TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker, a retired Green Beret and sniper, believes the shooting of President Trump was a planned attack due to security measures in place. He questions how a 20-year-old could access the president and take shots without help from insiders. He offers to protect the president for free.

According to the speakers, some believe the war in Iraq didn't end with the USS Mil Liberty. An American marine in Iraq arrested Jews for sniping and shooting at marines. These individuals were allegedly released due to Zapata Engineering, despite being caught by the marines. The speakers claim these are Jews living in Israel, paid by American Jewry, and of American and European descent. One speaker states he spoke with Iraqi vets who said most snipers were not Iraqis, but IDF (Israeli Defense Force). Another speaker highlights the claim that precise sniping, used to kill and wound soldiers in sensitive places, is attributed to Israel. The speaker clarifies that not all snipers were IDF.

The speaker was asked if they misspoke about carrying weapons in war, despite never deploying to a war zone. The speaker responded that they are proud of their 24 years in uniform and their service in public education. They believe people know them and that their record speaks for itself. Regarding the alleged misstatement, the speaker said they were discussing carrying weapons of war after a school shooting. They acknowledged their grammar isn't always correct. The speaker stated that they will never demean another member's service.

A speaker asks if the recipient is aware that many Americans believe a recent shooting was a coordinated assassination attempt, not the act of a lone shooter. The speaker cites the shooter's age, proximity to the target with an AR-15, drone surveillance, and being spotted with a rangefinder as reasons for suspicion. The speaker, identifying himself as a former Navy SEAL sniper, notes the obvious sniper position from a water tower. He asks if the recipient is surprised that Americans suspect more to the story, given attempts to bankrupt and imprison the target, and depictions of him as Hitler. The speaker asks if the recipient's team entered and investigated the suspect's home prior to the shooting, to which the recipient says they participated in securing it and provided bomb assets. The speaker then asks if any agents reported anything "fishy" at the home, such as silverware or trash, or if it was extremely clean like a medical lab. The recipient states he was not given those details. The speaker concludes that this is what he is hearing and finds it "interesting."

Robert O’Neill and the interviewer discuss the Maduro operation in Venezuela and the Bin Laden raid, comparing the two missions, the forces involved, and the broader implications for U.S. military capabilities and geopolitics. - The Maduro operation differed sharply from the Bin Laden raid in scope and risk. The Maduro mission involved an army base in Venezuela (their Pentagon) and a target in a house with a safe room. Chinese and Russian involvement and the presence of advanced air defenses complicated planning. The operation used a “gorilla package” with about 150 aircraft, whereas the Bin Laden raid used fewer assets and was characterized by a tighter ground package. The Maduro operation allowed for no-kill options and contingencies, but still entailed high risk; the Bin Laden raid was described as a one-way mission with a different risk profile. - The Maduro mission emphasized rapid execution, with the aim of capturing the president, his wife, and returning them to the United States within about 24 hours. The discussion highlights a distinction between kill options under the Venezuela operation and capture-focused goals for Maduro. - In contrast, the Bin Laden mission involved a ground assault with SEAL Team Six and an intense, fast breach. The initial breach attempts faced a crash of a helicopter, forcing adjustments, but the team proceeded to clear the house, enter the target, and locate Bin Laden. O’Neill described the movement through the compound as methodical: “If the guy in front of me went left, I went right,” continuing until Bin Laden was found and killed. - On the day of Bin Laden’s death, there were no casualties among U.S. operators on the ground; the operation produced an extensive recovery of material, including external hard drives, computers, disks, opium, and other items. The raid revealed Bin Laden was “running the whole thing from Pakistan,” raising questions about ISI knowledge and cross-border links. - The two tier-one units, Delta Force and SEAL Team Six, are both elite but have different primary focuses and traditions. Delta Force is described as older, largely Army-based, with emphasis on hostage rescue on land or in aircraft, and a selection that allows entry for those who prove themselves. SEAL Team Six is portrayed as capable across domains but with primary strength on maritime operations (e.g., the Captain Phillips raid). The discussion notes that both units share high standards for counterterrorism and special operations, and both have strong track records. - Operational differences in training and approach are highlighted. Delta’s emphasis on close-quarters battle and air operations is compared with SEAL Team Six’s maritime emphasis, yet both units are said to perform similar work in practice. Admiral William McRaven is credited with supporting and enabling SEAL Team Six and Delta to operate successfully during the Bin Laden and Maduro operations. The guest emphasizes that both teams perform with high effectiveness, noting the pilots as “unsung heroes” for their precise timing and reliability (plus or minus seconds). - The interview touches on the conditions and contingencies of planning: compartmentalization is discussed, with a preference for sharing enough information with operators on target to perform effectively, while preserving sensitive intelligence to prevent leaks. The Maduro operation allegedly involved strong inside information from Venezuelan sources, with a broader strategy that included leveraging internal actors who might seek power. - Leaks and doxxing are a recurring theme. The hosts discuss the ethics and consequences of releasing names or details about operators involved in these missions. Seth Harp’s reporting on the Maduro raid and the doxxing debate is discussed; the guest argues that doxxing can endanger families and operational security, while also acknowledging the journalist’s desire to be first. - The role of the helicopters and the risk of enemy fire are addressed. A Chinook helicopter was hit during Maduro, but did not crash; the squad subsequently extracted, illustrating the danger and resilience of mission planning. The Bin Laden raid included a helicopter crash incident that required a quick, adaptive response from the team. - The interviewee comments on geopolitical ramifications and future targets. The possibility of Iran being next is discussed; the guest argues that operations against Iran could be possible but would require careful political and strategic consideration and public messaging. The discussion also touches on perceptions of Russia and China, containment strategies, and the importance of democratic governance versus autocratic models in global affairs. - Final reflections include the evolution of the next generation of operators. The guest expresses optimism about the Gen Z cohorts in special operations, emphasizing merit-based selection, resilience, and morale. He concludes with gratitude for the teams involved and notes the personal impact of these operations on his life and career.

In this conversation, the speakers discuss a high-profile operation centered on Maduro’s kidnapping, its implications, and broader geopolitical consequences. - The operation to capture Maduro is described as not a regime change but an action intended to “hold off Maduro, get US control of the oil, and get China and Russia and Iran out.” A senior Venezuelan security official is identified as a full cooperator with the United States, allowing US forces to enter “the front door” with minimal resistance and no return fire. The plan reportedly involved a coordinated assault with Venezuelan forces, and while several air defenses were destroyed or not activated, most were not deployed due to a stand-down order. The operation did not replace the Venezuelan government; Maduro remained in power, at least for the moment. - For context on the execution, Speaker 1, who has experience scripting Delta Force and SEAL Team Six exercises, notes the mission took place in full moonlight (unusual for planned clandestine night operations). He claims the Venezuelan air defenses were substantial but largely avoided activation because of the stand-down order, enabling a seamless entry for US forces. He compares this to a counterterrorism exercise in the US years earlier—staged surveillance and pre-positioned access that eliminated obstacles in advance. - Casualties and aftermath are uncertain. There are conflicting reports on casualties among Cubans and Venezuelans, with no clear names or numbers yet confirmed. The operation involved collaboration with Venezuelan forces and did not topple the Maduro regime. - On the motive and internal dynamics, Speaker 1 suggests multiple potential actors within Maduro’s circle could have incentives to cooperate with the US, possibly including financial or visa-based incentives. The possibility of infiltrators within intelligence, military, or police is raised. The role of a specific senior official who allegedly ordered a stand-down is mentioned, though not named. - Questions about the rocket attack on a US chopper are raised, with speculation that it might have been a lone actor or a malfunction rather than a deliberate act by a large organized force. - The discussion turns to the interim president Delcy Rodríguez. While theories exist that she cooperated with the US, Speaker 1 says that the theory of her involvement is likely a cover story designed to divert attention from those actually involved. - The broader geopolitical frame emphasizes that this is not about regime change in Venezuela, but about oil access and limiting adversaries. The conversation suggests a recurring US strategy: remove Maduro, gain oil leverage, and push rivals like China, Russia, and Iran out of influence. The hypothesis includes using economic and political pressure and, if necessary, military options, while acknowledging the risk of drawing wider regional opposition and potential escalation. - The discussion then broadens to the US role in the multipolar order. The speakers debate whether the world is tilting toward a multipolar system or a reinforced US unipolar order. They agree that the reality is mixed: Russia and China are building a new international order with India and Brazil, while US actions—such as threats against Venezuela, arms packages to Taiwan, and support for Ukraine—signal both erosion of hegemony and attempts to sustain influence. - The Monroe Doctrine is critiqued. The speakers contend that the so-called Dunro Doctrine (a term they use to describe perceived US interference) misreads the historical framework. They argue that the Monroe Doctrine was never a proclamation of exclusive US dominance in the Western Hemisphere; instead, the US has historically faced resistance as other powers gain influence. - Iran and the Middle East are discussed at length. The twelve-day war (in reference to Iran’s confrontation with Israel) is described as not severely weakening Iran militarily, though it has economic and political strains. Iran’s allies (Russia, China) have become more engaged since sanctions relief began in September, and Iran has pursued stronger economic ties with both Russia and China, including a potential North–South Corridor. Iran reportedly rejected a mutual defense treaty with Russia initially but later pursued stronger cooperation after the conflict. Iran’s leadership is described as consolidating power and preparing for potential future conflicts, while the protests inside Iran are depicted as largely manufactured or at least amplified by Western intelligence networks, though there is genuine internal discontent over currency and economic conditions. - The panelists debate whether the US could or would attempt another targeted strike on Iranian leadership. They argue that the US would face greater risk and likely casualties if attempting a similar operation without a compatible insider network, making a repeat Maduro-like capture unlikely. - Final reflections acknowledge that the US’s global influence is eroding, but the US remains deeply involved in global affairs. The discussion ends with a cautionary stance toward US hegemonic assumptions and recognition of a rising multipolar framework in which China, Russia, and allied states exert greater influence in Latin America, the Middle East, and beyond.

Mitch Snow, Fort Huachuca whistleblower, joined a Diligent Spaces edition hosted on X with his cohosts and guests, describing a two-day sequence centered on his attempt to obtain prosecutorial records and the extraordinary presence he observed at Fort Huachuca. Context and purpose for Fort Huachuca visit - Mitch explained that for years he has been trying to obtain records related to his military service, alleged targeting, and a custody fight involving his son. He has been collecting records across the country (Florida, East Coast, Washington DC) to reinforce a prosecutorial case and defend his reputation. - The last records he needed, he said, were at Fort Huachuca, where there had been prosecutions connected to a tunnel associated with a drug trafficking operation involving the Sinaloa cartel. Mitch described laying sensors (seismic and acoustic) as part of a Joint Task Force Six mission in May 1990, discovering an underground tunnel near Douglas, Arizona, with evidence implicating U.S. members. He testified in an army CID deposition related to that case, and described being flown back to Fort Drum after the deposition. - He stated that the tunnel raid led to the tunnel’s partial shutdown, but that it also caused the cartel to redesign distribution methods (submarines, various ports) and that evidence included photographs showing U.S. members with cartel figures. He asserted that he was targeted and harassed for reporting these findings over the years, including attempts to access his clearance information and threats linked to debt-tracking techniques used by cartels. First day at Fort Huachuca (evening of September 8) - Mitch traveled to Fort Huachuca for the records he needed, planning to stay at Candlewood Suites on base. He arrived around 5:00–6:00 PM Mountain Time, checked in with his girlfriend (Amy) via video call, and went to the lobby to speak with staff about access and the building layout. - In the lobby, he noticed a man who seemed like a professional, possibly a special forces contractor, wearing a distinctive watch; he did not approach or engage with the man. - A woman joined the man on a corner couch; Mitch described the woman as having a “sheen” of being well put together, blonde with a ponytail, and noted the eyes as particularly striking. He observed them leave in a green GMC SUV with the woman entering the passenger seat and the man driving, while he headed off to find a place to eat. - Mitch and Amy had dinner off base at a place described as a Mexican sushi restaurant (Takimaki-like name) and returned to the Candlewood Suites. He reported that the base was navigable but had a lot of speed traps; he did not report being stopped or harassed by MPs on arrival, and he described the gate staff as helpful. - A key moment from this first day was Mitch’s observation in the lobby: the woman sitting with the contractor appeared to be a high-profile figure; he was unsure of her identity but described her as distinct from the military guests, not in uniform. - Later, a panel of listeners asked about the exact appearance and actions of the people Mitch observed, including whether the two individuals were romantic or simply meeting, and whether the female wore rings. Mitch answered with limited detail, saying he did not want to discuss some specifics at that time. Observations at the base and the private meeting later that night - On the first night, Mitch described witnessing the duo in the Candlewood lobby, then later seeing the woman with the contractor in the same lobby as he returned. - He described a potential private discussion between the woman and the contractor, with the two leaving together in the vehicle; the following morning, Mitch provided a rough timeline (5:30–6:00 PM for the lobby sighting, with departure around 7:00–7:30 PM MT). - The Host participants, including Sam, Noxie, Destiny, and Lemair, pressed for precise details and identifiers (make of the vehicle, exact times, and the identity of the people), while Mitch occasionally deferred to not reveal certain details yet, citing comfort and safety concerns. - The host and guests discussed Mitch’s prior experiences, his memory, and the fact that a militarized environment often accompanies high-profile investigations. Several speakers affirmed Mitch’s credibility, noting that his level of detail resembled trained observation (salute reports: size, activity, location, unit, time, and equipment). Second day and the escalation - On the morning of September 9, Mitch woke early (around 05:30) to try to catch the sunrise and continued documenting with Amy via video calls; he described continuing to record selfies, videos, and notes to share with Amy. - Mitch retraced his attempts to locate the CID (Criminal Investigation Division) building to retrieve the records, describing a lack of clear visitor information and multiple detours across post as he sought the proper location. - He encountered a series of baselined rooms, offices, and signs; at one point, an officer suggested a different building and a different path to obtain the records. Mitch found a room with a podium and two soldiers at a desk; he identified it as a near-time, transitional office with a sign-in log. - Mitch reported the appearance of an entourage of high-ranking officers (captains, majors, lieutenant colonels) and a congressman as the group passed by him while he waited. Detainment, questioning, and consequences - Mitch described being escorted outside the building with his belongings, including his bag of documents and passports, while a security/escort team questioned him about his purpose there. He provided his documents and explained his purpose: to obtain the records and file a report. - The officers suggested bringing in a sergeant major, but he did not return; instead, a group of officers and soldiers surrounded him, including a captain, and a bomb-threat-like scenario unfolded: a vehicle investigation was initiated, and a bomb threat was insinuated as part of the unrelated escalation. - Mitch recounted being driven off post to CID for interrogation; he described the interrogation room with one-way glass and the presence of Captain Neff. He provided his detailed life history and his case history, including the NDA he believed had expired and his request to produce a report number for the encounter. - The post commander reportedly trespassed him from the installation for 24 hours, a decision made after the interrogation; Mitch insisted he would not return if trespassed further and stated he would proceed with his records via other channels. He described a variety of law enforcement vehicles at the scene (marked and unmarked police vehicles, federal agents, and a Park Ranger-type officer) and an elaborate, sometimes surreal, sequence of questioning. He documented his own records, including the OIG number (277 episode) and other documentation, and later traveled back to Tucson to regroup with Amy. - Mitch described that he believed the bomb-threat and the post lockdown were part of an overreaction to his attempt to obtain records, noting that such reactions had occurred in the past when his records were sought. He claimed not to have been charged with any crime, but was escorted off the base and told not to return for 24 hours. Aftermath and ongoing implications - Mitch and Amy returned to Tucson and then continued the process, continuing to seek congressional inquiry and prosecutorial review; they also contemplated FOIA requests. They discussed the reality that Candlewood Suites’ ownership was privately operated, complicating direct FOIA access to hotel footage. They mentioned a separate FOIA attempt by a lawyer (Slickdog) to obtain records about sightings of named individuals on Fort Huachuca, with a focus on gate logs and signage. - The pair connected their experiences to broader political events, including the Charlie Kirk incident, Candace Owens’ involvement, and the allegations around Erica Kirk, Brian Harpole, and Mark Amaday, noting the difficulty in obtaining corroborating evidence. Mitch spoke about Candace Owens’ role in amplifying the story, and his own preference to keep certain details private until appropriate. - Throughout the conversation, Mitch’s credibility was repeatedly supported by the other participants who emphasized his memory and attention to detail as evidence of his lived experience. Several speakers stressed the importance of cross-checking facts against the timeline and urged caution against disinformation and attempts to discredit credible testimony. Closing notes - The space concluded with expressions of support for Mitch and Amy, praise for their courage, and a plan to publish and share Mitch’s full story beyond the space. The host highlighted ongoing efforts to verify details, to preserve the record, and to bring attention to Mitch’s experience as part of a broader pursuit of truth. The event was described as a significant, if contested, documentation of a whistleblower’s eyewitness account at a sensitive military installation, with calls to action for audience members to share the narrative and support Mitch and Amy as they continue their efforts.

The war in Iraq was a mistake by George Bush. The U.S. should have never been in Iraq because it destabilized the Middle East. The speaker claims "they" lied about weapons of mass destruction, asserting that there were none.

In the dialogue, Speaker 0 asserts that proxies trained and inculcated in the Zionist regime have implicated themselves in killings, asking how many people believe the incident with the USS Liberty ended. He recounts an incident where someone was proven arrested by American Marines in Iraq, describing the individuals as Jews who sniped and shot at Marines. He notes that these people were arrested after Marines chased them down, and claims that Zapata Engineering, described as a contractor for the company, helped to whitewash the case and secure their release. He emphasizes that these women and gentlemen are “the Jews who live in Israel and who are paid by American Jewry and who are Americans and Europeans in descent,” and he states that they are “actually killing American soldiers,” which he describes as unbelievable. He then asks Wolfgang what he has seen on the situation. Speaker 1, Wolfgang, responds by saying he has talked to many Iraqi veterans at a particular location, describing the place as an immense complex with many men he speaks to daily about different events in the Middle East. He claims that what they told him specifically is that most of the snipers were not even Iraqis, but actually IDF, meaning Israeli Defense Force. Speaker 0 reacts to Wolfgang’s statement, calling it an incredible claim coming from a colonel in the US Military, highlighting that the majority of the precise sniping used to kill and wound in sensitive places—where armor is known and targeted, with the sophistication to place a bullet into these people—comes from Israel. He repeats the assertion of Israel in emphasizing the credibility of the claim as unbelievable. Speaker 1 concludes by indicating that there is more to discuss on this topic and promises to elaborate later, saying, “And that's not all. We'll talk about that tonight.”

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.

The speaker claims that the USS Liberty incident is not the end of the story. He states that American Marines in Iraq arrested Jews who were sniping and shooting at them. According to the speaker, these individuals were employees of Zapata Engineering. Despite being apprehended by Marines after allegedly shooting at them, they were released due to Zapata Engineering's intervention. The speaker alleges these individuals are Jews living in Israel, funded by American Jewry, and of American and European descent. A colonel claims that most snipers in Iraq were not Iraqi, but IDF (Israeli Defense Force). The speaker highlights the precision sniping, targeting vulnerabilities in armored soldiers, and attributes this to Israeli forces.

I fought not for my country, but for politicians' agendas. I remember killing a man in his bedroom while his wife watched. He reached for a gun because I was in his room at 2 AM. I was there because of a political decision tied to George Bush's vendetta against Saddam Hussein, based on false claims of weapons of mass destruction. I wonder about the man I killed—what if we had met under different circumstances, like sharing coffee in Paris? Would we have liked each other?

In the video, the speaker mentions Bill Donovan, the founder of the OSS, and his belief in utilizing civilian capabilities for challenging situations. The speaker also acknowledges the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is asked whether they were necessary or merely a business opportunity.

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.

The speaker claims the Iraq War did not end with the USS Liberty incident. He alleges that Jews, proven to be working for Zapata Engineering, were arrested by American Marines in Iraq for sniping and shooting at them. He says these individuals, who live in Israel and are funded by American Jewry, were released due to Zapata Engineering's intervention, despite being caught by the Marines. A colonel states that Iraqi vets told him most snipers in Iraq were not Iraqi, but IDF (Israeli Defense Force). The speaker emphasizes the colonel's claim that precise sniping, used to target vulnerable spots on armored soldiers, was largely carried out by Israelis. The colonel clarifies that this was not all snipers, and they will discuss it further.

I spent 17 years in the military, 14 in a special operations unit. I believe the recent assassination attempt on former President Trump involved help from an agency or government. The shooter couldn't have reached the rooftop alone to take a shot at the president. It seems too obvious that assistance was involved.

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."

The speaker was asked about a statement where they said they carried weapons in war despite never deploying to a war zone. The speaker responded that they are proud of their 24 years of service and their record speaks for itself. They speak candidly and passionately, especially about children being shot in schools. When asked if they misspoke about being in war, the speaker said the conversation was about carrying weapons of war after a school shooting, and their grammar isn't always correct. The speaker stated they will never demean another member's service.

The speaker details a security career with frontline work in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’ve provided security services to the president of the United States and other high-ranking members of the U.S. government, and they’ve protected diplomatic personnel, high-net-worth corporate clients, media personalities, investigative journalists, and the general public. They continue this work as a SWAT team leader and executive protection specialist, and have been repeatedly recognized for high-level professionalism, proficiency, and knowledge of security measures across those fields. The narration signals ongoing analysis of past events, suggesting the speaker is evaluating what happened within this security context in complex environments.

Our military is strong and won't be influenced by woke culture. I'm referring to the capable generals, not the ones on TV. We quickly defeated our enemies, despite predictions of a 3-year battle. When I visited Iraq and met the generals I appointed, they confidently said it could be done in 4 weeks. They even believed we'd have extra time.

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.