TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

She's criticized US intelligence and promoted Russian propaganda. Debbie Wasserman Schultz referred to her as likely a Russian asset. Given our military backgrounds, what are your thoughts on her? I believe she's compromised. Her support for a brutal dictator in Syria raises concerns. Russian media has labeled her a Russian asset, which is alarming. The US intelligence community has noted her troubling relationships with adversaries. My concern is that she wouldn't pass a background check.

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.

The Trump administration quietly lifted sanctions on individuals like Abu Mohammed al-Jahlani, a former Al Qaeda affiliate, to facilitate cooperation with Israeli and American demands, such as normalizing ties with Israel and removing Palestinian factions. This is described as a "Faustian bargain" that will harm Syrian minorities. The administration also delisted warlords Abu Hamshah and Saif Abu Bakr, previously accused by the US Treasury of kidnapping, extortion, sexual violence, and involvement in the massacre of over 1,500 Alawites. The speaker claims that while Western media promotes the idea that Syria's diversity is being preserved, Christians are being persecuted. The speaker alleges that the goal is to erase Syria's secular identity, cleanse minorities, and establish a compliant, ultra-religious state. The speaker concludes that this policy is a betrayal and complicity, repeating the mistakes made in Afghanistan, and warns of future blowback.

Peto Pete discusses the troubling situation in Syria, highlighting U.S. support for rebel groups, some of which are linked to Al Qaeda. He points out the contradiction of U.S. actions, as the Pentagon and CIA back opposing militias. The U.S. aims to assist in establishing a sovereign Syria and provide humanitarian relief after years of conflict under Assad. Despite these efforts, the situation may worsen, with the recent appointment of a new Syrian leader who was previously wanted by U.S. authorities. The narrative suggests a cycle of violence and instability continues, with little hope for change.

Reports indicate a gas or chemical attack in Syria, resulting in numerous casualties, including children. U.S. military analysts believe Bashar al-Assad's regime is responsible. However, there is skepticism about the evidence supporting this claim, as no inspectors were on the ground to confirm the use of chemical weapons. The conversation shifts to the implications of U.S. military involvement, with concerns about training groups that may align with Al-Qaeda. Questions arise about the motivations behind U.S. actions, particularly regarding support for Islamist movements against regimes that protect religious minorities, like Assad, who has historically safeguarded Christians in Syria. The discussion emphasizes the need for critical questioning of government narratives and the consequences of foreign policy decisions.

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.

Tulsi Gabbard has met with controversial figures and violated State Department guidelines by secretly visiting Syria to meet with Assad, who has used chemical weapons against his own people. Many view her as a potential Russian asset. Given her position, this raises serious concerns about her access to sensitive intelligence information, which could pose a risk to national security. The implications of her appointment are seen as highly irresponsible.

Al Qaeda has acted as a proxy force for the U.S. in Syria, working alongside ISIS to achieve American objectives. Since the war began in 2011, the U.S. has supported Al Qaeda, providing them with weapons through covert operations. The goal has been to overthrow the Syrian government, employing ruthless tactics to starve and freeze the civilian population, exacerbated by severe sanctions. Medical supplies were cut off, leading to preventable deaths. An explosion in Lebanon, which devastated the economy, is suspected to have been orchestrated to further harm Syria. The U.S. has manipulated global media narratives to obscure these actions, presenting them as altruistic. Throughout, there has been a disturbing campaign of sexual violence against women and children, facilitated by the chaos of war, highlighting the extreme cruelty inflicted on the Syrian people in pursuit of geopolitical goals.

I was shocked to learn that President Obama had programs to overthrow the Syrian regime. The CIA's Timber Sycamore program armed Al Qaeda to start another regime change war in the Middle East. The DOD's train and equip program spent over half a billion dollars training "moderate rebels" who were actually aligned with Al Qaeda. Regime change wars in Syria, like in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt, risk the rise of Islamist extremists like Al Qaeda. We now have an Islamist extremist in charge of Syria who celebrated the 9/11 attack and is persecuting religious minorities like Christians. Every American deserves to know if our government supported our enemy, Al Qaeda.

We allied with Al Qaeda and ISIS, using them against the Syrian government. Terrorists from 100 countries joined them, engaging in organized rape and creating slave markets. They were allowed to kill husbands, own wives and children, and rape widows and young children. This led to a horrific campaign of violence and exploitation in Syria.

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.

Wanna get on to Ukraine. But, given that Israel is signaling it doesn't like the, Al Qaeda operative, Jelani in Damascus, and we know Tulsi Gabbard is something of an expert on Syria because she exposed the lies and the, phony war in Syria when The United States was supporting the ISIS and Al Qaeda rebels there. How do you and Trump has been very brave arguably saying, he's not gonna, start sending loads of money like Britain is to Tchelani. There's still thousands of American troops, though, in Syria. What is American Syrian policy Syria policy? America's policy towards Syria is basically Israel's policy. And what The United States was bent on doing was wrecking Syria and keeping it wrecked. That's the Israeli objective here. This is what the Israelis wanna do with Iran. They don't simply wanna do away with Iran's nuclear capability. They surely do wanna do that, but they wanna wreck Iran. They wanna turn Iran into Syria. And what the Israelis are doing in Syria is going to great lengths to make sure that Syria remains, a dysfunctional state. They don't want Syria to become, a formidable adversary. They want it to remain broken. And, of course, The United States will support the Israelis in that regard. So, of course, the Israelis are not gonna allow the Americans to give huge amounts of aid to Jalani so that he can produce a viable Syrian state because that's not Israeli policy. Just look at what they're doing in Iran. I mean, excuse me, what they're doing in Lebanon. It's a similar situation.

Speaker 0: In gears to Syria. Our president has said that you're backing an evil guy there. He said Assad is an evil guy. Do you believe that? Speaker 1: what? That Assad is an evil person? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: Let's talk objectively. Has Assad made mistakes? Yes, probably. And more than a few. What about the people who oppose him? Are they angels or something? Who is it that's killing people over there? Executing children? Who's cutting off heads? Are these the kind of people we should support? Speaker 0: We all saw the video of the suffering, dying children. Do you deny? Because Assad denies that those tapes are real. Do you believe those tapes are fake? Speaker 1: That's false information. As of now, we're absolutely convinced that this was a provocation. Assad did not use those weapons, and all of this was done by people who then wanted to blame him. Speaker 0: The bodies of the victims were autopsy. The autopsies were witnessed by officials from the World Health Organization and from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and they concluded that the victims were attacked with sarin gas. Are are we really to believe that the whole thing was staged, that everybody was in on it? Speaker 1: The answer is very simple, and you know it. It could have been used by someone, but not Assad.

In the conversation, Syed Mohammed Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, addresses multiple interwoven geopolitical issues, centering on Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and the broader strategic rivalry with the United States and its allies. Syria and ISIS release - Marandi asserts that the Damascus regime, described as al-Qaeda/ISIS-aligned factions, would not tolerate Kurdish forces backed by the United States. He notes prior violence against Alawites, Christians, and Druze as context for the current disturbing images from Syria. - He argues the United States is not a reliable partner for its allies, pointing to past episodes such as Obama’s refusal to support Arbil when ISIS threatened the Kurdish government, and Soleimani’s rapid military response to save the city. - He states that ISIS prisoners have been released in Syria, implying that thousands of ISIS members are now free and could destabilize Syria and possibly Iraq. He emphasizes that both Jolani (an ISIS-linked figure) and the Kurdish groups in northeast Syria are allied to the United States, making it unclear who released the prisoners but suggesting that those actors are aligned with the U.S. - The broader implication is that the release increases instability in Syria and potentially across the region. Border security and spillover fears - The discussion turns to Iraq’s border with Syria, with Marandi weighing whether U.S.-backed jihadist forces might spill into Iraq or Lebanon. He suggests a likelihood that ISIS/Al-Qaeda remnants could be used to pressure Lebanon and Iraq to prevent closer Iranian influence. - He notes that Iran’s potential responses could include its missile and drone capabilities, should security worsen on a front involving its allies in Lebanon and Iraq; however, Iran currently refrains from large-scale involvement in Syria but would consider action if threats to Iran or its allies escalate. Regime change, fragmentation, and U.S.-Israel aims - The conversation shifts to Iran post-riots, with questions about U.S./Israel strategies for regime change. Marandi contends the plan is to destabilize and fragment Iran, not to establish a unified post-regime scenario. - He cites alleged Israeli and Western involvement in organizing riots as evidence of a broader conspiracy to create chaos and justify military action. He claims Mossad and other intelligence agencies were on the ground, and public statements from former CIA officials acknowledged Israeli involvement. - He describes the riot phase as highly organized, with foreign funding (including Bitcoin), online recruitment, and careful targeting of police and infrastructure. He portrays the protests as initially legitimate grievances that devolved into violent chaos fueled by external coordination, with widespread destruction and deaths, including the killing of police officers. - In contrast, he highlights large pro-government demonstrations, especially a national day of demonstrations that he says showed widespread popular support for the Islamic Republic and condemnation of rioters. He points to extensive media coverage highlighting peaceful protests, while arguing that the riot narrative dominated Western coverage. Internal Iranian dynamics and public opinion - Marandi emphasizes the fragmentation among Iranian opposition groups: MEK, monarchists, Takfiri remnants near the Pakistan border, and Kurdish separatists, all of whom he asserts lack credible popular support. - He argues that even if the regime were at risk, fragmentation would prevent any single faction from stabilizing the country post-regime change. He suggests this aligns with his view of broader Israeli aims to weaken and fragment Iran and neighboring states, as seen in Syria and Iraq. Military capability and deterrence - He asserts Iran’s substantial missile and drone capabilities and asserts that Iran could defend allies in Lebanon and Iraq if needed. He notes Iran’s long-term preparedness against U.S. threats, including underground bases and extensive drone/missile stocks. - He contends that if war occurred, it would have wide regional and global economic consequences, potentially destabilizing oil markets and prompting broader geopolitical upheaval. He argues that U.S. restraint may be influenced by the risk of a global economic meltdown. Russia, China, and Starlink - Regarding technological assistance for countering communications, he mentions rumors of Russian or Chinese involvement in aiding Iran's internet disruption and Starlink-related issues, acknowledging uncertainty but highlighting a growing trilateral closeness among Iran, Russia, and China in the face of U.S. pressure. media narratives and leadership - He criticizes Western media for portraying protests as peaceful, while Israeli claims and cyber/disinformation around the events are presented as demonstrations of foreign involvement. He maintains that internal Iranian unity—visible in large-scale demonstrations—contrasts with the portrayal of a fractured nation. - He closes by suggesting that while some European leaders may align with U.S. policies, the overall strategic outlook remains uncertain, with a warning that Trump’s approach could escalate tensions rather than yield stability.

Iran wants to take over Saudi Arabia by burning down the Saudi embassy. They claim the US created ISIS by supporting Mujahideen fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan. A high-level asset allegedly became president in 2008 to destroy the US from within. The president defunded the military and allegedly funded ISIS through covert operations. An ISIS commander in Pakistan confessed to receiving funds routed through the US to recruit fighters for Syria. The US government has been criticized for indirectly funding terrorist organizations. President Obama requested funds to train Iraqi soldiers and Syrian rebels to fight ISIS.

- Training that we go through is in order to go into another country, link up with an indigenous population in force, train, advise and equip it so that we flip their government. Meaning, train insurgents to overthrow a government so that the government then becomes friendly with The United States in their own language. - Is that how they took out Muammar Gaddafi? Was it the Green Beret? Because, you know, they got insurgents to take him over and supposedly if you look at the conspiracy of that I think the best model to explain that, what I just described is, remember when the link up with the Northern Alliance after nineeleven? - Yeah, without KDAN. And then put That's in an example of that. That's probably a good example. Because, you know, Hillary Clinton laughed. She basically admitted that she killed Muammar Gaddafi or had him killed. - And you watch him talk What difference does it make? Well, she said We can't

"the CIA and Saudi Arabia together, in covert operations tried to overthrow Assad." "It was a disaster" and it "also brought in Russia." The speaker calls this "the permanent state" and says "We have made a proxy war in Syria" that has "killed 500,000 people, displaced 10,000,000," and "I predicted it seven years ago that there was no way to do this and that it would make a complete chaos." He urges, "get out." Another speaker adds, "six hundred thousand dead and 14,000,000 displaced," and says the United States should be part of the solution. He notes this happened because of us, cites "timber sycamore"—"The CIA operation together with Saudi Arabia"—"shrouded in secrecy" and "never debated by Congress, never explained." Ending the fight means stopping overthrow of a government and rebel support; "contrary to international law, contrary to the UN Charter"; risk of "an imminent confrontation with Russia." "Go to the UN Security Council ... with Russia on a strategy for ending the fight."

She is unqualified to be DNI, with positions that are far outside mainstream American politics. Her visit to Assad in Syria, who was aligned with Russia and Iran, was justified by her claim that Syria wasn't a direct threat to the U.S., which is incorrect. The alliance between Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah poses direct threats to Americans in the region and to key allies like Israel and Jordan. It will be interesting to see what information may emerge from the Syrian government if the rebels capture Damascus, particularly regarding Americans involved.

Speaker 0 asks which actions by Hillary Clinton are the most satanic, stating “the willingness to kill babies innocent babies.” They question what happened in Syria with her financing the rebels, which allegedly “turned out to be the Islamic State.” They conclude, “All you have to do is look and see what's happened already.”

The war in Syria originated not from Bashar Al Assad, but from a decision in Washington in 02/2011 to overthrow Assad, a desire originating from Jerusalem and the Israeli government for over 25 years, with Netanyahu aiming to reshape the Middle East in Israel's image by overthrowing opposing governments. This aligned with the CIA and the U.S. government, leading to Operation Timber Sycamore, a program where the U.S. and regional countries trained rebels, including jihadists, to overthrow the Syrian regime. This resulted in chaos and 600,000 deaths. The CIA's goal in 02/2011 was for a jihad group to take power in Syria after being armed by the U.S. Peace in the region requires real diplomacy, not CIA operations, and an end to Israel's militarization of the Middle East. The Syrian war is one of six wars Israel has promoted, including in Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan. In 02/2001, Wesley Clark was shown a Pentagon paper outlining a plan for seven wars in five years. The only war that hasn't occurred is a U.S. war with Iran.

In 2016, President Assad told me they changed citizenship laws due to children of Syrian women impregnated by terrorists. The new law allowed these children to have Syrian citizenship instead of being sent to their ISIS fathers. This highlights the cruelty of war and the inhumanity imposed on people for political gain, like overthrowing governments or seizing resources. This policy is evident in the current administration's stance against Russia.

It makes me sad and angry to see Protestant Christian churches in the US ignoring the murder and oppression of Christians in the Middle East. It outrages me that US tax dollars might be used to harm Christians. I'm also concerned about the lack of understanding of the region; Syria isn't some remote place—it's strategically vital, right in the heart of everything. I'm against regime change in general, but if we're going to do it, we need to replace the old regime with something better and more stable. After all this, why was I supposed to hate Assad? Why did the media adopt a political strategy to hate him as a moral imperative? It felt like the media was doing the bidding of powerful groups, treating a political strategy as a moral obligation.

In a leaked 2012 email, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the best way to help Israel is to use force in Syria to overthrow the government. The speaker questions why the American secretary of state would be willing to use American troops and money to overthrow the Syrian government, asserting there is no American interest in doing so. The speaker claims she is doing it to help Israel. The speaker believes this should be considered treason.

Speaker 1 argues that the United States has repeatedly engaged in illegal military actions and regime changes in multiple countries, starting with the bombing of Belgrade for 78 days to change borders of a European state, with the aim of breaking Serbia and installing Bondsteel, a large NATO base in the Balkans, under Clinton. They claim this was done without UN authority and described as a NATO mission. Speaker 1 continues, alleging that the US has subsequently waged war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, where, according to them, the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton tasked the CIA with overthrowing Bashar al-Assad. They also claim NATO illegally bombed Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi, and that in Kyiv in February 2014 the US overthrew Yanukovych together with right-wing Ukrainian military forces, noting that the overthrow happened the day after EU representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych for early elections, a government of national unity, and a stand-down of both sides. They assert that the US supported the new government immediately afterward, despite that agreement and without addressing it as unconstitutional. Speaker 1 asserts that Russia, the United States, and the EU were parties to the 2015 Minsk two agreement, which was unanimously voted on by the UN Security Council, signed by the government of Ukraine, and guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France. They contend that Minsk II was dismissed as a holding pattern by inside-US government circles, despite the UN Security Council approval. They claim Angela Merkel later said Minsk II was a holding pattern to allow Ukraine time to build its strength, countering the assertion that Minsk II was meant to end the war. The speaker emphasizes distrust of the United States government and calls for all sides to sit down publicly to agree on terms, with both the United States and Russia committing to specific boundaries, and for NATO not to enlarge, so that a written, global judgment can be made. Speaker 2 adds that there has been an ongoing effort to create an anti-Russian platform in Ukraine, describing it as an enclave, and accusing the US and its allies of lying about not expanding NATO multiple times. Speaker 3 states that President Putin sent a draft treaty asking NATO to promise no more enlargement as a precondition for not invading Ukraine, and notes that this draft was not signed.

If you're on Twitter, be warned: gruesome videos from Syria are circulating, a result of CIA intervention and tax dollars funding "moderate rebels." These rebels are now attacking minority communities that Bashar al-Assad used to protect. Figures like Barry Weiss, John Bolton, the Bushes, Obama, and Hillary Clinton bear responsibility, as this was their CIA project under the Obama administration, aimed at turning Syria into another Libya. They achieved their goal: a failed state with torture and human sacrifice. This could have been prevented, as past interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya failed. The situation worsened after Trump's election. Biden gave the green light before Trump took office. The CIA approached Trump in 2016 to overthrow Assad, but he refused. The corporate media and establishment are also culpable in this disaster.