TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In June 1967, during the Six-Day War, the USS Liberty, a lightly armed American spy ship, was attacked by Israeli jets and torpedo boats in international waters off the Egyptian coast. The attack involved napalm, rockets, cannon fire, and torpedoes. The ship was flying the American flag and had clear markings. Of the crew of nearly 300, 34 were killed and 172 injured. Real-time audio recorded by the Israeli military allegedly proves they knew they were attacking an American ship. Despite the Liberty's attempts to signal for help, its messages were initially jammed. The Sixth Fleet picked up the distress signal, but claims suggest American jets were recalled under presidential orders. Allegedly, there was a plan to sink the ship and kill all the crew, but a Russian ship witnessed the events, causing the operation to be aborted. The speaker does not blame Israel, claiming they were taking orders from globalists.

The video discusses the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty by Israel, resulting in the deaths of 34 Americans. The attack was deliberate, with Israeli jets and boats targeting the ship despite its American markings. The Americans were jammed from calling for help, and the US government covered up the incident, labeling it as friendly fire. Survivors were threatened into silence, and the truth was suppressed for decades. The lack of repercussions for Israel's actions showed that America would tolerate almost anything from its ally.

The video discusses the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty by Israel, resulting in the deaths of 34 Americans. Despite clear identification, Israel deliberately targeted the ship, jammed its distress signals, and killed crew members trying to escape. The US government covered up the attack, with survivors threatened into silence. The incident highlighted Israel's belief that they could act without consequences from the US. The truth emerged years later, but justice was never served.

Speaker 1 acknowledges that intelligence sharing between the U.S. and Israel is not total and that allies spy on each other, including domestically. Speaker 1, identifying as conservative, says this is expected because people act in their rational self-interest. Speaker 0 asks if it is in America's interest for Israel to spy on the U.S., including on the president. Speaker 1 responds that the close alliance with Israel provides huge benefits to the U.S. Speaker 0 presses on the issue of spying, asking why an American lawmaker wouldn't tell a client state that spying on the U.S. is not allowed. Speaker 0 expresses that it is weird not to say that, but Speaker 1 seems unable to.

The speakers discuss the blame for the current situation in Israel. Speaker 0 suggests blaming the Bush administration, but Speaker 1 disagrees. Speaker 1 explains that the Clinton administration's proposal to Arafat and the Palestinians had provisions and catches, and negotiations continued until they were aborted. Speaker 1 also mentions the lack of serious engagement in the peace process during the last 8 years. Speaker 0 admits to being superficial and asks Speaker 1 to educate him. Speaker 1 clarifies that Arafat did not walk away from the proposal and negotiations continued, but the process eventually got aborted. Speaker 0 acknowledges Speaker 1's knowledge and mentions the collective standards of the international community.

Speaker 0 asks what should be done if Israel is attacked by an outside force. Speaker 1 argues that the focus should be on preventing conflicts by actively engaging in the peace process, rather than reacting after the fact. Speaker 0 disagrees, stating that the current situation in Israel cannot be blamed on the previous administration. Speaker 1 criticizes Speaker 0's limited understanding of the past events.

Israel purposefully attacked the USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans in 1967. Despite clear identification as American, Israel fired rockets, jammed signals, and torpedoed the ship. The US did little in response, covering up the incident to protect Israel's image. Johnson faced pressure but ultimately increased aid to Israel and signed a secret intelligence treaty. The attack was labeled a mistake, and Israel faced no consequences.

Speaker 0 asserts that Bezalel Smotrich and Ben Gavir are “literally talking about exterminating the entire population of Gaza.” Speaker 1 counters that they are not talking about extermination. Speaker 0 insists the statements are brazen, up front, and what they actually want to do. Speaker 0 adds that Hamas is involved in a separate context. Speaker 0 says, “The West Bank had nothing to do with what happened on October 7, but they're annexing that land anyway. They're raining terror on innocent people, innocent Palestinians.” Speaker 0 concedes, “I am willing to admit, because it's the truth, that what Hamas did on October 7 was a fucking atrocity,” specifically mentioning killing innocent people. Speaker 1 challenges acknowledgement of atrocities against civilians in Gaza. Speaker 0 asks about a hospital being tapped; Speaker 1 responds that it’s an old terrorist trick and they do it “all the time.” Speaker 0 asks whether the IDF's action was wrong. Speaker 1 concedes, “I'm sure they have committed what we would call war crimes, as every army does in every war.” Speaker 0 notes, “Including our own.” Speaker 1 agrees, giving the Civil War example: Sherman burned Atlanta and Vad, arguing that despite brutality, the North were the good guys fighting slavery, and also noting Israel is fighting to survive and is the front line in the Western world. Speaker 0 disputes this, saying much of the problems in the Middle East come from an expansionist policy and that if Israel wasn’t trying to continue expanding, they would not be dealing with the enemies they’re dealing with. Speaker 1 disagrees that they ever were expanding, arguing they “were attacked” and that they “never been trying to expand.” Speaker 0 claims Israel is trying to annex the West Bank, southern Lebanon, and Syria, and argues they have succeeded in doing so. Speaker 1 says these are lands where they were attacked from when Israel became a country in 1947; he claims Israel said, “we will accept half a loaf,” and asserts they had as much right to that land as anybody, with a historical presence since a thousand BC when King David had a lineage. Speaker 0 dismisses this lineage-based argument as irrelevant to the present. Speaker 1 counters that it’s relevant, and asserts that the notion of wiping out innocent people merely because one’s ancestors lived there centuries ago is not acceptable. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 calling Palestinians colonizers, and Speaker 1 arguing they are not colonizers; they assert that Israel is annexing land, which, in their view, is described as colonization.

I pay my respects to the survivors of the USS Liberty and those who believe that Israel was responsible for the attack. However, suggesting that Lyndon Baines Johnson manipulated Israel into attacking the ship for personal gain is insulting and contrary to the facts. Israeli pilots themselves questioned the order to attack the American ship, as seen in public radio transcripts. It is wrong to accuse Johnson of manipulation. Moving on, there have been instances of Israeli involvement in events like the Lavon Affair, the USS Liberty incident, and 9/11. These incidents show a pattern of false flag operations where American lives are sacrificed for Israel's benefit. Accusing Johnson of manipulation is disrespectful and unfounded.

In 2002, before the Iraq invasion, Netanyahu testified to US Congress, stating Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons and hiding facilities underground. This was allegedly false and led to war. Netanyahu also stated he wanted regime change in Iran and questioned how to achieve it. Speaker 0 asks: How can we trust someone who goaded the US into war in Iraq based on falsehoods? Given recent events, why are we confident Netanyahu won't do the same with Iran, given his 20-year call for regime change? Speaker 1 says the President and Secretary have close working relationships with Netanyahu. The US commitment to Israel's security transcends any government. The US condemns Iran's attacks. Speaker 0 notes Netanyahu heads the Israeli government and there's a difference between condemning actions and the US getting into a war with Iran. Speaker 1 says the US is not interested in an all-out conflict with Iran, but is committed to Israel's security.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's focus on defending Israel, suggesting it represents foreign influence over US politics. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of obsessing over Israel and implying Jewish control of foreign policy, which Speaker 0 denies. Speaker 0 refutes being antisemitic, stating the concern is with a foreign government's influence, not Jewish people. Speaker 0 points out Speaker 1's stated goal to defend Israel upon entering Congress. Speaker 0 asserts that a lawmaker's job isn't to defend foreign governments, and accuses Speaker 1 of being "sleazy" for implying antisemitism. Speaker 1 questions why Speaker 0 is only asking about Israel. Speaker 0 reiterates that the issue concerns a foreign government, not Jewish people.

Speaker asserts the USS Liberty was clearly targeted on purpose by a country we're supporting, Israel, and questions why it's shameful to say that. They reference a "twelve day war" with Iran, framing it as the US and Israel versus Iran, with bombing on all sides. They claim IDF officers in the Pentagon—among other foreign officers—barge into meetings, give orders, and demand action during that week, and that "nobody did anything about it." The speaker warns that permitting this "deeply unhealthy behavior" invites "predators in a foreign country" to take advantage of us, noting "it's not anti Israel at all." They demand leaders at the Pentagon and across the US government "stand up and defend us against all potential threats" and not prostrate themselves before a foreign nation, asking why have a government if it's taking orders from another weaker government, "And they're not even pretending."

"On the USS Liberty that everyone's so afraid to talk about, clearly targeted on purpose by a country we're supporting, Israel." "And it's somehow shameful to say that." "During the twelve day war, such as it was with Iran, The US and Israel versus Iran, bombing on all sides." "But there are a bunch of Israeli defense force officers in the Pentagon that week." "And during that week, ask anyone who works at the Pentagon, they enraged American Pentagon staff by just barging into meetings, giving orders, making demands, and nobody did anything about it." "The more you allow that kind of deeply unhealthy behavior, the more you're going to get." "Because of the weakness of our leaders, we have incited predators in a foreign country to take advantage of us." "Oh, that's such an anti Israel thing." "It's not anti Israel at all." "And they're not even pretending."

Speaker 0 claims there were internal problems within the IDF related to the October 7th attacks. They allege soldiers were told to stand down, suggesting "something bad happened" and "it was an inside thing." Speaker 0 states they have inside knowledge of Israeli border security and operations, asserting the breakdown on October 7th wasn't due to mistakes. They believe Israel will have to confront these internal issues. Speaker 0 also claims the American people are growing tired of constant focus on Israel, despite Speaker 0's personal support for the country and past involvement with Israeli intelligence. Speaker 1 expresses shock at the stand down claim and emphasizes the sensitivity of the issue.

The video discusses the attack on the USS Liberty, an American naval ship, by Israel in 1967. The ship was monitoring the war between Israel and Egypt when it was deliberately attacked by Israeli jets and torpedo boats. The crew tried to radio for help, but their transmissions were jammed. The attack resulted in the deaths of 34 American citizens and wounded 171 others. The American government covered up the incident, and the media referred to it as a friendly fire incident. The video raises questions about why Israel would attack an American ship and suggests that the attack may have been intended to be blamed on Egypt.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the situation in Gaza. Speaker 0 argues that Israel is defending itself after a massacre, while Speaker 1 highlights the civilian casualties and calls for a temporary ceasefire. Speaker 0 questions why France considers the numbers provided by a terrorist organization reliable. Speaker 1 mentions alternative military strategies to minimize civilian casualties, but Speaker 0 dismisses the idea, stating that Israel knows how to conduct its military operations. The conversation becomes heated as Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of treating Israel like a child and disregarding its military expertise. Speaker 1 clarifies that the information comes from American sources. The discussion ends with Speaker 0 questioning why Israel would give advice to the French military when they don't fund it.

In 1978 or 79, Israel shot down a Libyan plane for entering its airspace. Nixon apologized to Gaddafi and Sadat, but the UN didn't discuss it. 102 nations condemned Israel, 4 didn't, and the US abstained to avoid making enemies. When the Soviets shot down a plane, the US condemned them to justify military spending. The speaker questions why different reactions based on creating enemies. Translation: In 1978 o 1979, Israel derribó un avión libio por entrar en su espacio aéreo. Nixon se disculpó con Gaddafi y Sadat, pero la ONU no lo discutió. 102 naciones condenaron a Israel, 4 no lo hicieron y EE. UU. se abstuvo para evitar enemistades. Cuando los soviéticos derribaron un avión, EE. UU. los condenó para justificar el gasto militar. El orador cuestiona por qué diferentes reacciones basadas en crear enemigos.

The discussion centers on how politicization of intelligence has manifested in different eras, comparing past and present administrations. Speaker 0 asks whether the politicized weapons claims about Iraq and the CIA’s statements in the 1990s can be compared to today’s politicization of intelligence under John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard as head of DNI, arguing it is much worse now because of the mediocrity of those in control of key agencies. Speaker 1 counters by recalling the 1980s, noting that there was significant politicization of the Soviet threat to justify Reagan’s defense buildup, and adds that this is why he testified against Robert Gates in 1991. He asserts that politicization is bad, and insists that the current situation is worse than in the past. Speaker 1 explains: “It’s Because I look at the people who are ahead of these groups. Come on. Let’s be serious.” He targets the leadership of the director of national intelligence, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA, saying, “Have you ever seen a cabinet in The United States of such mediocrity, of such venality?” He emphasizes his background, stating, “I haven’t,” and that nothing compares to what is going on now, warning that “a lot of damage is being done to The United States and to the constitution of The United States and to the importance of separation of powers and the importance of rule of law and the importance of checks and balances. This is very serious stuff.” Speaker 0 attempts to steer toward historical figures like Robert Maxwell, but Speaker 1 dismisses that concern as off point, insisting he is making a point about Israel. The exchange then shifts to U.S. support for Israel, with Speaker 1 asserting that “Israel gets what it wants from The United States. It gets it from democratic presidents and from republican presidents.” He also criticizes Barack Obama for signing what he calls “that ten year $40,000,000,000 arms aid agreement,” arguing that Obama “never should have signed” it “because they treated Obama so shabbily in the first place.”

Some callers expressed concerns about Jewish influence pushing the US into wars against Muslim countries, suggesting Israel holds undue power. One caller stated Americans should be able to discuss US policy toward Israel, and whether they want to fight Israel's wars. He added that Israel is strategically worthless to the US and their association is a negative. Callers discussed the USS Liberty incident, where an American intelligence ship was attacked by Israeli forces in 1967, resulting in 34 deaths and 170 injuries. Survivors claim Israel was aware they were attacking an American ship, disputing claims of mistaken identity. Some believe the attack was intentional, possibly to conceal the massacre of Egyptian prisoners of war. It's claimed that US aircraft launched to aid the Liberty were recalled by McNamara and President Johnson, allegedly due to Israel's controlling influence in the US government.

The transcript discusses Operation Northwoods, a proposed scheme in the early 1960s by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, led by L. O. Lemonser, to conduct false flag operations as a pretext for invading Cuba and waging war with the Soviet Union. The plan included hijacking jets by remote control, crashing them, and blaming Cuba, along with numerous other terrorist attacks to be carried out under the document. One scenario proposed the destruction of a US naval vessel to be blamed on a foreign power as a pretext for war with an agreed enemy. The narrative then shifts to 1967, when President Lyndon Baines Johnson allegedly operationalized Northwoods during the Six Day War. During that conflict, the USS Liberty, a clearly marked US intelligence ship, was sent by Johnson to collect electronic intelligence in the Eastern Mediterranean, approximately 14 miles off the coast of Israel in international waters. Speaker 1 describes the attack on the USS Liberty: three torpedo boats approached from the starboard quarter at high speed in an apparent torpedo launch attitude. Israeli surveillance aircraft flew low over the ship, clearly identifying it as American. At 2 PM that afternoon, the USS Liberty was attacked by three Mirage III fighter-bombers. The Mirages jammed US signals, and were unmarked, the only unmarked aircraft in Israel's arsenal. The fighter-bombers strafed the ship with their cannons, dropped conventional munitions and napalm from bow to stern. After the Mirages, the ship was hit by a medium bomber, Desalit? miseries, carrying napalm and other munitions such as white phosphorus. The USS Liberty was then attacked by three Israeli torpedo boats bearing Israeli flags. The torpedo gunboats opened fire with high-caliber machine guns and launched torpedoes. A single torpedo struck the ship, creating a 30-foot exit hole on both sides. The torpedo boats then strafed life rafts in the water in international waters. Throughout the engagement, the USS Liberty repeatedly called the Sixth Fleet nearby for air support or rescue. Two aircraft carriers and the Mediterranean fleet responded, but they were recalled by the White House. Rear Admiral Geist, commanding the carriers in the Sixth Fleet, called Washington to confirm the recall. Secretary of Defense McNamara came on the line, and then President Johnson allegedly told Geist, “I want that goddamn ship going to the bottom. No help. Recall the wings.” The report asserts that American forces were told to stand down despite the attack. A Russian spy ship reportedly witnessed part of the attack. After three hours, the Israelis withdrew, allowing the damaged USS Liberty to limp to safety. The narrator cites interviews with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moore, other admirals, and the head JAG officer of the Navy who allegedly was ordered to falsify reports and cover up what happened. An Israeli pilot is said to have publicly stated that he refused three times, over radio, to attack the ship, noting it was an American ship in international waters, but he was ordered to engage under threat of court-martial. The summary concludes with the claim that Johnson had personal control over the operation, positioning the ship in the Mediterranean and making a backroom deal with Israel to attack it and blame Egypt, aiming to draw the US into war and take over the Middle East. The captain and crew were allegedly told they would face life in prison or death if they disclosed what happened. Captain William L. McGonagall is said to have received the Congressional Medal of Honor in secret and was instructed not to reveal it.

Speaker 1 acknowledges that while intelligence is shared between the U.S. and Israel, it is likely not all intelligence. They also assume that allies, including Israel, spy on the U.S., and vice versa. Speaker 1 states that conservatives recognize people act in their own self-interest. Speaker 0 asks if it is in America's interest for Israel to spy on the U.S., including on the president. Speaker 1 responds that the close alliance with Israel provides huge benefits to the U.S. Speaker 0 asks why Speaker 1 won't say that Israel is not allowed to spy on the U.S. and that they don't want to be spied on.

Speaker 0 asserts that Donald Trump decided to bomb Iran because Israelis said, for the first time, that if Trump did not bomb Iran to take out deep bunkers, Israel would use nuclear weapons; they had never threatened that before, and bombing Iran might save them from the start of World War III by preventing Israeli nuclear use. Speaker 1 asks for clarification, restating that Israelis told the U.S. president to use military power to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, or Israel, acting on its own, would use nuclear weapons. They note the problem with that statement, since Israel has never admitted having them. Speaker 0 concurs, and Speaker 1 points out the contradiction: they are saying Israel just admitted to having nuclear weapons, yet the U.S. does not have them in the IAEA treaty. Speaker 0 adds that, if Israeli nuclear whistleblowers are to be believed, Israel has had nuclear weapons, and began working on them in the 1950s.

In the exchange, the interviewer raises the question of why Ben labeled the 1967 USS Liberty attack as irrelevant to current Israeli-American relations, given that dozens of American servicemen were killed or wounded. Ben responds that focusing on a mistaken attack from 1967, and using it to define today’s Israel-U.S. relations, is irrelevant in the context of modern relations—comparing it to citing World War II or 1776 to define present ties with Britain or Germany. He acknowledges the attack was horrible and tragic for those involved, notes that the Israeli government paid reparations, and asserts that the actual naval record shows it was a mistaken attack. The interviewer presses for accountability, noting that the American flag was flying on the USS Liberty, which would seem to preclude misidentification. Ben reiterates the broader context: people who cite the Liberty often are not discussing the specifics of the incident, but are using it to suggest that Israel deliberately attacked an American ship to harm the United States. He questions whether that is the interviewer’s point and emphasizes a broader agenda. The interviewer insists on accountability and asks why the incident should be irrelevant to today’s relations. Ben maintains that the issue is not central to assessing current U.S.-Israel relations, arguing that the attack should be considered within its own time, and that today’s relations are shaped by a wide range of factors. He notes that there were multiple naval investigations, and that the Navy records show the Liberty was off its usual path, and that at the time, Israeli forces mistook it for an Egyptian ship while Mirage aircraft were deployed by the Israeli military. In the initial attack, the American flag was knocked down, and the assault continued for about ninety minutes; once the pilots realized it was an American ship, they reportedly called off the attack and sent a ship to assist the USS Liberty. The interviewer acknowledges that there have been various incidents and persistent concerns, but maintains that the question concerns American interests. Ben maintains his position that the broader agenda is central to the line of questioning, and questions the relevance of a six-decade-old attack as the number one issue in assessing current U.S.-Israel relations. The interviewer suggests that the audience includes people alive at the time, implying lasting relevance, while Ben calls for focusing on current relations rather than an old incident, noting the existence of a wide variety of historical contexts in 1967. The conversation ends with Ben indicating he will move to another point, signaling the interviewer is not addressing his core question.

The speaker expresses concerns about American aircraft carriers, referencing the USS Liberty and the Israeli government. They mention “allegedly, the Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft… they did end up paying out the American government.” The speaker worries about a false flag operation: “a missile comes out of Gaza… hits one of our aircraft carriers, but it was actually Israeli missile.” They say, “we should get out of there.” In response, they remark, “It doesn’t matter where the missile comes from,” and then react, “that’s weird, Holy shit.”

The speaker states that the attack on Liberty was not a pure case of mistaken identity and was not pure error. They argue that it’s time for the state of Israel and the United States government to provide the crew members of the Liberty and the American people with the facts of what happened and why it came about that the Liberty was their child thirty years ago to ready.