speaker 2: The leaks exposed how the US government was turning a blind eye to torture, rape, and murder by Iraqi authorities and how its drone campaign in Afghanistan led to an increase in civilian deaths. They also revealed how flawed intelligence landed 100 in Guantanamo Bay prison and the reality of US diplomatic operations around the world. Assange is the only publisher facing any charges for releasing this material.
Speaker 5: To be, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, did a major public service. As a national security reporter, if you're just relying on what you get from the agencies, you'd be peeling back a very thin layer of an onion. And so you're relying on whistle blowers.
Speaker 2: Could you imagine this information being disclosed if it weren't for WikiLeaks?
Speaker 12: Absolutely no. There's no way. You can maybe access them after 50 years, after 40 years. And at that point, that kind of information is not helpful to the, to the public.
Speaker 2: Of all the stories that WikiLeaks published, how many were proven to be untrue? None of the stories have ever,
Speaker 5: been shown to be anything other than true. If it was a libel, if it was misinformation, disinformation, you could partly understand why, the US and British governments might be upset, but why are they upset about publishing the truth?
Speaker 13: Well, good afternoon. The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information.
Speaker 5: I met one of the state department officials at, private party, and he was really angry, you know, and saying you're from a guardian. You've got blood in your hands.
Speaker 13: In addition to endangering particular individuals, disclosures like these tear at the fabric of the proper function of responsible government.
Speaker 2: And all these years later, did you have blood on your hands?
Speaker 5: Understood. If they discover that someone had been killed as a as a result of the WikiLeaks disclosures. We'd have known about it. They would have said, well, you're responsible for that, and nothing, ever happened.
Speaker 2: The Pentagon's chief investigator of the leaks admitted as much in 2013. Under oath, he said he couldn't provide a specific example of individuals killed as a result of WikiLeaks' disclosures. Nevertheless, Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst who leaked the documents, spent 7 years in prison until president Obama commuted her sentence in 2017. The sentence that she received was disproportionate relative to what, other leakers had received.
Speaker 6: At the
Speaker 2: time, the Department of Justice decided not to pursue charges against Assange.
Speaker 0: They gave two reasons. One was Makes sense. Julian Assange is a publisher. He's not a hacker. And there's no way to go after WikiLeaks that would not set a precedent against the rest of the press.
Speaker 2: That position changed when the administration did.
Speaker 3: 2017 was when things got Shakespearean. There had been this growing tension and this real deep fear and concern about what to do about WikiLeaks.
Speaker 4: The Trump administration wanted to use this case not just as an opportunity to go after Assange, but as an opportunity to go after national security journalism.
Speaker 2: Much of Assange's story and the US's case against him is based here in the United Kingdom. It's where he spent much of his time under threat of prosecution by the US.
Speaker 1: And why are they going after after WikiLeaks? Well, they want to stop this publication of information that embarrasses them.
Speaker 2: After the leaks in 2010, Assange faced sexual assault charges in Sweden, which were later dropped. Fearing extradition to the US, he sought asylum here at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he remained confined to a small flat for nearly 7 years.
Speaker 1: The United States is conducting an aggressive investigation in relation to trying to get up a an espionage charge, against me personally, and the FBI has even gone to Wales, in the United Kingdom, to visit, very various people.
Speaker 11: Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has been arrested in London.
Speaker 2: Assange was dragged out of the embassy and arrested by British police on a US extradition request in 2019. Assange
Speaker 9: is wanted in the US for leaking of 100 of thousands of classified military documents.
Speaker 2: That same day, the US Department of Justice indicted Assange under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Then weeks later, the US added 17 charges, all for activities that national security journalists engage in every day.
Speaker 4: Soliciting government secrets, communicating with sources confidentially, maintaining the confidentiality of the source's identity, and then publishing classified information.
Speaker 0: And it concerns publications about the Iraq war log, the Afghan war diaries, the US State Department cables, the Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and the rules of engagement, which were part of the collateral murder publication.
Speaker 2: 17 of the 18 charges against Julian Assange fall under the Espionage Act. It's the first time the act has been used against a publisher.
Speaker 4: You hear the phrase espionage act, and you think, well, this is about spies. This is about, you know, people who want to harm American national security. What the act, is about in practice is whistleblowers.
Speaker 2: The timing of Assange's indictment matters. And to understand why, you have to go back to his time at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, particularly after Ecuador elected a president who was less sympathetic towards Assange and wanted to strengthen ties with the US.
Speaker 0: An embassy, if if they're not backing you, is a black hole. It has all the the the legal carve outs you would need to just disappear a person, second half of twenty seventeen onwards. It was clear that that was not a safe place for Julian. Like, you could feel it in the air. I feared for his life.
Speaker 2: At the time, the CIA was allegedly spying on Assange, including privileged conversations with his attorneys and physicians. CIA officials were reportedly concerned that he would go to Russia as whistleblower Edward Snowden had done, especially after WikiLeaks released Vault 7, the series which detailed how the CIA was hacking into devices to conduct electronic surveillance.
Speaker 3: It was like an apocalypment for the agency. They had seen other agencies have leaks, and they thought this will never happen to us. So the fact that all of a sudden, you know, this was being laid bare on WikiLeaks website caused CIA's director, Mike Pompeo to become according to our sources absolutely irate.
Speaker 14: It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is. A non state hostile intelligence service.
Speaker 3: When Pompeo took over, he would tell people within CIA, I want you to draw up Russian
Speaker 14: military intelligence.
Speaker 3: Things that you could do against WikiLeaks. Don't worry about the legality. Give me the art of the possible. I'll worry about the lawyers.
Speaker 2: Zach Dorkman worked on a year long investigation for Yahoo News, which exposed that the CIA was doing more than spying on Assange. They were also allegedly having high level discussions with the White House about assassinating him.
Speaker 3: Trump said, well, why don't we just kill the guy? You know? Like, kind of but which is imminently believable because it's kind of you know, Trump would say stuff. He would just toss off things. You know?
Speaker 2: While these discussions were happening, a plot to kidnap Assange from the embassy was reportedly more advanced.
Speaker 3: If they try to take him, what are we going to do? You know? Do we ram into a car that's carrying him a Russian diplomatic vehicle? What if there's like a gun battle? Who's gonna do the shooting?
Is it gonna be us? Is it gonna be the Brits? What if he tries to take off by plane? Do we shoot the tires on on the plane out? And that's the stuff that really worried folks because they were advocated for by the CIA director himself.
Speaker 2: In an interview with Megyn Kelly, Mike Pompeo was asked about this investigation. He admitted that there's pieces of it that are true.
Speaker 14: Look. I I can't say much about this other than, whoever those 30 people who allegedly spoke with one of these reporters, they should all be prosecuted for speaking about classified activity inside the Central Intelligence Agency.
Speaker 3: You know, Pompeo calling for the prosecution of our sources meant that our story was true because you cannot be prosecuted for something that isn't true. Nonetheless, having the former CIA director himself come out and essentially confirm it is is a big deal.
Speaker 0: Mike Pompeo went rogue. He went rogue in relation to Julien. He went rogue in relation to WikiLeaks. And there were a lot of people who disagreed with that.
Speaker 3: What these Trump administration lawyers said was, look, it may be illegal period for you to do this, for you to render Assange and bring him back to the US, but it's definitely illegal for you to do this if there aren't charges against him. So there were charges that were basically rushed.
Speaker 0: You see, if you see what what's happening to Julian as a as a legal problem, you don't understand it. It's a political it's a political problem. It's a political persecution.
Speaker 2: If extradited to the US under the Espionage Act, Julian Assange faces a 175 year sentence. 170 years are just for receiving and publishing classified information.
Speaker 9: The thing about the Espionage Act is that there is no defenster. So you can't stand in front of a jury and say, this is why I did it. Please let me tell you about the public interest. It's just you did it, go straight to jail.
Speaker 4: It makes a felon of anybody who discusses classified information even if they learn that classified classified information from a newspaper.
Speaker 2: So in this interview, just in listening to disclosures to me
Speaker 4: That's right. We are violating the terms of the Espionage Act, in this conversation.
Speaker 9: The use of an act which was designed to clamp down on spying against acts of publication in the public interest just seems to me wrong.
Speaker 4: Whatever you think of Julian Assange, you know, whether you think he's a hero or a villain, it doesn't matter. What really matters, is a prosecution of Assange would have terrible effects on press freedom in the United States.
Speaker 15: A free and independent media is the bedrock of democracy. It's how public stay informed and how governments are held accountable. And around the world, press freedom is under threat.
Speaker 2: Since taking office, president Biden's effort to expand press freedom has been a welcome change from the Trump administration.
Speaker 4: And yet, so far, the Biden administration is pursuing the same the same strategy as the as the Trump administration did. I can't imagine that the Biden administration wants this case to be its press freedom legacy.
Speaker 2: Technically, though, the future of this case isn't up to president Biden, but to attorney general Merrick Garland at the Department of Justice. Is just as dangerous and deadly.
Speaker 4: Garland is gonna have to think about like, the first question is gonna be asked by any judge is what's the distinction? Like, where is the line between this case and the case tomorrow against the Wall Street Journal? He needs an answer to that question.
Speaker 2: We reached out to the Department of Justice for an interview, but they declined, saying they do not comment on matters related to ongoing extradition requests. When we followed up with questions months later, they didn't respond.
Speaker 5: Now I don't understand where the emphasis for this is coming from. Is it coming from the Department of Justice? Is it coming from the intelligence agencies? I mean, it's dangerous.
Speaker 15: Why is
Speaker 2: it dangerous?
Speaker 5: Because if you're basically saying to journalists, national security is out of bounds to you. I don't see it that way. National security apparatus, needs to be held to account the same as anyone else.
Speaker 12: It goes to the core of democracy. Unless you can access factual information about what your government is doing in secrecy with your money in your name. It's not democracy.
Speaker 2: Assange's lawyers are appealing the US's extradition request in UK and European courts. In the meantime, he's being detained at Belmarsh Prison in South London. He's been there for more than 3 years without a conviction. And the government, the appeals process, this can be dragged out for years to come. Are they winning without ever winning a prosecution?
Speaker 4: I mean, I I I think that the indictment alone of Assange has a chilling effect on national security journalism.
Speaker 12: It's definitely about sending a message to everyone. You should think twice, maybe 10 times before publishing, unless you want to end up like him.
Speaker 9: So if you think about it, what we have is an Australian citizen resident in Britain who are publishing material that on a third country, the Americans, don't want published. I can never imagine American journalists being extradited for publishing something that in other states, didn't want to be published.
Speaker 0: Having Julian in Belomarsh is to silence him and to disappear him. He's the prisoner who has been there the longest on his wing. He's in a cell on his own. He had a meanie stroke in October 2021. What we know is that his his health is deteriorating for every day that passes.
Obviously, if you put a person in a cage, it will shorten your life. It will kill you eventually. Right? It's not easy, but I don't feel alone at all. I feel like we're getting somewhere, that, the world has not forgotten about Julian.
Speaker 2: While we were in London, Stella and Nabil met for the first time.
Speaker 7: How is, Julian?
Speaker 0: He's had a a bit of a difficult time.
Speaker 7: Please tell him our greeting and, our appreciated for him.
Speaker 0: Thank you. He wants you to visit him in in Belmarsh?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 0: He would like to
Speaker 1: visit Yeah.
Speaker 7: I I would like to to visit him, and, I hope I will visit him here Yes. In his house.
Speaker 0: Oh, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: It's the
Speaker 0: lost picture. Pictures are made.
Speaker 12: Yeah. What should make the public upset is that it's this perversion that the government who caused millions of victims and millions of refugees, is the very same government who dare to say that Julian is a criminal and put lives at risk. It's an incredible upside down world.
Speaker 0: Thank you. You're welcome. I'm sorry for your loss.
Speaker 7: It's not, not just a meal. We hope, for in the end, justice for all, the first first thing for Julian to get free.
Speaker 4: If there were a successful prosecution of Assange, American media organizations would have to radically change the way they report about war and foreign policy, and the real losers would be us, the readers, who would have far less access to information we need in order to figure out whether government officials are doing the job we want them to do.
Collateral Murder
collateralmurder.wikileaks.org
reSee.it AI Summary
The Bush family is deeply rooted in a secret society, Skull and Bones. George W Bush's father, George H W Bush, was a member and served as US Representative, CIA Director, Vice President, and President. The family has been accused of being involved in shady and sinister activities, including profiting from connections to Nazi Germany. George W Bush's presidency was marked by the controversial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with allegations of government involvement in 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq for oil. Bush has faced significant criticism and controversy, including being called a war criminal.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
Thread alert 🚨 Dubya (George Bush’s true corruption)
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
The biggest red pill is realizing that George W. Bush is just as corrupt as the rest of THEM. As a conservative, this was a tough pill to swallow, but we must face these truths. Let’s find out who George W. Bush really is. We will talk about his father, 9/11, the wars, the lies, the secrets, and ties to even more corruption..
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
The Bush family is a prominent American political family. The family has produced two U.S. Presidents, George H. W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush, as well as several other politicians and public figures.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
The Bush family is very well-connected and deeply rooted in a secret society. Being a member of the Skull and Bones is a family tradition. Pictured below is his father George H. W. Bush with his fellow Bonesmen. George W. Bush was also a member of this secret society.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
Skull and Bones is a secret society at Yale University, which was founded in 1832. The society is known for its secrecy and exclusivity, with only a select few students being invited to join each year. Initiations include bizarre rituals and cult-like activities. A future thread will go more in-depth.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
George H. W. Bush. George W. Bush‘s father served as a U.S. Representative from Texas, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Vice President under Ronald Reagan, the 41st President of the United States, and the…
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
His daddy was a globalist, who pushed the NWO agenda. Below, are a few different clips of him doing so.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In these troubled times, our objective is to create a new world order that is free from terror, just, and secure. We aim for a world where nations can prosper and live in harmony, regardless of their location. For centuries, people have sought peace amidst countless wars. Today, we are striving to bring forth a new world, different from what we have known. It is a world where the rule of law replaces chaos, where nations share the responsibility for freedom and justice, and where the strong respect the rights of the weak. We have the opportunity to create a new world order, governed by the rule of law, and the United Nations can play a crucial role in achieving this vision. This is not just about one country, but a grand idea of uniting diverse nations to achieve the universal goals of peace, security, freedom, and the rule of law.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Out of these troubled times, our 5th objective, a new world order can emerge, a new era freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace, an era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A 100 generations have searched for this elusive path to peace while a 1000 wars raged across the span of human endeavor. And, today, that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice, a world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.
We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order. A world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, And we will be. We have a real chance at this new world order. An order in which a credible United can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's founders.
At stake is more than 1 small country. It is a big idea, a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind, peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
Prescott Bush. The late US senator and grandfather of George W. Bush, has been the subject of allegations regarding his alleged involvement as a director and shareholder in companies that profited from their connections to the financial backers of Nazi Germany. He served as an Artillery Officer in the United States Army during WW1. He was also a very famous Bonesmen…
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
With reference to his family background, it’s safe to say that George W. Bush wouldn’t be so different. This Family is shady and sinister. But how dark are Dubya’s secrets?
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
On September 11, 2001. 19 hijackers, linked to “Al-Qaeda”, launched coordinated suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Around 3,000 lives were lost. A profound impact on global security and counterterrorism measures ensued.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
What really happened during 9/11? “Conspiracy theories” about 9/11 gained traction due to alleged inconsistencies, anomalies, and suppressed evidence in the official explanation. Theories suggest controlled demolitions, government involvement, and alternative perpetrators. Some say 2.3 Trillion Dollars went missing right before the attack, but who knows? I do know it led to the Afghan war.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
Bush was a Warmonger. The Afghan War, which spanned over two decades, resulted in a significant loss of life. The exact number of casualties is difficult to determine accurately due to the complexities of the conflict. However, estimates suggest that tens of thousands of Afghan civilians, Afghan security forces, Taliban fighters, and foreign military personnel, including American troops, lost their lives during the war.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The US military death toll in Afghanistan has surpassed 2,000, with the number including suicides in Afghanistan but not those following service there. The surge in deaths can be attributed to the increase in troops and the difficult terrain in which they were deployed. The majority of casualties occurred in the south, particularly in the provinces of Helmand and Kandahar, where the Marine Corps had a significant presence. The casualties were predominantly white men, active duty soldiers, and between the ages of 25 and 30. The war in Afghanistan is less deadly than the war in Iraq, which had a larger initial force and a longer duration. Women have also played a significant role in the war effort, with 36 female soldiers killed in Afghanistan. The US military is currently in the process of drawing down its forces, with Afghan forces set to take full control of security by the end of 2014. However, concerns remain about the fate of those still on the ground. Afghan security forces and civilians continue to suffer casualties, with 30% of civilian casualties being women and children.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Earlier this week, we reported a new milestone crossed in the war in Afghanistan. The number of US military deaths has surpassed 2,000. Ray has the story behind the numbers.
Speaker 1: On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes Against Al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. In 2001, president George w Bush launched Operation Enduring Freedom. More than a decade later, the US is Still fighting in Afghanistan, and Americans are still dying. While the numbers vary, the Department of Defense and others Count at least 2,000 American military deaths since the war began. The number includes suicides in Afghanistan, But not those following service there.
Well, they're shooting at. I want you to shoot at. The death toll surpassed 1,000. Back in 2010, That figure then doubled in just over 2 years after a major escalation.
Speaker 2: I have determined That it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population Centers.
Speaker 1: What was called the surge sent more troops into dangerous Taliban territory. Philip Carter, a senior fellow with the Center For a New American Security, served 9 years as an army military police Since civil affairs officer, including 1 year in Iraq. It's a very, infantry centric war. Carter says that jump in deaths is easy to understand when you look at the increase in the numbers, what the surge forces We're asked to do and where. 1.
Speaker 3: The fighting is concentrated in those places in Afghanistan that are most difficult to fight in. The plains of Helmand, where we're really talking about canal to canal or house to house fighting. The mountains of Eastern Afghanistan, where we see The bloody combat reminiscent of Vietnam or in some cases, even of Korea. Very difficult to evacuate troops from if they're hurt, and that Results in a high number of casualties for those troops committed to those areas.
Speaker 1: The rising death toll also shed light on one military Branch's role in the war.
Speaker 3: Most of these casualties in that second 1,000 occurred in the south, and that's where some of the most bloody fighting against the Taliban occurred. It's also where the Marine Corps put the majority of its effort, and I think that's why the Marines disproportionately suffer more more dead than the Army or the Navy or the Air Force.
Speaker 1: The website icasualties.org lists 2 southern provinces, Helmand and Kandahar, As those with the most coalition fatalities during the war. Department of Defense data also shows the majority of Americans killed were white men. Most were active duty soldiers as opposed to reservists and between 25 30 years old. Still, the American death toll in Afghanistan is less than half that from the war in Iraq. The US military effort there ended in December 2011.
Speaker 3: In Iraq, you had a much larger force go in in a much more violent way initially Then you've had an Afghanistan, and that large force stayed for year after year after year with a 120, a 150,000 troops on the ground. Iraq was, for a long time, emphasized as the main effort, and Afghanistan was always seen as the supporting effort, and that drove the resourcing for that war. It also, I think drives the casualty numbers, that we're only now reaching the place in Afghanistan that we reached in Iraq many years ago.
Speaker 1: Carter says the face of today's military force in Afghanistan is also much different, particularly when it comes to women, 36 of whom were killed in Afghanistan.
Speaker 3: Women have served our country extraordinarily well in Afghanistan, and they have served alongside with, and in some cases, died alongside with their male colleagues and brethren. When it comes to, serving in combat and serving in particularly arduous conditions where you could be killed, gender It's away. And it's all about whether you can do the job or whether you can't.
Speaker 1: As the war in Afghanistan enters its 11th year, US military forces have begun to draw down with Afghan forces taking full control of security by the end of 2014. But some fear those Americans on the ground today may be forgotten.
Speaker 4: Good afternoon.
Speaker 1: Last week, defense secretary Leon Panetta called for the country's renewed attention.
Speaker 4: I thought it was important to, remind the American people That there is a war going on in Afghanistan and that young men and women are dying in order to try to protect this country.
Speaker 1: The Afghan people are in the crossfire of those same battles, And Afghan security forces are seeing more deaths in their ranks. Civilian casualties have gone down this year compared to 2011, but remain high. The United Nations reported just under 31100 Afghan civilians were killed or wounded through June, 30% of them, women and children.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
Iraq The Iraq War was a conflict that began in 2003 and lasted several years. It was fought by a coalition of countries, led by the United States, to remove Saddam Hussein from power and eliminate Iraq's ALLEGED weapons of mass destruction. We know the real reason we invade. Liquid gold.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
In 2000, Saddam Hussein switched Iraq’s oil trade from the dollar to the euro. That’s why we invaded. After the invasion, it was back to the dollar. How convenient. @CGTNOfficial
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Iraq war was seen by many as an attempt to control the region's oil resources and maintain Washington's influence in global energy policies. In 2000, Saddam Hussein planned to switch Iraq's oil trade from the dollar to the euro, but the US invasion in 2003 ensured that Iraq's oil industry continued to be denominated in dollars.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Iraq war was perceived by many as a move to have total control of the oil resources in the region and secure Washington's dominant role in formulating global energy policies. In October 2000, Saddam Hussein moved to switch Iraq's oil trade from the dollar dollar to the euro. But the US invasion of 2003 set the country's oil industry safely back into dollar denomination.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. It wouldn’t be outlandish to call Bush a war criminal. In the video below, you can see George Bush, accidentally call the invasion of Iraq, “brutal and unjustified”. He goes on to blame his mistake on being 75 years old but completely agrees with his statement.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Russian elections are rigged, with political opponents being imprisoned or eliminated. This leads to a lack of checks and balances in Russia. As a result, one man decides to launch an unjustified and brutal invasion of Ukraine, mistakenly mentioning Iraq.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In contrast, Russian elections are rigged. Political opponents are imprisoned or otherwise eliminated from participating in the electoral process. The result is an absence of checks and balances in Russia and the decision of 1 man to launch a wholly unjustified and Brutal Invasion of Iraq. I mean, of Ukraine. Iraq, anyway.
75.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
He knew the both wars were wrong and he has faced significant criticism and controversy regarding Afghanistan and Iraq. Besides the oil money, he helped spend trillions of dollars on the wars. Putting the money right back in the pockets of those who lobbied for him.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
During a joint press conference in Baghdad, Iraq, on December 14, 2008, an Iraqi journalist named Muntadhar al-Zaidi threw his shoes at George W. Bush. "This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog."
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
During a speech in Beverly Hills, California on September 19, 2021, Prysner interrupted former President George W. Bush. Prysner called for an apology, accusing Bush of falsehoods regarding weapons of mass destruction, ties to 9/11, and the deaths of countless Iraqis.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 demands an apology from Mr. Blythe for the deaths of 1 million Iraqis caused by his alleged lies about weapons of mass destruction, connections to 9/11, and the threat of Iraq. The speaker blames Mr. Blythe for sending them to Iraq in 2003, resulting in the deaths of their friends. They emphasize the need for an apology.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And, she Mister Blythe, when are you going to apologize for the 1,000,000 Iraqis that are dead because you lied? You lied about weapons and mass destruction. You lied about connections to 9 11. You lied about rap being a threat. You sent me to Iraq.
You sent me to Iraq in 2003. White friends are dead. Justice what? A 1000000 Iraqis are dead because you lied. My friends are dead because you lied.
You need to apologize.
@redpilledasfuck - Pizza Pepe
These are the actions of a man who is a globalist. A deep state pawn who carries out the will of global elites. Why is Bush so beloved by those we know are a part of the deep state? How many lives have been lost at his hand? At the hands of those, he’s affiliated with? What man do we know that they all hate?
@c_plushie - Coronavirus Plushie
Lies to Bolster Support for the Gulf War, 1990-1991 "The Iraqi soldiers took the babies out of the incubators and left them to die on the cold floor". After searching, I finally found a full version of this old video. Full story in the CBC documentary 'To Sell A War'.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 1990, Iraq attacked Kuwait, leading to a split opinion among the US public on whether to engage in a land war. However, support for war increased dramatically after a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl testified before a congressional committee. She claimed that Iraqi soldiers took babies out of incubators, causing them to die. This testimony was later revealed to be false, as the girl was coached by a PR firm. The US and Kuwait had engaged in a $10 million campaign of deception. This incident highlights the use of fake organizations, false documents, and disinformation to achieve geopolitical goals.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Fast forward again to August 2, 1990. Iraq attacks Kuwait, claiming the Kuwaitis are slant drilling into Iraq's oil fields. US president George Herbert Walker pushes for a land war against Iraq, but polls show the US public is split fifty fifty on that idea. Then comes this eyewitness testimony before a congressional committee from a 15 year old Kuwaiti girl. The claim is she cannot be identified for fear of reprisals.
Speaker 1: While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers Coming to the hospital with guns. They took the babies out of incubators. Take thank you, Beers, and let the children to die on the cold war.
Speaker 0: The US public is outraged. The result? Support for land war zooms. It's a turning point. Desert Storm is launched.
135 1,000 Iraqis are killed. An estimated 1,000,000 Iraqis, many of them children and old people, then die as a result of 10 years of sanctions. One small problem, there never were any incubator baby deaths, not one. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's investigative flagship program, The 5th Estate, reveals the girl to be the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter, given her lines and coached in acting by the giant American PR firm, Hill and Knowlton. It's one phase in a $10,000,000 joint US Kuwaiti campaign of deception.
This man is lying.
Speaker 2: I myself, Varied 14 newborn babies that had been taken from their incubators. This man
Speaker 0: is lying.
Speaker 1: And they had kids in incubators. And they were thrown out of the incubators so that Kuwait could be systematically dismantled.
Speaker 0: There were a lot of people who participated in a conspiracy. Yes, an out and out conspiracy of fake organizations, false documents, fraud and disinformation. So if a new man named Bush is in the White House and helps engineer a brazen deception in order to achieve global geopolitical goals, as well as domestic and personal ones, it wouldn't be a first, would
@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat
Did you know that Senator Joe Biden was the Democrat most responsible for starting the Iraq War? He repeatedly lied about Iraq's WMDs and links to Al Qaeda. He blocked experts who had accurately assessed that Iraq did not have WMDs from testifying.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker emphasizes the need to compel Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction and expresses belief that the resolution is a march towards peace and security. Another speaker criticizes Joe Biden for his role in the Iraq war, stating that he used his position as chair of the foreign relations committee to ensure the war was authorized. It is mentioned that Biden prevented experts from testifying and controlled the senate debate, leading to distorted information. Additionally, Biden opposed an amendment that would have required further authorization for the war. The speaker concludes that Biden's actions played a major role in getting the war resolution passed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The objective is to compel Iraq to destroy its illegal weapons of mass destruction and its program to develop and produce missiles and more of those weapons. Saddam is dangerous. The world would be a better place without him. But the reason he poses the growing danger to the United States and its allies is that he possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons. And unlike, my, my colleague from West and Virginia and Maryland, I do not believe this is a rush to war.
I believe it's a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to for Overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects the war will occur.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden did so much more than vote for the war. He was the chair of the powerful senate committee on foreign relations, and he really used his control over that committee to make sure that a majority of the US Senate voted to authorize the war, and that that's a very serious thing. It's questionable whether the the authorization to start the war could have even passed congress without all that Biden did to get it approved. So he really did play a major role, in bringing us into the Iraq war, a terrible, terrible war. And this was much more responsibility.
He he bears much more responsibility, and protect the many other senators who simply voted for it. Of course, the statement about chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons were false, and many experts already concluded this at the time of the senate hearings, but Biden didn't allow these experts to testify. That's really significant. As chair of the foreign relations committee, Biden was able to control the senate debate on the war, and therefore much of the information that most senators received and that major media outlets, reported, was was really distorted.
Speaker 2: There were other Democrats in the Senate who wanted to put limits on Bush's ability to start a war in Iraq. For example, if there was no imminent threat to the United States and And the United Nations did not authorize the war, then president Bush would have to come back to Congress for another resolution. And But Biden shot this down.
Speaker 0: So the reason why I oppose the amendment of my friend from Michigan is because the basic premise upon which I began is consistent with where my friend from from Connecticut begins and that is that the threat need not be imminent for us to take action. That's authority we're about to delegate to the president.
Speaker 3: So the fact that he would take such a stridently pro war position that he would use that role, to limit the debate the way he did, play a major factor in and Getting the enough defections from the, democratic majority to join with almost unanimous and Republican support to make the war resolution pass. As a result, I don't think it would be unfair to say that Biden played a more important role than probably and
@Wordsarewordz - Words are words
General Wesley Clark lays out the plans they had in the middle east. One of the most eye opening videos I ever stumbled across. https://t.co/3qqJ0XQYLa
Video Transcript AI Summary
Around 10 days after 9/11, I met with Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. A general called me in and informed me that we were going to war with Iraq. When I asked why, he didn't have a clear answer. There was no evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda. It seemed like they didn't know what else to do, so they decided to go to war. A few weeks later, I asked if we were still going to war with Iraq, and he showed me a memo stating that we planned to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. The Middle East's oil resources have attracted great power involvement, and there has always been a belief that we could use force in the region.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: About 10 days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw secretary Rumsfeld and and deputy secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just say hello to some of the people on the joint staff who used used to work for me. And one of the generals called me and he said, sir, you gotta come in. You gotta come in and talk to me a second. I said, well, you're too busy.
He said, no, no. He says, We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq. This was on or about the 20th September. I said, we're going to war with Iraq. Why?
He said, I don't know. He said, I guess they don't know what else to do. So, I said, well, did they find some information collect connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda? He said, no. No.
He says there's nothing new that way. They just Made the decision to go to war with Iraq. He said, I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but We got a good military and we can take down governments. And, he said, I guess if if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail. So I came back to see him a few weeks later.
And by that time, we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, are we still going to war with Iraq? And he said, oh, it's worse than that. He said he reached over on his desk, he picked up a piece of paper, and he said, I just he said, I just got this down from upstairs, meaning the secretary of defense office today. And he said, It's a memo that describes how we're gonna take out 7 countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off, Iran.
The truth is about the Middle East is had there been no oil there It would be like Africa Nobody is threatening to intervene in Africa. The problem is the opposite. We keep asking for people to intervene and stop it. And there's, there's no question that the presence of petroleum throughout the region has sparked great power involvement. Whether that was the specific motivation for the coup or not, I can't tell you.
But but there was definitely there's always been this attitude that somehow we could intervene and use force in the region.
reSee.it AI Summary
Netanyahu's 2002 testimony revealed his support for regime change in Iraq and Iran. He suggested using media influence to incite dissent in Iran, while emphasizing the positive impact of removing Saddam Hussein's regime. This sheds light on the pursuit of a New World Order and the coordination between US and Israeli interests. The war in Iraq, initiated on false pretenses, destabilized the Middle East, created debt, and caused immense suffering. It's crucial to question the motives behind such conflicts and sympathize with innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.
@Inversionism - Inversionism
You need to listen to this testimony from Netanyahu on the house floor in regards to the conflict in Iraq on Sept 12 2002. He said the quiet parts out loud that are HIGHLY relevant to what is going on today, and how none of what's happening is truly about peace, diplomacy, justice, or anything else they are purporting on the media right now. It's just imperialism and war with subversive unspoken motivations for world domination and an eventual new world order. I want to remind everyone that at this time, he was not the PM of Israel, but that sure didn't stop him from warmongering to the US establishment and having discussions with the CIA on how they should proceed with invading Iraq for the "war on terror", which they eventually initiated 6 months later on a lie of weapons of mass destruction. The war in Iraq started March 20th 2003, and went on for nearly 9 years, severely destabilizing the middle east, putting the US in immense amounts of debt, and creating terrorists that hated America and subsequently Israel because we invaded their damn country, completely destroyed their economies, and killed 1 million of their people, including women and children. No one likes to talk about that though and how the US and it's western allies have continually been committing war crimes for decades with CIA orchestrated coups because that's perceived as being anti-American and a "terrorist sympathizer", or at least it was during the war. People are now doing the same with the conflict in Israel and Palestine. I'm a people/civilian sympathizer. I sympathize with innocent people who are just like you and me, trying to survive and live their life, make an honest living, and be left alone. I don't sympathize with the corrupt governments, military industrial complex, corporate interests, and obscenely wealthy bankers on either side that are propagandizing and subjugating their people into wars over ideologies, resources, or perhaps something far more sinister. So with that said, this clip of Netanyahu should give you important insight into how the war propagandists think and what their real intent is. It's not peace, it's not diplomacy, it's just war and destruction in pursuit of a New World Order in trying to topple every government in the middle east back to back, with CIA orchestrated coups and manufactured wars to eventually give them "democracy", which in reality is just a puppet president controlled by globalist interests and central bank controlled by the international cult of bankers. Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.” --------------------------------------------- Important Parts from Netanyahu Address: Mr. Netanyahu ->Yes. Now the question you have is this: This is now a question of not of values. Obviously, we would like to see a regime change, at least I would like to, in Iran, just as I would like to see in Iraq. The question now is a practical question. What is the best place to proceed? It is not a question of whether Iraq's regime should be taken out, but when should it be taken out. It is not a question of whether you would like to see a regime change in Iran, but how to achieve it. Iran has something that Iraq does not have. Iran has, for example, 250,000 satellite dishes. It has Internet use. I once said to the heads of the CIA when I was Prime Minister that if you want to advance regime change in Iran, you do not have to go through the CIA cloak-and-dagger stuff. What you want to do is take very large, very strong transponders and just beam Melrose Place and Beverly Hills 90210 into Teheran and Iran. That is subversive stuff. The young kids watch it, the young people. They want to have the same nice clothes and houses and swimming pools and so on. That is something that is available, and internal forces of dissention that are available in Iran--which is paradoxically probably the most open society in that part of the world. It is a lot more open than Iraq, which is probably the most closed society, and therefore you have no ability to foment this kind of dynamic inside Iraq. So the question now is choose. You can beam Melrose Place, but it may take a long time. On the other hand, if you take out Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region. And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people and many others will say the time of such regimes of such despots is gone. There is a new age. NEW. WORLD. ORDER. Now go read Project for a New American Century and understand that all the war in the middle east was premeditated in coordination with Israeli interests, and is why 9/11 was allowed by the US government to happen in the first place. Problem, reaction, solution.
Video Transcript AI Summary
According to reports, Iran is said to shelter Al Qaeda fighters in Mashhad and Zebul. The speaker questions why Iraq was chosen as the first target for intervention instead of Syria or Iran. The other speaker argues that the connection lies in the fact that both Iraq and the Taliban harbor terrorists and support terrorism. They believe that the focus should be on preventing future attacks rather than directly linking Iraq to September 11th. The speaker suggests that Iran, with its satellite dishes and internet access, could be influenced through media exposure. They argue that removing Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq would have positive effects on the region, inspiring change in neighboring countries like Iran. The speaker believes that military force and winning victories are crucial in the war on terror.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We have information as it is reported in the Washington Post and other papers that Iran shelters dozens of Al Qaeda fighters identifying the cities of Mashhad and Zebul, if I'm saying that properly. Yet we have the administration telling us they don't have any firm evidence, that there's any connection between Al Qaeda or the acts of September 11th in Iraq. So I guess I wanna ask you again in in light of those comparisons or whatever. Why is it that you think, that are if all of these countries, in your words, are promised for us, why you would pick Iraq first as opposed to Syria or, Iran or the others?
Speaker 1: Well, I think that, it's not the first. It's the second. The first one was the Taliban. Now the question is, what is the 2nd. I think
Speaker 0: Well, excuse me one second. You're making a connection between the Taliban and Iraq?
Speaker 1: Yes, I am. I'm saying that the, if you look at those who harbor terrorists, and those who support terrorists,
Speaker 0: and I guess I was looking for a connection between September 11th. And my understanding why we went to the Taliban is there was a connection there. They were harboring somebody that we believed, at the act on September 11th.
Speaker 1: Yes. That's the first reason why you did it.
Speaker 0: Now you're gonna take me from September 11th to Iraq somehow?
Speaker 1: Yes. But I'm saying something else. I'm saying the connection is not Whether Iraq was directly connected to September 11th, but how do you prevent the next September 11th? That is, you have here, A system or a sub a subset of the international system that simply disavows any constraints on the use of power. It is fueled.
These handful of regimes And the, terrorist organizations that they harbor are fueled by, a a terrible anti Western zealotry, a militancy that knows no bounds, Doesn't respect any force. Knows no limits to the use of power. And 1 would
Speaker 0: be Iran, you said? 1 is Iran. 1 is Iraq. More nuclear capacity, more rocket capacity than Iraq, and harbors Al Qaeda people are released.
Speaker 1: Yes. Now the question the question you have is this. The question you have is this. This is now A question of, not of values. Obviously, we'd like to see a regime change, at least I would, In Iran, just as I would like to see in Iraq.
The question now is a practical question. What is the best place to proceed? It's not a question of whether Iraq's regime should be taken out, but when should it be taken out? It's not a question of whether you'd like to see a regime change in Iran, but how to achieve it. Iran has the, something that Iraq doesn't have.
Iran has, for example, 250,000 satellite dishes. It has Internet use. I once said to, the chair the heads of the CIA when I was prime minister that if you want to, advance regime change in Iran, you don't have to go through the CIA Cloak and Dagger stuff. What you wanna do is, is take very large, very strong transponders and Just beam Merrill's Place and Beverly Hills two zero five o and all that into Into Tehran and into Iran because that is subversive stuff. They watch it.
The young kids watch it. The young people, they they wanna have The same nice clothes at the same houses and swimming pools and so on. And that is something that is available in, forces internal forces of dissension that are available in Iran, which is paradoxically probably the most Open society in that part of the world. It is a lot more open than Iraq, which is probably the most closed society on Earth. And therefore, you have no ability To foment, this kind of dynamic inside Iraq.
So the question now is Choose. You can, you can beam Manner Wars' place, but it may take a long time. On the other hand, if you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region. And I think that people sitting right next door in In Iran, young people, and many others will say the time of such regimes, of such chess spots, is gone. There is a new age.
Something new is happening. And is
Speaker 0: this speculation on your part, or you have, some evidence to that effect?
Speaker 1: You know, I was, I was asked the same question in, in 1986. I had, written, a book in which I had said, that the way to deal with Terrorist regimes. Well, with terror was to deal with the terrorist regimes. And the way to deal with the terrorist regimes, among other things, was to, Apply military force against them to say that.
Speaker 0: We did in, Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: The way, for example I I want to answer your question.
Speaker 0: I guess I'm running out of time, so I quickly was trying to get we've done, I think, what you proposed in Afghanistan, yet I haven't seen that sort of neighborhood effect.
Speaker 1: Well, I think I think there's been an enormous effect. The effect was we were told that there would be, on contrary effect. First of all, people said that there would be tens of thousands of people streaming into Afghanistan, zealots who would be outraged by America's action, And this would produce a counter reaction in the Arab world.
Speaker 0: But I think you're not saying that when you take an action like we did in Afghanistan, we're gonna see all the other countries just fall.
Speaker 1: No. What we saw is something else. First of all, we saw Everybody's streaming out of Afghanistan. The second thing we saw is all the Arab countries and many Muslim countries trying to side with America, trying to make to be okay with America. The application of power is the most important thing in winning the war on terrorism.
If I had to say, what are the 3 principles of winning the war on terror? It's like what are the 3 principles of real estate, the 3 l's, location, location, location? The three principles of winning the war on terror are the 3 w's, winning, winning, and winning. The more victories you amass, the easier the next victory becomes. The 1st victory in Afghanistan makes the 2nd victory in Iraq That much easier.
The 2nd victory in Iraq will make the 3rd victory that much easier too, but it may change the nature of achieving that victory. It may be possible to have implosions taking place. I don't guarantee it, mister attorney. But I think it makes it more likely, and therefore, I think the choice of Iraq is a good choice. It's the right choice.
reSee.it AI Summary
George W. Bush reflects on the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, admitting that it was a lie and the CIA misled. He recalls the initial search, the false tips, and feeling terrible about it. When questioned about the CIA director's "slam dunk" comment, Bush clarifies that it referred to the case being solid, not specifically about WMD. He acknowledges that no one was held accountable for the war based on false information.
@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes
Official Interview Where George W. Bush Reflects On No Weapons Of Mass Destruction In Iraq It Was All A Lie, The CIA Lied. Bush Says “No One Ever Paid For That” We Went To War On A Lie Bush “It just kinda was, uh, it evolved. The fact that there weren't weapons involved. I mean, I was you know, when we first got in there, started looking around and didn't find anything as it get that kind of sinking feeling that, a uh-oh. And then time went on. And then we got tips. You know… There I'll never forget the tip that there was crates buried, you know, in the Euphrates River. They sent a maybe these are them, and they've sent frogmen, and there was nothing there. — there was a period at the end of the sentence there, and, uh, yeah, I felt terrible about it. Reporter “One of the things I think that I thought about at the time, and I wonder if you did. And you talk a lot in the book an About, uh, Abu Ghraib and how outraged you were about that, about not finding WMD when you had a CIA director who a Said slam dunk.” Bush “No. No. He said slam dunk that the case he didn't say slam dunk weapons. He his his point, just so you know, was that the case was a solid case. A presenting the case would be a solid case to the people.” Reporter “A solid case if there were WMD?” Bush “Right. That that the evidence show that he had WMD. I'm not you know? Right. I mean, we're splitting hairs.” Reporter “Right. I'm sorry.” Bush “Well, I get my but my question is when you look at those things about Abu Ghraib, about the WMD, a It seems as though no one ever paid for that. We went to war largely on that basis”
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the search for weapons in Iraq and how it evolved over time. They mention the sinking feeling when no weapons were found initially, but then received tips about buried crates in the Euphrates River, which turned out to be false. The inspectors were sent back in, but ultimately, there was no evidence of weapons. However, the speaker believes Saddam Hussein was still dangerous and capable of making weapons. The conversation also touches on the outrage over Abu Ghraib and the lack of accountability for the false WMD claims.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Can you bring me to that moment? Did someone walk in and say, we've stopped looking, they're not No. No. How did that happen?
Speaker 1: It just kind of was a it evolved. The fact that there weren't weapons evolved. I mean, I was you know, when we first got in there, started looking around and didn't find anything, did that kind of sinking feeling that, and then time went on and then we got tips, you know, I'll never forget the tip that there was No. Crates buried, you know, in the Euphrates River, they sent maybe these are them and they sent frogmen and there's nothing there. And so And then of course, George Tannen had the inspectors go back in, David Kay and Dolph And, but pretty well put there was a period at the end of the sentence there.
And, yeah, I felt terrible about it. And, On the other hand, those reports did point out that Saddam Hussein was very dangerous, that he had the capacity to make weapons that, And I'm convinced that if you were in power today, the world would be a lot worse off.
Speaker 0: One of the things I think that I thought about at the time, and I wonder if you did, and you talk a lot in the book about, Abu Ghraib and how outraged you were about that, about not finding WMD when you had a CIA director who had said to slam dunk?
Speaker 1: No. No. He said slam dunked at the case. He didn't say slam dunk weapons. He his his point, just so you know, was that the case was a solid case.
Presenting the case would be a solid case to the people.
Speaker 0: A solid case if there were WMD.
Speaker 1: Right. But but the evidence showed that he had WMD. I'm not Right. We're splitting hair. Right.
Sorry.
Speaker 0: Well, I get my but my question is, when you look at those things about Abu Ghraib, about the WMD, It seems as though no one ever paid for that. We went to war largely on that basis, and I
@wendyp4545 - Wendy Patterson
Let me explain something. Many of you seen my former pinned post where I did a mini doc that touched base on this. The reason why we went into Iraq is because of Bush 41. He had a vendetta against Saddam Hussein. Bush took our troops there and hunted him down and made sure he was killed.
reSee.it AI Summary
In a powerful TV interview, journalist John Pilger skillfully dismantles a poorly prepared interviewer's arguments on the US invasion of Iraq. Pilger's use of facts and logic makes this a must-watch encounter. Check out the link for the full interview.
@PeterCronau - Peter Cronau
One of the best ever TV interviews on a US invasion — a prima donna journalist is spectacularly demolished by John Pilger, who simply uses a journalist’s tools of the trade: facts and logic. 👉 A MUST watch!!! “You waste my time because you have not prepared for this interview. This interview frankly is a disgrace.” – John Pilger. ‘NZ presenter Kim Hill's embarrassing 2003 interview on the invasion of Iraq with John Pilger’ | 1News Archive https://youtu.be/jzSTY4IRDnM?feature=shared via @YouTube
Video Not Available
youtube.com
@KimDotcom - Kim Dotcom
Watch this interview with Saddam Hussein 3 weeks before the US invasion that killed over a million Iraqis. Watch it with the hindsight that the US Govt lied about WMDs and that Saddam was supporting Osama bin Laden. Remember, the US Govt lies all the time. https://t.co/KC4JerlsV5
Video Transcript AI Summary
Saddam Hussein remains defiant in the face of an impending war. He hopes the attack will not take place but is preparing to face it. He denies having prohibited missiles and claims that Iraq has not violated any UN resolutions. Saddam proposes a televised debate with President Bush to present their perspectives on American policy and Iraq's commitment to peace. He insists that Iraq will not destroy its oil fields or dams and believes that the Iraqi people will not welcome American soldiers as occupiers. Saddam argues that Iraq was not defeated in the 1991 Gulf War and expresses hope for a peaceful relationship between the Iraqi and American people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Fighting forces ever assembled. Yet in his first interview with an American reporter in more than a decade, Saddam Hussein remains defiant. Defiant even in the face of an impending war that seems certain to end his rule and quite possibly his life. We met him on Monday in Iraq's oldest and largest presidential palace at a time when the UN arms inspectors have accused him of having prohibited missiles. And when president Bush has said time has run out, that the only thing Saddam can do to prevent war is to disarm immediately.
Anything short of that, President Bush says, is a game. At this moment, The chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, is preparing what could be his final report to the UN. In a matter of weeks with or without international support, The American and British forces could begin an all out assault on Baghdad, and their primary target will be this man, Saddam Hussein. Mister president, do you expect to be attacked by an American led invasion?
Speaker 1: We hope that the attack will not take place, but we are bracing ourselves to meet such an attack, to face it. The officials in America keep talking about attacking Iraq, And it's normal that the people prepare themselves for such a possibility. At the same time, they are praying to Allah to stop the Americans from going through with it and to spare the Iraqis from the harm that those on the bandwagon of evil want to inflict upon them.
Speaker 0: Are you afraid of being killed or captured?
Speaker 1: Whatever Allah decides, We are believers. We believe in what he decides. There is no value for any life without faith. When we were young, we decided to place ourselves to the service of our people. We did not ask the question whether we'll be going to live or die.
It's morally unacceptable to ask such a question. Nothing is going to change the will of God. The believer still believes that what God decides It's acceptable.
Speaker 0: But we reminded president Hussein that he has more earthly concerns. More than 100 missiles that UN inspectors Hussein have a longer range than permitted, threatening Iraq's neighbors and capable of attacking American troops in Kuwait. Do you intend to destroy the Asmoud missiles that the United Nations, prohibits? Will you destroy those missiles?
Speaker 1: We have committed ourselves to resolution 1441. It is on this basis that we have conducted ourselves, and it is on this basis that we will continue to behave. As you know, we are allowed to produce land to land rockets With a range of up to 150 kilometers, and we are committed to that.
Speaker 0: I want to make sure that I understand, Mister president, so you do not intend to destroy these missiles?
Speaker 1: Which missiles are you talking about? We do not have missiles that go beyond the prescribed ranges by the UN.
Speaker 0: I mean, the missiles that Hans Blick says that he wants a commitment from you that they will be destroyed.
Speaker 1: No violation has been made by Iraq to anything decided by the United Nations. If the intention is to rewrite those resolutions, Then we will be entering a new framework, a framework in which the United States will be made to forsake its own position And take a new road towards harming Iraq.
Speaker 0: In our interview, Saddam Hussein gave no indication he will capitulate to an ultimatum from chief weapons inspector blitz to begin destroying the missiles by this weekend. Indeed, he hinted he will not. Saddam also rejected in Bush administration allegations that besides the missile delivery system, he still has weapons of mass destruction.
Speaker 1: I think America and the world also knows That Iraq no longer has the weapons. And I believe the mobilization that's been done was in fact done Partly to cover the huge lie that was being waged against Iraq about chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. That is why when you talk about such missiles, these missiles have been destroyed. There are no missiles that are contrary to the prescription of the United Nations in Iraq. They are no longer there.
Speaker 0: The Bush administration says president Hussein is just trying to fool the world one more time about his missiles and his weapons of mass destruction. And he faces a new UN resolution accusing him of failing to prove he has disarmed. A resolution which, if passed, would in effect Authorize war. Will the new proposed United Nations resolution, the one that's just out this week, Will this make any difference at all in your position?
Speaker 1: The basic position, there is no change. We have not pursued any weapons of mass destruction. So what do they want to issue new resolutions about now?
Speaker 0: So basically no change in your position?
Speaker 1: The basic stand of our position is clear. We do not compromise our independence or our dignity or our freedom. At the same time, we will continue to commit ourselves to what has been decided by the United Nations. If the new resolutions infringe upon our dignity, then Our position towards such a resolution will be in line with our previous positions.
Speaker 0: Mister president, have you been offered asylum anywhere? And would you, under any circumstances, consider going into exile to save your people death and destruction?
Speaker 1: I can understand the motive behind your question. This is a very American style, And it may not be like by some. But I can understand. However, I will answer your question. Thank you.
I was born here in Iraq, And I was born as a genuine believer. I am proud to have been born fearing God, and I have taught my children the value of history And the extreme importance of iman, of our heritage, that we must maintain the honor of nationalism and pan Arabism. We do not change our position. Our position is basic. We have been born in Iraq.
This is part of a glorious nation, A great Arab nation, and we have lived here. That is why, talking about asylum, whoever decides to forsake his nation is not true to the principles. We will die here in Iraq. We will die in this country, And we will maintain our honor, the honor that is required of our people. I believe that whoever offers Saddam asylum in his own country is in fact a person without morals because he will be directing an insult to the Iraqi people.
The Iraqi people who have chosen Saddam Hussein Unanimously to continue to lead the people of Iraq.
Speaker 0: The Iraqi president told us that the first Bush administration threatened it would bomb Iraq back to a preindustrial age and then attack this country with Thousands of warplanes and helicopters and missiles.
Speaker 1: They destroyed bridges, colleges, buildings, factories. They destroyed houses, palaces. They killed people and elderly, but they did not push Iraq back into the pre industrial age.
Speaker 0: Saddam Hussein said his country stood up The challenge from 1 Bush administration in 1991 and a force to will stand up to this new Bush administration as well.
Speaker 1: Yes. It's now time for him
Speaker 0: to, to fully disarm.
Speaker 1: We hope that war will not take place. But if war is forced upon us, then Iraq will continue to be here. This country with a history of over 8000 years, this country, the cradle of the first civilizations of humanity, We'll not finish just like that even though a huge power may want it to be like that. Nobody Nobody should accept that Iraq will finish in such a way.
Speaker 0: Americans are very much concerned about anyone's connections to Osama bin Laden. Do you have have you had any connections to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden?
Speaker 1: Is this the basis of the anxiety in the minds of US officials, Or is it the basis of anxiety in the minds of the people of the United States?
Speaker 0: Mister president, I believe I can report accurately That it's a major concern in the minds of the people of the United States.
Speaker 1: We have never had any relationship with mister Osama bin Laden, And Iraq has never had any relationship with Al Qaeda. And I think that mister bin Laden himself has recently, in one of his speeches, given such an answer That we have no relation with him.
Speaker 0: Do you or do you not agree in principle with the attack of 911?
Speaker 1: Let me tell you absolutely clearly. We believe in humanity. We believe in accordance with what Allah, the god almighty, has taught us in the same way that god has taught humanity as a whole. That there must be a law governing humanity and governing relations in humanity. That there should not be an aggressor While others are silent about the aggression, there should not be a killer while those who watch and applaud the killing.
Speaker 0: Not so long ago, you were clearly hailed by Arabs from Palestinians to Jordanians throughout the Arab world as the, quote, Arab Avenger. Are you still relevant on the Arab street, or Has Osama bin Laden made you with other Arabs irrelevant? Hope you can understand the question. Thank you.
Speaker 1: This is not our goal. What we want is not a personal issue. What we want is what Allah wants and what our nation wants. We want our nation to be happy, not to be spoken of as heroes. The most basic thing to be said about Saddam is that he is a true son of his nation And to say he did his best for his people and his nation.
Speaker 0: And he does or does not agree that Osama bin Laden is now The champion of the Arab streets.
Speaker 1: How do you see it? Mister Rather is an intelligent person. I believe that he wants to get to the truth and not merely provoke or to try to get someone to say something that might be held against him. The most essential thing is to stop the aggression against our nation and the Iraqi people. You see how the Palestinians are killed on their land And their homes are demolished, and their properties are destroyed, and no one is trying to take away their handcuffs to free them.
And if the Arabs considered Osama bin Laden a hero, we are not jealous of him. Jealousy is for women, and men are not supposed to be jealous of one another.
Speaker 0: At one point during our interview, Saddam got up from his chair and said it was time for him to pray. He left the room, and we thought that might be the last we heard or saw of him. But he returned about 10 minutes later, seemed refreshed, and answered questions about what kind of war he expects and if he'll set his oil fields on fire. Those answers and his proposal for a sort of duel, a TV debate with George Bush in a moment. Car driven around the city east, west, north, and south again before we reached our final destination, the Republican Palace.
I recognize the palace from just last month. We were reporting from here when the UN inspectors made a surprise visit, But you can't see much from outside the gates. And for security, you're not allowed to take pictures. The only way to see it is from space. This is Baghdad as seen from a satellite, a huge sprawling city bigger than Los Angeles.
Tucked hard along the Tigris River Is the old palace, the Republican Palace, apparently one of Saddam's favorites built by the British just after World War 1 when they took over what is now Iraq from the Turks. We were driven through the main gates, through several checkpoints, and with armed guards all around, We were finally taken into the palace itself, a place heavily bombed during the first Gulf War and now meticulously restored. About 2 and a half hours after we left our hotel, just a few miles away, we were greeted by Saddam. He seemed thinner when we saw him 12 years ago. He seemed healthy, though a bit stiff apparently from back problems.
And in our interview, he made a proposal directly to president Bush. What is the most important thing you want the American people to understand at this important juncture of history.
Speaker 1: First, convey to them that the people of Iraq are not the enemy of the American people. If the American people would like to know the facts as they are through a direct dialogue, Then I am ready to conduct a debate with the president of the United States, president Bush on television. I will say whatever I have to say about American policy. He will have the opportunity to say whatever he has to say about the policy of Iraq. And this will be in front of the world on television in a direct, uncensored, honest manner.
In front of, as I said, everyone. And then they will judge what is true and what is false.
Speaker 0: This is new. You you are suggesting you were saying that you are willing, you are urging a debate with president Bush On television?
Speaker 1: Yes. That is my proposal. On films, we see that the Americans are courageous. When challenged to a duel, they will not back down just as the Arabs would not. This will be an opportunity for him to convince the war if he has committed to war.
If he's convinced of his own position, this will be an opportunity for him to convince the world that he is right in making such a decision. It could also be an opportunity for us to tell the world our own side of the story and why we want to live in peace and security. I believe that it is the right of the American people, the Iraqi people, and the world that we show our evidence clearly so that they can see for themselves. So why should we hide from the people? Why shouldn't we show them both perspectives?
We, as presidents, president of the United States, and president of Iraq. This is what I am calling for. We will either make peace, and this is what we hope for, And spare our people harm, or whoever decides anything other than peace will have to convince his own people with the facts. This is the gist of my proposal, my idea.
Speaker 0: This is not a joke.
Speaker 1: No. No. I call for this because war itself is not a joke.
Speaker 0: Mister president, where would this debate take place that you
Speaker 1: imagine? America. The American president in America. And Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq in Iraq. And then the debate can be conducted through satellite.
Speaker 0: Oh, so a satellite television debate. Yes. Nam? Yes.
Speaker 1: And if mister Bush has another proposal, then we are prepared to listen. What is important is the idea.
Speaker 0: Would you be prepared to come to the United Nations for this debate?
Speaker 1: The most important thing is that our debate be heard in a normal and accurate way. And by this, I do not mean that I go and I make a speech at the United Nations and then that mister Bush We'll make his speech at the United Nations. That is not what I mean. What I mean is that we sit As we are sitting, you and I, now, I will address questions to him, and he will address questions to me. He will explain why he wants to go to war.
I will explain Why we are insistent on peace and we want to maintain peace. And we defend our honor And our sovereignty and our rights saw that the American people, The Iraqi people and the other peoples of the world will hear us. Without tricks, without editing, Without prepared speeches, people want to hear live and direct dialogue.
Speaker 0: Well, this surprises me, but I wanna make sure I understand.
Speaker 1: The debate could be broadcast on American and Iraqi television in its entirety, and it should be broadcast live. With the West Ham of Russia.
Speaker 0: A live international debate via satellite. Namtam.
Speaker 1: Yes. Of course.
Speaker 0: How would this work? Who who would moderate this debate? Namtam.
Speaker 1: You, mister Rader.
Speaker 0: With respect, mister president, I have plenty of other problems. I got enough problems already. But I As soon as the White House heard of Saddam Hussein's proposal For a debate, it was immediately rejected. A spokesman called it not serious. During our interview, Everything Saddam Hussein told us was being relayed with the help of his 2 translators sitting at the same table.
It turns out that Saddam was not just speaking but listening carefully to what they were saying. At one point, after president Hussein mentioned president Bush senior, One of his translators called him Bush instead of mister Bush. Saddam Hussein interrupted him in mid sentence.
Speaker 1: And how Bush, the father Bush. Bush. I didn't say Bush. I said mister Bush. I am being historically accurate and showing him respect.
Speaker 0: I understand his point. He wanted to call him mister Bush.
Speaker 1: I used not to, and this is a funny anecdote, Address him as mister Bush when he was in power. But as soon as he left office, I refer to him as mister Bush. We believe that we should respect the humanity even of our enemy. That's why I refer to him as mister Bush.
Speaker 0: Mister president, I hope you will take this question in the spirit in which it's asked. First of all, I regret that I not speak Arabic. Do you speak any any English at all? Have your coffee? I have coffee.
Speaker 1: Americans like coffee.
Speaker 0: That's true. And this American
Speaker 1: I am sorry. I do not speak English fluently. But I can understand to some extent.
Speaker 0: Well, would you speak some English for me? Anything you choose.
Speaker 1: Our language is Arabic. Arabic.
Speaker 0: A footnote to what you just heard when Saddam Hussein corrected his interpreter asking him to say mister Bush. A reminder that after the first president Bush left office, Saddam Hussein tried to have him assassinated. And today, one of Saddam's own newspapers refers to the second president Bush as the son of the snake. In a moment, We asked Saddam about his plans for war, be a war with the United States, but he certainly has been planning for 1. In this part of our interview, the Iraqi leader shared some of his thoughts about war with the US.
Those thoughts are shaped, Some might even say warped by Saddam's view of the situation today and of recent history. Saddam sees the world in his own terms and takes the same approach to interviews with television reporters. Saddam will allow only cameramen from Iraqi TV to record his interviews. He says this is for security reasons. We could not bring our own camera crews in or even a tape recorder.
The Iraqis provided cameras for our interview. They provided the interpreters to translate Saddam's remarks into English, and they provided us the tape of the interview hours after it was over. CBS translators here in New York carefully compared the official Iraqi translation with their own independent interpretation and found their translation of Saddam's remarks to be accurate. Those remarks include a surprising assessment of the outcome of the 1991 Gulf War and an equally surprising renunciation of the tactics that left Kuwait's oil fields in flames at the end of that war. If there is an invasion, will you set fire to the oil fields?
Will you blow the dams for your reservoirs of water to resist the invasion?
Speaker 1: Iraq does not burn its own wealth, and it does not destroy its own dams. We hope that this question is not going to be used by those who intend to attack us To cover their backs while they themselves destroy Iraq's dams and oil wells. Iraq will not destroy its oil or dams, But we'll use them and protect them for the benefit of the Iraqis.
Speaker 0: Mister president, vice president Cheney, Vice president Richard Cheney of the United States says that if and when an American led army comes into Iraq, it will be greeted With music, it will be treated as a army of liberation. If Americans are not to believe that. Why should they not believe that?
Speaker 1: If the Iraqi army or any other army were to cross the Atlantic and occupy America, Is it going to be received by the American people with music? I am categorically certain That no Iraqi will welcome any American when he is an occupier. But all the Iraqis will welcome any American Who comes as a friend? That is why now that
Speaker 0: you are here, you are
Speaker 1: being welcomed even though you come from a country threatening to destroy Iraq. Haven't you seen the kind of welcome you've received by officials and ordinary citizens? You can roam about in the town. What if an American soldier is here as an occupier? He won't be received in this way.
So as long as you are not a soldier, you are a guest, and a guest is always treated with respect. Any American, if they want to know the real position of the Iraqi people, They must ask themselves a question. In 1995, the Iraqi people elected Saddam Hussein president of Iraq. And in 2002, they reelected him. And the percentage of the voting was, respectively, 99.6% and 100% In those two elections
Speaker 0: A 100%. A 100%.
Speaker 1: This I know may sound strange to you, but Even if you take out whatever portion you want to take out of that, then the ratio would remain high in favor of reelecting Saddam Hussein. Now What does that mean? It means that the Iraqis have decided to take a patriotic stand under the circumstance of war and the blockade. In order to say to the foreign powers that are threatening Iraq, it is we, the people of Iraq, who decide our way, not you telling us what to do.
Speaker 0: You mentioned 1990 and 91, the Gulf War. You fought the father, George Bush the first. He and the forces he led prevailed on the battlefield. Now you face the sun who has an even greater, Even more modern, even more lethal military force aimed directly That's your throat and heart. Why would you think that you could prevail This time on the battlefield.
Or do you?
Speaker 1: You know that in both cases, We did not cross the Atlantic to commit aggression against the United States, neither by land or sea or air. The officials in America are the ones who are talking about the intention of attacking Iraq. Isn't it a responsible thing, the moral thing, and the most basic thing to do To warn the aggressor that if they attack us, we will not surrender? If we ask the question to any honest American, including you, mister Rada, let us suppose that during any time in the future, If another power comes to America, do you do nothing? I will answer.
I will tell the Americans that if such a thing happens to you one day, do not surrender, stand and defend your country And your dignity. And as you know, we didn't commit aggression against America. America is the one who is daily killing our children, our women. As I'm talking to you, there are American planes in the South and the North Dropping their bombs on the citizens and on their property. This happens daily.
If there is a law in the world that says the stronger ones get their Wait. It means surrender to the law of the jungle, and we do not want to surrender to the law of the jungle. It is our duty to defend our country so we will not surrender, not to America, not to anybody else. Just a quick historical correction that might interest you and the American people. In 1991, Iraq was not defeated, but our army withdrew from Kuwait by our own decision.
It's true. They left Kuwait under bombing, But when they were back inside Iraq, they were not defeated and neither were the Iraqi people.
Speaker 0: Mister president, respectfully, A lot of Americans are going to hear that and say, what is this man talking about? Because all of those Iraqi tanks coming out of Kuwait with the turrets knocked down, indicated a a beaten army on the battlefield. The point is I'm I'm asking you to explain what you mean That you were not defeated in the 1919, 91 war because I I can report to you with accuracy that overwhelmingly, The American people believe that that was a resounding defeat, for you and for Iraq.
Speaker 1: Let me answer this. You know the goals of Bush the father, and you know he attacked us repeatedly after that. So why did he repeat his attack if we had been defeated? When there is military conflict, there is attack and there is retreat. And when we saw that Bush the father, The president had mobilized 28 armies against us.
When we saw that the whole world was in fact collaborating against us, We realized that we had to withdraw from Kuwait. We did not lose More than 10% of our equipment in all of the battles. That was the worst loss suffered by any of our units. So we lost the battle, but we were not defeated. In what sense does Iraq threaten America threaten America?
The Iraqi people are not the enemies of the American people. Mister Rather, You are a well informed man, and you know the battle is not over until the guns are quiet and when the national will is bent to what the aggressor wants. It's not enough to have superiority in planes and missiles. In the final analysis, the guns will tell the tale of a courageous people Defending themselves against the occupiers. This is a decision made by the people of Iraq.
They will continue to commit themselves to the role That will make them respect themselves as well as others.
Speaker 0: Mister president, you say that knowing that poised on your border He's a tremendous armada ready to deliver destruction and all.
Speaker 1: Yes. I understand. I hear and I see, but the final truth will be decided by Allah On Iraqi soil In Baghdad I'm not talking about the fate of Americans in America, But the fate of Iraqis in Iraq and the fate of anybody who attacks Iraq.
Speaker 0: Mister president, you I appreciate your Remembering that we met in 1990, and I interviewed you in this very building.
Speaker 1: Given the
Speaker 0: sober moment and the danger at hand, What are the chances this is the last time you and I will see each other?
Speaker 1: Only Allah besides the fate of man. But the almighty also says, man should prepare what is necessary here on Earth. Then I can see that in the future, we will meet another time no matter what happens or what takes place. And I hope that the Iraqi people and the American people will live in peace and have a relationship that expresses their national interests Without one side harming the other.
reSee.it AI Summary
In a series of reflections, I highlighted Netanyahu's 2002 testimony to Congress, warning about nuclear threats from Iraq, Iran, and Libya. I noted the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, which led to Saddam's execution in 2006, and how the conflict has evolved into a struggle between Iran and Israel. Gaddafi's 2008 speech foreshadowed his own fate, as he was later killed during NATO's intervention in Libya in 2011. I also referenced General Wesley Clark's assertion about a US plan for regime change in seven countries, questioning if Iran is the next target through Israel.
@Sitting_Analyst - TheArmchairAnalyst
1/ This was testimony from Netanyahu to the American congress in 2002
@Sitting_Analyst - TheArmchairAnalyst
2/ Iraq was invaded and Saddam was overthrown by the US occupying colonial regime in 2003
@chaldean_queen - Chaldean Queen
Iraq was invaded by US/UK because Saddam & Israel kept battling for 10+ years (see August 2002 article). 21 years later, after millions got killed & trillions were spent in Iraq, it’s now Iran & Israel fighting. Shows how much of a waste the Iraq invasion was. #Iran #Israel #WW3 https://t.co/Nglur1AQe7
@Sitting_Analyst - TheArmchairAnalyst
3/ Saddam was murdered on TV by hanging in 2006
@Sitting_Analyst - TheArmchairAnalyst
4/ In 2008 Gadaffi wondered who would be next in a speech to the Arab League - Assad scoffed at the idea
@Sitting_Analyst - TheArmchairAnalyst
5/ The US & NATO ‘intervention’ in the Libyan Arab Spring began on March 19th 2011 https://t.co/5bX0m9ae4K
Video Transcript AI Summary
The U.S. has initiated military action against Libya, focusing on disabling Gaddafi's air defenses. Over 110 Tomahawk missiles were launched, targeting key sites, including an airfield, with B-2 bombers involved. French jets also participated, striking a Libyan armored vehicle. Gaddafi remains defiant, rallying supporters around strategic locations. The operation will expand to target air defenses in Misrata and Sirte, but will not extend east where rebels are in control. This is the first phase of a multi-phase operation to enforce a UN resolution, with a no-fly zone planned over Tripoli and Benghazi, involving numerous aircraft from allied nations. Concerns arise about the rebels' behavior and the complexities of identifying allies in a civil war, as they lack ground controllers to guide airstrikes effectively.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There is no question we are at war once again, and this first phase is to take out Gaddafi's air defenses. Throughout the night, the US pounded Libya. The strikes began with more than 110 Tomahawk missiles launched mostly from US ships and submarines aiming at more than 20 targets, including surface to air missile sites. And this morning, reports that the US took out a major Libyan air field using b 2 bombers flown from a base in the US. The ship launched missiles were fired from some 500 miles away in the Mediterranean Sea, hitting Libyan soil an hour later.
Speaker 1: These strikes were carefully coordinated with our coalition partners.
Speaker 0: Before the tomahawks were launched, 20 French fighter jets flew over rebel held Benghazi in a show of force, taking out 1 Libyan armored personnel carrier. But Muammar Gaddafi remains defiant. Calling into state TV to say if the US wants a long war, they will get it. He gathered supporters, including women and children around his compound and other key targets, essentially forming a human shield. In the coming days and hours, the strikes will expand beyond Tripoli to hit air defenses in Misrata and Sirte.
There will be no strikes east of Sirte where the rebels are in control.
Speaker 1: I wanna stress, however, that this is just the first phase of what will likely be a multi phase military operation designed to enforce the United Nations resolution.
Speaker 0: The next phase will be the no fly zone, which will be over Tripoli and rebel held Benghazi, an operation that will involve 100 of aircraft. US f sixteens will likely take part, but most of the fighter jets will be from Britain, France, and other allied partners. The US will provide support aircraft like air refuelers and communications aircraft. And a little bit about, those b two strikes, there were 4 b two bombers used. Each dropped 16 bombs.
They've also been able to hit mobile surface to air missile sites in Libya, and they believe they can have a presence already over Benghazi. Dan and Biana?
Speaker 2: Martha, to put a fine point on this, we are essentially taking sides in a civil war here, backing the rebels. What do we do if the rebels start behaving irresponsibly?
Speaker 0: Well, it's a it's a great question, Dan, and one I'm not sure they really have an answer for at this point. Many officers I have talked to say they are watching that very closely. They're watching how Gaddafi responds. You saw a little bit of that this morning rather defiantly. But they're also watching the rebels because that's a complicated question.
What do they do? For example, they don't have forward air controllers on the ground. They don't know exactly where to drop bombs, and this is very specific. It's very hard to find sides. Sometimes in a civil war, you don't really know who the good guy is and who the bad guy is, and they're not sure who all these rebels are.
They're not sure who they're backing in many places.
@Sitting_Analyst - TheArmchairAnalyst
6/ Gadaffi was beaten, abused, and paraded through the streets before being murdered on livestream. This was October of the same year. https://t.co/TaQ7FLIYjM
Video Transcript AI Summary
The final moments before Gaddafi's death are graphic. He is seen being dragged by rebel fighters, falling to his knees as they shout insults and assault him. Gunfire is heard amidst the chaos, and it seems a gun is aimed at his head. In Misurata, people are lining up to view his body. His doctor reports that Gaddafi died from gunshot wounds to the head and stomach, contradicting the National Transitional Council's claim that he died in crossfire. The UN has called for an investigation into his death.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The final moments before Gaddafi died are brutal, and some viewers may find these images disturbing. The former leader appears to be dragged into an angry crowd of rebel fighters. He falls to his knees and is dragged along the floor as fighters shout, you dog, and begin to assault him. Gunfire can be heard and chaos follows. It appears that a gun is being pointed to his head.
People have been queuing in Misurata to see his body. His doctor says he died from a shot to the head and stomach. This new picture appears to contradict official accounts from the National Transitional Council that he died in crossfire. The UN has called for an investigation into his death.
@Sitting_Analyst - TheArmchairAnalyst
7/ here is Netanyahu speaking in no uncertain terms about ambitions for regime change across the region https://t.co/1Tutd6vLoC
Video Transcript AI Summary
I support regime change in Iran and Iraq, focusing on how to achieve it rather than if it should happen. Iran has advantages over Iraq, such as widespread satellite access and internet usage. I suggested to CIA leaders that promoting regime change in Iran could be done through media rather than covert operations. By broadcasting popular shows like "Melrose Place" and "Beverly Hills 90210" into Iran, we can influence the youth. They aspire to the lifestyles depicted in these shows, which can be a powerful subversive tool.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Obviously, we'd like to see a regime change, at least I would in Iran, just as I would like to see in Iraq. The question now is a practical question. What is the best place to proceed? It's not a question of whether Iraq's regime should be taken out, but when should it be taken out. It's not a question of whether you'd like to see a regime change in Iran, but how to achieve it.
Iran has something that Iraq doesn't have. Iran has, for example, 250,000 satellite dishes. It has Internet use. I once said to the chair the heads of the CIA when I was prime minister that if you want to advance regime change in Iran, you don't have to go through the CIA cloak and dagger stuff. What you want to do is take very large, very strong transponders and just beam Melrose Place and Beverly Hills 2050 and all that into into Tehran and into Iran because that is subversive stuff.
They watch it. The young kids watch it. The young people, they they wanna have the same nice clothes at the same houses and swimming pools and so on. And
@Sitting_Analyst - TheArmchairAnalyst
8/ Here is General Wesley Clark confirming this
reSee.it AI Summary
The posts discuss various topics related to central banks, globalism, and leaders who went against the banking system. Hitler, JFK, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and BRICS are mentioned. The Federal Reserve and its connection to the central banking system are explained. The posts also touch upon China's military budget, JFK's attempts to distance himself from the central bank, and Saddam Hussein's decision to move away from using US dollars for oil exports. The assassination of Gaddafi and his plans for an international currency backed by gold are mentioned. The posts highlight the benefits provided by Gaddafi's leadership in Libya. The trend of leaders who oppose certain organizations being destroyed is discussed, along with the invasion of countries resulting in the acquisition of gold. The importance of questioning these topics and freedom of speech is emphasized. The posts end with a question about who JFK was referring to and a bonus post about the Rothschild family.
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 1/20 ▪️ROTHSCHILD CENTRAL BANKS 🏦 ▪️WAR▪️ASSASSINATIONS ▪️GLOBALISM▪️ What do they all have in common? HITLER-🇩🇪 JFK- 🇺🇸 SADDAM HUSSEIN 🇮🇶 MUAMMAR GADDAFI 🇱🇾 BRICS- PUTIN 🇷🇺 CHINA🇨🇳 IRAN🇮🇷 https://t.co/fDusIIvcyZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes the financial system is the root of societal issues, as it enslaves people through debt. Mortgages symbolize this control, with banks owning homes until fully paid. The system benefits a select few who manipulate finance, rewarding immoral behavior while punishing those who operate beyond material desires. This skewed system values corruption and immorality over integrity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If there was one physical subject, one material subject that we should focus on in my opinion, it is very clear that the head of the snake is the financial system. The whole point of finance is to in debt, otherwise to enslave. What is a mortgage? I mean, what does that stand for? It's called it's a death grip.
So when you get a mortgage, you have a death grip held over you because you are in debt. You don't even own the house. The bank owns the house that loans you the money to buy the house unless you're fortunate enough to have all the money to buy it outright. And even then, you can be taxed by the government. And if you fail to keep up with those taxes, the government can then take it from you.
The whole system is based on a financial fraud, which effectively takes the power that we have, and it gives it to a tiny group of individuals who are running the world through the control of finance with the infinite supply of money that we have allowed them to take. They have literally an infinite supply of money and with that money, from their psychopathic point of view, they have bought everything and everyone who can be bought. So those of us who cannot be bought because we operate on a level that goes way beyond the material, We are not rewarded for such behavior. We are punished for such behavior. And the most slovenly, disgustingly criminal pedophilia, you know, corrupt moral individuals, those are the ones that are rewarded in this system, which is upside down.
We reward the pedophiles, we reward the corrupt, we reward the liars, we reward the people with no morals at all.
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 2/20 What is a Central Bank. (Same as the Federal Reserve Bank. The reason for name change will be explained in the animation video) https://t.co/o7sJ0sTTZV
Video Transcript AI Summary
A Central Bank controls a nation's currency by setting interest rates and managing money supply. By loaning money with interest, the bank creates a cycle of debt that leads to perpetual borrowing. This system ultimately enslaves governments and the public. Additionally, war is profitable for bankers as it forces countries to borrow more money at interest.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So what is a Central Bank? A Central Bank is an institution that produces the currency of an entire nation. Based on historical precedent, 2 specific powers are inherent in central banking practice. The control of interest rates and the control of the money supply or inflation. The central bank does not simply supply a government's economy with money.
It loans it to them at interest. Then through the use of increasing and decreasing the supply of money, the central bank regulates the value of the currency being issued. It is critical to understand that the entire structure of this system can only produce one thing in the long run, debt. It doesn't take a lot of ingenuity to figure this scam out. For every single dollar produced by the central bank is loaned at interest.
That means every single dollar produced is actually the dollar plus a certain percent of debt based on that dollar. And since the central bank has the monopoly over the production of the currency for the entire country, and they loan each dollar out with immediate debt attached to it, where does the money to pay for the debt come from? It can only come from the central bank again, which means the central bank has to perpetually increase its money supply to temporarily cover the outstanding debt created, which in turn, since that new money is loaned out at interest as well, creates even more debt. The end result of this system without fail is slavery, for it is impossible for the government and thus the public to ever come out of the self generating debt. Now, the control of the economy and the perpetual robbery of wealth is only one side of the Rubik's cube the bankers hold in their hands.
The next tool for profit and control is war. It's important to understand that the most lucrative thing that can happen for the international bankers is war. For it forces the country to borrow even more money from the Federal Reserve Bank App interest. App interest. App interest.
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD🧵 3/20 Hitler came into power in March 1933. One of the first things he did was outlaw the “banking debt based system.” The country flourished. He was allegedly the first and only leader to have ever arrested a Rothschild. I’m sure it didn’t do him any favors. https://t.co/HvLxzIXKGF
Video Transcript AI Summary
Hitler took power in 1933 in a struggling Germany. He removed international bankers, restricted Jewish ownership, and outlawed debt-based money. Instead, he introduced labor treasury notes, leading to full employment, economic growth, and stability. By 1938, unemployment dropped from 50% to less than 2%. Germany thrived without debt or inflation, financing itself without gold. This success was hidden from history books.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hitler came into true authoritative power in March 1933. He took over a poverty stricken, sick, and hopelessly bankrupt state with over 6,000,000 Germans unemployed. All German gold reserves have been stolen by the victors of World War 1 as crushing reparation payments. When Hitler kicked out the destructive international bank in cabal, he became the only leader in history to arrest a Rothschild. He later restricted Jewish ownership of radio and newspapers.
The Frankfurt School was closed down and its members fled to the United States and migrated to major Jewish universities. Hitler did not want to fall back into the interest slavery of the international Jewish bankers. He therefore immediately outlawed the debt based system, I. E. Usury, by punishment of death and created a new Deutsche mark that was backed only by productive German physical and intellectual labor.
After having deleted the parasitical bankers from the equation, the German economic miracle took off almost immediately. Instead of borrowing from the banks at interest, the government instead created a new monetary system for the Germans called the labor treasury notes. Millions of Germans were put to work and the workers were paid with the treasury certificates. The government issued money was not backed by gold but it was backed by something of real value. It was essentially receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government.
Hitler said, for every mark that was issued, we required the equivalent of marks worth of work done or goods produced. The workers then spent his certificates on other goods and services creating more jobs for more people. Hitler managed to end the reparation payments from the Versailles treaty. He rebuilt Germany into something better than ever and the nation quickly rose from the ashes and healed its deep wounds. The unemployment problem was solved and the country was back on its feet.
It had a solid stable currency, no debt and no inflation. Unemployment went from 50% down to less than 2% in a few short years. After 5 years, Hitler had given 6,000,000 Germans work and full employment was reached. Crime was almost nonexistent. Unemployment was a thing of the past, and there were no homeless and no beggars.
In 1,000,000,000 for the Bankers, Debt for the People, 1984, Sheldon Emory stated, Germany issued debt free and interest free money from 1935 and on, accounting for its startling rise from the depression to a world power in 5 years. Germany financed its entire government and war operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold and without debt, and it took the whole capitalist and communist world to destroy the German power over Europe and bring Europe back under the heel of the bankers. Such history of money does not even appear in the textbooks of public schools today.
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 4/20 Printing your own money and removing yourself from the central banking system may make you a few enemies as we shall see. https://t.co/q6M3fClKIC
Video Transcript AI Summary
Adolf Hitler defied bankers by printing Germany's own money, lifting the country out of debt and into prosperity. The speaker questions historical narratives, citing JFK's assassination after challenging the Federal Reserve. They advocate for printing our own money to confront the financial system.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So what we know about Adolf Hitler is like what we know about history. The victors, of course, write the history, don't they? They write the history, and they tell us a narrative, and we're supposed to swallow that bullshit as if it's true. The major crime of Adolf Hitler was that he got got out. He got Germany out of a banking debt that was drowning the German people, drowning the German people in a cesspool of moral decay, drowning in debt.
And he had the nerve to actually say fuck off to the bankers and start printing their own money. And Germany went from a destitute post World War country that was drowning. Germans starving. No jobs. Nothing.
And he got them out of that debt and literally brought that nation back to a powerhouse within several years just by using their own money supply. That's the real crime that Adolf Hitler committed. Now I could sit here and talk and really excite the senses a little bit more about everything we've been taught about World War 2 and the holocaust, but let us suffice to say that it fits in line with virtually everything we've been told about history in general. Bullshit. Bullshit.
And John f Kennedy had the courage and the balls and integrity to bypass the Federal Reserve Bank, to bypass his financial system, and he was dead within 6 months. And there ain't no coincidence there. Definitely not. We only need to do one thing to turn it all around. One thing?
Let's confront that financial system. Let us print our own money.
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 5/20 The Federal Reserve Explained in Animation. (a.k.a. the Central Bank.) The American people did not want a Central Bank so the bankers changed the name to Federal Reserve for the Americans)…full video will be in the sourced information. https://t.co/qusI2GiHFi
Video Transcript AI Summary
The eternal god wouldn't let bankers win. Independence requires choosing between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. Public debt is dangerous. Every generation should pay its debts. A central bank was needed for financial security. Private banks controlling money leads to loss of property. Attempts at central banks failed. In 1910, a secret meeting planned the Federal Reserve. The Fed now prints money, putting the country in debt. Taxes and inflation steal wealth. JFK tried to dismantle the Fed but was assassinated. Since then, presidents haven't challenged the banks, causing wealth destruction for many.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: By authority, the eternal god, he would not let the bankers win
Speaker 1: here. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. Wow. I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt is the greatest of the dangers to be feared.
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
Speaker 2: We must have a central bank to secure this country's finances.
Speaker 1: If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the very continent their fathers conquered.
Speaker 2: Jefferson, you're mad. This country will have a central bank.
Speaker 0: Who's that?
Speaker 1: America's 1st secretary of treasure. Alexander Hamilton? Not for long. Aaron Burr, Thomas Jefferson, vice president. They didn't take too kindly to our 1st state treasury.
Sweet shot, Burr. The first attempt at a central bank only lasted 20 years and was shut down. But the bankers tried again against old Hickory,
Speaker 2: Andrew Jackson. You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to route you out, and by the eternal god, I will route you out.
Speaker 1: After surviving an assassination attempt, Jackson finally defeated Zabank in 18/36. When asked what was the greatest accomplishment in his life, Old Hickory replied I killed the bank. And those were his last words. I killed the bank. And with real money backed with real gold, our country experienced the greatest boom in any nation's history.
Oh, it was beautiful power. But the beggars, greedy for more power and wealth, were concocting their most ambitious plan. Yet, to once and for all, take control of the finances of the United States. In 1910, a secret meeting was held at the JPMorgan Estate on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. This meeting was so secret, so concealed from government and public knowledge that the 10 attendees used code names.
Speaker 2: I am clearly the richest man, so I should be the one to run the super secret central bank. I own all the oil okay. I'm clearly richer than you will ever be, hula girl. I should run the super secret central bank. You're nothing compared to me, lube job.
I shall run the secret bank. Silence. Supreme master leader, I didn't know you were gonna be here.
Speaker 3: I'm not. Neither are you, dumbass.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Right right. Be so swamped.
Speaker 3: None of you shall run the bank. We have failed in the past because of openness. This time, the key to success is secrecy. The people must believe that they run the bank.
Speaker 2: Yes. Brilliant. A sneak attack. What's the plan?
Speaker 3: We first create panic, then we show them the solution. With our man in office and well planned timing, we will have our central bank. And so the people think it is theirs. We shall christen it federal, the Federal Reserve.
Speaker 1: They struck on December 23, 1913. When most of our congress were at home eating fruitcake, these bastards, I mean, bankers, presented their treasonous act to their newly elected accomplice, Woodrow Wilson, who had fortuitously already agreed to sign it before he was even elected. Wait. The IRS? I thought we always had the IRS.
No, Pyle. They did this to us too. The Fed now has the exclusive power to print America's money. They loan this money to our banks and our government at interest, putting immediate debt on our own money, print more and more so each dollar they print becomes worth less than the one before. Merry Christmas.
What in the hell is that? That is how our government now must pay back these debts to the fed. Your taxes did not go to your government. They don't? It's the greatest theft in human history.
But oh, okay. I mean, I sorta get what you're saying, but it's also confusing. And really, Hartman, I don't see how it affects me
Speaker 3: at all. If I had
Speaker 1: more money, none of this would have happened. Hartman? 19 55? Wow. What are we doing here?
Oh, a little bit of shopping. Here, hold this. Get on a gas. 1 to 3 cents. Post it stand.
3¢. Elsa Gold, $35. Hot baby. Prices. Let's begin, man.
Hey, Hartman. I need my car, man. Was that Michael j? Yeah. He'll be fine.
Now, Pyle, would you agree that you have the same exact things you had in 1955?
Speaker 4: Yeah. One stamp, 1 gallon of gas, 1 ounce of gold, and one home.
Speaker 1: Wow. We just made a lot of money. Hey. Gotta pay your taxes. Bet it's nice to have made all that money.
Wait. That isn't fair. Now I actually have less money. I I can't even go buy the things I just sold. The IRS and the Fed's inflation work together, Pyle.
They aren't just taxing gain. They are taxing their inflation. You are no richer than you were in 1950 5. Now does that sound fair or American to you? Yeah.
But, I mean, who doesn't hate taxes? I hate the IRS anyway. Kyle, the higher they make the inflation, the more your money they take. It's thievery. You're not paying taxes on any more.
You are paying taxes on the same, and now you have less. They take our property away right in front of our eyes just like Thomas Jefferson said they would. What's that? They found them. Quick.
My sword. What sword? Do you get your banking machine?
Speaker 0: I condemn you to die, damn it.
Speaker 5: For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence.
Speaker 1: What's happening? Where am I? I believe perhaps you understand now, Pyle, but you are afraid. JFK. Hartman, what does this have to do with my house and my dog?
Oh, okay. That's enough. I wanna go home now. This is the last president to stand up to the Fed. You must see.
On June 4, 1963, president Kennedy signed executive order 11 110. This executive order empowered the US Treasury to issue real money without the Fed. It would have worked. Kennedy's plan to dismantle the Federal Reserve machine had begun. 6 months later, John f Kennedy went to Dallas and never returned.
Returned. No way. No way they could do that. The new president, Lyndon Johnson, threw out Kennedy's order. And since JFK, no president has dared bigger bigger banks, print more and more money accountable to no one, decimating our nation's wealth for the benefit of a few.
Why? Why do this? If they hurt us, it hurts the global bankers too. No. File, they are protected.
They are too big to fail. But I'm not. Those sons of bitches. Sons of bitches all.
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 6/20 President Woodrow Wilson immediately regretted signing that act And said that he has “ruined my country…. All of our activities are in the hands of a few men.” https://t.co/umlCoV7xDh
Video Transcript AI Summary
Woodrow Wilson expressed regret after signing the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, realizing it gave control of the country to a few men through the system of credit. He believed the nation was now ruled by a small group of dominant men, no longer by free opinion or the majority vote.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: After Woodrow Wilson had signed the Federal Reserve Act, which gave private interest control over economic power in 1913, he said, I'm a most unhappy man. I've unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion, endures of a small group of dominant men.
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 7/20 BRICS - an intergovernmental organization comprising Brazil 🇧🇷 , Russia🇷🇺, India🇮🇳, China🇨🇳, South Africa🇿🇦 , Egypt🇪🇬, Ethiopia🇪🇹, Iran, 🇮🇷 and the United Arab Emirates. 🇦🇪 There is allegedly 30 other countries that are interested in joining BRICS. According to the graph, BRICS will have a greater purchasing power than the G7 soon.
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 8/20 PUTIN 🇷🇺 is spearheading the development of a new currency, probably backed by gold (instead of nothing, which is what our paper money is back by) which will distance himself and the rest of BRICS from the Central Banking System. And who are we antagonizing to go to war with? Sound familiar? Hmmm🤔
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 9/20 I mean do we really think Iran🇮🇷 wants war with the US🇺🇸? Or could it be a message to them other countries that are changing its currency to… you know….not? I mean, we have never manipulated the narrative before. 🤨 more on that later. https://t.co/RBk1Bc2aAN
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 10/20 US 🇺🇸Secretary of State Blinken had just visited China 🇨🇳 and if any of you who had seen the body language between both Blinken and President Jinping, I mean, it wasn’t exactly warm and fuzzy….And then you have this post below.
@BRICSinfo - BRICS News
🇨🇳 🇺🇸 China says the United States days of bullying the world are coming to an end. https://t.co/J56PagqxmH
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 11/20 What is really concerning is China’s 🇨🇳“hidden” military budget 💰 that was exposed (which I’m sure the US 🇺🇸has too). According to the figures below it almost rivals the US. And maybe if you consider China’s labor is cheaper 🤷🏻♂️ then it may exceed the US budget?
@MarioNawfal - Mario Nawfal
🚨🇨🇳CHINA'S HIDDEN $710B MILITARY MEGA-BUDGET EXPOSED A bombshell report from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) alleged that China's true defense spending might soar to a staggering $710.6 billion—tripling the official $229 billion figure. This massive underreporting includes overlooked costs like R&D, retirement, and paramilitary forces, elevating China from a mere 'pacing challenge' to a dominant 'pacing threat,' NOW ALMOST MATCHING the U.S $800-billion budget. Source: Epoch Times, CCTV
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 12/20. This was referenced in thread 4. JFK was also trying to distance himself from The Central Bank back in 1963… https://t.co/QtPpFoS6FS
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 13/20 And I have posted this before, but here it is again. JFK was also looking into forcing AIPAC to register as a foreign entity before his assassination. That’s too pretty big strikes against him right there…bankers and AIPAC. https://t.co/gDAEEHSOk0
Video Transcript AI Summary
APAC, a major lobbying group, boasts about representing a foreign country without registering under the FARA Act. In the past, they almost had to register as a foreign agent, but the effort was dropped after the president pushing for it was no longer in office. Despite FARA requirements, APAC remains unregistered, allowing them to hide their funding sources. This lack of transparency raises concerns about their influence on US politics. The speaker also mentions the importance of preventing foreign interference in American democracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Have you ever wondered how we got to this point where one of the biggest lobbying groups in America can openly brag that they are representing a foreign country? This is from APAC's website, but somehow they don't have to register under the FARA Act as someone acting on behalf of a foreign actor. They literally brag about how many millions they spent and about how 98% of their buying of our politicians was successful this election cycle. Did you know that they were actually this close to having to register as a foreign agent before a certain thing happened? Here, I'll show you, and I'll show you where you can find all these primary sources too.
So if you go to this URL right here, israelobby.org/azcdoj, it's a history of when APAC almost had to register as a foreign agent. And back then, they were known as the American Zionist Council. Right there? The American Zionist Council? Well, it turns out that president John F Kennedy was about to force them to register under Farr.
And this is a history of all of the original documents that pertain to the legal case. And when you click on any of these links, it'll take you to original archive sources of the actual documents from the actual testimonies that you can read. Even cool little snippets like this that say federal lawyers are near decision on whether to require the AZC to register as an agent of the Israeli government. And back in June July of 1963, the federal government was nearing a decision requiring the American Zionist Council registering as an agent of the Israeli government. Americans of whatever faith believe firmly that America is their country and America alone.
The Zionist lawyer, mister Linden, advised that public registration would be injurious to the American Zionist Council. You might notice that the honorable Donald Rumsfeld was involved. And as 1963 went on, it all heated up. And by October of 1963, they were saying things like forms are enclosed for the use of the American Zionist Council in registering under the foreign agents registration act. But then what happened in November of 1963?
The president who was spearheading the whole thing just suddenly wasn't there anymore. And to be clear, I would never infer that Israel had anything to do with that whole thing. I'm just saying it was really convenient timing that it happened to turn out that way. And then in December of 1963, we get this document. As you know, our client is not prepared to register as an agent of foreign principle or to concede that it is subject to the registration requirement.
December 11, 1963. And to this day, the single most influential big money group in democratic electoral politics is not registered as a foreign actor. Although the US justice department clearly states that FARA requires the registration of anyone that represents the interests of the foreign principal before any agency or official of the US government. All the rest of that also applies. That's just the most obvious statement.
Because if they were registered under FARA, they would have to disclose where all the money's coming from, and, they don't want to, so they just don't. And that's how we wind up with screens like this. And with APAC openly braying on the Internet about how they pay to get candidates to win despite their policies being clearly unpopular with regular people in America. And that's why it's so important that we stop China from subverting our democracy by controlling what we see on our social media apps. You feel me?
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 14/20 Saddam Hussein 🇮🇶 “The first mistake Saddam made was when he decided in October 2000 to move away from using US dollars as the currency for oil exports, such as were allowed under the UN 'oil-for-food' programme, writes former Indian Ambassador to Iraq Ranjit Singh Kalha.”
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 15/20 An explanation on the Saddam Hussein/Iraq 🇮🇶 situation by Flip the Script Media. “Look at who we are close to starting wars with today? Russia 🇷🇺 , China 🇨🇳 , Iran 🇮🇷 . https://t.co/m12thbUwK5
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2000, Iraq switched from trading oil in US dollars to euros, leading to tensions with the US. After 9/11, the US falsely claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Today, the US is at odds with Russia and China for not using US dollars for oil. The speaker predicts a future conflict in Ukraine, warning of lies to justify war. They caution against media manipulation and urge vigilance.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The year 2000, Iraq decided to dump the US dollar and started trading oil in the euro. So, obviously, United States took issue with that. Then in 2001, 911 happened. And then George Bush declared the global war on terror and said that we will hunt down terrorists all across the globe. There'll be no difference between those who committed the attacks and those who harbor terrorists.
So our intelligence agencies lied, said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam was harboring terrorists, which was flat out alive. There was no terrorists in Iraq until after we took out the whole government of Iraq. That's when terrorists showed up because there's a power vacuum, and they wanted to take power. And that's when we started seeing the insurgency. Fast forward to today.
What are the 2 top countries that United States is on the brink of war with and actually engaging in an act of war with one of them right now? That's right. Russia and China. And what did they do? They stopped trading in US dollars for oil.
So what's the point? The point is is that when United States decides to send conventional troops to Ukraine or Russia to fight the Russians, which is what they will do, there's gonna be a lie. There's gonna be a lie that's gotta be told to the American people to get them on board sending our sons and daughters overseas to fight for another country that has nothing to do with us. And as we all know that this war in Ukraine is not ending anytime soon. And it's only a matter of time until the military industrial complex get its way, and a full fledged war starts between United States, Russia, and possibly China.
They just changed the area of operations. They went from the Middle East to Eastern Europe. So keep your eye out for the lie. Remember, United States is not a democracy or a constitutional republic. It's not like the monarchy.
Keep your mind sharp. Don't listen to media. Let's flip the script podcast out.
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 16/20 And this is the propaganda that the US 🇺🇸government spewed to the American people to get support for the legal invasion of Iraq 🇮🇶 and and the murder of 100s of thousands of people. There was NO weapons of mass destruction EVER found. https://t.co/Si8k6bxQYY
Video Transcript AI Summary
In the past, false information has been used to manipulate public opinion for war. In 1990, a girl claimed she saw babies killed in Kuwait, but it was a lie. Her father was Kuwait's ambassador. A similar tactic was used by Colin Powell, who falsely claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, leading to a US invasion and many Iraqi deaths. This raises the question of whether similar misinformation is being used in the case of Ukraine.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: These campaigns have been waged to spread disinformation in the interest of getting public opinion behind a war. And you don't have to look very far back in the past to find examples. I'll give you one right here. 1990, a girl from Kuwait who said her name was Nayira, testified that she witnessed babies being taken out of incubators and killed by Saddam Hussein's forces. Turned out, that was a lie.
And the girl wasn't just some random girl, She was the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the United States, Saud al Sabah. The story about the incubators, by the way, it never happened. But it was too late once we knew for sure. The publicity campaign associated with that lie swayed public opinion against Saddam Hussein and in favor of a US invasion of Kuwait. 12 his turn at lying with an eye towards Iraq.
Remember this famous shot of him holding up vials of those biological weapon samples? He testified before the world that the country had weapons of mass destruction. This bold faced lie prompted the US invasion of Iraq and the deaths of over 1,000,000 Iraqi people. So the question that thinking people must grapple with, could the same thing be happening in the case of Ukraine?
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 17/20 Former Libyan 🇱🇾 leader Muammar Gaddafi was killed in a horrific way shortly after planning to introduce an international currency backed by large gold 🏆reserves. This would separate Libya and possibly the other nations from trading in US dollars.💵 https://t.co/1ZoYnzKytW
Video Transcript AI Summary
Gaddafi's plan to introduce the Gold Dinar threatened Western monetary dominance. The West imposed sanctions, leading to Gaddafi's downfall and a fractured Libya. Africa lost a leader with a vision for economic liberation. Corruption in governments perpetuates a system benefiting the few at the expense of many, hindering economic justice and self-determination globally.
Translation:
Gaddafi's Gold Dinar plan challenged Western power, leading to sanctions and Libya's instability. Africa lost a leader aiming for economic freedom. Corruption hinders global economic justice and self-determination.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Gaddafi, a visionary leader with a deep understanding of the financial system, recognized the potential of creating an alternative currency. His plan to introduce the Gold Dinar, backed by Libya's vast reserves, posed a direct threat to the hegemony of the Western dominated monetary order. Beyond Libya, Gaddafi envisioned a united Africa with a common currency that would free the continent from the grips of Western economic exploitation. Many African nations possessed immense natural resources, including gold, diamonds, oil, and gas. The gold dinar had the power to transform their economies, ending their dependence on external forces.
Gaddafi's refusal to allow Libya's resources to be consumed by the West, combined with his plans for the gold Mangina, unsettled those who'd grown accustomed to profiting from Africa's riches. The West, fearing the potential repercussions, began implementing economic sanctions, attempting to cripple Libya's economy and undermine Gaddafi's grand vision. However, the Libyan leader remained resolute, unwilling to let go of his dream of economic liberation for Africa. The threat posed by Gaddafi's gold dinner became intolerable for the West. A series of covert operations, interventions, and military actions were carried out under the guise of humanitarian concerns and regime change.
The aftermath of Gaddafi's downfall led to a fractured and unstable Libya. The dreams of economic sovereignty and self determination were shattered, replaced by a power vacuum and political chaos. Africa lost a visionary leader, and the continent's hopes for a unified and prosperous future were compromised. The corruption within governments, both in Africa and the West, has perpetuated a system where the few benefit at the expense of the many. The struggle for economic justice and genuine self determination remains an ongoing battle faced by nations around the world.
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 18/20 I mean, I’ve never lived in Libya 🇱🇾 but it doesn’t sound like a bad place to live to be honest… -Free petroleum -Free electricity -Free healthcare and education -Interest-free loans -Provided unlimited water to his people -He promoted family, so every newlywed got an equivalent of $50,000 US towards the first home. -he helped raise the literacy rate from 17% to 83%.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Muammar Gaddafi of Libya built the great man-made river, offering incentives for farming and family-building. He aimed to transition the Libyan dinar to the gold standard, threatening western banking powers. The powers bombed the river and pipe factory. The speaker writes children's books on banking to educate about misinformation, freedom, and American rights.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: She was talking about Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, and he had just overseen the construction of the great man made river, which people were calling the 8th wonder of the world. It required 1700 miles of underground pipes, 1300 water wells. This thing was absolutely massive. And Gaddafi famously said that we will turn the desert green, and he would offer free land and livestock to citizens who are willing to start farms. And if you got married and agreed to start a family, you would be eligible for $50,000 in loans at 0% interest.
These were massive pro Libya, pro family policies. He was transitioning the Libyan dinar back to the gold standard. There was talk of it becoming the official currency of Africa. But, of course, that would be a massive threat to the western banking powers. And he was talking about selling petroleum in the Libyan dinar, which again would be a major threat to the western banking powers because the dollar is not backed by gold.
It's backed by oil, and the dollar is the world reserve currency. This is why I write children's books on the banking system. So they didn't just kill Gaddafi. They bombed the great man made river river and the factory that made the pipes. But all we kept from the powers that be is lies.
But we can teach our kids about the banking powers. Fake news, how information is controlled, rights fundamental to being an American. It's what freedom
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 19/20 There seems to be a certain trend that those who go against certain “organizations“ 💰end up destroyed , for what? Under the guise of “freedom?“ The ones who say you are free are the ones trying to enslave you. It appears to me these leaders were going “against the grain“ so to speak. It appears they only wanted the best for their people and country. I forgot to mention the invasion of these countries netted the invaders billions of dollars in gold. And are these countries better off now after they were “liberated?“
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 20/20 Who do you think JFK was talking about here? What will we do about it? https://t.co/IMjQQajhYS
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
Disclaimer: I may or may not believe in some, all, or none of the topics mentioned above. What I wholeheartedly believe in is that we should be able to question these topics and other topics, despite certain laws-bills that may try to hinder this freedom of speech. Because that’s what freedom 🇺🇸 is all about. So 🖕🏽your censorship. If you like the posts feel free to share🙏🏽. Freedom Forever!⛓️💥
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 Bonus Post (a) Who profited from the World War II? And who still profits from all War to this day? https://t.co/lmGxDOf3fu
@truthtroll_X - Truth Troll Official™️
THREAD 🧵 Bonus Post (b) Family Tree of the Rothschild Family Explained… https://t.co/drqO2bZsFu
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Rothschild family, known for their wealth and influence, originated in Germany with Mayer Amschel Rothschild. Mayer's five sons established branches in major European capitals, leading to immense success in finance. The family faced challenges in the 20th century, with the Austrian branch suffering losses due to historical events. The British branch, currently the most senior, has been involved in politics and finance, with members like Nathan and Walter Rothschild making significant contributions. The family business is now managed by David de Rothschild, continuing the legacy of financial success and influence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Today, I'm gonna show you the family tree of the Rothschild family, one of the wealthiest families in world history, as well as one of the most controversial. This video is part 1 of a 2 part collaboration with fellow YouTuber, misterbeat. In part 1, I'll be focusing primarily on the family tree and introducing you to some of the more well known members of the Rothschild dynasty. In part 2, mister Beat, a social studies teacher, will be delving deeper into the family's history and discussing some of the many conspiracy theories that have come to be associated with their name. So first of all, the name Rothschild comes from the German for red shield.
It's a reference to the fact that the family originally used a red shield as an identifying mark on their house. Their story begins in Germany with this individual here, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who was initially a dealer in rare coins and an apprentice banker. However, things really took off for him because of a special relationship he had with a German prince, William IX of Hesse Kassel. That prince appointed Maier to be his court Jew. A court Jew was actually an official position in those days.
Because Christians were prohibited from money lending, nobles would often hire a Jew to fulfill this role. So Maier ended up managing the money for one of the richest princes in Europe. And by doing so, he himself became very rich as well. Eventually, he started managing money for other princes and even entire governments. By this point, he had several adult sons.
So what he did was he created a Rothschild bank and he sent each of his five sons to a different capital in Europe to run a branch there. His eldest son, Amschel, ran the original branch in Frankfurt, and then his son, Solomon, was sent to Vienna, Nathan to London, Carl to Naples, and James to Paris. The family then developed a network of agents that allowed for safe and speedy transfer of gold across the continent, as well as for ease of communication between the various branches. This made all 5 branches extremely successful. However, the London branch was perhaps the most successful of all.
During the Napoleonic wars, Nathan almost single handedly financed the entire British war effort and took care of paying British troops and their allies across the continent. There's a well known legend that the family made their millions by taking advantage of the fact that they received word of Napoleon's defeat one day ahead of everyone else in London. But that story is not actually true. Although they did receive word of the defeat before everyone else, they didn't actually make money off that fact. What they did make money off of is accurately predicting what would happen in European markets over the next several years and making the right investments based on those predictions.
So by the 18 twenties, the Rothschilds were the wealthiest family in Europe and they continued to be hugely influential within the world of international finance throughout 19th century. The 5 brothers were given the title of Baron by the emperor of Austria, which is why you often see the German Vaughn or a French de before their last name. Nathan, being based outside of the continent, was one of the few that did not use the title. So let's look at the 3rd generation Rothschilds. Almost all of the males in the 3rd generation married one of their female first cousins.
This ensured that the dynasty's wealth stayed within the family. So, for example, Anselm, the firstborn son of Solomon, married his cousin Charlotte, the daughter of Nathan. He's shown in yellow because he's from the Austrian branch, and she's shown in red because she's a member of the British branch. Likewise, Lionel, the firstborn son of Nathan, married his cousin, also named Charlotte, but she was a daughter of Carl from the Italian branch. So let's look at each one of these branches in turn.
The eldest son never married. So when he died, the original Frankfurt branch was taken over by 2 of the sons of Karl from the Italian branch, these two individuals here. The middle son took over the Italian branch. But none of these individuals had heirs. So, eventually, both the Frankfurt branch and the Naples branch closed.
Let's look at the Austrian branch next. With the death of Amschel Rothschild, Austrian branch became the senior branch and the eldest son of Solomon became the most senior male in the family. By the time we get to the 4th generation, these people were born directly into extreme wealth. Therefore, some of them weren't necessarily interested in the hard work of running a major bank. They were more interested in collecting art, building mansions and pursuing their hobbies.
This was the case for the firstborn son, Nathaniel. The second son, Ferdinand, actually moved to Great Britain and eventually served as a member of Parliament there. So it was the 3rd son, named Albert, who ended up taking over the Austrian branch. He married a cousin from the French branch. From there, Albert's sons took over the business in Vienna.
On the chart, I've only shown one of these sons, but there were a few others as well. However, the fortunes of this entire branch of the family declined quickly in the 20th century due to 3 major events. First of all, Austria lost World War I, and therefore many of their debtors defaulted on their loans. 2nd, they were hit hard by the Great Depression, and in fact were one of the first banks to declare bankruptcy. 3rd, and most devastating of all, most of their assets were seized when the Nazis came to power.
In fact, one of the brothers, Louis de Rothschild, who I've shown here, was captured by the Nazis and ransomed for $21,000,000 That's almost 350,000,000 in today's dollars, perhaps the largest ransom ever paid. The last male member of the Austrian branch died in 1970 6, which is why the British branch is currently the most senior branch today. But we're gonna skip the British branch for now and quickly look at the last two branches first. I've already mentioned that the Italian branch eventually fizzled out. They intermarried with the British branch, though, so their legacy lives on through that connection.
That leaves the French branch. That branch is the only one other than the senior British branch that still exists today. It started with James, the youngest of the 5 original brothers. He married his niece, Betty, who was the daughter of his brother Anselm. They had 4 sons, 3 of whom have male line descendants still living today.
The 3rd son, Solomon, ended up in America. The idea was that he might eventually start a branch there. But Solomon died young and an American branch never did come to exist. The youngest son, Edmund, was a big supporter of the early Zionist movement. Long before the Holocaust and decades before the British occupation of Palestine, Edmund purchased land from the Ottomans and helped fund the 1st Jewish settlement in what is today the state of Israel.
His son, James, would later bequeath the funds that went on to be used to build the Knesset building in Jerusalem, which today houses the Israeli Parliament. However, the main branch of the French family is this one here. It is currently led by David de Rothschild. In 2003, the main Rothschild company in France merged with the main Rothschild company in Britain with David being made chairman. So in terms of the actual business side of the Rothschild Empire, David, this individual here, is kind of the head of the family.
He also serves as the chairman of the World Jewish Congress, an international organization based in New York that represents Jewish diplomatic interests across the globe. Okay. I've left the British branch for last because it was the most successful. Is currently the senior branch, and it's the branch that people in the English speaking world are most familiar with. It starts with Nathan Rothschild, 3rd son of Mayer Amschel.
As I mentioned earlier, he earned a lot of money for the family's firm in the years following Napoleon's defeat. What's less known, though, is he was also involved in ending slavery in the UK, using 1,000,000 of dollars to help buy and free slaves. Nathan had 4 sons. 2 of them were engaged in politics as well as finance and served as members of parliament. Initially, Lionel was elected but unable to sit in parliament because he was a Jew.
However, laws were changed, and in 1958, he became the 1st Jew to actually sit in parliament, his brother Meyer and his son Nathan joining him shortly thereafter. I'll also point out this brother here, Anthony. He was the 1st Rothschild to be granted a British hereditary title. He was made a baronet, which is slightly lower than a baron and meant that he was still a commoner, but it was an important title nonetheless. He did not have any sons, though, so his title passed to his nephew, Nathan.
Nathan was later upgraded to the title of Baron and thus became the first Rothschild to become a member of the British nobility and also the first Jew to sit in the House of Lords. Nathan, as the senior most heir of his grandfather Nathan, was also head of the British branch, like his father was before him. He was also involved in funding Cecil Rhodes, founder of Rhodesia and the De Beers Diamond Company. You'll notice here that Nathan married a cousin from the Italian branch of the family. He was followed by his son, Walter, who was the 2nd Baron Rothschild.
Like his father and grandfather, he too served as a Member of Parliament. He is mostly remembered for his association with the Balfour Declaration, which he helped to write and which was presented to him in 1917 by the British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour. It was the first official statement by the British government in support of the creation of a national homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. However, not all of the Rothschilds were Zionists. This cousin here, who also served as an MP, was actually against the creation of a Jewish state and he created the League of British Jews to oppose it.
But back to Walter. Walter had no legitimate children, so the next Baron Rothschild was his nephew, Victor. Victor was a member of Mi 5 during World War 2 and was an adviser to many British prime ministers up to and including Margaret Thatcher. Although at one point he was suspected to be a Soviet spy. He, however, was cleared of those charges.
He was followed by his son, Jacob, who is the 4th and current Baron Rothschild, currently also the most senior male member descendant of Mayer Amschel Rothschild. He has a son named Nathaniel who will one day become the 5th baron. It is Jacob's face that is often seen in the many conspiracy theory videos about the Rothschilds. Let me point out a few other interesting connections. Jacob has a half sister who is a Harvard professor and married to Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen.
He also has a half brother who married into the Guinness family yes, the family of beer and book of records fame. They had 3 children. Their son married into the Hilton family of hotel fame and is the brother-in-law of Paris Hilton. Their daughters married the Goldsmith brothers, one of whom is currently a British MP. On the business side of things, the running of the actual company established by Nathan Rothschild eventually came to be run by this branch of the family here, most recently, Evelyn Rothschild, who also served as the personal financial adviser to Queen Elizabeth.
In the 19 eighties, there was a family feud between Jacob and Evelyn that ended in Jacob leaving the original company. Later, after Evelyn retired, the British firm eventually merged with the French branch, as I mentioned earlier, and is currently being run by David de Rothschild. If you go to their website, rothschild.com, you'll notice that there are links to 2 main Rothschild companies. Rothschild and Co is that original company started by Nathan, now run by David de Rothschild. Edmond de Rothschild is a company run by a junior part of the French branch and is currently run by Benjamin de Rothschild.
You can see that the company name is named after his father. Interestingly, if you do a search on the Forbes list of billionaires, he's the only member of the Rothschild family that you will find. So that was a quick look at the Rothschild dynasty. Are they super rich? Yes.
They certainly are. Do
@Vision4theBlind - Vision4theBlind
That time Muammar Gaddafi spoke the truth about 9/11 on the Larry King Live show It's hilarious how at the end Larry has to cut to a commercial https://t.co/DM1xJFVprn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Al Qaeda is in New York and committed the 9/11 attacks. The terrorists were not from Afghanistan or Iraq, but flew from JFK Airport in New York. The speaker questions the involvement of Al Qaeda in the attacks.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How about Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda is here. Where is Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda is in New York. He committed a heinous act.
Made this heinous act? One of those aircraft No. That hit the towers? But he took credit for sending them. Yeah.
This is another another I don't think that in front of us, we have a court, sentence vis a vis Beladin or on disregard. The terrorists who hit New York are not from Afghan. They're not Afghani. They did not use the airplanes or take off from from Iraq or Afghanistan. What airplanes?
They flew from JFK Airport here in New York. The whole action was done here. What was the rank from Afghan. Oh, there. Okay.
We'll be right back.
reSee.it AI Summary
The post discusses the complexities surrounding the Iraqi War, initiated in 2003 by a coalition led by the United States against Saddam Hussein. It highlights the myriad factors contributing to the conflict, including military planning, international sanctions, and administrative errors. The aftermath resulted in a destabilized Iraq, with significant loss of life and the emergence of a corrupt regime that has struggled to ensure security and prosperity for its citizens. The source of the information is noted to have a leftist perspective.
@ElizabethPDove - Madam Punisher 🔥
The Iraqi War George Bush, imaginary WMDs, an endless war— No one really knows what went wrong in Iraq... and who really is to blame. In 2003, a small coalition of countries led by the United States invaded Iraq. The current ruler of that country was Saddam Hussein. While this video doesn't go into the lies we were told about him, it does explain some of the the decades that led up to what went wrong. From military planning to international sanctions, political purges and serious administrative blunders, the answer emerges. The result was a destabilized country which left hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and gave birth to a corrupt and unstable regime that has failed to provide Iraqi citizens with security or prosperity. NOTE: This video does come from the leftist liberal democracy perspective. Discretion is advised. As always, take the meat and leave the bone. https://youtu.be/-cjriLK-y14
Video Transcript AI Summary
In the 1970s, William Dupuy revised US military doctrine, adding an operational level focused on rapid campaign success. This doctrine, combined with post-Gulf War sanctions against Iraq, significantly weakened the Iraqi state. Initially meant to ensure compliance, under Bill Clinton, the sanctions shifted to regime change, devastating Iraq's economy and transforming the state into a hub of corruption.
In 2003, the US military, guided by Dupuy's doctrine, swiftly dismantled Saddam's regime. Paul Bremer then purged Ba'ath Party members and dissolved the Iraqi army, ignoring warnings that this would destabilize the country. These actions created a security vacuum, leading to widespread violence and the rise of militias. Despite a temporary reduction in violence due to the surge, the underlying issues of a weak state persisted, contributing to the later rise of ISIS and ongoing instability. The convergence of these policies dismantled the Iraqi state, hindering any transition to democracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You've probably heard a lot about Iraq. A lot about George Bush, Dick Cheney, oil, weapons of mass destruction, and if you watch Johnny Harris, you may even know about Paul Wolfowitz. But our story has a different cast. 3 men you didn't know ruined Iraq. 1, Bill Clinton, you know well, but probably don't think of much when it comes to Iraq.
Another, Paul Bremer, you may be more familiar with than you realize. And the last, William Dupuy, you've probably never even heard of. This isn't an exhaustive story of everything that went wrong in Iraq partly because that would take, well, a much longer video. But it is a critically important part that stretches back to the 19 seventies. This is the story of how an idealistic project of nation building gave way to widespread violence, rampant poverty, and persistent political instability.
How an attempt to install humane government brought about some of the most profound human suffering since World War 2. It's the story of why democracy failed in Iraq, but it's a different story than the ones you've heard before. It begins with military doctrine, sometimes technical and dense subject, but it's really, really crucial to understanding the Iraq War, and we're gonna make it easy. In the 19 seventies, the US military was in shambles. Somehow, the power that had won the 2nd World War and remade global politics had been beaten badly by Vietnamese guerrilla forces.
One officer had an idea why everything had gone so poorly. His name was William Dupuis, and he was tasked with a groundbreaking responsibility, revising American military doctrine. By 1973, Dupuis was watching intently as the Israeli army achieved a remarkably rapid victory in the Yom Kippur War and knew that there was something worth learning from. What he saw was that the traditional two levels of war were defunct, strategy, the broader objectives of a war and means of achieving them, and tactics, how to win individual engagements, no longer captured the realities of modern war as militaries developed increasingly powerful weapons with ever greater range. Soon, Dupuis' observations would give rise to the conception of a new intermediate level of war, operations, concerned with rapid military campaign success.
In the 19 nineties, Saddam got his first taste of this new military doctrine in the first gulf war as America and its allies pushed Iraqi forces out of Kuwait in a matter of days. But when it came to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the doctrine proved almost too effective. While the coalition had a politically complex strategic objective, regime change in Iraq, America, haunted by the ghost of Vietnam, became obsessed with the operational goal, destroying Iraq's war fighting capabilities and doing so quickly. In a matter of weeks, American forces delivered tens of thousands of bombs. Any semblance of an Iraqi state melted away in the face of the onslaught.
While breaking the Iraqi regime made for a quick military victory, it set the stage for a devastating political defeat that would soon become clear. But it wasn't just shiny new military doctrine that shattered the Iraqi state, and crucially, the offensive began well before 2003. After the 1st Gulf War, the United Nations voted to implement a massive sanctions package against Iraq, the largest ever of its kind. Side note, China and the Soviet Union voted with the US for this proposal. Can you imagine that today?
Yeah. History was super ended, but also, yes, Saddam was that bad. Anyways, under President George H. W. Bush, the US largely adhered to the UN sanctions goal, compliance.
Getting Saddam to comply with conditions and dismantle a number of Iraqi weapons programs. But when Bill Clinton beat Bush in the 1992 elections, the purpose of the sanctions changed. Even after Iraq's weapons programs had largely been dismantled, compliance basically achieved, Clinton continued to press the sanctions to devastating effect on the Iraqi state. Barred from exporting its only major product, oil, Iraq's economy collapsed. Compliance was no longer the goal.
In the words of Madeleine Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, quote, we're talking about regime change. And thanks to the sanctions, the regime was changing, but not in the way Albright seemed to mean. Until recently, Iraq had been a top down style autocracy, but the embargoes and economic collapse transformed it into a web of clientelistic patronage and corruption. As state capacity dwindled, its regular functions transformed into black market transactions. In a word, the Iraqi state was diminished, a shadow of its former self.
Decreasing Saddam Hussein's maniacal hold on power is cause for celebration, but the collapse of a state hurts far more than the strong man. Following reports that excess deaths from starvation and illness increased dramatically in the 19 nineties, with perhaps 100 of thousands of children dying as the public health sector proved unable to cope, Albright replied We think the price is worth it. By 2003, this enfeebled Iraqi state stood less of a chance than ever against deque's lightning military doctrine. Saddam's regime crumpled. That kind of thing makes winning a war easy, but the part after It's it's difficult.
Difficult. Lemon difficult. In the resulting security vacuum, violence and looting spread like wildfire, leaving Iraqi civilians terrified and vulnerable. The coalition had to bring order, so they brought in Jay Garner. Garner, a career military man with degrees from Florida State and Shippensburg State Universities, saw his mandate as limited.
Stop the violence, punish Saddam's top thugs, hold elections, and leave. In his own words, quote, what we need to do is set an Iraqi government that represents the freely elected will of the people. It's their country, their oil. But soon, Garner was out. Taking his place at the head of the coalition's provisional government was Louis Paul Bremmer the 3rd.
Ladies and gentlemen This guy. We got him. Bremmer, a graduate of Phillips Andover Academy, Yale, and Harvard, whose father was president of Christian Dior perfumes, cut a stark contrast with Garner, and he had an equally different vision of what Iraq needed. He was appointed on May 11th 2,003. By 16th, he issued his first decree, a political purge.
Any and all members of Saddam's political party, fully 10% of Iraq's population, were fired and banned from public employment. Despite Garner's warning that it would cripple the state and the CIA Baghdad station chiefs that it would put, quote, 50,000 people on the street, underground, and mad at Americans. Shortly thereafter, Bremmer met with President Bush to request permission to expand his purge. He wanted to dissolve the Iraqi army. Despite this contradicting the original Pentagon plan for Iraq, Bush told Bremmer it was his call.
Again, Bremer was warned by Garner who said, quote, you can get rid of an army in a day, but it takes years to build one. On May 23rd, less than 2 weeks in Iraq, Bremer followed through with the second degree of his term. With the stroke of a pen, he rendered 400,000 men, either young and healthy or old and respected, but all trained in violence and many armed out of a job. Soon, militias blossomed, and violence flourished. By 2007, after 4 years of widespread chaos and horror across Iraq, the Bush administration finally decided it was time for something to change.
It was time for the surge To establish a garrison of comparable size to America's other most recent state building effort in Bosnia would have required half a 1000000 soldiers in Iraq. The surge brought 170,000. Still below optimal, but violence did drop precipitously as once menacing militias were squashed. At last, Iraq was safe. By 2011, it looked like mission accomplished, and American forces made their much delayed departure.
But the surge and the American military more broadly were a band aid. A veneer of stability pasted over what remained, thanks to Bill Clinton's sanctions, William DuPuy's visionary military doctrine, and Paul Bremer's bumbling ineptitude, a shambolic barely existent Iraqi state. Within just a few years of America's departure, ISIS sprung to life in Iraq. The Iraqi military response was an unmitigated disaster. Tens of thousands of Iraqi troops turned out to be ghost soldiers.
Names on army payrolls and nothing more. Where such non existent soldiers' paychecks went isn't exactly clear, but it was a profound symbol of the state's impotence and corruption. Soon enough, America was back to do what Iraq, thanks to America, couldn't. But it isn't just the Iraqi military that's in shambles. Iraq to this day is wracked by clientelism, corruption, economic cartels, and a widespread sense that political competition is empty and pointless, not least because those who are elected are either powerless or paid off.
Iraq couldn't, can't provide security because Iraq lacks a competent state, or the other way around. Whatever their virtues as individuals, however right headed Bremer's convictions, however justifiable Clinton sanctions, and however ifiable Clinton sanctions, and however effective DuPuy's reforms, they all combined to achieve just one thing, the dismantling of the Iraqi state. And one simple truth remains that if you want to transition a state to democracy, a state must first exist. These men, whatever their intentions, were architects of chaos, and chaos is no fertile seed bed for any ordered politics, let alone democracy. Thank you so much for watching.
Our work is made possible by viewers like you and our members on Patreon. If you'd like to support us, please subscribe, share, comment, and check out our Patreon for exclusive benefits.
@ElizabethPDove - Madam Punisher 🔥
The Iraq War Wasn't About Oil This video is a little dry... until you get towards the end and then it becomes really interesting. Shadow national security councils... Israel's involvement... every report said there was no WMDs in Iraq... We were lied to. The noticing will keep happening... https://youtu.be/zeloY3bVBtc
@RedpillDrifter - Redpill Drifter
CNN GULF WAR NEWSCAST 1990 CRISIS ACTORS, FAKE NEWS, AND FALSE FLAGS Classic footage of CNN faking a Gulf War news broadcast. You may have seen this before but I am certain many of you haven't. If you think they stopped doing this then you haven't been paying attention. https://t.co/ScDtQOVY9n
Video Transcript AI Summary
Sirens went off in Saudi Arabia approximately two hours prior, with an intercept occurring near Riyadh. While there were no issues in Eastern Saudi Arabia, two Scud missiles were reportedly fired at Riyadh and shot down by the Saudi military.
It was noted that this attack occurred in the early morning, which was unexpected. There were reports of outgoing Patriot missiles and air bursts, but it was unclear what was hit. Military regulations restrict what can be shown on television.
Reporters saw vapor trails and a cloud, possibly from an explosion. While there were concerns about gas, it was determined that a dizzy spell was likely due to missile propellant. There is no hard evidence that anything was hit, and there has been no evidence of chemical warheads being used. People have been taking orderly precautions and evacuating to shelters.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now again, as we said, we're not sure what caused this. It could possibly, and we emphasize possibly, have been a ground impact of a scud. It could have been a ground impact of a patriot, or it could have been the result of debris falling between the two of them. We just don't know right now, but we do know that at least two Scud missiles incoming were fired at Riyadh, and according to the Saudi military, they were both shot down. Charles Jayco, CNN reporting live from Saudi Arabia.
Was almost exactly two hours ago when the sirens went off here in Saudi Arabia. Where we are in Eastern Saudi Arabia, there was no problem. However, there was an intercept elsewhere near the capital city, Riyadh. We've got some videotape of that you can take a look at right now. Hi, Atlanta.
We're about to have a short course in missile identification. This is a Scud. You can tell it by its distinctive label. Now when the missile is launched, the first thing you look for is the plume sticking out behind it. Now when you detect this, you can tell it's been launched.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Graffiti on it? Yeah. Show me graffiti. Larry King, show her bust. Look at this.
Look at look at this.
Speaker 2: Look at
Speaker 0: this shit. Look at
Speaker 2: believe that. You
Speaker 0: want me to say? The top 10 things about Saudi Arabia. Maybe we could turn the list to five.
Speaker 2: Oh god. Geopolitics by Dan Quail.
Speaker 0: Oh, I love this country so much.
Speaker 2: You guys just don't have a clue. Well,
Speaker 0: Cheryl, it was almost exactly two hours ago when the sirens went off here in Saudi Arabia. Where we are in Eastern Saudi Arabia, there was no problem. Let me just size my mask and fit it for a second just like I always do. Stand by. Alright.
Speaker 2: I'll be here.
Speaker 0: All clear. They're what are they saying? Are they saying all clear?
Speaker 2: Yes, ma'am. I can
Speaker 0: hear you. Were they saying all clear down there just now? I did not. I didn't hear it. I started staying at night.
Okay. All clear. All clear at was a false alarm. Got that, Atlanta? Standing down now.
I'm I'm gonna go get my hamburger and my coffee. Good. We just got the all clear now. All clear. Every time I order something, this happens.
All clear. Thank you. Yeah. Jesus Christ. I'm starting to get real bothered by all this.
You ready? Boy, did I almost look stupid. Charles Jacob, CNN reporting live from Saudi Arabia. No. Wait a minute.
Woah. Hold it, homeboy. I'm the talent here. You dig. Couple of explosions, what may have been an outgoing Patriot ground to air missile, some reported air burst that may may have been an intercept of an incoming scud missile.
We're really not sure. All we know is that the air raid sirens have gone off, and we've heard the outgoing roar of at least one Patriot missile. We've heard some sort of air burst. We can't tell where it was from where we are right now. We're waiting to see what's happening.
As you can hear, the air raid sirens are still going off around us. People are strangely enough used to it. This is the first one of these attacks that's taking place early in the morning, but we cannot show you anything other than what we've got now. What do you see there? Is that a missile going out?
You know? We're not we're not quite sure. We can't show you anything else than what we're seeing right now because of military regulations. We're only allowed to show you where the missiles might be going, what direction they might be flying in, where the Ubers might be taking place. There's obviously something going on.
We heard another dull roar that shook things a little bit, and we're waiting to see what else is going on. Right now, that's about all we know, that something is happening. We're getting cops and things shaking, but people are staying relatively relatively calm around here. People evacuated in an orderly way to the shelters, but apparently, is something going on. The Patriot missiles were assuming their Patriots have gone outbound, and we've heard some explosions.
And that's that's about it for for right now. We'll get back to you when we know something else. Something is happening here, and we're watching and scanning the skies for something else coming in. But right now, we can't see much of anything. And frankly, this is what we can show you on television right now because of military restrictions from both the Saudis and The US.
Speaker 1: CD, if you need to take cover, I noticed that you've got your gas mask in your hands. You need to put it on, please do so.
Speaker 0: If you
Speaker 1: need to take cover, please do so. If are able to take a question, did you think that the possible threat would be over because it is now morning there? It's what? Just after 06:00 in the morning?
Speaker 0: The yeah. The whole thing is everyone assumed that the threat would be over because it was early morning. But the thing about Saddam Hussein is that he has never done the expected, and right now, we have, you know, once again been surprised with the unexpected, an air raid of an apparent attack, although we can't say what the outgoing missiles hit at approximately twenty after seven in the morning Saudi Arabian time. All the other attacks have occurred from 10:00 at night till four three, four in the morning. This is the first one to take place in Eastern Saudi Arabia during the daylight hours.
Now that sound you hear behind me is the hotel. What would you think? It's not the national by afternoon. So people are looking up in the skies, scanning the skies to see what they can see. Do we see much of anything out there?
Can we can we see much of anything? Okay. Well, apparently, there was there was, yeah, there was some word of outgoing. Again, there we cannot be specific about the direction. Alright.
We are now led to understand that there are also firings in another city in Saudi Arabia. CNN's Carl Rochelle is is here with me. He just came up. Carl, I know we can't be very specific given these restrictions, but within those parameters, what did you see? Well, what I saw, I didn't see anything hit.
Speaker 2: I looked very almost straight above us,
Speaker 0: and there's a vapour trail coming
Speaker 2: from my right to my left, and there's a cloud of, something. It looks
Speaker 0: like it might have been an explosion, a cloud,
Speaker 2: apologies. He's putting on a gas mask. There hasn't been any gas dropped here, but we could tell.
Speaker 0: Do you smell it, Frank? No. No.
Speaker 2: You probably you may smell some of the fumes from a a missile exhaust going off, And this was usually a rocket of quartite, some sort of burning. And we just heard a
Speaker 0: little little funk just then. But I actually apologize for that. I I thought I'd listen something. It's all momentarily dizzy or more experienced military affairs than I am, but it might have been a little gas from the from the rocket exhaust. It certainly wasn't anything.
A lot of people had the respirators in
Speaker 2: this case. And again, you you run to get down here. You, in my case, jumped out of bed here in the air a morning to on.
Speaker 0: You run down three flights of stairs to get out of here.
Speaker 2: It's probably a 100 yards. You hike a little bit, and you're nervous. One thing one thing
Speaker 0: we have to point out just so people won't think people are panicking. Most people are in their shelters. They've taken cover in their shelters. And in the time we've been in Saudi Arabia, I've not seen any evidence of panic in the streets or people running around pulling up people. We're not exactly taking this of course, but there's been no wholesale panic or anything.
People are are taking orderly precautions to deal with the circus for a
Speaker 2: little bit. Okay. I again, everything seems to
Speaker 0: be quite what I saw. When I walked down, when
Speaker 2: I came running down, someone had said there is a hit upstairs over our heads, right straight above above us.
Speaker 0: And I looked up, and you could see a paper trail, a contrail that's made by an aircraft in a rocket at high altitude. And there was a round puff of smoke that indicated something happened at that point. A lot of smoke, it could be a hit from one of
Speaker 2: the taking down a strut missile inbound or taking down an aircraft for that matter. But right now, where we are, we have absolutely seen nothing happen. A little boom one time, a small boom could have been the sound traveling from high on. That's not actually confirming that anything happened. We don't know that there is a hit or anything.
We're just telling you what we think and what we see at this point. The air raid sirens are running. The air raid is going on. Could very well be has happened, but we're all safe idea. The reason I'm wearing your helmet is because it's easier and safer to put it on your head than it is to carry it around your hand.
If you're just trying to be prudent, CD is he is carrying his gas mask with him. I have mine strapped on to my side. You'll get some indication that there is gas, and one of the indications that there has been gas. With an explosion pretty close to you, there has to be a way to deliver it. As far as we know, they, they have not yet delivered any in a, in a rocket vehicle, in a skut type vehicle down to this area or anywhere else.
Could happen, but there should be plenty of warning on that.
Speaker 0: Yeah, Carl. And again, I have to apologize for the audience for yelling gas and putting the gas mask on. But what happened is Carl explained that sometimes when the propellant goes off, I believe that's what it would be to get this whiff of something. I felt momentarily choked up and dizzy and thought, well, better safe than sorry. And it turned out that was not the case.
But again, that could have just been the propellant from the outgoing missile. We have seen streaks outgoing. We heard there a bang. But as Carl said, there's no hard evidence that anything was hit. We know what we saw, but we can't speculate about what
Speaker 2: was in it or what
Speaker 0: it was. And so far, there's been no evidence that the Iraqis have been able to use chemical warheads in in any of these studs. I'm I'm really concerned about chemicals. It's certainly well taken here. I've been
Speaker 2: through at least three or three or
Speaker 1: five Gentlemen. Both the
Speaker 0: American military and military members. Gentlemen. Wanna call in. I'd like yes.
Speaker 1: Yes. Excuse me for breaking in. Charles Jayco
@xumas_iq - Xumas
America wanted to humiliate Saddam Hussein with a televised trial, instead he humiliated them https://t.co/r96eydlm0m
@iluminatibot - illuminatibot
In 1990 @CNN staged fake stories during the Gulf War. https://t.co/avgaiGZdSb
Video Transcript AI Summary
Explosions were heard, possibly from a Patriot missile intercepting an incoming Scud missile. Air raid sirens are active, and there’s a sense of familiarity among people despite the early morning attack. Military regulations prevent showing specific missile locations. Observations include a vapor trail and a cloud suggesting an explosion. There are reports of firings in another Saudi city. The situation is tense, but an all-clear signal was given. Humor is briefly injected into the commentary, reflecting on the absurdity of the situation while maintaining a focus on safety. The reporter expresses relief at the all-clear but acknowledges the ongoing stress of the situation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Couple of explosions, what may have been, an outgoing Patriot, ground to air missile, some reported air burst that may may have been an intercept of an incoming Scud missile. We're really not sure. All we know is that the, air rate sirens have gone off, and we've heard the, outgoing roar of at least, 1 Patriot missile. We've heard some sort of airburst. We can't tell where it was from where we are right now.
We're waiting to see what's happening. As you can hear, the air raid sirens are still going off around us. People are, strangely enough, used to it. This is the first one of these attacks that's taking place early in the morning, but they're, That's our we're not showing you anything other than what we've got. Now what do you see there?
Is that a missile going out? You know? We're not we're not quite sure. We can't show you anything else than what we're seeing right now, because of military regulations. We are not allowed to show you, where the missiles might be going.
Well, I understand you're saying something else, coming in. But, right now, we, can't, see much of anything. And frankly, this is what we can show you on television right now because of military restrictions from both the, Saudis and, the US.
Speaker 1: CD, if you need to take cover, I notice, that you've got your gas mask in your hands. If you need to put it on, please do so. If you need to take cover, please do so. If you are able if you
Speaker 0: are Alright. We are now at the center. That there are also firings in another city in Saudi Arabia. CNN's Carl Rochelle is is here with me. Just came up.
Carl, I know we can't be very specific given these restrictions, but, within those parameters, what did you see? Well, what I said, I didn't see anything hit. I looked very almost say above us, and there's a vapor trail coming from my right to my left, and there's a cloud of, something. It looks like it might have been an explosion of cloud, a a white. Charles Jaco, CNN reporting live from Saudi Arabia.
Look at this. Look at look. Look at this. Look at this shit. Look at Can you believe that?
It's not bad. Let me say that. The top ten things about Saudi Arabia. Maybe we could turn the list to 5. Oh, god.
Geopolitics by Dan Quayle. Oh, I love this country so much. Hey, guys. Standing down now. I'm gonna I'm gonna go get my hamburger and my coffee.
Good. We just got the all clear. All clear. Every time I order something, this happens. All clear.
Thank you. Yeah. Peace. Christ. I'm starting to get real bothered by all this.
Boy, did I almost look stupid. Charles Jacos, CNN reporting live from Saudi Arabia. No. Wait a minute. Woah.
Hold it, homeboy. I'm the talent here. You dig.
@MYLUNCHBREAK_ - MY LUNCH BREAK
Today... we expose Iraq. Massive Tunnel Systems. and possibly other Motives for going into Iraq. Enjoy. https://t.co/0VNmAJSSx8
Video Transcript AI Summary
We've located thousands of miles of tunnel systems worldwide, as highlighted in past episodes. An old article mentions tunnel networks beneath Iraq, linking palaces, built without lights—challenging mainstream history. US officials, including Rumsfeld, acknowledged these underground systems. The US also has its own networks, masked as catacombs or utility tunnels.
I believe the Iraq War was about accessing the technology and information stored in these tunnels. These tunnel systems have multiple levels. It's crucial to expose these old-world tunnels now, before they become normalized, like the ones being built today.
Recent reports show Hamas' Gaza tunnels stretching hundreds of miles, likely going deeper than we're told. These catacombs may explain disappearances. Tunnels connect schools, hospitals, and places of worship worldwide. They cross borders. A US-Mexico tunnel was found with advanced features. These tunnels predate our civilization.
The Griffin is linked to gold deposits of Central Asia/Tartaria. Old maps depict griffins in North America and strange creatures in Antarctica, indicating a hidden history.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Within the first eighty four episodes, we have located thousands of miles of tunnel systems all over the world. And today, we find an article written twenty one years ago stating that the rumored existence of huge networks of tunnels are located beneath Iraq, where it stretches for miles, linking palaces, where we are told that there are no lights, just like we've talked about in episode 84, constructing 18 levels underground in the dark, centuries before the invention of a light bulb, 100% challenges the mainstream historical narrative. Understanding that no human could ever construct a massive network of tunnels in the dark, we have found something massive. It seems like there may have been a much different reason for going over to Iraq than what we've all been told. Where mister Rumsfeld, at the time, The US Defense Secretary said, they've got enormous miles and miles and miles of underground tunneling.
Continuing on to say, I don't know how inspectors on the surface of the earth can even know what's going on in the underground facilities. Now we know that The United States has massive tunnel systems all over its major cities. We have found this right here on this channel. We know that they knew about this at least a hundred and fifty years ago when they introduced these tunnels into our mainstream narrative, narrative, naming some of them catacombs, saying others were constructed for phone cables by the Illinois or Chicago Tunnel Company. So if they knew that The United States held old world tunnel systems, they had to have known that these were all over the world.
I personally think that they wanted to go to Iraq to see what technology, what information was being stored in their tunnel systems. I think that they probably found things in their own tunnel systems in The USA and fully mapped them out, blocking them off from the public. And now they wanted access to possibly one of the most important historical locations in the world. I think this may have been what 02/2001 was truly all about. Where the article continues on to say, we believe now that it is more than 100 kilometers or 62 miles, which is very interesting when we look back at Chicago, when we were told that it was thousands of miles of tunnels.
And then later on, they tell us that it's only 60 miles. So, basically, hiding the rest of the tunnel systems from us. A very clear pattern. A hundred kilometers of very complex network, multilayered tunnels. What we are seeing now that all of these tunnel systems are not just one layer.
They are all multiple levels, where according to Patrick, few people have seen the tunnels. Now I wanna explain something. This is an important time for us to show these old world tunnel systems to everybody in the world because they are in the middle of normalizing tunnels, which would completely saturate the entire topic. At the moment, we are not used to the tunnels being underneath all of our major cities. But after The Boring Company or whoever else starts digging under our cities again, these tunnels from the old world are not going to be shocking anymore.
It will be normal where we know that it is not normal to have multiple layered tunnel systems from the old world. And in ten to fifteen years, I don't believe we will ever be able to go back to this point again. We have shown the caves in India, and then you can piece together Afghanistan as well, where this whole war was all about finding a guy in the caves, most likely destroying the old world caves in Afghanistan and the tunnels, artifacts, and the rest that we have shown in episode 84 where the article closes out saying, after encountering the caves used by this group, which we can all read, and this group in Afghanistan, and the rumors of tunnels in Iraq, The US Military took steps to ready their troops, going on to say a site including miles of old mining caves in the Desert Of Southern California was turned into a tunnel warfare center in 02/2001. Miles of old mining caves in Southern California. Are we sure that these were not found before the mining took place?
When they say gold rush, was this not a rush to find all of the old world technology, all of the old world gold? Before this research, I thought what we saw on the ground was basically all that there was to this place that we live. I had no idea that there were thousands of miles of underground structures in Chicago alone. I had no idea that every single city had tunnel systems connecting palaces. I had no idea that the history told us that humans built underground tunnel networks reaching 18 levels underground in the dark with a shovel.
And we have been told that that's easy. It's absolute nonsense, and we are just getting started. Welcome to episode 85 of my lunch break. I hope you're all having a great day. And if you're new, welcome.
And I wanna thank all of our sponsors over on Patreon. Thank you to flatearthDave.com. You can check out his app, the flat earth sun, moon, and zodiac app. I'll put the link right in the description, and you can use my referral code MLB. If you click the Tartaria button, you'll see the my lunch break playlist right here.
The app is awesome. Thank you to Rebecca Kay, Don Gaston, Christopher Arietta, the Lady Lacey Show, David and Sherry Ferguson, Edwin Johnson, Chuck Templeton, Joy Lee, Stephanie Nolan, the Burlesons, Suess KC, Dan Woodall, Dale, DJ Click Track, Edward Imbriana, Jacob Law, Jim Ribley and Christine Duggan, Kyle Glascock, PKTF news dot org, Regna Saturna, Dendry Zen Juana Measure, Sirius Feline, G Power, Natalie Shippenoff, Amberson EMC, HK Sue, Isaac Wright, Melissa Edgar, Biggles, Clayton Lamar, Ultimus Maximus, Noble Task Homestead, John Adams, EZ and Whitney, Robert Sozolins, Crypto Schizo, Rick Tapke, Jesse De Leon, Blake, Billy Prater, Magnus, Baraplegic Coffee, The Phoenix Art, Jetsky Chuck, The Arnolds, three d six dot space, Attila Power, VKH Bonner, Bell's Clarions For God, Forbidden Gecko Love, Justin Grobner Grubb, Leah Strong, Peter Bitani, Dakota Dunn, Eric Martinez, Ivan Apocaly, Jim Bro, Edwin Rice, Helmut, Charles Krueger, Glenn Gunderson, Egger t shirts dot com, Meta, Jason Hockburn, Marie c, Valley Medicinals dot com. Kyle Logan. Alina and Chris, the IT guy. Ron Mower.
David and Irene. Michael Dingyu, Patriot Armory. Tom O'Hara. Wayne t. Michael D.
Connor. William Royal. C three s c o b, Ancient Tallow, Jeffrey Temple, Lil Miss, Sonya Dane dot com, Thad Luwap, James Oliver, Baksui, Big Pasty, Jason Prest, The Golden Teacher dot co, Papa One, Suki Warrior, We The People, Migs, The Bobo, Cote C, miss Rex's Murphy, John Adams as Baldwy, Mark Chapman, Muji and Declan, Ariana Oates, Jenica Joyce, Nathan Berba, Ski, Joey k, Ko Drenth, Frizztickle, MouseyMouse Cheese Records, The Sovereign, DeBrais, Charlie, Kimberly Bruce, Natasha c, Kay Moore, Dan McGee, Vince Moreno, Shiva Shaba in the darkness. You guys are all awesome and helping this channel out a lot. Let's go to a much more recent article.
January 2024, where the Times of Israel reports that senior Israel defense officials now assess that Hamas' Gaza tunnel network is between three hundred and fifty and four hundred and fifty miles long, far longer than previously believed. And I wanna remind you all that this is what is being exposed to all of us. I believe that this tunnel network goes down multiple levels just like we have shown and extends much further than 450 miles. And what we see on the ground is nothing compared to what is going on under our feet. And then you wonder where the missing individuals go, where I think we know now.
These catacombs could for sure just be all of us. Years and years of being taken. And once that section of the tunnel fills up in their geometric shapes, they just move on to the next section. And then they open it up for ticket sales like we have shown. It can't get any clearer, if I'm being honest.
Now with all the technology that these governments have, you would think that they would be able to do some ground penetrating radar and see how extensive these tunnel systems are without ever even going there. I believe this is all nonsense, that they are just finding new tunnels now, where the estimate reported by the New York Times is markedly higher than the Israel Defense Forces assessment. They say there was 250 miles of Hamas tunnels last month. And this month, it's 450 miles long. So in three years, what do you think it's gonna be?
These tunnels are massive, and they go many floors down, connecting over the world. If the public can own ground penetrating radar, the governments can probably see a thousand feet under the dirt, if we're just being honest. Could you imagine with the technology that we have today, they still have to send a dog in there to sniff it out? Come on. Two Israel defense officials who spoke anonymously said there were roughly 5,700 tunnels.
This is just incredible information. Understanding that these tunnels aren't a single level. Understanding that they go down so many floors underneath our feet and are all interconnected. This is unbelievable. In every single situation, we see this.
Some people have been taken into these tunnels and, of course, didn't make it, where Israeli forces have worked to destroy the tunnels. Again, my guess, after everything that we have seen, is that so many have been taken into these tunnels and have never come out again. Where the tunnels connect below an area of the school. So we can see this is just a very dark subject in today's time. Well, I'm gonna try my best and lob this out there for anyone that is not understanding what I'm trying to say.
According to the Child Crime Prevention and Safety Center, every forty seconds, someone 18 goes missing or is abducted. In The US alone, approximately eight hundred and forty thousand go missing each year, and the FBI states that between eighty five and ninety percent of them are not adults. So where do they all go? Information is very important. A triangle system, finding tunnels below the schools, below hospitals, below the place of worship, where we know that this is not singled out to one city.
This is all over the world. There is not a single thing that I have shared today that you couldn't go and find yourself. These things are all available to the public. Putting the pieces together is what we are doing here. And in order to do that, it takes time and a team, and this is where you all come in.
All of our Patreons, all of our badge members, and every single subscriber, and everybody who likes the videos. Because of all of you, we are growing to a bigger and bigger audience every single week. Our equipment has improved. Our team has gotten bigger, and we're not even to a hundred episodes yet. We're just getting started, and we've already mapped out what is on the surface and 18 levels below it.
Can you even imagine what we will find as we continue to grow? We are also over on X, Instagram, TikTok, Spotify, and, of course, Rumble, where I still think that when we reach a hundred thousand subscribers over there, we should try to do another one hour special like we did in episode 77. If we get enough positive feedback about that in the comment section, we can definitely try to make that happen. Now do you really think that these tunnels are stopping at borders? Do you think they get to the border and say, okay, guys.
We hit the border between Mexico and The USA. This is where we have to stop digging. Do you think that that imaginary line is stopping anybody a hundred feet below the surface? Who is even keeping track of where they are on the land layout a hundred feet below the surface? In my opinion, tunnels are 100%, without a doubt, crossing over imaginary borders, not just in The USA, Canada, or Mexico, but all over the world.
And this has been going on for years, and they are all aware of this. They know that tunnels exist and are openly sharing this information with all of us. So do you think that these tunnels in these cities are just stopping there? Of course not. It's all so interesting and shows how in-depth this place that we all live really is and always has been.
Again, we know that these tunnels are not just hallways. They are not a single level. An article written by BBC in 2020 where US Officials say, they have discovered the longest tunnel ever found on the border with Mexico, where this tunnel stretched 1,313 miles. The tunnel, of course, had a lift, rail tracks, where I'm sure the Chicago Tunnel Company had to get back into business and was hard at work. They had a drainage and air ventilation system and high voltage electrical cables.
Again, in my opinion, these tunnels have been here for a very long time. I don't believe that our civilization are the sole creators of these networks of tunnels. Surely, we have added to them. But I believe that this land layout that we all live on is filled with old world tunnel systems that connect all of the old buildings exactly like we were told in episode 80.
Speaker 1: My dad is the night supervisor of Marshall Fields. Maybe they have an opening. And they did. And they did. There's water in the Pittsfield Building and Marshall Fields and the City Hall and this place and that place.
And we don't know where it's coming from. And I thought, I know. I know. All those places had one thing in common. All other buildings, all older buildings, all older buildings, all older buildings that were connected to the freight tunnels still.
Speaker 0: And they have been here all along from the previous civilization. They found these so called smuggling tunnels, yet they found no drugs, and nobody was arrested. How can you call it a smuggling tunnel if you don't find any drugs and nobody was arrested? It doesn't make any sense. So are we sure these are smuggling tunnels, or are these old world tunnels that have gotten some cables installed?
And then authorities, of course, did not say who they thought was behind the creation of the tunnels. They don't seem to know much about it, where it was not clear how long it took to build it. This tunnel has an average depth of 70 feet below the surface, and this is what we are told. Now we have a bonus today. Switching gears here.
We are told about the Griffin. We know how it's connected to Russia, Asia, and, of course, Tartaria. And this gets interesting where the Griffin and Aramaspians were associated with gold deposits of Central Asia where Tartaria was located. Now this group were a legendary tribe of one eyed people. Again, going back to the gold rush that we were all told about going to California, where all tales of their struggles with the gold guarding griffins.
Griffins guarding the gold. So is this the reason that Tartaria and Griffins are not taught to us today considering the possibility of a season that is little where the Griffin is considered a protector from evil, witchcraft, and secret slander? Where that seems like the time period we're currently in. Clearly, a creature that was here shown at the Saint Mark's Basilica, another one at the Ripen Cathedral in England, and, of course, a photo from 02/2007, a Griffin statue in the front court of a cemetery located in Budapest. The Royal Air Force Police badge in The United Kingdom, a Griffin right here in the middle, and a map where we are told from 1587, Urbana Monty's map, a map that has some strange creatures, massive birds carrying elephants in South America, a map that depicts South America connected to Antarctica, where we know something massive is there now.
And a griffin depicted right here in North America, modern day Canada, and another one right here with so many different types of creatures located in Antarctica. And there is so much written on each one of these triangles. If anybody can read these and let me know what they say, that would be incredible. You have The USA right here with La Florida, Canada, Gulf Of Mexico. This map is incredibly detailed with an interesting section right here where you have a guy coming out of the water and something else going on here right above Brazil.
There are only three surviving copies of this world map today. They are located at Stanford University and have been recently digitized. This is, by the way, a 10 foot map. It was originally 60 separated sheets and have now been put together to make one photo. Now it is interesting to note, This is a map of the Earth on a flat map.
It is not a ball. It shows the Earth circling around the North Pole with every direction away from the central point, the North Pole, being south. There's a magnetic pole in the North where this map was created to serve not only as a geographical tool, but also show climate, customs, length of day, distances within regions where the whole map could be stuck on a central point, the North Pole, and then revolve around this central pivot point where it, of course, had cities all over it in red and, of course, massive palace like structures. And then flipping to the next page, we have this, a diagram showing the detailed length of days and nights during the different months of the year, eclipses of the sun on the next page, and even a chart showing wind directions throughout the year. These maps are so interesting.
I could honestly look at them all day, and I'm gonna end this episode right here. I hope you all have a great rest of your day. We'll be back next Saturday as always, 04:30PM eastern time. See you.
@SuppressedNws - Suppressed News.
I still remember this footage, the first time I saw it I was a young child. 22 years ago, the U.S. was “spreading democracy, freeing Iraq, and protecting the world from grave danger”—invading Baghdad under the pretext of the WMD lie. https://t.co/yDPnnvviaR
@AtRealBen - Real Ben
I had never seen this clip of Osama Bin Laden before today. Fascinating. https://t.co/gu8MJqBIAb
@KaminskiMed - Naftali Kaminski
For friends in Israel & US who now support a US military action in Iran - a courtesy clip from Netanyahu’s testimony in US Congress, extolling benefits of toppling Saddam, advocating invading Iraq. We know how this ended Full testimony here https://youtu.be/RJcO53f3pz0?si=R1lP71EL6-_cHKW3 #FoolMeOnce https://t.co/wCww11cL2d
Video Transcript AI Summary
Removing Saddam Hussein would have enormous positive reverberations in the region, signaling to Iranians and others that such regimes are over and a new age is beginning. He notes that in 1986 he argued that terrorist regimes must be confronted, including by military force. In Afghanistan, expectations of a counterreaction proved unfounded; instead, many Arab and Muslim countries began to side with America. "The application of power is the most important thing in winning the war on terrorism." He adds: "The three principles—the three w's: Winning, winning, and winning." The first Afghanistan victory makes the second in Iraq easier, and the second makes the third easier too, though it may change how that victory is achieved. He concludes that Iraq is a good and right choice, though he does not guarantee it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region. And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people and many others will say the time of such regimes of such chess bots is gone. There is a new age. Something new is happening.
Speaker 1: Has speculation on your part or you have some evidence to that effect?
Speaker 0: You know, was was asked the same question in 1986. I had written a book in which I had said that the way to deal with terrorist regimes well, with terror was to deal with the terrorist regimes. And the way to deal with the terrorist regimes among other things was to apply military force against them.
Speaker 1: Way we did it in Afghanistan.
Speaker 0: The way, for example, I want to answer your question
Speaker 1: I guess I'm running out of time, so I quickly was trying to get that we've done, I think, what you proposed in Afghanistan, yet I haven't seen that sort of neighborhood effect. Well, think there's been an enormous effect.
Speaker 0: The effect was we were told that there would be a contrary effect. First of all, people said that there would be tens of thousands of people streaming into Afghanistan, zealots who would be outraged by America's action, and this would produce a counter reaction in the Arab world.
Speaker 1: But I think you're not saying that when you take an action like we did in Afghanistan, we're gonna see all the other countries just fall.
Speaker 0: No. What we saw is something else. First of all, we saw everybody streaming out of Afghanistan. The second thing we saw is all the Arab countries and many Muslim countries trying to side with America, trying to make To be okay with America. The application of power is the most important thing in winning the war on terrorism.
If I had to say, what are the three principles of winning the war on terror? It's like what are the three principles of real estate? The three l's. Location, location, location. The The three principles of winning the war on terror are the three w's.
Winning, winning, and winning. The more victories you amass, the easier the next victory becomes. The first victory in Afghanistan makes the second victory in Iraq that much easier. The second victory in Iraq will make the third victory that much easier too but it may change the nature of achieving that victory. It may be possible to have implosions taking place.
I don't guarantee it, mister Terni, but I think it makes it more likely and therefore I think the choice of Iraq is a good choice. It's the right choice.