TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

"Proxy, the PLO, international terrorism would collapse. If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." "Obviously, we like to see a regime change, at least I would, in Iran, just as I would like to see in Iraq." "The question now is a practical question. What is the best place to proceed?" "It's not a question of whether Iraq's regime should be taken out, but when should it be taken out?" "The answer is categorically yes." "The, the two nations that are vying competing with each other, who will be the first to achieve nuclear weapons, is Iraq and Iran." "But, a third nation, by the way, is Libya as well."

Speaker 0: For a fact that he's poisoned his own people. He doesn't believe in the worth of each individual. We must do everything we possibly can to stop the terror. Now watch this drive. The tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.

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

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? That's probably a good example. 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

Speaker 0: And so, I mean, it sounds to me like that that it's leaving Iran with this choice of either rolling over, literally given everything we want, the, you know, the the nuclear enrichment, the the missiles, the proxies, etcetera, And that would buy you a little time, but then leave you utterly powerless. And the next day Speaker 1: That's right. Speaker 0: Either Israel or anybody else can come in, you would literally be helpless. And and, I mean, so we're correct me if I'm wrong, but we're offering Iran the option of either lay down and die by death later or stand firm and maybe die shortly now, but at least this way, you're gonna have some missiles to shoot back. I mean, do you see it differently? Speaker 1: No. I think you're exactly right. And, basically, we're we're inviting them to to become Qaddafi. You remember Qaddafi basically gave us a nuclear program. They basically said, fine. You know, I saw what you did in Iraq. I don't wanna end up up like that. I'll meet your terms, and we'll come to an agreement. We'll all be out. And we said, great. Now that you're defenseless, let's destroy you. Stick a bayonet up your rear rear end and shoot you in the head. Now if you're if you're the Iranian leadership, do you wanna end up like that? Look. I've always said the Iranians basically have a choice. They could be North Korea or they can be Libya. Which would you rather be? Speaker 0: That's not a choice for anybody to have to make. Speaker 1: Yeah. But that's that's the position we're putting them in. And frankly, I'm a little surprised they haven't gone for a nuclear breakout up till now. Because if they if they're looking for real security, say, okay. Fine. None no more of this nonsense. We don't wanna be Libya. We're North Korea now. Back off. Yeah. That that would make that would make sense from their point of view, wouldn't it?

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.

Speaker 0 discusses the reasons behind the death of someone, stating that it was not because he killed his people but because of a sensitive question. The speaker then highlights some positive aspects of Libya, such as the absence of homelessness, free education from kindergarten to college, and government-funded education for Libyans wanting to study in America. They also mention a $500 million hospital and the availability of free medical attention for all citizens. Additionally, the speaker mentions that every Libyan citizen received a stipend from oil money and that the country had no debt. The speaker suggests that this man aimed to provide similar benefits to all of Africa.

In this video, the speakers discuss the need for regime change in the Middle East. They mention that removing the Soviet Union and the PLO would end international terrorism. They also express a desire for regime change in Iraq and Iran, and mention Libya's pursuit of nuclear weapons. One speaker emphasizes the importance of standing with Israel. The video concludes with a derogatory comment about the people applauding.

Speaker 0 argues that history will view this presidency as probably the most reckless and corrupt in the history of the United States, and expresses fear that without change the country and the world risk major harm, including the possibility of World War III. They say, regardless of views on global leadership, that being on top “what good is it … if you've created an absolute hellscape?” They emphasize the need for the course to change and suggest the future of the United States as a cohesive country and the world is currently in question because of the administration’s behavior. Speaker 1 agrees that America used to hold the moral high ground—defending human rights, free speech, and free trade—but asserts that none of those things are true any longer. They claim America is “the terror regime of the world,” describing it as pillaging, stealing, bombing, assassinating, running color revolutions, lying, and doing everything possible to destroy others to keep America as the last nation standing on its pile of soon to be worthless debt. They state this is not a moral position from which to lead any civilization. Speaker 0 contends that America has the tools to be all those values, citing a great constitutional republican system, the federation of states, resources, and human capital. They note a problem, however: a “giant pile of worthless fiat paper,” with the bill coming due and the tantrums of an empire, referencing warnings by people like Gerald Celente and Alex Jones about a fiat bubble rupture. They say the question is where the country wants to be in the world, criticizing a lack of imagination among the “great and the good in America” about a compelling future. Speaker 1 adds a new issue: 31 million Americans are injecting themselves with GLP-1 drugs, which they say cause a 100% increase in risk of psychiatric disorders and suicidal ideation, especially among women, with the most use among 50–65-year-olds. They claim Trump is working to make these drugs more affordable so that more people can take them, potentially leading to half of US adults using a drug based on venom peptides of the Gila monster, a paralyzing agent, risking madness. They compare this to lead poisoning and reference Ozempic as one of these drugs. Speaker 0 asks, “What’s it called? Ozempic? Is that a GOP one?” Speaker 1 confirms “Ozempic,” and notes that the drugs are used for vanity to look healthy, not because people are actually healthy. They reiterate the core issue: what goes into bodies and the environment in which people live, stressing that there is an opportunity today to correct and improve the situation, and that many are taking that opportunity.

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.

Taking out Saddam's regime in Iraq would have positive effects on the region, leading neighboring countries like Iran to realize that such oppressive regimes are outdated. The speaker believes in using military force against terrorist regimes, citing the example of Afghanistan. However, the interviewer questions the effectiveness of this approach, as it hasn't produced the desired neighborhood effect. The speaker argues that the contrary effect occurred, with people leaving Afghanistan and Arab countries aligning with America. They emphasize the importance of applying power to win the war on terrorism, stating that accumulating victories makes future victories easier.

Speaker 0: The speaker questions the pretexts for international interventions, starting with Yugoslavia. “В какой предлог? Что, санкции Совета безопасности, что ли? Где Югославия, где США? Уничтожили страну.” The speaker acknowledges internal conflict in Yugoslavia but asks who gave the right to strike the European capital, insisting, “Никто. Просто так решили,” with satellite powers following and cheering. They label this as “всё международное право.” Next, the speaker asks about the pretext for entering Iraq (referred to as “Рак”). They describe the action as “Разработка оружия массового уничтожения” used to invade, destroy the country, and create “очаг международного терроризма,” only to later claim that a mistake had been made. They recount the line: “нас разведка подвела. Ничего себе! Разрушили страну разведка подвела.” They say, “И всё объяснение,” arguing that “Оказывается, не было там никакого массового оружия поражения, никто не готовил.” They state, “Наоборот, когда-то было всё как положено уничтожили.” Finally, they ask about Syria: “А в Сирию как зашли? Что санкций Советой безопасности? Нет. Что хотят, то и делают.” The speaker contends that in Syria, as with the previous cases, the actions were taken without regard to UNSC sanctions, with force used to satisfy unspecified objectives. In summary, the speaker challenges the legitimacy of military interventions by citing Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Syria, highlighting claimed pretexts of weapons of mass destruction, UNSC sanctions, and the perceived disregard for international law, suggesting that decisions are made arbitrarily while authorities and precedents are cited as justification.

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 claims the U.S. indirectly and directly through Israel helped establish Hamas. Because Hamas became dominant after the election, the U.S. then had to kill them. The speaker concludes that this does not make sense.

He poisoned his own people, showing he doesn't value individuals. We must stop the terror. The tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free. Now watch this drive.

The speaker believes those hiding the truth about 9/11 are capable of murder. They claim the U.S. caused Gaddafi's death because Hillary Clinton played a "game." The speaker says they went to Libya during the war with a Biden staffer, a Bush staffer, and a film crew, and hand-carried a letter from Gaddafi offering to resign, but the U.S. wanted him dead. According to the speaker, Gaddafi wanted to unite Africa economically on the gold standard, but the U.S. and Europe wanted control of his oil and sovereign wealth. The speaker took Biden to Libya on their second trip. The speaker feels it is outrageous that people who have never served in the military make money off conflicts while kids are drawn into them and killed.

- 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

News at midnight from The Gulf reports a second Iranian drone dispatched to the USS Abraham Lincoln after the first was shot down by Trump's forces, amid global worries that he could be distracted from the Epstein files to start Israel's war on Iran with US money. At midnight also comes news that Seyfal Gaddafi, who could reunite what was once Africa's richest per capita country, Libya, has been killed in his garden by militias and mercenaries with British involvement. Sources say MI6 was deeply involved. Britain was reportedly deeply involved fifteen years ago with France in trying to destroy Africa's richest per capita country because it was a beacon of high living standards and Gaddafi himself was proposing some sort of Gold Dinar system, not to mention that France, according to WikiLeaks papers from 2011, wanted 35% of Libyan black gold. The transcript notes that Seyfal Gaddafi is not being covered in the NATO nations that destroyed Libya and used Gaddafi in horrific ways, allowing slave markets to open there. It states that Seyfal Gaddafi has been writing articles supporting the Palestinians and Arab sovereignty while in hiding, because he was the most popular leader in Libya, across both halves, and could have reunited it. He is described as visiting places around Libya ahead of putative elections that will now, of course, happen because that’s what the colonial powers were desiring. The end of Seyfal Gaddafi is proclaimed. As a reminder of imperial policies, the Epstein file is cited: in the latest 3,000,000 documents, the Department of Justice released an email saying, “I also have friends formerly with MI6 and Mossad willing to help identify stolen assets and get them recovered.” He was described as being involved in trying to get hold of Libyan assets, many of which, of course, have been stolen. The Epstein oligarchs with their depraved alleged cannibalism and mass killing of children have not gone away. While people begin to report repercussions of the Epstein files, the same forces are present, which may explain why the personal lawyer to Donald Trump at the DOJ said, on the release of them, that no one is going to be prosecuted. What this means for Africa, amidst all these global tensions, is tied to the expiry of the START treaty within the next 24 to 48 hours, which would allow unlimited warheads, the end of nuclear inspections, and perhaps a nuclear arms race that has never been seen before on this planet. We will have to wait and see.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the possibility of striking Iran to eliminate its nuclear program and the broader implications of regime change. - Speaker 0 acknowledges arguments that Israel has wanted to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, and that American involvement with B-52s and large bombs might be needed to finish the job. He notes the idea of a strike that proceeds quickly with minimal American casualties, under a Trump-era frame that Iran will not get a nuclear bomb. - He observes a shift among Washington’s neoconservative and Republican circles from opposing Iran’s nuclear capability to opposing Ayatollah rule itself, suggesting a subtle change in objectives while maintaining the theme of intervention. He concedes cautious support if Trump executes it prudently, but warns of a “switcheroo” toward regime change rather than purely disabling the nuclear program. - Speaker 0 criticizes the record of neocons on foreign policy (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, the Arab Spring) and argues that the entire Middle East bears their failures. He emphasizes a potential regime-change drive and questions what would come after removing the Ayatollah, including possible US troop deployments and financial support for a new regime. - He highlights the size of Iran (about 92,000,000 people, two and a half times the size of Texas) and warns that regime change could trigger a bloody civil war and a large refugee crisis, possibly drawing tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths and destabilizing Europe. - Speaker 1 presents a more vocal stance: he would like to see the regime fall and leaves to the president the timing and method, insisting that if the nuclear program isn’t eliminated now, “we’ll all regret it” and urging to “be all in” to help Israel finish the job. - In cuts 3:43, Speaker 1 argues that removing the Ayatollah’s regime would be beneficial because staying in power would continue to threaten Israel, foment terrorism, and pursue a bomb; he characterizes the regime as aiming to destroy Jews and Sunni Islam, calling them “fanatical religious Nazis.” - Speaker 0 responds that such a forceful call for regime change is immature, shallow, and reckless, warning that certainty about outcomes in foreign interventions is impossible. He asserts that the first rule of foreign policy is humility, noting that prior interventions led to prolonged conflict and mass displacement. He cautions against beating the drums for regime change in another Middle Eastern country, especially the largest, and reiterates that the issue is not simply removing the nuclear program but opposing Western-led regime change. - The discussion frames a tension between supporting efforts to deny Iran a nuclear weapon and resisting Western-led regime change, with a strong emphasis on potential humanitarian and geopolitical consequences. The speakers reference public opinion (citing 86% of Americans not wanting Iran to have a bomb) and critique interventions as historically destabilizing.

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 speakers present a conspiratorial framing of Libya’s recent history and its global repercussions. They assert, “It’s a Chinese colony at this point,” implying foreign influence over Libya and its trajectory. - They claim that “the West and Hillary blows up Gaddafi,” arguing that those who were aligned with the West retaliated against Muammar Gaddafi. They further state that Gaddafi had “invested everything with the West, came and apologized,” and describe NATO as “the defensive alliance” that “went and just murdered Gaddafi for no reason.” - Gaddafi is portrayed in softened, almost heroic terms: “One’s Gaddafi, you know, the crazy colonel,” but the speakers emphasize that “the point was he was for the people.” They describe him as “a statesman,” noting that “he literally lived in a tent.” - The economic and infrastructural claims are central to their narrative: they say “98% of the state money coming in and oil went to not just his people, Africa,” and that he was “building real infrastructure” with a “whole plan to link up” with Africa. They imply that his policies would have connected Africa regionally rather than remaining separate from the rest of the continent. - They allege that the killing of Gaddafi was part of a broader, destabilizing plan: “they came and killed him,” and as a result, “now all of Africa’s collapsing because they blew up the South Point and the North Point.” They attribute these upheavals to “the globalist deliberately blow[ing] that up for destabilization.” - The discussion turns to population movements: they claim that “the population will be moved here and to Europe as it already is being in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, of course.” The speaker asserts personal certainty about this trend: “I know I see it so, so clearly.”

The speaker discusses the history of NATO and its involvement with fascist regimes in Portugal, Greece, and Turkey. They argue that NATO's actions should be judged, highlighting the negative consequences of NATO's interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In Yugoslavia, hatred was sown and drugs were sold openly on the streets. In Iraq, the country was brought back to the Stone Age, with no energy or gasoline for the people. In Afghanistan, the speaker claims that the CIA's involvement led to an increase in drug trafficking and the oppression of women. They also mention the negative impact of NATO's intervention in Libya, where a law was passed to imprison anyone who criticized the previous regime. The speaker questions the true purpose of NATO and its supposed promotion of democracy.

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.

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