TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Shortly after 9/11, a general told me about the decision to go to war with Iraq, even without evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. The rationale seemed to be that military force was the go-to solution. Weeks later, I learned of a plan to "take out seven countries in five years," starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. I worked with every Israeli prime minister from Yitzhak Shamir forward. It would have been fantastic to own the Twin Towers. After 9/11, I was very lucky that Governor Spitzer helped me collect $4.5 billion in insurance money. There was a decision to pull the building and watch it collapse. Post 9/11, Iraq, Iran, and Libya were racing to develop nuclear weapons. Action was needed, and the first regime was the Taliban. The next step? Military action should happen first against Iraq.

In 1995, I predicted that if the West didn't recognize the danger of militant Islam, they would witness the World Trade Center being attacked. Democracies usually debate before going to war, but sometimes they need a wake-up call. Just like Pearl Harbor opened the eyes of Americans in World War II, the September 11 attacks opened our eyes to the conflict and danger we face. It's a call to action, as terrorists have the will to destroy America and its allies. Saddam Hussein is undoubtedly pursuing nuclear weapons, and removing him would have positive effects on the region. Benjamin Netanyahu has acknowledged that the September 11 attacks have benefited Israel and the American struggle in Iraq.

In the nineties, the speaker stated that the West doesn't understand militant Islam. In 1995, the speaker wrote a book predicting that if the West doesn't recognize the suicidal nature of militant Islam, militant Islam will bring down the World Trade Center.

The speaker warns that a war with Arabs and the Muslim world is imminent, but claims that the 9/11 attacks were not carried out by Muslims, but rather by the Israeli Mossad. They refer to a US army report published the day before 9/11, which allegedly warned about Israel's ability to carry out such attacks. The speaker emphasizes that this is not their conspiracy theory, but information from the US army report.

The transcript weaves together a compilation of statements and reporting surrounding the 9/11 attacks, Israeli involvement rumors, and related investigations. - Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly said September has been good for Israel, claiming, “we're benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon and the American struggle in Iraq.” - CNN reported (and later acknowledged as false) a tape in which Osama bin Laden told his mother that something big was about to happen; bin Laden had consistently denied involvement in 9/11 and claimed Zionists were behind the attacks. Reports from Japanese, Chinese, and Indian outlets claimed bin Laden was killed in Afghanistan in 2001 and buried in an unmarked grave by his own men. There are claims from the Muslim world and some European figures that Zionist extremists staged the 9/11 attacks to ignite terrorism. - A commentator asserted that the war has targeted Israel’s Muslim enemies and is being fought and paid for with American blood, lives, and tax dollars. - A speaker argued that bin Laden, regardless of who committed the attacks, comes back to the Middle East, and urged the United States to dismantle the entire “evil empire of terrorism,” warning that without doing so, the terror network could develop nuclear capabilities and threaten the United States and its allies. - Observers described a lack of apparent shock among certain people in connection with the events, noting unusual behavior or reactions. - Five men arrested in a van were later identified as Israeli, with some connections to Israeli intelligence; they were turned over to the FBI. National security databases showed some of the men had prior Israeli intelligence or counterterrorism experience, and one admitted serving in an Israeli army anti-terrorist unit and refused a lie detector test for an extended period. A speaker emphasized loyalty to country when discussing military service. - Fox News and others reported that up to 140 Israelis had been detained prior to September 11 in an ongoing, broad investigation into suspected espionage by Israelis in the United States. Government documents described hundreds of incidents across U.S. cities that investigators said could indicate organized intelligence gathering. The “country A” in a General Accounting Office document was said to be Israel, described as conducting aggressive espionage against the U.S. despite being an ally, with Israel possessing substantial resources to achieve its collection objectives. - Investigators questioned the possibility that some Israeli agents had advanced knowledge of the attacks, suggesting there is explosive but not necessarily conclusive evidence when aggregated. A recurring theme was the question of how such agents could have known, given the events. - Allegations of foreknowledge included claims that Israeli agents were forewarned and filmed the event on Israeli television. Some individuals detained or questioned described their presence in Israel as journalists or documenters. The broader question centered on whether Israelis gathered intelligence in advance and whether it was shared or withheld. - The transcript also recounts the failure to account for certain details (e.g., passport survivals, disappearance of voice recorders) as well as assertions that anthrax letters, later linked to a U.S. Army lab, were used to deflect blame toward Muslims. - Two accounts describe a white Chevy van linked to Urban Moving Systems, a moving company whose employees were alleged to have connections to Israeli intelligence. The FBI issued a nationwide alert about the van, and two suspects were reported in custody after explosives were found in a vehicle near the George Washington Bridge. CBS reported that two suspects were in FBI custody and that the truck contained enough explosives to damage the bridge, with some accounts noting a prior alert about a van on the way to destroy the bridge. - Overall, the material presents a network of claims and investigations involving alleged Israeli espionage, foreknowledge of 9/11, intelligence operations in the United States, and specific incidents surrounding the George Washington Bridge and related arrests.

"Proxy, the PLO, international terrorism would collapse. If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." "Obviously, we 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?" "The answer is categorically yes." "The, the two nations that are vying competing with each other, who will be the first to achieve nuclear weapons, is Iraq and Iran." "But, a third nation, by the way, is Libya as well."

There is a belief that the war will eventually extend to Iraq due to evidence suggesting their involvement in the attack and connections to Al Qaeda. It is seen as crucial to confront Iraq because Saddam Hussein is considered as much of a threat as Osama bin Laden. Iraq is believed to possess biological weapons, making the conflict larger than just Afghanistan. The American people may not fully comprehend the magnitude of this upcoming war.

If the Soviet Union and the PLO were removed, international terrorism would collapse. Removing Saddam's regime would have positive effects on the region. Regime change is desired in both Iran and Iraq. The practical question is not if Iraq's regime should be removed, but when. When asked if the U.S. should launch preemptive attacks on other nations, the answer is yes. Iraq and Iran are competing to be the first to achieve nuclear weapons, and Libya is also rapidly trying to build an atomic bomb. These three nations must be stopped to halt Iran's conquest, subjugation, and terror. Everyone stands with Israel.

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.

And this is a tyrant who is feverishly trying to acquire nuclear weapons. 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. The three o's, location location location. The three principles of winning the war on terror are the three w's. Winning, winning, and winning. The first victory in Afghanistan makes a second victory in Iraq that much easier. Because Saddam's nuclear program has fundamentally changed in those two decades. 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. And I believe that even free and unfettered inspections will not uncover these portable manufacturing sites of mass death.

Saddam having nuclear weapons means the terror network will too, possibly leading to a nuclear bomb in the World Trade Center. Removing Saddam's regime would have positive effects on the region. Iraq is the right choice for a regime change and to eliminate the nuclear threat. Portable centrifuges, slightly larger than two cameras, make it easy for Saddam to hide his nuclear weapons. If he had them on September 11th, we wouldn't be here. Arafat needs to be removed due to the nuclear threat.

Before Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden became a new threat after the Gulf War. However, the speaker claims that if they were the head of the CIA, they would have captured or killed bin Laden within two weeks. They mention a CNN reporter who supposedly interviewed bin Laden in his secret hideout, but the speaker dismisses it as false and calls anyone who believes it foolish. The speaker warns not to trust any future events blamed on bin Laden.

According to a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer, Saddam Hussein ordered his nuclear program to continue, calling Iraqi nuclear scientists his "nuclear mujahideen." Evidence suggests Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, rebuilding facilities at former nuclear sites, and attempting to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment. If Iraq obtains a softball-sized amount of highly enriched uranium, it could have a nuclear weapon in under a year, enabling blackmail, Middle East domination, threats to America, and the transfer of nuclear technology to terrorists. Post-September 11th, the US cannot ignore gathering threats, as enemies are willing to use biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. America cannot wait for final proof, such as a mushroom cloud, before acting.

In the 1990s, I noted that the West struggled to comprehend militant Islam. In my 1995 book, I warned that if the West failed to recognize the suicidal tendencies of militant Islam, significant attacks would follow, including the potential for an event like the World Trade Center being targeted.

About 10 days after 9/11, the speaker met with Secretary Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. A general informed him that they had decided to go to war with Iraq, but when asked why, the general had no answer. There was no evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, but they felt they had a strong military and could overthrow governments. Later, the speaker learned that there was a memo outlining plans to attack seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. The speaker asked if the memo was classified, and it was confirmed to be so.

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.

The speaker asserts people desire freedom and will overthrow dictators like Saddam Hussein if given the opportunity. When asked about finding evidence of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, the speaker states there is no question that the U.S. has evidence Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons. This was the reason for military action to disarm Saddam Hussein. The speaker suggests reporters embedded with the military will find this evidence firsthand and the findings will be self-evident. When asked directly if the speaker expects the weapons to be found, the speaker reiterates Saddam Hussein possesses biological and chemical weapons, and this will become clear during the operation.

The US aims to prevent Saddam Hussein from using nuclear or chemical weapons on other countries. Despite his denial, he is believed to possess such weapons. The speaker mentions the devastating death toll of half a million children, surpassing that of Hiroshima. They question whether the cost of war is justified. Speaker 0 acknowledges the difficulty of the decision but believes the price is worth it. They argue that it is a moral obligation to protect the American people, military, and neighboring countries from the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

The speaker lays out a prepared, all-options approach to confrontation, emphasizing that both an easier and a harder path are available and acceptable. They assert that the United States will "give them full opportunity to do it the easy way," and when that fails, will proceed with the "hard way," underscoring a willingness to escalate if necessary. The stance is framed as a choice between leveraging an easier, targeted strategy or adopting stronger measures if diplomacy or limited action does not achieve the objectives. A central motive centers on perceived threats to the United States, specifically naming chemical weapons as a threat. The speaker identifies chemical weapons as a threat to the United States and also flags fentanyl as posing a chemical weapons threat, extending the danger from state actors to non-state crises and illicit trafficking. This framing links conventional security concerns with the broader chemical threat landscape. The discussion explicitly mentions Iraq and Venezuela as focal points for action, signaling the intention to address activities or regimes in those regions. The speaker highlights the presence of Al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq and characterizes them as part of “Al Qaeda of our hemisphere,” suggesting a regional dimension to the terrorist threat that could be leveraged to justify intervention or action. There is a stated belief that removing Saddam Hussein could transform the region. The speaker asserts that getting rid of Saddam "could really begin to transform the region" and describes there as "an opportunity to transform the entire region." This frames regime change in a transformative, strategic light, presenting it as a catalyst for broader democratic and freedom-oriented change. The rhetoric emphasizes the promotion of freedom and democracy as a guiding objective, describing democracy and freedom as concepts that "can serve as a beacon of hope." The final fragment, "Shark cannot," appears as an incomplete or garbled closing thought, attached to a broader theme of capability or constraint, leaving an abstract or unresolved note at the end.

In the 1990s, the speaker stated that the West doesn't understand militant Islam. The speaker wrote a book in 1995, asserting that if the West doesn't recognize the suicidal nature of militant Islam, the next event would be militant Islam bringing down the World Trade Center. The speaker reiterated that the West doesn't understand militant Islam and repeated the claim from their 1995 book about militant Islam and the World Trade Center.

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.

Saddam is actively pursuing nuclear weapons and is not satisfied with his existing chemical and biological arsenal. A congressional hearing in September 2002 saw calls for war on Iraq, with claims that removing Saddam would positively impact the region. However, the subsequent US-led invasion caused widespread destabilization and led to over a million deaths, fueling extremist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS. Netanyahu argued that dismantling Saddam's regime was necessary, as his nuclear program had evolved to allow production in smaller, hidden centrifuges. He also warned that Iraq and Iran were in a race to develop nuclear weapons, with Iran advancing in ballistic missile technology. The situation was presented as a pressing threat, not a hypothetical scenario.

In the 1990s, the speaker stated that the West doesn't understand militant Islam. In a 1995 book, the speaker claimed that if the West doesn't recognize the suicidal nature of militant Islam, the next event would be militant Islam bringing down the World Trade Center. The speaker reiterated that the West doesn't understand militant Islam and repeated the prediction from their 1995 book about militant Islam destroying the World Trade Center.

The speaker argues that the war in Iraq resulted in an enormous, unrecoverable cost: “we spent $2,000,000,000,000, thousands of lives,” and that the outcome left the United States with nothing to show for it. The speaker contends that Iran is now taking over Iraq, describing it as having “the second largest oil reserves in the world,” and asserts that this outcome proves the involvement in Iraq was a mistake. The speaker states that George Bush made a mistake and that the United States “should have never been in Iraq,” claiming that the intervention destabilized the Middle East. Regarding accountability, the speaker questions whether Bush should be impeached and suggests a preference for letting the other party decide how to label the issue, saying, “So you still think he should be impeached? I think it's my turn, ain't it? You do whatever you want.” The speaker emphasizes a belief that those responsible “lied,” specifically about weapons of mass destruction, asserting, “They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Alright.” In sum, the speaker presents three core assertions: (1) the Iraq War was extraordinarily costly in financial terms and human lives, and produced no tangible gain; (2) the war destabilized the Middle East and empowered Iran to increase influence in Iraq, which the speaker frames as a mistaken outcome; and (3) the leaders claimed WMDs existed when they did not, asserting that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that those claims were knowingly false. The dialogue also touches on impeachment as a potential consequence for the leadership involved, framed through the speaker’s yes-or-no stance and interjections about accountability.

The conversation centers on the nature, aims, and future threat of Islamic militant terrorism and the states believed to support it. The interviewer asks why the United States was hit so savagely and what the terrorists’ objective is. The Prime Minister responds that the attacks are terrorist actions launched by Islamic militants who enjoy support from radical Middle Eastern states. He says militant Islam perverts and distorts one of the world’s great religions and seeks to reverse a thousand years of history in which Islam receded in the West and democracy became dominant. To undo this, he explains, they must strike at the main bastion of Western democracy—the United States—and will likely strike again to crush its will, not merely to damage it. He links this effort to inspiration from Islamic militant teachings and, specifically, from the Islamic Republic of Iran, stating that they view the United States as the “great Satan” and Israel as the “little Satan.” He adds that if Belgium were in the Middle East, it would also be a “little Satan,” underscoring the pattern of targeting the United States. The Prime Minister emphasizes that the United States’ awakening is a wake-up call from hell, noting that these groups are continually improving their technical capabilities and that radical regimes–notably Iran and Iraq–are developing weapons of mass destruction. He warns that the next attack could involve millions dying, should Islamic militants acquire nuclear weapons, and asserts that if action is not taken to dismantle the terror network and the terrorist states behind it, the future of freedom and democracy is in doubt. He argues that the United States has the power today to crush them and must demonstrate the will to do so. In responding to a question from five years earlier about the potential for a nuclear or Armageddon-like attack, the Prime Minister asserts that terrorists already used a 350-ton conventional bomb and that this network operates through states and territories. He argues that no group acts without states, and that the terrorists require places to be launched from and coordinated. He identifies a network including Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, certain Arab states, and Arafat’s Palestinian domain, describing Arafat’s camps in Gaza where Hamas and Islamic Jihad allegedly train children to become suicide bombers, preparing “the kamikaze pilots” of today and tomorrow. He contends that the network has the capacity to develop atomic weapons and already possesses ballistic missiles and chemical/biological capabilities, bringing the history of conflict into a new era driven by Islamic militancy allied with Arab terrorist groups seeking to destroy the West. The Prime Minister concludes that terrorism is an indivisible evil and that success by terrorists in one region emboldens others, requiring a unified, determined response—akin to historical coalitions against piracy or Nazism. He endorses President Bush’s call for a global war of democracies against terrorism, asserting that this is necessary for the future of civilization. The interviewer closes by thanking the Prime Minister.