TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker states that the United States is conducting an operation with a clear goal: to eliminate the threat posed by Iran’s short-range ballistic missiles and by Iran’s navy to naval assets. The speaker says the operation is focused on this objective and is progressing “quite successfully,” with the details of tactics and progress to be discussed by the Pentagon and the Department of War. Two reasons are given for acting now. First, the speaker asserts that if Iran came under attack by the United States, Israel, or another party, Iran would respond against the United States. According to the speaker, orders had been delegated down to field commanders, and within an hour of the initial attack on Iran’s leadership compound, the Iranian missile forces in the south and in the north were activated to launch. The speaker notes that those forces were “prepositioned.” Second, the speaker explains that the assessment was that if the United States stood and waited for Iran’s attack to come first, American casualties would be much higher. Therefore, the president made the decision to act preemptively. The speaker emphasizes that they knew there would be an Israeli action, and that action would precipitate an attack against American forces. The implication is that delaying a preemptive strike would result in greater casualties, potentially billions of dollars in losses, and more American lives at risk. The overarching message is that the preemptive operation aims to neutralize Iran’s short-range ballistic missiles and navy threats before they are used in consolidation with anticipated Israeli actions and any Iranian counterattacks against U.S. forces. The speaker frames the decision as prudent and anticipatory, intended to prevent higher casualties and to maintain safety for American personnel and assets. The speaker stops short of detailing specific tactical methods, pointing listeners to the Pentagon and the Department of War for a deeper discussion of tactics and progress.

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.

Admiral Martin ordered four planes with nuclear warheads from the America aircraft carrier to Cairo. Vyshevsky planned to target the Dome Of The Rock with surface-to-surface missiles that required high reflectivity, to be detonated after the first nuclear weapon hit Cairo. A Strategic Air Defense Command pilot in California was ready to launch a nuclear attack on China and the Soviet Union hours before the USS Liberty attack. He stood down because of the attack on the Liberty. Strategic Air Command headquarters is located in Nebraska. An airman in Nebraska reported an alert on the morning of June 8th that had them preparing to scramble. The Strategic Air Command at Moffett Air Force Base is located 10 miles south of Omaha, Nebraska.

The speaker marks the tenth anniversary of coming down the golden escalator, stating the last ten years were a preamble to today's crises. They claim the U.S. is prepping for a major shooting war, moving naval forces to the North Arabian Sea, Red Sea, and Eastern Mediterranean. The speaker expresses shock at how the situation escalated, comparing it to Iraq, where decisions "kinda just happened." They question how this point was reached, given intelligence suggested it was years away. Referencing Bebe's admission to Brent Baer, the speaker questions what drives decisions in Washington, D.C., regardless of the president. They insist on a "throwdown" to "name names" and expose the underlying issues. They believe that if this isn't addressed in the summer of 2025, the country will be lost.

Speaker 0: I need your help to inform and alert the American people. Senator Kennedy has been shot. Speaker 1: On February 28th, the ATF learned that Koresh knew they were coming but proceeded anyway. Speaker 0: 911, there's been an explosion. We need to backtrack for a better view. Defending freedom in dangerous times is our responsibility. We welcome it. Our energy and devotion will light up our country and those who serve it.

The speaker was questioned about his duty station on the USS Liberty as a scene leader and member of the forward repair party. He saw two torpedoes aft but not the one that hit the ship, and believed the ship would sink. An admiral threatened the speaker, stating that if he repeated one word about the USS Liberty and who attacked it, he would end up in Leavenworth or worse. The speaker questioned why they were left alone. The speaker felt betrayed and worthless after the encounter, comparing it to the attack and worse than heartbreak. Another speaker stated the admiral knew everything and wasn't a nice man. 28 of the 34 people killed that day worked for him.

According to the speakers, the Pentagon assessed that providing Ukraine with weapons capable of striking targets within Russia carried a 50% risk of nuclear exchange. Despite this assessment, the U.S. proceeded with providing those weapons. One speaker argues that such a decision warrants imprisonment, likening it to being controlled by supernatural forces. The other speaker agreed with the assessment, and presented a hypothetical scenario where Russia faced a similar threat from weapons in Canada and Mexico, emphasizing Putin's warning of a full retaliatory commitment in response to a large-scale aerospace attack. The speakers highlight the potential for rapid destruction, with nuclear submarines capable of striking major U.S. cities within minutes. One speaker recounts witnessing smoke emanating from the Kremlin after a drone attack, noting the Russian reluctance to acknowledge vulnerabilities in their capital's defense. They claim Ukrainians have murdered Russians and attempted to murder Americans.

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.

Speaker 0 describes concerns from June 2005 that Israel wasn’t preparing to attack Iran anytime soon, and that there was hurry to roll out a sequence of events as planned. The sequence described starts with Israel attacking Iran, with retaliation by either Iran or China after Iran is struck with a nuclear weapon. This leads to a limited nuclear exchange in the Middle East, followed by a ceasefire. He heard this being planned in the meeting and says it is being choreographed, “like the script for a movie.” In this rollout of the scenario, as the world looks on with horror, people will demand from their governments heavy controls over travel, over communication, over people who meet, and over people who protest in the streets. They want to prevent crazy bombers in airplanes and in shopping malls. Because people will be driven into fear, they will request, demand, and insist on heavy controls from their governments, which will be justified. This is where the martial law situation in Western countries is intended to come about. The speaker emphasizes that this is just the start of a much bigger and pretty horrifying story.

On June 8, 1967, Israel attacked an American Navy ship, resulting in the deaths of 34 sailors and marines and injuries to 174 others. The crew felt safe, believing Israel was a strong ally. However, during the attack, they were caught off guard as their defenses were taken out. The assault lasted about 25 minutes, and despite being clearly identified as an American ship, the attack was dismissed as an accident. There are claims that the U.S. government may have orchestrated this to provoke a war, with suggestions that leaders conspired to use the incident to justify military action. The situation was precarious, with the potential for escalating into World War III.

A friend of the speaker, now deceased, conveyed a sequence of decisions and reactions related to military aircraft and orders. The friend said that after the aircraft were sent off, they were recalled by Washington from McNamara. Even before they hit Horizon, they were called back. After reconfiguring, another volley was sent up. Then Johnson got on the phone and said, you better, turn those g d planes around. The speaker quotes the claim that, “I don’t care if, every sailor on that ship gets hurt or whatever killed, but they left us out left us out there to die.” The speaker asserts that “that’s what our government wanted. That’s what Israel wanted.”

In San Diego, while the speaker and his wife are at a bar waiting for a table, a man comes up and says, “oh, you run the USS Liberty.” The speaker asks, “How'd you know that?” The man replies, “I know,” and holds a large camera-watch in the speaker’s face. The speaker asks him to remove the watch, saying, “hey. But get that thing out of my face.” The man then asks for guidance on “the best thing to do about the Liberty,” and the speaker replies, “just leave it alone.” The speaker asks, “who are you, Mossad?” The man says yes, identifying as Mossad. The speaker describes this as intimidation. The question of whether he was really Mossad is raised, but the speaker notes that it didn’t matter to him because “I got the message.”

06/08/1967, the height of the six day war. The USS Liberty, an American spy ship, was attacked by Israeli jets and torpedo boats off Egypt; badly damaged, two thirds of its crew were dead or wounded. The Israeli government and The US naval attache dropped a brown paper sack on the deck in the fore part of the ship, weighted down with an orange, had a business card in it. It landed right next to the severed leg of one of the deck personnel. And the note said, do you have cashless? The attack instantly triggered a domestic political crisis; one solution suggested in American government circles was to sink the Liberty so journalists could not photograph it and inflame public opinion against the Israelis. The NSA rejected this idea with an impolite comment. The planes that they said they were sending to us never arrived. The next day, American ships arrived to take the injured and the dead off the Liberty. Back in Washington, the government ensured there was little information for the press while politics went on behind closed doors.

A survivor from the USS Liberty recounts the 1967 attack by Israel in waters off the Sinai Peninsula. Thirty four of my crewmen were killed and a hundred and seventy one wounded. He says Mirage jets strafed the ship, napalm was dropped, and four Israeli torpedo boats circling the vessel fired five torpedoes total, with one hit. The ship sustained a hole in the side, about 50 feet by 30 feet. He notes that all men in the gun mounts were killed and a torpedo hit the communications spaces, leaving many wounded, supposedly by an accident. He says he intercepted messages that Israel had sent, some highly classified at the time, and that these were forwarded to the government. He asserts, "And I know the Israelis, this is my opinion, planned the attack on us, and they know it too. And I believe our government knows it too."

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."

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.

- "Retaliation was ordered for the attack." - "Condition November meant that nuclear armed a four bombers were to be used." - "Incredibly, The US was about to launch a nuclear strike against Egypt, the Liberty's presumed attacker." - "There was a flash message, as I recall, from one of the carriers that said they had launched ready aircraft." - "Cairo was about to be incinerated." - "McNamara directed Comm six fleet to recall the aircraft, and Comm six fleet said, are you sure? And he said, absolutely certain. Recall the aircraft." - "The attack on the Liberty had triggered an extraordinary response. Nuclear armed planes had been on their way to Cairo. A nuclear strike had been minutes away and had only just been averted."

A speaker claims an event was a thousand times worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis but unknown. He told his crew they were facing a serious action, and only one man opted out. Another speaker states he was ordered to prepare air squadrons to bomb military and communications targets in Israel. Dick Thompson, a retired CIA agent, was told by Shotsky that he was ordered to launch nukes against Israel as soon as a nuclear weapon detonated in Cairo.

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.

The speaker states that the situation was rapidly approaching the point of no return and that the United States found it intolerable, based on what Steve, Jared, Pete, and others told him, with Marco being so involved that he thought they were going to attack us if action wasn’t taken at the time we did it, and that they had in mind to attack us.

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.

The CIA last November briefed Congress that there's a greater than 50% chance of a nuclear war between Russia and The United States, based on releasing ATAKEMS missiles to Ukraine for long-range strikes into Russia. Those strikes would have violated Russia's new nuclear doctrine and red lines. STRATCOM's director of plans briefed a Washington DC think tank that The United States is prepared for nuclear exchange with Russia, meaning nuclear war, and that The United States thought they would win. A senior Democrat asked if the CIA said the Russians were bluffing; the answer was no—the CIA said the exact opposite. The scary part is Biden administration officials were in the room and said, "Oh, we're ready for that. If the Russians wanna play, we're ready." "We're ready to go to nuclear war with them. This is the insanity that existed in November."

"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."