reSee.it - 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.

I pay my respects to USS Liberty survivors and those who believe Israel was behind the attack. While I don't defend Lyndon B. Johnson, suggesting he manipulated Israel for personal gain is insulting. Israeli pilots questioned the attack on the American ship. Israel's involvement in events like the Lavon Affair, USS Liberty, and 9/11 is concerning. It was a joint operation with US and Israeli agents. Israel continues to use false flag operations, sacrificing American lives for their wars. Blaming Johnson for manipulating Israel is disgusting and borderline treasonous. No serious historian would support this claim.

A report warns Americans they will be pulled into a war with the Muslim world, made to believe Muslims perpetrated a horrible act against them. However, the report claims the Israeli Mossad, a "wild card" that is cunning and ruthless, will carry out attacks on Americans and make it look like Arabs are responsible. This is described as the literal definition of a false flag. The speaker insists this is not a conspiracy theory, but a warning from a US Army report about what Israel is capable of. Another speaker claims that in their 1995 book, they predicted that if the West didn't recognize the suicidal nature of militant Islam, the World Trade Center would be brought down.

Americans are being warned about a potential war with Arabs and Muslims, but the speaker claims that the real threat comes from the Israeli Mossad. They believe that the Mossad is capable of carrying out attacks and making it appear as though Arabs were responsible, which is known as a false flag operation. The speaker references a US army report from the day before 9/11, which supposedly warned about Israel's capabilities. They acknowledge that they may be called names for sharing this information.

In this video, the speaker discusses the USS Liberty incident in 1967, where Israel attacked an unarmed American spy ship. They highlight that the attack was intended to sink the ship and blame it on Egypt, potentially leading to a nuclear war. The speaker also mentions General Wesley Clark's claim that the US planned to invade seven Middle Eastern countries in five years, starting with Iraq. They attribute this plan to the Ynon Plan, an Israeli strategy for dividing the region into smaller states. The speaker emphasizes the chaos and fragmentation in the Middle East and suggests that the media manipulates public perception. They also mention key figures in the Pentagon with Israeli connections. The video concludes with concerns about the possibility of war with Iran.

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.

Americans are being warned that they may be drawn into a war with Arabs, falsely believing that Muslims were responsible for a terrible event. However, the speaker claims that it was actually the Israeli Mossad, known for their cunning and ruthlessness, who orchestrated the attack and made it appear as though Arabs were to blame. This is referred to as a false flag operation. The speaker cites a US army report from the day before 9/11 as evidence of Israel's capabilities.

Americans are being warned about a potential war with Arabs and Muslims, but the speaker claims that the real threat comes from the Israeli Mossad. They believe that the Mossad is capable of carrying out attacks on Americans and making it appear as though Arabs were responsible. This is referred to as a false flag operation. The speaker mentions a US army report from the day before 9/11, which supposedly warned about Israel's capabilities. They acknowledge that people may criticize them for their beliefs, but they stand by the information provided in the report.

Some individuals expressed being "sick and tired" of Jews pushing for war against Muslim countries, claiming they have too much power and are willing to spend American blood and treasure to get their way. One person stated that Americans should be able to discuss US policy toward Israel, and whether they want to be involved in fighting Israel's wars. They added that Israel is of no particular strategic worth to the US, has no resources the US needs, and their association is a negative for the US. The bombing of the USS Liberty, which killed 34 and injured over 170 American crewmen, was also discussed. Some believe the attack was intentional, not an accident, and that Israel covered it up. One person claimed the Israelis massacred Egyptian prisoners of war because they wanted to move troops to the Syrian border and couldn't handle the prisoners. It's perceived that the USS Liberty was attacked because the Israelis thought the ship was intercepting information about the massacre. Jets launched from the USS Saratoga to aid the Liberty were recalled by McNamara and President Johnson, allegedly because Israel has too much money and controlling interests in the US government.

Americans, be aware. There is a potential war with Arabs and the Muslim world looming. However, it is important to note that the blame for any terrible event should not be solely placed on Muslims. The Israeli Mossad, known for their cunning and ruthlessness, could potentially carry out attacks on Americans, making it appear as if Arabs were responsible. This is referred to as a false flag, and it is not just a conspiracy theory. In fact, a US army report, released the day before 9/11, warned about Israel's capabilities. Feel free to criticize me, but these are the facts presented by the US army.

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."

Colonel Daniel Davis joins the discussion to address the idea of a forthcoming false flag attack aimed at provoking Iran into a broader war. The conversation threads through claims that key US and Israeli military hardware is in place, Russia has countermeasures ready, and that Israel and a US “deep state” war faction coordinated by the CIA are driving the move. There’s also the assertion that a US carrier strike group is in place for the operation, and that the New York Times reports Trump has received intelligence suggesting Iran’s position is weakening. The host questions the reliability of this intelligence flow, asking who is really transmitting such assessments and whether the CIA or others are shaping Trump’s view. Davis pushes back on the weakening Iran narrative, stating he has followed Iran for years and sees no evidence that Iran is weakening; to the contrary, he notes Iran used a forceful response to suppress a rebellion—an action that, in his view, suggests strength. He references outside voices, including Mossad and Pompeo’s New Year’s Eve tweets, to illustrate how Western narratives have portrayed the protests. He challenges the idea that the protests reveal Iran’s weakness, arguing that the regime’s security apparatus remained in control and that no IRGC defections or regime desertions appeared visible. He warns that if Trump is led to believe Iran is at its weakest point, a more aggressive push could backfire, potentially producing a strong repudiation. The discussion turns to what a “deal” with Iran might entail. The co-panelists note claims that Trump says they can make a deal, while Davis explains that reports indicate any deal would require Iran to remove enriched uranium, cap long-range missiles, change its regional proxy policies, and ban independent uranium enrichment—red lines Iran has repeatedly rejected. The implication is that such terms would, in practice, preclude a peaceful settlement and push toward a military strike. The debate then moves to the military buildup and international reactions. The host asks about possible actions in the next few days, given reports of an Israeli target date around January 30. Davis rejects the notion of a simple, quick conflict, arguing that some Trump administration insiders want a regime-change outcome, whereas he sees limited attainable objectives beyond bombing or destroying infrastructure. He emphasizes the risk of a miscalculation leading to American or Israeli casualties and the potential for a prolonged conflict. He warns there is zero upside to a strike on Iran and a high downside if Iran responds forcefully. Turning to regional dynamics, the panel discusses how Russia, China, and a new Saudi axis might respond. Davis suggests China and Russia would offer logistical support or dual-use equipment rather than direct military aid, preferring to watch the confrontation and preserve their own interests. He also speculates that Beijing and Moscow hope to avoid provoking a broader conflict that could erode their own alliances, while watching Western infighting. A brief, cautioned aside notes Pakistan’s stated red line response to any Israeli nuclear escalation, indicating a potential chain reaction in the region. The panelists acknowledge the risk of escalation but maintain that Israel, if pressured, might pursue a broader conflict with Iran, while noting the uncertainty of Iran’s exact response should a strike occur. The exchange ends with a consensus that the scenario described contains significant risk and complexity, with the overall sentiment that pursuing such a conflict could have catastrophic consequences. Note: Promotional content for ExpressVPN was removed from the summary.

Americans are being misled into a war with the Muslim world, blaming them for attacks actually carried out by the Israeli Mossad. This was warned in a US army report the day before 9/11, revealing Israel's capabilities. It's a false flag operation, not a conspiracy theory. Wake up to the truth.

The USS Liberty, a US spy ship, is attacked by Israeli forces during the 6 day war in the Middle East. The ship is heavily damaged, and crew members are killed. The attack was intended to blame Egypt and provoke US involvement in the war. The plan, known as Operation Cyanide, aimed to justify a joint Israeli-US nuclear strike on Egypt. This false flag operation put multiple countries at risk of a global nuclear conflict.

In this exchange, Speaker 0 raises the issue of the USS Liberty attack in 1967, arguing that if truth matters, the Israeli government must be held accountable because the American flag was flying on that ship. Speaker 0 presses why, in a discussion of modern Israeli–American relations, Speaker 1 would deem the attack “irrelevant” to current ties. Speaker 1 responds that when assessing today’s relations, citing the 1967 attack as a basis for judgment is irrelevant—comparable to using evidence from World War II or 1776 to define present-day relations with Britain or Germany. He emphasizes that while the attack was horrible and tragic for those involved, and that Israel paid reparations, the actual naval record indicates the incident was a mistaken and tragic event. He notes that those who reference the USS Liberty often do so to suggest Israel deliberately harmed America, and asks if that is Speaker 0’s broader point. Speaker 0 reiterates that truth requires accountability from the Israeli government, given the American flag on the ship. Speaker 1 points to the naval investigations, stating that multiple investigations exist and that the Israeli military at the time was flying Mirage planes and the USS Liberty was operating off-grid. He explains that the Israeli forces mistook the ship for an Egyptian vessel and believed it was shelling Al-Arish, which was not true. He describes the sequence: the American flag was knocked down in the initial attack, the engagement lasted about ninety minutes, and once it became clear the vessel was American, the attack was halted and a ship was dispatched to assist the Liberty. He also notes there have been other unfortunate friendly-fire incidents in war, such as during the Gulf War when US forces killed British troops. Speaker 0 asks about the broader agenda behind raising the incident, suggesting that it is not limited to that specific event. Speaker 1 acknowledges the question but questions the motive and implies that it is not an appropriate basis for evaluating current U.S.–Israel relations. Speaker 0 asserts that there are ongoing problems in the relationship, but again emphasizes the six-decade-old incident as relevant to the discussion. Speaker 1 maintains that, in the same way that many histories exist, there are many countries and contexts, and reiterates that the question is not answered satisfactorily. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 indicating this will be the last question.

In 1967, the USS Liberty was attacked by Israeli forces in international waters. Despite clear American markings, the ship was targeted by unmarked jets and torpedo boats bearing the Star of David, resulting in numerous casualties. SOS messages were sent, but recalled by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and President Lyndon B. Johnson, allegedly to avoid embarrassing Israel. Survivors claim the attack was premeditated, designed to sink the ship and blame it on Arab states. After the attack, survivors were ordered to remain silent under threat of imprisonment or death. They were smeared as anti-Semitic for speaking out about the incident. The speaker, a USS Liberty veteran, calls on President Trump to investigate the attack and accuses Congress of being beholden to the Zionist state. He also challenges Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro to debate the issue. He believes the attack was an act of war and a war crime, and that the US is an occupied nation, prioritizing Israel over American interests. He urges support for usslibertyveterans.org.

The speaker warns Americans that they are being manipulated into believing that a terrible event was caused by Muslims, when in reality it was orchestrated by the Israeli Mossad. This is known as a false flag operation. The speaker references a US army report from the day before 9/11, which highlights Israel's capabilities.

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.

Americans, beware of being drawn into a war with Arabs by the Israeli Mossad, who can stage attacks to blame Muslims. This is known as a false flag, as detailed in a US army report released the day before 9/11. The report warned about Israel's tactics.

Americans are being warned about a potential war with Arabs and Muslims, but the speaker claims that the real threat comes from the Israeli Mossad. They believe that the Mossad is capable of carrying out attacks on Americans and making it appear as though Arabs were responsible. This is referred to as a false flag operation. The speaker cites a US army report from the day before 9/11 as evidence of this warning. They assert that the report highlights the capabilities of Israel.

Americans are being warned about a potential war with Arabs and Muslims, where they may be made to believe that a terrible event was caused by Muslims. However, the speaker claims that it was actually the Israeli Mossad, known for their cunning and ruthlessness, who carried out the attack and made it appear as if Arabs were responsible. This is referred to as a false flag, and it is not just a conspiracy theory but a report from the US army published the day before 9/11. The speaker emphasizes that the army report was warning about Israel's capabilities.

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 Washington Institute for Near East Policy. This is an American think tank out of Washington DC. It was established in 1985, and it says the mission statement of the institute, quote, is to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in The Middle East and to promote the policies that secure them. Not about what's right and wrong over there. It's just whatever secures the American interests over in The Middle East, and we all know what those interests are. You've got Henry Kissinger, Richard Pearl, Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, James Woolsey. It's a fun crowd. And it doesn't matter which president you think you're voting for. It's gonna change everything. People that have been part of this particular think tank have served senior positions in the administrations of every president this country has had since George h w Bush. Some of you may have seen this video, but again, considering the things that are going on right now, it's very it's more relevant now than it's ever been. So we're gonna go ahead and watch this, and I just wanna say upfront, you're gonna wanna have to make yourself resist the urge to punch your screen because you're gonna wanna punch this guy." "crisis initiation is really tough, and it's very hard for me to see how The United States, president can get us to war with Iran." "He just said that. You aren't hearing things he literally said. Crisis initiation's tough, and how's The United States president gonna get to war with Iran? Because wars don't just happen. They make the war." "The traditional way that America goes to war is what's best for the interests." "Some people might think that mister Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War two, as David mentioned. You may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. False flag." "Some people might think that mister Wilson wanted to get us into World War one. You may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode. False flag." "Some people might think that mister Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam. You may recall he had to wait for the Gulf Of Tonkin episode. Total false flag." "We didn't go to war with Spain until the USS until the Maine exploded. Probably also a false flag." "May I point out that mister Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander of Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack. Also a false flag." "Do you see a pattern here?" "So if in fact the Iranians aren't gonna compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war." "Period." "If the Iranians don't compromise, it would be best if someone started this war because that is how America goes to war." "One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17. We could step up the pressure." "We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We we could get nastier with that." "This is how America goes to war. You don't know when World War three is gonna break out, but when it does, you'll know why."