TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed
@thedrosg1 - ኤርትራ 🇪🇷 ERITREA
@_MarielMueller Here's the "Nayirah testimony," and it should be a lesson for everyone who does propaganda to push a politically motivated agenda. They lied about the Iraq war, and they're lying about #Eritrea & #Ethiopia. https://t.co/mqqfKGaWu0
Video Transcript AI Summary
Domestic propaganda campaign that occurred in The United States before the invasion began. The story centers on a young Kuwaiti woman named Naira. On 10/10/1990, the 15 year old girl gave riveting testimony before Congress about the horrors inside Kuwait after Iraq invaded. Nayirah's testimony was rebroadcast across the country and marked a turning point in public opinion on going to war. President George H. W. Bush repeatedly cited her claims. They had kids in incubators, and they were thrown out of the incubators so that Kuwait could be systematically dismantled. Three months after Nayyra testified, President George H. W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq. But it turned out Nayyra's claims weren't true. It also turned out Nayyra was not just any Kuwaiti teenager. She was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to The United States, Saad Nasir al Sabah.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Domestic propaganda campaign that occurred in The United States before the invasion began. The story centers on a young Kuwaiti woman named Naira. On 10/10/1990, the 15 year old girl gave riveting testimony before Congress about the horrors inside Kuwait after Iraq invaded.
Speaker 1: REP. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Nayira, and I just came out of Kuwait. My sister with my five year old nephew traveled across the desert to safety. There was no milk available for the baby in Kuwait.
They barely escaped when their car was stuck in the desert desert sand and help came from Saudi Arabia. I stayed behind and wanted to do something for my country. The second week after invasion, I volunteer volunteered at the Aladdin Hospital with 12 other women who wanted to help as well. I was the youngest volunteer. The other women were from 20 to 30 years old.
While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns. They took the babies out of incubators, took the incubators and left the children to die on the cold floor. It was horrifying. I could not help but think of my nephew.
Speaker 2: Nayirah's testimony was rebroadcast across the country and marked a turning point in public opinion on going to war. President George H. W. Bush repeatedly cited her claims.
Speaker 0: PRESIDENT They had kids in incubators, and they were thrown out of the incubators so that Kuwait could be systematically dismantled. Three months after Nayyra testified, President George H. W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq. But it turned out Nayyra's claims weren't true.
No human rights group or news outlet could confirm what she said. It also turned out Nayyra was not just any Kuwaiti teenager. She was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to The United States, Saad Nasir al Sabah. She had been coached by
@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
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe that the general population opposes wars, often being misled into conflict by the military-industrial complex and corrupt media. The ongoing support for Ukraine, which has cost taxpayers billions, highlights this issue. I see a pattern where wars are based on lies, leading to devastating consequences, yet the same political figures remain unaccountable. The push for military spending continues, while calls for peace are ignored. It's frustrating to witness politicians prioritize war over the needs of their own citizens.
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
Population as a whole don’t like wars. They don’t want to go into wars. They have to be fooled to reluctantly go into wars based on lies and misinformation. #MilitaryIndustrialComplex combined with corrupt #media push nations into wars. A 🧵👇 https://t.co/KMNiCiekO8
Video Transcript AI Summary
"One of the hopeful things that I have discovered is that nearly every war that has started in the past fifty years has been a result of media lives."
"The media could have stopped it if they had searched deep enough."
"If they hadn't reprinted government propaganda they could have stopped it."
"Populations don't like wars and populations have to be fooled into wars."
"Populations don't willingly and with open eyes go into a war."
"But our number one enemy is ignorance and I believe that is the number one enemy that everyone is not understanding what is actually going on in the world."
"Now, the question is who is promoting ignorance?"
"In this latter category, it is bad media."
"The result is we see wars and we see corrupt governance continue."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One of the hopeful things that I have discovered is that nearly every war that has started in the past fifty years has been a result of media lives. The media could have stopped it if they had searched deep enough. If they hadn't reprinted government propaganda they could have stopped it. But what does that mean? Well that means basically populations don't like wars and populations have to be fooled into wars.
Populations don't willingly and with open eyes go into a war. So if we have a good media environment then we will also have a peaceful environment. But our number one enemy is ignorance and I believe that is the number one enemy that everyone is not understanding what is actually going on in the world. It's only when you start to understand that you can make effective decisions and effective plans. Now, the question is who is promoting ignorance?
Well, organisations that try to keep them secret, and those organisations which distort true information to make them false, misrepresented. In this latter category, it is bad media. It really is my opinion that the media in general are so bad, we have to question whether the world wouldn't be better off without them altogether. There's some very, very fine journalists and we work with many of them and some fine media organizations, but the vast majority are awful and are so distorted to how the world actually is. The result is we see wars and we see corrupt governance continue.
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
A prev thread on wars
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
Just looking at this ridiculous amount of money #MilitaryIndustrialComplex is wasting on Ukraine makes my blood boil with hate for our politicians and bureaucrats pushing for these regime changes and wars
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
AS LONG AS JULIAN ASSANGE IS IN PRISON, WE ARE ALL IN PRISON. WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE POWER TO TELL US WHAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO SEE, HEAR AND KNOW, WE NO LONGER LIVE IN A FREE SOCIETY #FreeAssange #FreeAssangeNOW https://t.co/lmQDwfpQqb
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
Your government is least interested in stopping to lie, instead they’re terribly upset at those who expose their lies. https://t.co/Mt7FD1Nkmi
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
The #MilitaryIndustrialComplex doesn’t want peace, they’re war mongers EU wants war NATO wants war America wants war You’ll never have peace if one side never wants peace. Simple.
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
PRAGUE - Tens of thousands of people are protesting against the government, for spending too much money and energy on Ukraine and ignoring the needs of their own people. Inflation now at 15% the people call for the globalist government to resign. #MilitaryIndustrialComplex doesn’t want the wars to end, it wants an endless war.
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
Independent Texas needs American democracy then… right? https://t.co/dcwiwajd2K
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
As if America doesn’t threaten other countries already with endless wars and sanctions, this lunatic CEO is asking for more with AI for his personal gains… what could go wrong https://t.co/Ccc96Y7agU
@brandongorrell - bsg
"We need to spend at least 5% of our budget on capabilities that will terrify our adversaries" — Palantir CTO @ssankar on how the DoD should leverage AI in the Senate Committee hearing on AI this morning.🤘🤘🤘 https://t.co/7cqRa4eK7Q
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
10 wars, millions dead, 1 Nobel peace prize and 0 indictments, 0 ICC hearings https://t.co/rOgvoNALZF
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
What’s the weekly consignment to Ukraine these days $10 billion? https://t.co/MfNz1Mm6j3
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
All wars are based on lies. Wars are old men lying, young men dying. Stop enlisting and dying for their lies. https://t.co/oUlf9bTnVi
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
The Ukraine war and the Iraq war are the same thing. They both wanted regime change, except Putin is considered a war criminal, Bush not https://t.co/gvGVh9TYkK
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Please explain to me the difference between Putin's invasion of Ukraine and our invasion of Iraq."
"Somebody tell me what was different."
"Why was ours considered okay and Russia's not?"
"The only they're for the same thing, regime change."
"Same thing."
"We wanna change who is governing Iraq."
"Putin wanted to change who is governing Ukraine."
"Now don't get me wrong."
"I didn't support either war."
"They both suck."
"But everybody you notice our national media doesn't bring that up at all, do they?"
"And you notice they brought up now the Fed or the international courts have made it so Putin can't travel now because he's considered a war criminal."
"Let's not forget the international courts did the same thing with Bush and Cheney after the invasion of Iraq."
"Why do you think George Bush can't leave The US?"
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You don't like the questions I ask, so I'll ask you one today. Please explain to me the difference between Putin's invasion of Ukraine and our invasion of Iraq. Somebody tell me what was different. Why was ours considered okay and Russia's not? The only they're for the same thing, regime change.
Same thing. We wanna change who is governing Iraq. Putin wanted to change who is governing Ukraine. Now don't get me wrong. I didn't support either war.
They both suck. But everybody you notice our national media doesn't bring that up at all, do they? And you notice they brought up now the Fed or the international courts have made it so Putin can't travel now because he's considered a war criminal. Let's not forget the international courts did the same thing with Bush and Cheney after the invasion of Iraq. Why do you think George Bush can't leave The US?
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
Of course Victoria Nuland from America discussed democracy with Sudan 🇸🇩… no wonder it’s doing great https://t.co/P8syVnnh22
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
Highest military spending since the end of cold war. Ukraine is pushing us slowly towards WW3 unless some sanity prevails and negotiations happen between NATO & Russia. https://t.co/YvgHxItoGF
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
Truth about what’s going on in Sudan 🇸🇩. Russia wants to establish a naval base on the coast of Sudan in the Red Sea and America is opposing this deal. Stop your proxy wars in Africa now and get out America and Russia. https://t.co/daPS65uwuM
Video Transcript AI Summary
America and Russia are at it again, as in the Cold War they fought proxy wars in Africa, leading to the death of thousands of Africans. They are at it again in Sudan, fighting a proxy war. Two factions of the Sudanese military are fighting: one led by lieutenant general Mohammed Hamdan, head of the Rapid Support Forces; the other by army chief Abdel Fattah al Burhan. Russia has finalized a deal with Sudan to establish Russia's naval base in Sudan's Red Sea coast, and America is furious; 'America's ambassador to Sudan, John Godfrey, expressly wants Sudan not to seal that deal with Russia.' The fighting wasn't happening in a vacuum. Africa must learn to speak its truth; truth will set you free. The Cold War days are over; they cannot fight proxy wars in Africa at the expense of African lives. The fighting in Sudan must stop.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What's happening there is more than meets the eye, and it's time for the world to discuss the actual truth of what is going on there. America and Russia are at it again, just as they did sixty years ago during the Cold War when they fought proxy wars right in Africa, leading to the death of thousands of innocent Africans. They are at it again in Sudan, fighting a proxy war. Let me explain. Two factions of the Sudanese military are fighting each other.
One of them is led by lieutenant general Mohammed Hamdan, head of the paramilitary group known as Rapid Support Forces. The other faction is led by the Sudanese army chief, general Abdel Fattah al Burhan. So why are they fighting? This is where Russia and USA come into the picture. You see, in the last couple of months, Russia has finalized a deal with Sudan to establish Russia's naval base in Sudan's Red Sea coast.
America is not too happy with that. Actually, they're furious. America's ambassador to Sudan, John Godfrey, expressly wants Sudan not to seal that deal with Russia, but they're going ahead and doing just that. And so when the paramilitary unit began fighting the other faction of the army, that wasn't happening in a vacuum. The big problem is that you're not going to hear this in the mainstream media, neither are you going to hear a lot of African governments voicing this, which is very unfortunate because Africa must learn to speak its truth and stand on this truth because truth will set you free.
So it is left to the African people, we, the African people, to speak this truth and tell America and Russia to get off Africa, to get their hands off Africa. The days of the Cold War, the days of the shenanigans of the Cold War are completely over, and they cannot fight proxy wars in Africa at the expense of innocent African lives. That has to stop. The fighting in Sudan must stop. The puppet masters must stop their evil, diabolic games.
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
US military spending trumps other major powers combined by a mile. Cut military spending, close the bases and recall troops as RFK suggests. https://t.co/QMiNZ1CKDJ
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
Every military conflict was a lie. Iraq was a lie and it destabilized the Middle East and spilled refugees into Syria etc. Afghanistan was a lie and the country literally fell back into the hands of Taliban. Ukraine Wasa lie and they keep lying.
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
Victoria Nuland the undersecretary of state a Bush era neocon - instead of promoting diplomacy, she lights matches wherever she meddles, agitating for endless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and now in Ukraine. @codepink petition for awareness https://www.codepink.org/bidenfirenuland https://t.co/mb2wvCFL11
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
@sahouraxo is right - wherever Victoria Nuland goes, death and destruction follows https://t.co/qoBhOMaZMn
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
Military spending, 2022. China🇨🇳: $291 billion India🇮🇳: $66 billion Russia🇷🇺: $61 billion UK🇬🇧: $55 billion France🇫🇷: $51 billion Japan🇯🇵: $48 billion Germany🇩🇪: $46 billion Italy🇮🇹: $33 billion Brazil🇧🇷: $20 billion Iran🇮🇷: $6 billion Total: $677 billion US🇺🇸 military spending, 2022: $877 billion Yet in Western media, it’s China and Russia that seek world domination and are the biggest threat to world peace, not the United States.
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
Who cares if other people in other countries die… we are safe… right? https://t.co/KJ4E8IOarU
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
Hey American politicians and #DeepState Here’s an idea - stop wasting trillions of dollars on unnecessary wars & regime changes, take care of your own people, cities, borders, crimes and drug addiction issues https://t.co/IPy16Qoimk
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
Both Republicans & Democrats are part of #MilitaryIndustrialComplex https://t.co/HML8c6HaJK
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
No wonder USA and NATO nations don’t want an independent investigation on #Nordstream pipelines https://t.co/IznKfKpQAA
@DeepBlueCrypto - 🌋🌋 Deep₿lueCrypto 🌋🌋
The War Department posted a reward for the capture of John Wilkes Booth, John Surrat, and David Harold, who murdered president Abraham Lincoln, April 20, 1865. https://t.co/8Ti3ha2Et9
@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
@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
In times like these, it's crucial to seek historical insight rather than listening to present-day demagogues and propagandists pushing for war. The war in the Middle East, based on lies and CIA propaganda, plunged the US into massive debt, now at $35+ trillion, causing inflation. Now, they want more war and offer billions to Ukraine and Israel, while Americans suffer. The Iraq war was fueled by lies, resulting in countless deaths and destruction. Questioning the war used to be met with ridicule, just like questioning Israel's actions today. Regardless of your stance, someone will label and ostracize you. Let's reject division and be curious, open-minded, and fair. Always assume conspiracy, as history shows that nations were built on conspiracies. What conspiracy is happening today?
@Inversionism - Inversionism
It's times like these where we should look at history for insight and perspective, instead of listening to the demagogues and propagandists in the present trying to push us into another war that does nothing but enrich a select few at the expense of the rest of us. The war in the middle east, which was entirely predicated on lies and CIA propaganda, is what put the United States in so much debt in the first place at a now insane $35+ trillion dollars, which is still destroying us to this day with ever increasing inflation. Now they want us to go back to war, in addition to offering billions and billions of more dollars to Ukraine and now Israel, with the people here in America continuing to suffer with the useless platitudes and promises that are never fulfilled from our corrupt leaders on how they intend to fix it, while often warmongering in the same breath. George Bush and his administration demonstrably used 9/11 to foment a war in the middle east for geopolitical interests, pharmaceutical interests (opium), oil, and justification for the militarization of the land surrounding our enemies (Russia, China, etc) and you can quickly figure that out that by reading the Project for a New American Century, written by the very same people with all the same connections who are now trying to instigate war again in the middle east through Israel, and also against Russia via the Ukraine. So with all that said, I'd like for you all to listen to this speech from George W Bush that started the Iraq war in March of 2003. I want you to listen and think very carefully about what he says, and how much of it was a complete and utter lie, which they all knew from the jump. How many US soldiers died because of that lie? How many innocent Iraqi women and children? How much death, suffering, and destruction has resulted from the economic impact of that war globally? How many people became billionaires off the destruction of the middle east and all that death? All of it was predicated on lies with forethought and planning, and the US government knowingly letting 9/11 happen to manufacture public support. Many of you might not be old enough to remember this, but you used to be HATED and ridiculed for questioning the war in Iraq and if 9/11 was an inside job. People would call you communist, islamic apologists, or any other dismissive relevant label to defame you for questioning the government. We are now seeing that ugly propaganda machine show it's face again in calling you an anti-semite for questioning Israel and the narratives being given from the US government on the Hamas infiltration of Israel. If you defend the Palestinians and call it an illegal occupation, you're an anti-semite who hates jewish people. If you defend Israel and it's right to defend itself, you are a zionist shill who hates Palestinians. No matter what position you take, someone is going to hate you, label you, try to censor you, unfollow you, and ostracize you in some way, and I refuse to fall prey to it and participate. I'm team humanity, and anti-elites. I don't like seeing RFK, Jordan Peterson, or other figures I respect immediately consuming the establishment narrative and cheering on war, but I'm not going to dismiss them in entirety for it either and call them names like the others do to us. I'm going to search for the nuanced understanding of why they hold that position and what is the real underlying motivation. Is it fear? Is it religious and spiritual motivations? Is it blackmail? Is it overall geopolitical interests to protect the US in some way? What do they know that we don't? Instead of being an ideologue who tries to divide people into boxes and then throw them away, be curious. Be opened minded. Be fair and try to hear every side out. Research history and precedent. Follow the money. And most importantly, always assume conspiracy, because the entire world and nations you all live in were built on a conspiracy of individuals coming together for a common goal, and that will never change. See the creation of the US. See the creation of Israel. See the creation of Russia. They were all conspiracies of men. What's the conspiracy happening today?
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Bush announced the start of military action in Iraq to disarm the country and free its people. Coalition forces began striking military targets to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. The coalition consisted of over 35 countries, all committed to serving in our common defense. The American military was praised for their skill and bravery, while efforts were made to spare innocent civilians from harm. The campaign was expected to be long and difficult, but the goal was to help Iraq achieve a united, stable, and free country. The nation entered the conflict reluctantly but with a clear purpose to protect against an outlaw regime. The only way to limit the duration of the conflict was to apply decisive force, with the ultimate goal of victory and the defense of freedom.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister Blake, why are you going to apologize for the 1,000,000 Iraqi bid debt? Because you run it. You lied about weapons from Massachusetts. You lied about Connect to Iraq. My friends are dead.
A million racking their kids because you lied.
Speaker 1: 10 years ago, on March 19 2003, president Bush announced the start of military action in Iraq operation Iraqi Freedom. Up next, his 5 minute address from the Oval Office.
Speaker 2: My fellow citizens. At this hour, American and Coalition Forces are in the early stages of military operations, to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. On my orders, Coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support.
From the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense. To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people, now depend on you. That trust is well placed. The enemies you confront will come to know your skill in bravery.
The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women, and children, as shields for his own military, a final atrocity against his people. I want Americans and all the world to know that Coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm, a campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large California could be longer and more difficult than some predict, and helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment. For their great civilization, and for the religious faiths they practice.
Except to remove a threat, and restore control of that country to its own people. I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones. And for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people.
And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done. Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly. Yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime, that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now with our army, air force, navy, coast garden marines so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you. This will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory. My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace.
We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others. And we will prevail. They god bless our country and all who decender.
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.
@LivingDadJoke - Dylan Griffith
In 2002, Netanyahu assured an American congress that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons so that we might be his “useful idiot” in that region. 20 years later and he is now leading us toward a war with Iran. #Iran #Israel #Palestine #USA https://t.co/Ma43oyZK0K
Video Transcript AI Summary
Saddam Hussein is actively pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, with support from Russia and other countries. He no longer needs large reactors, as he can produce the necessary materials in hidden centrifuges. Inspections will not uncover these portable manufacturing sites. While it is unclear when he will attack Israel, it is not difficult for him to deceive inspectors and hide his activities. The application of power is crucial in winning the war on terrorism, and the more victories we achieve, the easier the next one becomes. The choice to target Iraq is the right one, as Saddam's acquisition of nuclear weapons would have immediate and dangerous consequences.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons. No question whatsoever. And there is no question that once he acquires it, history shifts immediately. The dangers posed by a nuclear armed Saddam were understood by my country 2 decades ago, well before September 11th. In 1981, the late prime minister of Israel, Menachem Begin, dispatched the Israeli Air Force on a predawn raid that destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak.
This probably took place months away from Saddam's ability to assemble the critical mass of plutonium for the 1st atomic bomb or more than one. And today, the United States must destroy the same regime because a nuclear armed Saddam will place the security of our entire world at risk. And make no mistake about it, if and once Saddam has nuclear weapons, the terror network will have nuclear weapons. 2 decades ago, it was possible to forts Saddam's nuclear ambitions by bombing a single installation. But today, nothing less than dismantling his regime will do.
Because Saddam's nuclear program has fundamentally changed in those 2 decades. He no longer needs 1 large reactor to produce the deadly material necessary for atomic bombs. He can produce it in centrifuges the size of washing machines that can be hidden throughout the country. And I wanna remind you that Iraq is a very big country. It is not the size of Monte Carlo.
It is a big country. And I believe that even free and unfeathered inspections will not uncover these portable manufacturing sites of mass death.
Speaker 1: To your knowledge, has Iraq, kept its team of nuclear slanders together? And, is Is that an indication that they're gonna continue to develop nuclear weapons? Also, what nations are aiding Iraqi, if you know, in the nuclear program? And of course, finally, if you might elaborate a little bit further on what you think is first your first use of nuclear weapons might be.
Speaker 0: I can only give you the information, that I can divulge from my, My tenure as prime minister and it is, 3 years old. The information we had was that Saddam was pursuing all avenues of developing, weapons of mass destruction, he, and the means to deliver them. I I have to say that he was enjoying in this effort, the support of, Russian technology, and I should say Russian technologists, on-site. They were a principal source, and other regimes, including North Korea, we're supporting that effort as well. There is no question that he, had not given up on his nuclear program.
Not whatsoever. There is also no question that he was not satisfied with the arsenal of chemical and biological, weapons that he had and was trying to perfect them constantly. Is perfect as the the word to describe this, ghoulish enterprise. So, I think it's I think fair frankly, it is, not not serious to assume that this man who 20 years ago, was very close to producing an atomic bomb spent the last 20 years sitting on his hands. He is not.
And every indication we have is that he is, pursuing pursuing with, abandon, pursuing with every, ounce of effort the establishment of, of, map weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Saddam is hell bent on, achieving, atomic bombs, atomic capabilities as soon as you can. But I also say that if you connect the dots, you know here's a here's a man who from the minute he has achieved powers is trying to create a nuclear weapon. 20 years ago, he's very close to producing it. He's foiled.
He changes the technology to centrifuges that will prevent him being foiled again. We know that he's he's taking in, nuclear technologists and nuclear technology from various various countries. We know that, he's developing the means to deliver these weapons. We have defectors who describe, how, committed he is to this, above all else. So we have all these dots, And, we say, well, we don't know exactly what is happening.
You know? It's, like you're about to see somebody plunge the knife into someone. You're looking through a keyhole. You followed a murderer. You know that he's suspected of, he's already killed a few people, and you see him trailing somebody, and you're trailing him.
You go, he shuts the door, you're looking through the keyhole, and, you see him grasping the throat of this person, raising the knife, and then the light goes out, and the next thing you know is a body is found. And you could say, well, you know, I didn't actually see him, on Fragrante in the Act, if you will. But, but I think, mister Cruzini, is that it is simply not, reflecting the reality to assume that Saddam isn't feverishly working to develop nuclear weapons as we speak.
Speaker 2: The the question I had though, do you have any indication that Saddam Hussein is going to attack Israel?
Speaker 0: Or if he will attack Israel.
Speaker 2: Absent a preemptive launch by the United States.
Speaker 0: I think it's, I cannot, you that he will attack Israel at a particular time. My friend, my respect a great deal, the Pulitzer Prize winning, writer Charles Krauthammer said that in the 19 nineties, America slipped and Israel dreamed. And he said that on, September two thousand. Israel woke up with the, beginning of the terror campaign launched against it. And a year later in September 2001, America woke up with the the bombing of, New York and Washington.
It's a cat and mouse game, and he'll he's the cat. And he's successful successful care. It is not very difficult to, to deceive inspectors. It's not even very difficult to deceive satellite inspection. You can burrow tunnels and hide, hide the earth.
Did you ever see The Great Escape? The movie The Great Escape. Remember that movie? You know, where all these guys come out and they have the the sand in which they distribute, through the, the trousers while they're walking the yards. That's essentially what, dictators do.
They can create, tunnels and, labyrinths that you never discover that are impervious to radar and other means. They can, when you have an entire country to hide, portable, centrifuges that are a little bigger than those 2 cameras. It's not very difficult. You can get away with it, and he has gotten away with it, frankly. 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 3 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 a 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. There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons. No question whatsoever. And there is no question that once he acquires it, history shifts immediately.
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.
@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi
Never forget the lies that were told to the world. https://t.co/6gMBxOe0Kt
Video Transcript AI Summary
Vaccinated individuals can protect themselves and others by reducing transmission, allowing society to return to normal. Vaccines have been shown to prevent illness and decrease the spread of infection. It is crucial for people to get vaccinated and receive booster shots when eligible to save lives and prevent serious illness. The probability of reducing transmission is believed to be 100% by one speaker. The goal is to break the chain of transmission and become a dead end for the virus. Vaccinated individuals do not get infected or serve as hosts for the virus to spread. However, there were limited data on transmission when the vaccines received emergency use authorization. The speed of science was prioritized in developing the vaccines.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Not just protecting themselves, but reducing their transmission, to other people and allowing society to get back to normal.
Speaker 1: We can kind of almost see the end. We're we're vaccinating so very fast. Our data from the CDCs today suggest, you know, that that vaccinated people do carry the virus. Don't get sick.
Speaker 2: Getting vaccinated and getting a booster shot when eligible can save your life and protect you and your family and friends from getting seriously ill and spreading infection. What do you think the probability is? 80%?
Speaker 0: Personally, I think it's a 100%. I think that there's a reduction in transmission.
Speaker 3: COVID if you have these vaccinations. Divisions.
Speaker 4: We have all the vaccines we need. We just need our people to take it, a, for their own protection, for the protection of their family, but also to break the chain of transmission. You wanna be a dead end to the virus. So when the virus gets to you, you stop You don't allow it to use you as the stepping stone to the next person.
Speaker 5: Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus. The virus does not infect them. The virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to go get more people.
That means the vaccines will get us to the end of this.
Speaker 3: But when we look at the emergency use authorization, which on the screen. If you look what it says under transmission, this is what was known the moment they were making those things.
Speaker 4: Can I
Speaker 3: have the next slide, please? What was known was that the data are, Not there limited to assess the effects of the vaccine against transmission of SARS COVID 2. They had no idea. They had no idea if it would stop the infection, yet they were making those statements on the news. Plus,
Speaker 6: The Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before It entered the market. If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee? And I really want straight answer. Yes or no?
And I'm looking forward to it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 7: Regarding the question around, did we know about stop open humanization before, it's entered the market? No. These, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science.
@Molson_Hart - molson 🧠⚙️
There is a 35 minute long interview of Saddam Hussein by Dan Rather 24 days before Iraq was invaded. - Asks for peace - Says he has no weapons of mass destruction - Says he will comply with the UN directives - He corrects his translator who says "Bush" — "No. Mr. Bush." https://t.co/b5x6OdRCgQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
In an interview with an American reporter, Saddam Hussein remains defiant in the face of an impending war. He hopes the attack will not happen but is prepared to face it. Saddam denies having prohibited missiles and claims Iraq has not violated any UN resolutions. He proposes a televised debate with President Bush to present their perspectives to the world. Saddam insists that Iraq will not destroy its oil fields or dams and believes the Iraqi people will not welcome American troops as liberators. He asserts that Iraq was not defeated in the 1991 Gulf War and vows to defend his country.
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
Post 1: Both Obama and Trump have acknowledged that the US played a role in training ISIS, raising doubts about the true origins of the group.
Post 2: The Chinese and Russian governments are making efforts to promote travel and showcase a different reality than what Western media portrays. However, Western elites want to create tensions and isolate Russia and China. They aim to maintain control, install a police state, and manipulate our minds.
@angeloinchina - Angelo Giuliano 🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻 安德龙
Any doubts about ISIS ? Obama : "we trained ISIS" Trump : "Obama IS the founder of ISIS" 2 presidents admit the US is the creator of ISIS What other evidence do you need ? https://t.co/13jTVGxiUj
Video Transcript AI Summary
We are accelerating training for ISAL forces, including Sunni tribe volunteers in Anbar Province, with the extra steps I requested last month.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So with the additional steps I ordered last month, we're speeding up training of ISAL forces, including volunteers from Sunni tribes in Anbar Province. Month, we're speeding up training of ISL forces, including volunteers from Sunni tribes in Anbar Province.
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Obama is being honored by ISIS as the founder of the group, with Hillary Clinton as the co-founder.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: ISIS is honoring president Obama. He is the founder of ISIS. He's the founder of ISIS. K? He's the founder.
He founded ISIS. And I would say the cofounder would be crooked Hillary Clinton.
@angeloinchina - Angelo Giuliano 🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻 安德龙
Chinese and Russian governments have taken a huge step to facilitate travel to both Russia and China so the World can see the reality which is at the complete opposite to what Western media and Western elites are saying. With Ukronazi-US backed terrorism, Western elites want to reverse that, they want Russia and China to close up, to become more hermetic for the sake of their own protection and preservation, they want the World to gradually go back to cold-war era and put in place their "strategy of tensions" both outside and inside the Collective West. Yes tensions will be back within the West, it will be a mix of insecurity due to uncontrolled immigration, terrorism, social unrest, painful but just not to the point of revolution....because they fear the masses to take up arm struggle for their self determination against the oppressive elites. So they will just put people in a fear and survival mode, a zombie mode, keep us dumb and numb. So Gladio operation never stopped, this is Gladio.2 The globalist elites will go after Russia/China/Iran but they will also go against their own populations because ultimately it is about total control, install a police state, enslavement, social engineering and fucking up our minds.
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
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
@EsheruKwaku - Esheru
So is this going to continue being ignored, like the lies around Iraq and Libya? https://t.co/tr1brMROF5
@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
@RedpillDrifter - Redpill Drifter
I think now is a good time to remind everyone about that time President Trump shared a video of Jeffrey Sachs telling us how Bibi Netanyahu was responsible for the wars in Iraq and Syria and has been trying to bait the US to attack Iran. Just in case you didn't think he knows. https://t.co/POMS5f14M7
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims the war in Syria began with Obama tasking the CIA to overthrow the Syrian government four years before Russia intervened. They allege the New York Times rarely reported on Operation Timber Sycamore, which was the presidential order to the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad.
Regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the speaker states the US used phony pretenses and focus groups to sell the war to the American people. They claim Netanyahu wanted the war to topple governments supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, specifically Iraq, Syria, and Iran. The speaker accuses Netanyahu of pushing the US into endless wars and still trying to get the US to fight Iran. They conclude that the terms "democracy versus dictatorship" are not sensible.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The war in Syria. And you may actually hear from grown up reporters who are lying through their teeth or ignorant beyond imagining that, oh, the war in Syria. Yes. Russia intervened in Syria. Well, do you know that the that Obama tasked the CIA to overthrow the Syrian government starting four years before Russia intervened?
What kind of nonsense is that? And how many times did the New York Times report on Operation Timber Sycamore, which was the presidential order to the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad? Three times in ten years. This is not democracy. This is a game, and it's a game of narrative.
Why did The US invade Iraq in 02/2003? Well, first of all, it was completely phony pretenses. It wasn't, oh, we were so wrong. They didn't have weapons of mass destruction. They actually did focus groups in the February to find out what would sell that war to the American people.
Abe Sholstie, if you wanna know the name of the PR genius. They did focus groups on the war. They wanted the war all the time. They had to figure out how to sell the war to the American people, how to scare the shit out of the American people. It was a phony war.
Where did that war come from? You know what? It's quite surprising. That war came from Netanyahu, actually. You know that?
It's weird. And the way it is is that Netanyahu had from 1995 onward the theory that the only way we're gonna get rid of Hamas and Hezbollah is by toppling the governments that support them. That's Iraq, Syria, and Iran. And the guy's nothing if not obsessive. And we're he's still trying to get us to fight Iran this day, this week.
He's a deep, dark son of a bitch. Sorry to tell you. Because he's gotten us into endless wars, and because of the power of all of this, in The US politics, he's gotten his way. But that war was totally phony. So what is this democracy versus dictatorship?
Come on. This is these are not even sensible terms.
@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.
@JasonBassler1 - Jason Bassler
61 years ago today, the Gulf of Tonkin “incident” was staged — a false flag used to drag the U.S. into Vietnam. 58,000 Americans & over 3 million Vietnamese died. The lie was admitted years later. But sure, we can trust them on Ukraine & Gaza. https://t.co/WseRSvgO6n
@ricwe123 - Richard
Remember that moment when Netanyahu visited the US Congress in 2002, practically barking orders for an invasion of Iraq, peddling blatant lies that led to a catastrophic war? https://t.co/RKD3WI9F5K
reSee.it AI Summary
They killed Muammar Gaddafi... After researching, I know I've been lied to my whole life. The Military Industrial Complex creates “supervillains”—Osama bin Laden, Gaddafi, Castro, Putin, Hitler—for America to fight. Wikileaks distorts the truth; history is likely distorted.
@MJTruthUltra - MJTruthUltra
They killed Muammar Gaddafi.. Once I researched this man and what he was doing… I knew that I’ve been lied to my whole life. The Military Industrial Complex Creates ‘Supervillains’ every Couple of years for America to Fight Osama bin Laden….? Gaddafi….? Castro? Putin? Hitler??? We all know Wikileaks distorts the truth.. it Truly makes you wonder how distorted history is regarding everything. https://rumble.com/v70bjwi-they-killed-muammar-gaddafi...html
Video Transcript AI Summary
Summary:
- The speakers present a conspiratorial framing of Libya’s recent history and its global repercussions. They assert, “It’s a Chinese colony at this point,” implying foreign influence over Libya and its trajectory.
- They claim that “the West and Hillary blows up Gaddafi,” arguing that those who were aligned with the West retaliated against Muammar Gaddafi. They further state that Gaddafi had “invested everything with the West, came and apologized,” and describe NATO as “the defensive alliance” that “went and just murdered Gaddafi for no reason.”
- Gaddafi is portrayed in softened, almost heroic terms: “One’s Gaddafi, you know, the crazy colonel,” but the speakers emphasize that “the point was he was for the people.” They describe him as “a statesman,” noting that “he literally lived in a tent.”
- The economic and infrastructural claims are central to their narrative: they say “98% of the state money coming in and oil went to not just his people, Africa,” and that he was “building real infrastructure” with a “whole plan to link up” with Africa. They imply that his policies would have connected Africa regionally rather than remaining separate from the rest of the continent.
- They allege that the killing of Gaddafi was part of a broader, destabilizing plan: “they came and killed him,” and as a result, “now all of Africa’s collapsing because they blew up the South Point and the North Point.” They attribute these upheavals to “the globalist deliberately blow[ing] that up for destabilization.”
- The discussion turns to population movements: they claim that “the population will be moved here and to Europe as it already is being in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, of course.” The speaker asserts personal certainty about this trend: “I know I see it so, so clearly.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's a Chinese colony at this point.
Speaker 1: Exactly. And then the West and Hillary blows up Gaddafi. As you know, invested everything with the West, came
Speaker 0: and apologized. Yeah. NATO, the defensive alliance called NATO, defensive alliance went and just murdered Gaddafi for no reason.
Speaker 1: And and those that don't, I Qaddafi is more of research team. A statesman, he literally lived in a tent. 98% of the state money coming in and oil went to not just his people, Africa. And he was building real infrastructure and had a whole plan to link up with and they then they came and killed him. And now all of Africa's collapsing because they blew up the South Point and the North Point.
One's Gaddafi, you know, the crazy colonel. The point was he was for the people, and the and down here was this. And now the globalist deliberately blow that up for destabilization. Yeah. And the
Speaker 0: population will be moved here and to Europe as it already is being in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, of course. I know I see it so, so clearly,
reSee.it AI Summary
I note that in 2003 Colin Powell lied to the UN, claiming US evidence of Iraqi WMDs to justify invading Iraq; in 2025 Netanyahu told Fox News Iran was working on “Weapons of Death”; the lies they tell these boomers don’t even change...
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
2003: Colin Powell lies to the UN telling them the US has evidence that Iraq has "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMDs) to justify invading Iraq 2025: Netanyahu tells Fox News Iran was working on "Weapons of Mass Death" The lies they tell these boomers don't even change...