reSee.it - Related Video Feed

You think that if you speak very loudly about the war... He's not speaking loudly. Your country is in big trouble. Can I ask, wait a minute? No. You've done a lot of talking. Your country is in big trouble. I know you're not winning this. You have a damn good chance of coming out.

Speaker 0 frames the situation as a war, not a battle, and insists we absolutely will win this war: "But this is a a war." "This isn't a battle, and we absolutely will win this war." "It is a war." "It is indeed a war." Acknowledging that "they have won some battles, Jasmine," the speaker says we must "keep our eye on the war" and that "and and everybody needs to pick up a weapon and and get involved" because "this is for the the safety and and lasting of the country." The message ends with a reiteration: "And everybody needs to pick up a weapon."

The speaker claims someone is talking about an enemy within the country, specifically Pennsylvania. This person allegedly considers anyone who doesn't support them or bend to their will an enemy of the country. The speaker emphasizes the seriousness of this issue. They assert this person is saying they would use the military to go after these perceived enemies.

Speaker 0 states: "Doing it. President Trump is in the process of doing it. They're going to lose, and we're going to win. Israel and The United States, you just wait to see what comes in the next two weeks. Two the next two weeks meaning what? We're gonna blow the hell out of these people."

The speaker reports aggressive military actions and ongoing negotiations with Iran. They state that they have “destroyed a lot of additional targets today” and that “the navy's gone” and “the air force is gone,” while noting that “we know that” and that they “destroyed many, many targets today” in what was “a big day.” Negotiations are described as both direct and indirect, with emissaries involved as well as direct dealings. On the diplomatic side, the speaker says Iran “agreed to send eight votes two days ago, and then they added another two, so it was 10 votes,” and that “today, they gave us as a tribute I don't know. Can't define it exactly, but they gave us, I think out of a sign of respect, 20 boats of oil.” These vessels would be moving “through the Hormoz Strait” and would begin “starting tomorrow morning over the next couple of days.” The speaker claims to be “doing extremely well in that negotiation,” while acknowledging uncertainty in dealings with Iran: “you never know with Iran because we negotiate with them and then we always have to blow them up.” Historical references are cited to explain current posture: the “b two bombers” and the termination of the “Iran nuclear deal done by Barack Hussein Obama, probably the worst deal we've ever done as a country, of the dumbest deals we've ever done.” The speaker asserts that the deal was terminated, otherwise “right now, they'd have a nuclear weapon,” and that an attack with the B-2 bombers was used to stop them from having nuclear capability. The speaker suggests a possible future deal with Iran but notes it is not certain: “I think we'll make a deal with them. Pretty sure. But it's possible we won't.” Regarding regime change, the speaker asserts that “we've had regime change, if you look already, because the one regime was decimated, destroyed. They're all dead.” The “next regime is mostly dead,” and the “third regime” involves “a whole different group of people” than any before. The speaker contends that this constitutes regime change and characterizes the first regime as “really bad, really evil,” which is claimed to be “done.” The second regime is described as “appointed, and they're gone.” The third group is described as “much more reasonable,” leading the speaker to say that regime change appears to be achieved and may be automatic.

But this is a a war. This isn't a battle, and we absolutely will win this war. It is a war. It is indeed a war. And I have to say they have won some battles, Jasmine, but we we have to keep our eye on the war, and and everybody needs to pick up a weapon and and get involved because this is for the the the safety and and lasting of the country. And everybody needs to pick up a weapon.

At the start of the war, we weren't in a good position and didn't have the upper hand. Now, things are different; we're gaining leverage. But you're playing a dangerous game, gambling with the lives of millions and risking World War Three. Your actions are disrespectful to this country. I've given more than many suggested, and yet, there hasn't been a single thank you, not even once.

During war, everyone faces problems, even those with beautiful oceans. While you may not feel it now, you will feel the effects in the future. God bless you, you will not have war. I am not in a position to dictate what you're going to feel, but you will feel influence. We are going to feel very good and very strong. You are not with us, you start having cars. You don't see where you are going. You're gambling with World War Three. Someday, I'm going to find this piece of shit in the trunk.

we're walking down a damn different path. We're fighting fire with fire, and we're gonna punch these sons of bitches in the mouth.

Speaker 0 argues that control over the strait is more powerful than any nuclear weapon, noting that control is clearly in Iran’s hands, with additional mining of the southern portion forcing ships to sail right next to Iran’s total control. They criticize MAGA/Trump supporters for claiming Iran must open it immediately, saying, “you can say all the words you want, but Iran still controls the strait. And that means they control the backbone of the energy of planet earth, period.” Speaker 1 responds that Trump is desperate for a solution because the situation is humiliating the United States. They recount the U.S. posture since the Carter era, referencing the Carter Doctrine: to secure the energy-producing region in exchange for security guarantees, ensuring the Strait of Hormuz remains open. They remind that in 1987, during Operation Earnest Will, the U.S. Navy reflagged the Kuwaiti tanker fleet and escorted it through the Strait of Hormuz to protect it from Iraq and Iran. They say the Iranians watched and learned, and have since developed the capabilities to shut the strait down, and that the U.S. cannot keep it open—our navy, air force, and lack of sufficient ground power can’t do it. Therefore, Iran “own this. It is theirs, and they have declared it is ours.” Speaker 1 warns that if Iran continues to shut the strait, it will cause permanent damage, including permanent economic damage globally, with Europe facing an energy crisis it won’t recover from and Asia facing serious economic harm, including China. They note that China has intervened and pressured Iran to come to the table because a significant portion of China’s energy comes from the Middle East and from countries unable to ship oil due to the closure. They conclude that China told the Iranians they must sit down and talk with the Americans, and that Iran didn’t want to come to the table because they are “winning this war,” asserting, “they’re like, keep bombing us. We don’t care. You’re not destroying us. You’re not breaking our will. We’re destroying you. We’re humiliating you.” The Iranians, according to Speaker 1, were told by the Chinese to flow oil again and to begin talks, prompting Iran to sit down with the Americans.

The speaker claims someone is talking about an enemy within the country, specifically Pennsylvania. This person allegedly considers anyone who doesn't support them or bend to their will an enemy of the country. The speaker believes this is a serious issue. They assert this person is saying they would use the military to go after these perceived enemies.

The speaker states, “We don’t change our plates every morning, just so you know. It’ll be the same plate when you come talk to us later.” They claim to be a “US citizen, former …,” and challenge someone, asking, “You wanna come at us?” They instruct the other person to “go get yourself some lunch, big boy,” signaling a taunt and confrontation.

The speaker asserts that they have won, emphasizing that “we’ve won” and “we won the bet,” noting that in the first hour the matter was over and reiterating, “Oh, we won.” In the midst of claiming victory, they recount being presented with a list of options for naming an operation, specifically “the name of the attack on Iran.” They describe being handed “a list of names of general,” followed by a formal offer or prompt: “Sir, you can pick the name you’d like, sir.” The speaker questions aloud, “I said, the name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir,” indicating confusion or clarification about what the names were intended to label. They recount that the list contained “like 20 names,” and they admit that they were “falling asleep” while reviewing them, noting that they “didn’t like any of them.” This conveys a sense of fatigue or disengagement with the proposed options and a dissatisfaction with the choices provided. After this, the speaker reveals that they encountered the name “epic fury,” which stands out to them, and they express a strong preference for it: “Then I see epic fury. I said, I like that name. I like that name.” Throughout, the speaker documents a progression from asserted victory to a process of selecting a codename for a hypothetical attack, and finally to a decisive moment of approval for the selected label. The sequence highlights a rapid sense of triumph followed by a procedural moment of choosing among multiple proposed names, culminating in a single favored option that the speaker explicitly endorses. The narrative moves from confident declaration of success to a practical naming decision, underscoring the tension between claiming immediate victory and engaging in a careful selection process. The preference for “epic fury” is presented as the crucial result of the naming discussion.

Tanks are thanked for their attack. There was fighting. Inside a house, 15 people were burned, including eight babies, because they were blocked in. The speaker says they need to conquer back the whole settlement, and this couldn't happen without the tanks. Tanks are thanked for their attack. There was fighting.

Your country is in big trouble. You're not winning this. You have a good chance of coming out of this okay because of us. We are staying strong in our country from the beginning of the war. We've been alone, and we are thankful. You haven't been alone. We gave you $350 billion for your military, but they had to use our military. If you didn't have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.

The speaker describes undertaking a “stopover” which they characterize as an excursion in Iran, explaining that they had to “knock the hell out of them” because, in their view, the United States’ safety—and by extension the world’s safety—depended on it. They assert that this action was necessary to keep the country safe and to protect global security, framing it as an essential contribution that benefited the world. The narrator asserts that the world has not reciprocated this effort. They claim to have done a “great favor for the world,” and contrast that with a lack of reciprocity from others. A key part of their message centers on NATO, saying that the United States has given “billions and billions of dollars, trillions over the years.” In that context, they say they asked NATO for assistance, specifically for support with the streets, but contended that NATO did not want to get involved. The speaker implies that NATO’s reluctance to assist will have serious consequences, stating that this lack of involvement will “cost them dearly.” The remarks suggest a belief that the failure of others to participate or contribute will have notable negative repercussions for those parties in the future. The address closes with expressions of appreciation, with the speaker thanking everyone: “Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.” The overall message emphasizes a narrative of decisive action taken by the United States, a claim of asymmetrical reciprocity from international partners, and an expectation of consequences for those partners who chose not to assist.

The speaker says the group came up there to fight, repeating “You came up here to fight. Right? Yes.” They insist, “You came up here to fight him. Right? Yes.” The speaker then tells them, “Take your asses home, man. Take your asses home,” and concludes, “You came up here to fight and he pumped your ass.”

Speaker 0 says they will obtain a nuclear test by going in with Iran, using the biggest excavators you can imagine. They reference CNN saying that obliteration might be too strong, calling that idea “oblation/obliteration” and saying “Obliteration. That’s so deep.” They reiterate that they will go in together with Iran and claim, “We’re gonna get it. We’re gonna take it back home to The USA. Very simple.” The excerpt ends with “And now that the,” trailing off.

The speaker asserts that the opposing side has lost essential military and leadership capabilities: “They've lost their navy. They've lost their air force. They have no anti aircraft apparatus at all. They have no radar. Their leaders are gone.” The speaker then suggests a harsh consequence of intervening, indicating that “we could do a lot worse than one another.” The statement further contends that certain actions could be left undone or could be accomplished quickly, noting that “We're leaving certain things that if we take them out or we could take them out by this afternoon, in fact, within an hour,” implying that such measures would be decisive. The speaker concludes with the assessment that, as a result, “they literally would never be able to build that country back.” The overall message emphasizes the rapidity and completeness with which the opponent’s military and leadership structures could be dismantled, and the enduring impossibility of rebuilding the country once those elements are removed.

The speaker asserts that there is a legitimacy to target civilian targets and urges the Iranian to believe president Trump and prime minister Netanyahu, arguing that they have shown in the last month they are capable of striking any target in Iran. The speaker then shifts to the Strait of Hormuz, questioning whether “we’ll continue to play the game with the Strait Of Hormuz” and describing the situation as beyond imagination. They claim that those in question will blackmail and actually collect money from countries in order to allow them to use the straits. The speaker concludes that this piracy in 2026 must not be allowed to continue.

You wanted it to end immediately, and I wanted a ceasefire now, but he doesn't want a ceasefire. Now, he's a big shot because he has the US to decide. Either we end it, or we let him fight it out. Without us, he doesn't win. I'm not saying what I'm considering; I'm just telling you what I saw today. That wasn't a man who wanted to make peace, and I'm only interested if he wants to end the bloodshed.

Speaker 0 says it’s a little unfair that you win a war, yet the other side has no right to be doing what they’re doing. He adds that they’re hitting them very hard, and today is a big day where they’re pounding a certain area that has very much to do with the straight. He believes they’ll get it going very.

Speaker 0 states that 2017 will be the year of offense, and they will push the case against Russia, asserting it is time for Russia to pay a heavier price for its aggression. Speaker 1 expresses belief in the speaker's victory and pledges to provide whatever is needed to win.

The speaker contends that the war is a conflict that should never have begun and attributes its initiation to the 2020 US presidential election being rigged. They assert that the war would not have started if that election had not been rigged. They declare that it was a rigged election and assert that “Everybody now knows that. They found out.” The speaker further states that “People will soon be prosecuted for what they did.” They describe the situation as breaking news, though they add that it should be breaking news as well. The speaker reiterates that “Those are rigged elections.”

We know we will win. We have confidence in the victory of good over evil. Fight the real enemy.