reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The deep state's open support for Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS) is shocking, especially given their role in the Syrian conflict. Despite claiming to oppose Al Qaeda, the U.S. has provided support to groups aligned with them in Syria, raising questions about the rationale behind such actions. There are concerns about backing the wrong factions, with evidence suggesting that U.S. weapons may have ended up with ISIS. Former officials have indicated that the Obama administration ignored warnings about ISIS's rise, and even John Kerry acknowledged the situation's escalation. Historical parallels are drawn to past U.S. support for Mujahideen in Afghanistan, highlighting the long-term consequences of such interventions. The narrative emphasizes the complexity and contradictions in U.S. foreign policy regarding jihadist groups.

We contributed to the problem we're currently facing. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, we decided to help by training and arming Mujahideen fighters in Pakistan. This plan worked, and the Soviets eventually left Afghanistan. However, we then left these well-equipped and fanatical fighters behind, causing a messy situation. It's ironic that the same people we supported in the past are now our adversaries.

Speaker 0 describes a dynamic of collaboration and tension around Iran, noting that the Israelis are “very American” and that they could have shouting matches in meetings over whose idea is best, but then go have lunch and remain amicable. He emphasizes that Israelis are good allies that the U.S. needs to protect, and asserts that CIA and Al Qaeda “worked closely together in Iraq. And Syria.” Speaker 1 adds that in Syria the aim was to overthrow Assad. Speaker 0 explains that there were times when covert action findings allowed meetings to talk to the “quote, unquote, enemies” to try to bring things down, as CIA officers. Speaker 1 observes that most of the world has a problem with Al Qaeda and ISIS (Daesh), but implies the CIA’s cooperation with ISIS and Al Qaeda lowers that problem. Speaker 0 argues that if the plan is for the U.S. to work with them, to work on a security agreement, which has been done with enemies before, the U.S. would have played that role side by side with diplomats and other involved countries, and he wouldn’t be surprised if that were happening; he calls it possibly hopeful. Speaker 1 notes that newspapers in the United States once celebrated Qasem Soleimani as a fighter with American troops against ISIS and Al Qaeda, and now that stance has changed. The speaker concludes with the reversal of priorities: “Now we have to go to Als ISIS and Al Qaeda to go back against Iran.”

Israel encouraged and started Hamas to counteract Yasser Arafat. The speaker claims this served Israel's purpose at the time. The U.S. imposes its system on the world, such as invading Iraq to teach people how to be Democrats. The U.S. encouraged Palestinians to have a free election, and they elected Hamas. The speaker asserts the U.S. indirectly and directly, through Israel, helped establish Hamas. After Hamas became dominant through the election, the U.S. then had to kill them. The speaker concludes this does not make sense.

I've looked into both Assad and the opposition, but the problem is we don't know who the opposition really is. They could be even worse than Assad. We supply them with weapons and resources, but we're essentially in the dark about who they are. Why are we involved in this conflict at all? Of course, getting rid of ISIS is important, but Assad seems like the lesser of two evils. We've backed the wrong side before, and it ended in disaster. Russia seems to support Assad, so maybe we should let them handle ISIS and let them fight it out.

ISIS fighters were airlifted by Western Coalition helicopters from Syria to Afghanistan, not reported by Western media. The US allegedly left behind ISIS fighters in Afghanistan to create chaos and hinder development in the region, potentially to benefit China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan. The speaker suggests that ISIS is a US construct, specifically orchestrated by the CIA.

Speaker 0 questions the rationale for the war, noting that “the intelligence did not suggest that an attack was imminent from Iran,” and asking, “What is left? Why are we at war with Iran?” He also remarks that “the nuclear program isn’t the reason” and that he never expected to hear Ted Cruz talking about nukes. Speaker 1 suggests the simplest explanation given, which has been backtracked, is that “Israel made us do it, that Bibi decided on this timeline, Netanyahu decided he wanted to attack, and he convinced Trump to join him by scaring Trump into believing that US assets in the region would be at risk, and so Trump was better off just joining Netanyahu.” He adds that this may not be the full explanation, but it’s a plausible one. He notes that “the nuclear program is not part of their targeting campaign,” and that “harder line leadership is taking hold,” with the Strait of Hormuz “still being shut down even as we get their navy.” He asks what remains as the explanation, suggesting it might be that Israel forced the United States’ hand and questions, “How weak does that make The United States look? How weak are we if our allies can force us into wars of choice that are bad for US national security interests?”

After 9/11, a general told me the decision to go to war with Iraq was made without evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. Plans were revealed to take out 7 countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Military operations began in Iraq and Syria. The situation in Syria was discussed, acknowledging the distressing images coming out of the country.

We are no longer dealing with traditional warfare where the side with the most uniforms wins. The enemy we face now is sneaky, underhanded, and wants to harm our civilians worldwide. We must put an end to their actions. Some criticized me for saying I would bomb them, but I don't care. They need to be stopped.

After 9/11, the speaker had a conversation with a general who informed him that the US had decided to go to war with Iraq, even though there was no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda. The speaker later learned about a memo outlining plans to attack seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. The speaker believes that Iran saw the US presence in Iraq as a threat and got involved to protect its interests. The speaker also discusses the possibility of the US planning a bombing attack on Iran and Saudi Arabia funding covert operations in the Middle East. The speaker warns against using force as a first resort and highlights the complexities of the situation in Iraq.

Speaker: The way ISIS got there, as I remember from covering the Syrian war, includes reporting from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOAR), which is based in the UK. SOAR reported that anti-ISIS Western coalition helicopters were airlifting foreign ISIS fighters—not the Syrian ISIS fighters—but out of Deir al-Zor in Syria. And, of course, Western media didn’t report this at all. It was a shock because at the time, nobody could understand where they were taking them or whether they were shuttle them back into the Iraqi theater. Two different sources told me that the US coalition was airlifting foreign ISIS fighters into Afghanistan, which at the time I didn’t understand at all. But in light of what’s happened, the US needed to leave behind a dirty fighting force that would blow up mosques, blow up schools, infrastructure to continue chaos once US forces left to impede the development of pipelines and roadways that would allow China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan to connect with Afghanistan, to keep the country chaos. Basically, the story of ISIS itself—when we talk about it being potentially a US construct—ISIS K is really absolutely a US CIA specific construct.

The discussion revolves around the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, and how it identifies itself in English. After inquiries, it was clarified that they refer to themselves as the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service (ISIS). The conversation then shifts to the historical context of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, highlighting that the fighters being faced today were once supported by the U.S. during the Cold War to counter the Soviet Union. This strategy, backed by President Reagan and Congress, involved recruiting Mujahideen with the help of the Pakistani military, which ultimately contributed to the Soviet Union's collapse. The dialogue also touches on the controversial claim that Hillary Clinton and Obama played roles in the creation of ISIS, while emphasizing the importance of American influence in these geopolitical matters.

I wanted to prevent terrorism in our country, but I couldn't talk about it before. However, now I talk about it all the time. We had no attacks like the World Trade Center or those in other countries. Now we're getting involved in the Middle East again, spending trillions of dollars and causing death and destruction. It's a shame. We defeated ISIS in just four months, beating their caliphate completely.

The speaker explains that the US funded the Mujahideen in Afghanistan 20 years ago to fight against the Soviet Union. They imported fighters from Saudi Arabia and other places to defeat the Soviets, which eventually led to their retreat and the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, after the Soviets left, the US distanced itself from Pakistan and the Mujahideen, leaving behind a mess. The speaker acknowledges that the US helped create the problem they are now fighting, as the people they supported against the Soviets are the same ones they are fighting today.

Speaker 0 states that the goal is not to completely subjugate Afghanistan. The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the United States and European countries through Afghanistan and back into the hands of a transnational security alliance. That is the goal: to have an endless war, not a successful war.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOAR) reported that Western coalition helicopters were airlifting foreign ISIS fighters out of Deir Zor in Syria. Two sources told the speaker that the US coalition was airlifting foreign ISIS fighters into Afghanistan. The speaker didn't understand this at the time. The speaker believes the US needed to leave behind a dirty fighting force to blow up mosques, schools, and infrastructure to continue chaos after US forces left. This would impede the development of pipelines and roadways, preventing China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan from connecting with Afghanistan. The speaker believes ISIS is potentially a US construct, and ISIS K is a US CIA construct.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the presence and influence of the Taliban within government and international circles, and the U.S. approach to engagement. Speaker 1 suggests that while there may not be overt Taliban infiltration as a formal party, there are lobbyists, supporters, and Taliban in neckties and suits in Washington, pointing to the speech of the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan, Thomas West, as evidence of whitewashing the Taliban. Speaker 0 counters that the U.S. is in regular, productive dialogue with the Taliban, and believes the Taliban are sincere but frustrated. He notes that no sanctions have been passed against the Taliban since last August, that four Americans have returned, but several remain in Taliban custody. He also highlights that the U.S. has backed the shipment of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash into the country since August, and claims it is actually over $1,000,000,000. Speaker 0 states that the U.S. has cooperated with the Taliban on certain discrete issues, including closing roads and managing crowds to prevent terrorist disruption, and that he has had a series of engagements with senior Taliban leaders. When asked about returning to Afghanistan to meet with the Taliban, he says, “The sooner, the better,” noting that the Taliban want sanctions relief, development aid, and a big seat at the table. He mentions an announced plan to pump in another $308,000,000, and describes mechanisms that are getting hundreds of millions of dollars in cash directly into the banking system. The Taliban purportedly want to seat their permanent representative in New York. ISIS-K is described as a common enemy, with the Taliban maintaining a vigorous and robust effort against it. He asserts that, despite concerns, they are building productive relationships and an honest dialogue with Taliban members, while acknowledging the priority of countering ISIS-K. He references the Doha agreement breach by the Taliban in sheltering Ayman al-Zawahiri in downtown Kabul, which he characterizes as unacceptable and a major breach, and states that even after this event, the U.S. is prepared to engage pragmatically with the Taliban regarding terrorism concerns. Speaker 1 adds that the UN and World Bank are developing a humanitarian exchange facility to move more Afghans into the system, noting that many banknotes have circulated for over ten years and are not accepted by shops or the central bank. He mentions a private-sector arrangement in Europe facilitating the shipment of hundreds of millions in cash into private banks in Afghanistan, with money going to the Afghanistan International Bank (AIB), which allegedly lacks authority to convert dollars to Afghanis and to auction them, and then passes funds to the Taliban-controlled Central Bank of Afghanistan. He asks who is in charge of the Central Bank, identifying Nur Ahmad Ora as the head, described as sanctioned by the U.S. for financing IED attacks that killed American soldiers. He concludes that diplomacy with the Taliban is essential to achieve objectives and asks whether there are Taliban in elections, asserting that they hold official offices and are present, urging the listener to review their statements to determine if they are Taliban sympathizers or whitewashing the Taliban. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 remarking, “Man, that's scary.”

The speaker states the Taliban was killing American soldiers with snipers, so the speaker got involved with the Taliban. Abdul is the head of the Taliban, and the speaker told Abdul to stop, or there would be problems. The speaker sent Abdul a picture of his house. For 18 months, no one was killed. Mike Pompeo negotiated a good agreement for the U.S. to withdraw without losing soldiers or leaving Americans or $85 billion in equipment behind. The speaker claims the agreement required certain actions, but "they" didn't do them, so the agreement was terminated. The speaker believes "these people" executed the worst withdrawal, causing the most embarrassing moment in American history. The speaker believes Russia attacked Ukraine because of the perceived incompetence of "she and her boss."

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.

The speakers discuss how Americans are influenced by “sensational messaging” from Hollywood and national symbols—such as the American dream, “America the beautiful,” and the pledge of allegiance—to view the United States as the freest country and to romanticize America’s government. They argue that, in reality, the system functions like “100% a corporation,” using taxpayer-funded contracts and grants to “prop itself up.” They say the government engages in foreign wars they characterize as “evil,” and that the public pays for these actions. The speakers then describe a cycle in which Hollywood produces action movies that glorify the military. One speaker, a former army officer, says it is especially “disgusting and nefarious” because men and women sign up for “noble causes” but are used for purposes the speaker claims have nothing to do with defending the constitution or protecting American freedoms. They cite “Operation Iraqi Freedom” and “Operation During Freedom” and state it is “almost common knowledge” that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that the invasion had no business, including in light of questions and skepticism about events on 09/11. They argue these actions were disastrous and did not produce more freedom. The speaker contends that bombing “innocent” people and causing “justifiable collateral damage” in foreign countries—while displacing hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, and destroying entire civilizations—does not stop terrorism, but instead enrage people in those areas. They emphasize that while service members sign up believing they are fighting to defend freedoms and security, what they are actually fighting for is different. The other speaker responds that it is “sad” and expresses sympathy for military members. They say many veterans realize the truth while on “that bloody road,” watching friends die or being injured in wars unrelated to defending America’s freedoms or security, and instead connected to protecting the corporate interests of America and making “a small percentage of people very rich.”

Speaker 0 discusses working with the Israelis, describing them as “very American” and noting that they could get into shouting matches during meetings over whose idea was best, followed by casual lunch and reconciliation. He emphasizes that Israel is a good ally that the U.S. needs to protect and support, and he asserts that CIA and Al Qaeda had worked closely together in Iraq and in Syria, and that there are times when covert action allowed meetings with the “quote unquote, enemies” to try to bring things down as CIA officers. Speaker 1 adds that most of the world has a problem with Al Qaeda and ISIS/Daesh, but there is less of a problem because the CIA worked with ISIS/Daesh and Al Qaeda. He suggests that if the CIA worked with them, it would be better to understand what they were doing, and if the plan is for the U.S. to work with them on a security agreement, which has been done with enemies before, then this has been done in concert with diplomats and other countries involved. He indicates he wouldn’t be surprised if that was happening and would call it possibly hopeful. Speaker 0 continues by noting that newspapers in the United States once celebrated Qasem Soleimani as a fighter with American troops against ISIS and Al Qaeda. He states that Soleimani “was, and now it's switched,” implying a shift in perception or policy. The overarching theme is the idea of collaboration or coordination with hostile or extremist groups in pursuit of broader strategic objectives, including countering Iran, and the possibility that such collaborations could be framed as necessary or hopeful within a complex web of alliances and covert actions. Speaker 0 ends by reiterating the shift in stance: “Now we have to go to al ISIS and Al Qaeda to go back against Iran.” This underscores a cyclical or ironic pivot in U.S. strategy, moving from partnering with certain adversaries against common threats to reengaging those same groups to counter another adversary. The dialogue presents a candid view of realpolitik, suggesting that relationships with seemingly incompatible actors and shifts in alliances occur as part of broader geopolitical objectives, with collaboration sometimes described as acceptable when it serves strategic goals, and public narratives sometimes contrasting with behind-the-scenes actions.

- In 2008, rumors circulated in the FBI about a high-level asset who worked for several intelligence agencies at the same time: he worked for the Saudi intelligence service and he worked for the CIA, and he was being developed as a political asset in Chicago, Illinois. He was not a United States citizen, said to be on a student visa and a national from another country. - In 2008, everyone in the intelligence structure found out who he was. It was this individual whose name I don't like to say, who became president in 2008 of The United States. I will faithfully execute. The office of president of the United States. The office of president of the United States. - One of his code names was Renegade. His real name was Barry Sortaro, but he adopted a different name for his political career. When they ran him for president, the cabal, basically, this was the culmination of so many of their plans for so many years. His mission was to destroy The United States from within one institution at a time. - One of the things he did, of course, was he defunded our military. He brought down the resources that they got. But then he ordered our military in many, many instances and in various theaters to attack our allies and to defend and supply and help our enemies. That's exactly how he created ISIS. He would say publicly that the military were gonna bomb our enemies, but then he would have the military actually bomb enemies of ISIS, our allies. He gave ISIS funding and equipment by basically ordering our military to take equipment into a certain theater and then abandon it. - And the commanders would say, that's ridiculous. We'd just be handing that stuff over to ISIS. And the president's office would say, don't question orders. Just follow your orders. And that...

We send $40-87 million weekly to Afghanistan, some of which goes to Taliban martyrs' families as welfare. US families of fallen soldiers get nothing. Some justify this by saying it prevents Taliban members from joining ISIS, but the Taliban members are already dead. It's enraging that we fund our enemies while ignoring where the money goes.

This is a conflict between powerful nations, not to be taken sides with. It's like modern slavery, where we should aim to overthrow the system, not support any master. We must see these fights as opportunities to eventually make a revolution and end their control.

About ten days after 9/11, the speaker describes going through the Pentagon and seeing Secretary Rumsfeld. A general then pulls him aside and says they must talk briefly. The general says, “we’ve made the decision. We’re going to war with Iraq.” When the speaker asks, “Why?” the general replies, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” The speaker asks if they found information connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda. The response is, “No. There’s nothing new that way.” The general explains they had “made the decision to go to war with Iraq,” and that it seems, as the speaker reflects, “we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we got a good military and we can take down governments.” A few weeks later, the speaker returns to see the general amid bombing campaigns in Afghanistan and inquires again, “We still going to war with Iraq?” The answer is presented as worse than prior: the speaker says the general tells him, “I just got this down from upstairs, meeting the secretary of defense office today.” He describes a memo that outlines “how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran.” The speaker asks if the memo is classified, and the general confirms, “yes, sir.” He adds, “Don’t show it to” (the transcript ends there). Key elements include the asserted decision to invade Iraq without evidence of a direct link to Al Qaeda, the perception that the administration chose military action because other options were unclear, and the claim of a broader plan to “take out seven countries in five years” beginning with Iraq and extending through Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran, with the memo described as classified. The account ties the Iraq invasion decision to a larger strategic agenda and emphasizes a chain of communication from the secretary of defense’s office to field-level comprehension, all within the context of ongoing Afghanistan bombing.