reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Domestic propaganda campaign that occurred in The United States before the invasion began. The story centers on a young Kuwaiti woman named Naira. On 10/10/1990, the 15 year old girl gave riveting testimony before Congress about the horrors inside Kuwait after Iraq invaded. Nayirah's testimony was rebroadcast across the country and marked a turning point in public opinion on going to war. President George H. W. Bush repeatedly cited her claims. They had kids in incubators, and they were thrown out of the incubators so that Kuwait could be systematically dismantled. Three months after Nayyra testified, President George H. W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq. But it turned out Nayyra's claims weren't true. It also turned out Nayyra was not just any Kuwaiti teenager. She was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to The United States, Saad Nasir al Sabah.

I briefed the press as an analyst and interrogator for the CIA, circulating disinformation to influence public opinion. I targeted influential journalists like Robert Chaplin and Kais Beach, planting false information to support US interests in Vietnam. I would also mislead reporters by briefing diplomats to provide false confirmation. Despite my involvement, I now oppose these propaganda tactics, believing they serve no purpose for the CIA.

Iraqi soldiers committed atrocities during Desert Storm, including pulling out fingernails and using electric shock. The story of babies being left to die after their incubators were taken was a hoax. The Gulf War was sold to the public by portraying Saddam Hussein as another Hitler. The war led to the deaths of many Iraqis, including children and the elderly, both during the conflict and due to sanctions. The propaganda surrounding the war, including fake claims about Saddam's weapons program, had lasting consequences, such as the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and the rise of Osama Bin Laden.

Witness Naira, a young girl from Kuwait, shares her harrowing experience during the Iraqi invasion. She recounts how she and her family were in Kuwait for a summer vacation when the invasion occurred. Naira witnessed the Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators at a hospital and leaving them to die on the floor. She also describes the destruction and torture inflicted by the Iraqis on her country and its people. Naira and her friends distributed pamphlets condemning the invasion but were warned of potential danger. Despite the horrors she has witnessed, Naira remains determined to rebuild Kuwait. The committee expresses shock at the inhumanity and calls for international action to free Kuwait from this aggression.

In the lead-up to the Persian Gulf War, letters were sent to allies and Arab states urging them to withdraw their support for the coalition with the United States.

Regarding the war in Syria, the CIA was tasked by Obama to overthrow the Syrian government four years before Russia intervened. This operation, known as Timber Sycamore, barely received coverage in the New York Times. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was based on phony pretenses. Focus groups were conducted to determine how to sell the war to the American people, using fear as a tactic. This war originated from Netanyahu's theory since 1995 that toppling governments supporting Hamas and Hezbollah (Iraq, Syria, and Iran) was necessary. He has been trying to get the US to fight Iran. He has gotten the US into endless wars because of his power in US politics. Therefore, the narrative of democracy versus dictatorship is not sensible.

The speaker recalls a conversation where a general informed him that the decision to go to war with Iraq had been made without any evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda. The general mentioned that the military's only solution to dealing with terrorists was to take down governments. Later, the speaker learned about a memo outlining plans to attack seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq. The video then mentions military operations in Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan. It concludes by mentioning the investigation into the misuse of intelligence information and the speaker's belief that evidence points to wrongdoing.

In this video, the speaker claims that all wars in the US have been fake, referring to the manipulation and strategizing that leads to war. He highlights the Washington Institute For Near East Policy, a think tank with influential members like Henry Kissinger and Condoleezza Rice, who have served in various presidential administrations. The speaker emphasizes that American interests in the Middle East, rather than spreading democracy or freedom, drive these wars. He discusses historical examples of false flag events that led to wars, such as Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The speaker concludes that if Iran doesn't compromise, someone else should initiate the war, following the pattern of previous conflicts.

Two testimonies reveal unimaginable cruelty and atrocities that occurred in Kuwait. One involves a fake nurse, Neira, who was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington. She was coached by a PR firm to sell the war to Americans. The other testimony involves the propaganda used to manipulate public opinion and support for the war. On November 29, 1990, the UN issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to withdraw his troops from Kuwait. The operation, called Desert Storm, began on January 16, 1991. The French Minister of Defense resigned on January 29, 1991. The exact number of civilian casualties from the month and a half of bombings remains unknown, with estimates ranging from a few thousand to sixty thousand Iraqis killed.

A witness named Nayira testified about her experience in Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion. She and her mother were there for a vacation when the invasion occurred. Nayira witnessed the Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and leaving them to die. She also described the destruction and torture inflicted by the Iraqis on the Kuwaiti people. Nayira emphasized the need to remove Saddam Hussein and rebuild Kuwait. The chairman expressed gratitude to all the witnesses for their testimonies, stating that the inhumanity and brutality described were unprecedented. He called for international action to free Kuwait from aggression and brutality.

Nations don't go to war easily, sometimes needing to be bombed into it, like Pearl Harbor in World War II and September 11. Removing Saddam's regime would have positive effects, as he used weapons of mass destruction and sought nuclear weapons. A year after September 11, the U.S. had the courage to win. The terrorists attacked and killed 3,000 citizens before the freedom agenda in the Middle East. The main reason for going into Iraq was the belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be false, and had nothing to do with 9/11. Some suggest the U.S. sometimes needs a catalyst for war, like Pearl Harbor or the Lusitania. Covert actions against Iran were mentioned, including intensifying pressure. Netanyahu reportedly said the September 11 attacks were good for Israel. Some left the military due to being lied to about weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda. Instructions were given to shoot at anything that moved after IED explosions, desensitizing soldiers by dehumanizing Iraqis. There was a total disregard for human life. One individual apologized to an Iraqi man, finding it redemptive.

In 1990, Iraq attacked Kuwait, leading to a split opinion among the US public on whether to engage in a land war. However, support for war increased dramatically after a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl testified before a congressional committee. She claimed that Iraqi soldiers took babies out of incubators, causing them to die. This testimony was later revealed to be false, as the girl was coached by a PR firm. The US and Kuwait had engaged in a $10 million campaign of deception. This incident highlights the use of fake organizations, false documents, and disinformation to achieve geopolitical goals.

The transcript discusses a tactic described as the most famous and common form of influence: collaborating with famous people or main influencers to share information or a particular message. Taylor Swift is given as the example in this context. One speaker asserts a series of assertions about Taylor Swift and her role in geopolitics and information influence. They claim that in 2019, Taylor Swift was featured by NATO’s Center of Excellence as part of a “geopolitical instrument of statecraft,” and that her intellectual property and discography were purchased by the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm with connections to the Iraq war and Dick Cheney on its board, alongside the Halliburton-dominated energy interests of West Texas. They further state that the Carlyle Group and the Soros Group funded and profited from the “military industrial complex” and related energy stakeholders, who allegedly rely on the Pentagon, the State Department, and the CIA. The assertion continues that Taylor Swift had to rerecord her own music last year in order to regain control of her rights, and that she was used to support political causes, including being wheeled out for Biden in the 2020 “get out the vote” campaign. It is claimed that Time Magazine named her Person of the Year, and that The Wall Street Journal hypothesized she could be Biden’s “secret weapon” to win the 2024 election. Additionally, the speaker claims that Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour constitutes an economic powerhouse, comparable to the GDP of a top-20 nation by global GDP, and that Swift serves as a “cultural battering ram” to influence hearts and minds in favor of Western interests. The speaker alleges that in 2019, Taylor Swift appeared in a NATO Psychological Operations Center presentation as the first line of a set of personal presentation materials on artificial intelligence social media censorship techniques, used as a key actor who can be trained to spread desired messaging. The overarching claim is that Taylor Swift functions within a broader framework where famous cultural figures are leveraged by state and corporate power structures to disseminate certain messages and influence public opinion, with swift involvement described across political support, economic impact, and information control ecosystems.

The discussion centers on the ongoing tensions with Iran, the potential for American military involvement, and the role of media and ideology in shaping public perception. The speakers express a critical view of how the situation is being managed and portrayed. Key points about the Iran situation: - President Trump publicly claimed “we’ve won the war against Iran,” but the panel notes Israel’s public interest in a broader outcome, specifically regime change in Iran, which would require boots on the ground rather than air strikes. - It is argued that air strikes alone cannot achieve regime change; the Israeli military, even with about 170,000 active-duty soldiers plus reservists, would need American boots on the ground to accomplish such aims against a larger Iranian army. - Senators, including Richard Blumenthal, warned about the risk to American lives in potentially deploying ground troops in Iran, citing a path toward American ground forces. - The new National Defense Authorization Act renewal could lead to an involuntary draft by year’s end, a concern raised by Dan McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute who argues it treats citizens as owned by the government. - There is tension between Trump’s public push for a quick end to conflict and Netanyahu’s government talking about a larger, more prolonged objective in the region, including a potential demilitarized zone in southern Lebanon akin to Gaza’s situation. - Iran’s new supreme leader Khomeini issued a televised statement threatening to shut the Strait of Hormuz until the United States begs and vowing vengeance for martyrs, signaling that the conflict could continue or escalate beyond initial claims of victory. - The panel highlights potential escalation, including the possibility of nuclear weapons discussion by Trump and concerns about who controls the war, given factions within Iran and differing US-Israeli goals. Tucker Carlson’s analysis and warnings: - Carlson is presented as having warned that a war with Iran would be hard due to Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal aimed at US bases and allies’ infrastructure, and that it would push Iran closer to China and Russia, potentially undermining the US. - Carlson emphasizes the lack of a clear, publicly articulated endgame or exit strategy for the war, arguing that diplomacy has deteriorated and that the US appears discredited in its ability to negotiate peace. - He discusses the governance of Israel and the idea that some Israeli leaders advocate for extreme measures, referencing “Amalek” language used by Netanyahu to describe enemies, which Carlson characterizes as dangerous and incompatible with Western civilization’s values. - Carlson argues that American interests and Israeli strategic aims diverge, and questions why Israel is the partner with decision-making authority in such a conflict. He notes the US’s reliance on Israel for intelligence (with Israel translating SIGINT) and suggests that Israel’s endgame may be to erode American influence in the region. - He also suggests the war is being used to advance a broader political and ideological project, including America’s pivot away from foreign entanglements; he asserts that certain power centers in the US and in media and defense circles benefit from perpetual conflict. - Carlson discusses the moral framework around targeting and civilian casualties, asserting that there is concern over the ethical implications of autonomous targeting and the potential for AI to play a role in warfare decisions. - He notes the possibility that AI involvement in targeting decisions exists in other conflicts, though in the Iran situation, he mentions that a human pressed play in the specific case of an attack (the school near an Iranian base), while coordinates may have come from other sources, possibly shared by Israel. - Carlson discusses media dynamics, describing mainstream outlets as “embedded” with the defense establishment and questioning why there isn’t a robust public discussion about the war’s endgame, exit ramps, or the true costs of war. Media, propaganda, and public discourse: - The panel critiques media coverage as lacking skepticism, with anchors and outlets seemingly aligned with the administration’s war narratives, raising concerns about “access journalism” and the absence of tough questions about goals, timelines, and consequences. - Carlson and participants discuss the use of propaganda—historically, Disney and the Treasury Department in World War II as examples—arguing that today’s propaganda around Iran relies on pop culture and entertainment to normalize or justify intervention without clear justification to the public. - They argue that contemporary media often fails to examine the ethics and consequences of war or to question the necessity and legitimacy of continuing conflict, suggesting a broader risk of technology-enabled control over public opinion and civil discourse. White House dynamics and internal debate: - The guests discuss the possibility of internal disagreement within the White House, noting that while some senior figures had reservations, external pressure, particularly from Netanyahu, may have pushed the administration toward action. - They touch on the strategic ambiguity surrounding US forces in the region, noting that while large-scale ground invasion is unlikely, special forces and other assets may be deployed, with civilian and military costs disproportionately affecting American families. - The conversation also explores concerns about civil liberties, surveillance, and the potential for centralized control of information and warfare technologies to influence domestic politics and social cohesion. Overall, the dialogue presents a multifaceted critique of the handling and propulsion of a potential Iran conflict, emphasizing the risk of escalatory dynamics, the clash of strategic goals between the US and Israel, concerns about democratic consent and media accountability, and the ethical implications of modern warfare technology.

Intel agencies have a significant influence on television broadcasts, Facebook, and Google. Many anchors, including a national security reporter, act as mouthpieces for the Pentagon and the CIA, knowingly spreading lies. This is a common practice, even at CNN. These reporters read government propaganda from intel agencies, and it's frustrating and offensive, regardless of whether one agrees with the lies or not. For instance, when the CIA and Pentagon claimed that Bashar al Assad used poison gas, there was no evidence to support it. Despite this, many people were killed in response.

Two testimonies reveal unimaginable cruelty. Interviews show the atrocities that occurred in Kuwait. It wasn't the nurses, but the daughter of the Washington ambassador. This is a prime example of the lies spread during that time. The alleged massacre of Kuwaiti babies never happened, but everyone believed it. Neira, a 15-year-old fake nurse and the ambassador's daughter, was coached by PR firm Ilan Nolton. Her mission was to sell the war to Americans, costing over ten million dollars.

The speaker claims the Syrian war narrative is false, stating Obama ordered the CIA to overthrow the Syrian government four years before Russia intervened. They allege the New York Times rarely reported on Operation Timber Sycamore. Regarding the Iraq War, the speaker asserts it was based on "phony pretenses." Focus groups were allegedly used to determine how to "sell" the war to the American public. The speaker claims Netanyahu advocated for toppling governments supporting Hamas and Hezbollah (Iraq, Syria, and Iran) since 1995 and is still trying to get the US to fight Iran. The speaker concludes that the democracy versus dictatorship framing is not sensible.

During the Gulf War, a story emerged that Iraqi soldiers had taken babies out of incubators in Kuwait and left them to die. This story was widely reported and used to justify the war. However, investigations later revealed that the story was a complete hoax. The witness who testified to this atrocity was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, and she was coached by a PR firm hired to sell the war. The PR campaign, costing millions of dollars, manipulated public opinion and influenced the decision to go to war. This highlights the power of propaganda and the dangers of misinformation in shaping public perception and policy.

Speaker 0 recounts the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait: "Took incubators and left the children to die on the cold floor. That was horrifying." After leaving the hospital, he and friends distributed flyers condemning the Iraqi invasion "until we were warned we might be killed if the Iraqi saw us." He states, "The Iraqis have destroyed everything in Kuwait"—"They stripped the supermarkets of food, the pharmacies of medicine, the factories of medical surprise supplies, ransacked their houses and tortured neighbors and friends." He describes torture of a friend who "is 22, but he looked as though he could have been an old man," including "dunked his head into a swimming pool until he almost drowned," "pulled out his fingernails and applied electric shock to sensitive private parts of his body." If a soldier is found dead, "they burned to the ground all the houses in in the general vicinity." They were forced to hide; "Kuwait is our mother and then they are our father." "I'm glad I'm 15, old enough to remember Kuwait before Saddam Hussein destroyed it, and young enough to rebuild it." The mayor thanks witnesses and notes eight years of hearings on human rights abuses.

We are in an image war where media shows images of crying mothers with a plastic baby, making it seem like a dead baby. But there are also real children dying, and you are well aware of that. There are real children dying naturally, civilian victims everywhere, and naturally, it is regrettable. We must mourn all civilian victims who are victims of war. It is important to remember that they are victims and justice should quickly analyze this.

- The discussion opens with claims that President Trump says “we’ve won the war against Iran,” but Israel allegedly wants the war to destroy Iran’s entire government structure, requiring boots on the ground for regime change. It’s argued that air strikes cannot achieve regime change and that Israel’s relatively small army would need U.S. ground forces, given Iran’s larger conventional force, to accomplish its objectives. - Senator Richard Blumenthal is cited as warning about American lives potentially being at risk from deploying ground troops in Iran, following a private White House briefing. - The new National Defense Authorization Act is described as renewing the involuntary draft; by year’s end, an involuntary draft could take place in the United States, pending full congressional approval. Dan McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute is described as expressing strong concern, arguing the draft would treat the government as owning citizens’ bodies, a stance attributed to him as supporting a view that “presumption is that the government owns you.” - The conversation contrasts Trump’s public desire to end the war quickly with Netanyahu’s government, which reportedly envisions a much larger military objective in the region, including a demilitarized zone in southern Lebanon akin to Gaza, and a broader aim to remove Hezbollah. The implication is that the United States and Israel may not share the same endgame. - Tucker Carlson is introduced as a guest to discuss these issues and offer predictions about consequences for the American people, including energy disruption, economic impacts, and shifts in U.S. influence in the Persian Gulf. - Carlson responds that he would not credit himself with prescience, but notes predictable consequences: disruption to global energy supplies, effects on the U.S. economy, potential loss of U.S. bases in the Gulf, and a shrinking American empire. He suggests that the war’s true goal may be to weaken the United States and withdraw from the Middle East; he questions whether diplomacy remains viable given the current trajectory. - Carlson discusses Iran’s new supreme leader Khomeini’s communique, highlighting threats to shut Hormuz “forever,” vows to avenge martyrs, and calls for all U.S. bases in the region to be closed. He notes that Tehran asserts it will target American bases while claiming it is not an enemy of surrounding countries, though bombs affect neighbors as well. - The exchange notes Trump’s remarks about possibly using nuclear weapons, and Carlson explains Iran’s internal factions, suggesting some seek negotiated settlements while others push for sustained conflict. Carlson emphasizes that Israel’s leadership may be pushing escalation in ways that diverge from U.S. interests and warns about the dangers of a joint operation with Israel, which would blur U.S. sovereignty in war decisions. - A discussion on the use of a term Amalek is explored: Carlson’s guest explains Amalek from the Old Testament as enemies of the Jewish people, with a historical biblical command to annihilate Amalek, including women and children, which the guest notes Christianity rejects; Netanyahu has used the term repeatedly in the conflict context, which Carlson characterizes as alarming and barbaric. - The guests debate how much influence is exerted in the White House, with Carlson noting limited direct advocacy for war among principal policymakers and attributing decisive pressure largely to Netanyahu’s threats. They question why Israel, a client state of the U.S., is allowed to dictate war steps, especially given the strategic importance of Hormuz and American assets in the region. - They discuss the ethical drift in U.S. policy, likening it to adopting the ethics of the Israeli government, and criticize the idea of targeting family members or civilians as a military strategy. They contrast Western civilization’s emphasis on individual moral responsibility with perceived tribal rationales. - The conversation touches on the potential rise of AI-assisted targeting or autonomous weapons: Carlson’s guest confirms that in some conflicts, targeting decisions have been made by machines with no human sign-off, though in the discussed case a human did press play on the attack. The coordinates and data sources for strikes are scrutinized, with suspicion cast on whether Israel supplied SIGINT or coordinates. - The guests warn about the broader societal impact of war on civil liberties, mentioning the increasing surveillance and the risk that technology could be used to suppress dissent or control the population. They discuss how war accelerates social change and potentially normalizes drastic actions or internal coercion. - The media’s role in selling the war is criticized as “propaganda,” with examples of government messaging and pop culture campaigns (including a White House-supported video game-like portrayal of U.S. military power). They debate whether propaganda can be effective without a clear, articulated rationale for war and without public buy-in. - They question the behavior of mainstream outlets and “access journalism,” arguing that reporters often avoid tough questions about how the war ends, the timetable, and the off-ramps, instead reinforcing government narratives. - In closing, Carlson and his co-hosts reflect on the political division surrounding the war, the erosion of trust in media, and the possibility of rebuilding a coalition of ordinary Americans who want effective governance without perpetual conflict or degradation of civil liberties. Carlson emphasizes a longing for a politics centered on improving lives rather than escalating war. - The segment ends with Carlson’s continued critique of media dynamics, the moral implications of the war, and a call for more transparent discussion about the true aims and consequences of extended military engagement in the region.

In the past, false information has been used to manipulate public opinion for war. In 1990, a girl claimed she saw babies killed in Kuwait, but it was a lie. Her father was Kuwait's ambassador. A similar tactic was used by Colin Powell, who falsely claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, leading to a US invasion and many Iraqi deaths. This raises the question of whether similar misinformation is being used in the case of Ukraine.

A viral video of a nurse denouncing a Hamas occupation in the Al Shifa Hospital in Gaza. The publication sharing this video was shared mostly by pro Israeli accounts since November 11 and has accumulated over 1,500,000 views. In the video, she denounces what she says is the Hamas occupation of this hospital as she accuses Hamas of stealing the hospital's food, medicine and fuel; you can hear explosions in the background and a five year old boy without morphine. ECAD facts concluded this video is a fake and that it is staged or as you call it crisis acting. Audio analysis found that all of the explosions in the video sound exactly the same; an identical pattern. Pronunciation errors in Arabic were noted. Hannah Abubtul has been wrongly identified as the creator of this video. Bottom line: don't believe all you see online.