ad-free
A marketplace for speech.
82,364 Hours of Speech
help
help
515,613 Transcriptions
add title (free)
add title (free)
406 Sources
add source €0.99
add source €0.99
Search:
Newsbud
Title: Sibel Edmonds: The Fog of War - Syria & More
Published: 2018-04-16
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlNH1TdeDYE
Title: Sibel Edmonds: The Fog of War - Syria & More
Published: 2018-04-16
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlNH1TdeDYE
1/75
Welcome everyone. I'm Spiro joined with the founder and editor of newsbud.com, Sebel Edmonds. Sebel, how are you today? Good, good to be here. It's been a while since we have done a joint quick update, so it's good to be here everyone. Well everyone we've all been seeing the news everything for the past week or week and a half or so has been all about Syria. We've2/75
been seeing a lot of the hype the back and forth. Is there going to be military action? Suppose it's chemical attacks. Is Russia going to retaliate? We've been seeing it's just everywhere you look at Syria. We've received a couple questions from some of our supporters, some of our members here at newsbud asking why aren't we doing more Syria coverage and we're going to talk a little3/75
bit about Syria here just to preface this though. We have been covering Syria since before the war even began there, starting with your report breaking the story. Can you give us a quick recap for some of the new members who may not be aware of your initial report? Absolutely. Thank you, Spiro. Thank you for reminding me because as you said we have many new members, people4/75
who have started following newsbud in the recent one or two years. We broke the Syria story in 2011 before Syria made the headline. In fact our breaking news is the first article exposing the US military operations together with NATO in Turkey, in Turkey's US NATO air base in July 2011, November of 2011. When we published that, we came under the severe attack saying, what are you5/75
talking about? We are just finishing Libya, so you're talking about Syria. That's because I have so many sources, not only within the intelligence community, military members, whistleblowers here in the United States, but also hundreds of reliable sources in other countries including in Turkey, in Syria, in Iran. That news article came about based on two very legitimate high-level people sources that I've had saying that the United6/75
States NATO has been training. Later this group became ISIS, believe me or not. They may want to call it the free Syria army or whatever they want to call it, but what they were doing, they were bringing these people into Turkey, into this camp, this is US NATO camp, they were training them militarily, they were giving them weapons and they were funneling them back into Syria7/75
through the poorest borders between Syria and Turkey to start creating cells and go about this uprising that later in 2012, 2013, we started seeing the some reports here and there. So we reported that and then two months after that, again, I broke this story on Jordan camp and again this would be early 2012, late 2011. In fact, we interviewed one person from Jordan who actually gave8/75
the exact location of the camps that they were establishing in Jordan. These were all the prep work for post-Libya intervention, aka intervention actually the war. And again, as I said, at the time, we had a lot of skeptics saying, well, why this isn't on New York Times and this is not being reported by any of the mainstream media outlets and we said because they are not9/75
going to do it until this operation is ready to basically kick up in Syria. So yes, we have been covering, we have had many round tables. One of the biggest reasons we are not jumping like these bloggers and the social media personalities, bunch of idiots is that there's a reason people call it the fog of war. You know, you have so much information, especially today with10/75
the social media real-time news, we are bombarded constantly and you have to sift through sift through the information and then determine what seems to be legit, what is not, whose agenda is being represented in each piece of news to give you an example. We had a bunch of idiots both from the Russian and Syrian sites. I'm going to call everyone idiot, anybody who doesn't like it,11/75
turn off, get out of this site, because we are talking the talk here. So this ate this set and this came from the Russian side and the Syrian propaganda side saying of the hundreds of missiles that the US and France hit us with, Syria neutralized at least 71 of these missiles. You know, we intercepted it, we destroyed their missiles. Okay, and I looked at the source,12/75
it says Syria, Syria and bunch of idiot personalities in Syria. Then we had an hour later, the idiots from this site, the war mongers pushing through Pentagon and their mouthpiece within the US mainstream media saying, well, you know, we fired all those missiles and even though Syrians fired 40 missiles and tried to intercept, they were not able to hit a single one of our missiles. Okay,13/75
so put yourself in this middle position and say, who is telling the truth here? I'm not saying that this little stupid detail is important, how many missiles were fired, how many Syria neutralized, but this is again, the distraction they want to cause, they want people to get into the needy greediest stupid details, rather than stepping back and look at the whole picture. So why is it14/75
important to know how many of those missiles were intercepted by Syria? Why is it important for Pentagon and their mouthpiece mainstream media saying they couldn't hit single one of our missiles? These are basically what we call war posturing and in the fog of war, you're going to be hit with information constantly. Now, if you are like some of these Southbrook claim bloggers who come out and15/75
put this news, breaking all idiots, I want you to pay attention, all the missiles they sent, Syria intercepted all of them, they are mighty. Then the next day we come and say, Pentagon said they couldn't even intercept one missile. What have we given our readers? Is that news? Is that really news? But again, if we step back and look at it, all this talk that we16/75
are seeing are talking about who did this chemical attack, okay? You have the US and the West and the NATO and their corporate media talking about here's Assad, he's releasing this chemical weapons on his own people and we have to step in, okay? That's the narrative. Then the idiots, I'm sorry again, actually I am not sorry, they are idiots. The idiots from the Assad's mouthpiece, the17/75
little clowns and the Russian, they are like, no, this was false flag attacks, it is, I don't know, white helmets or these people who did the chemical attacks. The question is, has there even been any chemical attacks in Syria, okay? That's the real question. So before even determining that with any kind of investigation, with any kind of legitimate report and by investigation, I don't mean a18/75
one-sided investigations, they are arguing who did it. You know, it's like you come across nothing, no murder has been committed and you put all your task force in a police department and say, let's determine who did it. Well, what's something done? Was there a murder? You don't have a body, you don't have any autops, you don't have any report, but you are talking about a possible19/75
murder that may have occurred and the possible culprit who could, we would have done it. Again, this is idiotic, we had news about, we are not in this business of shallow, blog-ish, I think social media is doing a good job taking care of it. So this is the reason we are not coming on our website and trying to create this cognitive dissonance among our readers, confusing20/75
them, because confusing the readers, confusing the people, whether they are here in the US, whether they are in Europe, whether they are in the Middle East, is always one of the top agenda, top agendas of deep state, create so much fog and smoke and mirrors and confusion, and then have idiotic people fighting each other, not on facts, not on real issues, but on some bunch of21/75
unverified polonies. This is why we at NewsBud, we don't engage in what I call the Kardashian type news and say, oh yeah, like who did it? And then taking side, that's another bullshit that I see a lot of people committing. We are not in the business of taking side, okay? Now, as I said, what you do is, this is why we always emphasize, take a look22/75
at the history, take a look at the context, take a look at the pretext, and then try to put the two and two and two together, okay? Now, who do we know as a nation that has this track record of the number one top constant users of chemical weapons? Honestly, okay, not taking sides here. Now, if we look at the history, the recent history included, we23/75
are looking at the United States, okay? We have agent Orange, we have the nuclear bombing Hiroshima, Nagasaki. We have consistently engaged in this type of unethical, I mean, that's literally putting it mildly, awful, atrocious, okay? Anti-humanitarian methods of waging wars, and these are the wars we wage, and then we go and then we dump all the weapons, the chemical, nuclear in other countries, okay? So that's24/75
one. The other thing we need to look at is how many times we have seen this damn story. I mean, this is the same scenario, okay? It was not that long ago, okay, less than two decades ago, 15 years ago, we had our people, the United States government, before billions of people televised in the United Nation. This man Colin Powell getting up and saying, we have25/75
the proof. The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world. First, biological weapons. When Iraq finally admitted having these weapons in 1995, the quantities were vast. Less than a26/75
teaspoon of dry anthrax, a little bit about this amount. This is just about the amount of a teaspoon. Less than a teaspoon full of dry anthrax in an envelope shut down the United States Senate. And Sodom Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon full of this deadly material. And that is my third point and it is key. Iraqis have never accounted for all of27/75
the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had. They have never accounted for all the organic material used to make them and they have not accounted for many of the weapons filled with these agents such as there are 400 bombs. This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true. This is all well documented. All these barrel satellite image that you see show that Iraq,28/75
Sodom Hussein has all this WMD. After hundreds of thousands of that and destruction and the death also applies to American soldiers as well. It was, oh, Cidazee, we didn't find anything. And then we didn't even get any apology, any reparation, nothing. It was, it was faulting intelligence. The main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It29/75
turns out he didn't but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass. But also talked about the human suffering in Iraq. Well, first of all, I have it lined. Yeah, it is inexcusably inaccurate to suggest that anyone lied about it. President Bush did not lie. Dick Cheney did not. Colin Powell who made the presentation to the United Nations did not. Those weapons of mass destruction30/75
got to be somewhere. Nope, no weapons over there. When you have that kind of track record, of course you're going to see even if there was something real people are going to legitimately question what you're putting for here. Okay, it's like cry wolf. You, we don't believe this government when they accuse other governments of using WMD period unless there is independent verification independent investigation. UN is31/75
their own mouthpiece. NATO is not the independent. Russians are not the independent investigation. And that brings a question. Well, who would we even consider independent? We can't even consider the neighboring country. Iraq is already our colony. Then we have Israel with its own interest and objective. Then you have Turkey that has already gone into Syria and has declared this is own war. Okay, who do we,32/75
who would, who would do we determine to be the independent objective body, international body to go in their conduct test and come out with report? So first of all, we don't know if any chemical weapons were released on people in Syria. That's number one. Okay, number two, put aside all the political knowledge, put aside everything. Let's just use common sense and ask yourself why in the33/75
world Assad would hand the Western governments who have been set on invading and regime change in Syria in a platter in a silver plate, give them the excuse to engage in this war and attack. Why would Assad do such a thing? Okay, just common sense. Let's put aside everything. Whether you're pro Assad, whether you're anti Assad, whether you're whatever Hick, just think common sense. Why would34/75
Assad do something like that? Why? It just doesn't make sense. Now, somebody may say, well, it's possible that some elements within Assad's own government may do something like this, you know, to sabotage Assad's government. That would be one hypothesis. But right now, we can't engage in that kind of a fruitless discussion because we don't even know if there was any chemical weapons. Somebody coming and saying,35/75
well, we tested some urine and it showed positive. I mean, that's not a report. You don't go and spend hundreds of millions dollars worth of missile attacking a sovereign country without declaring the war in that country, constitutionally in this country. Based on some urine samples showed something in there, and that possibly is done by Assad. I mean, it's insane. It is surreal. And then the other36/75
thing we don't see in the media. I mean, we don't see anyone at least here in the US talk about the US Congress. Have you noticed the Spiro? How irrelevant they have become. How irrelevant this entity has become? I just saw this headline and I'm going to be the old lady and use this. Here it is. It says Donald Trump ordered serious strike based on a37/75
secret legal justification that even Congress can see. Now, how can this be constitutional? Given the fact that Article 1 section 8 of America's founding document declares that the Congress shall have power to declare war. And then you have Trump administration. You have the US government saying it's too secret for Congress to see. So at this point, I don't understand why it is that Americans here, people38/75
in the US are not being outraged, saying if you have all this evidence run it by Congress. I mean, and this is not claiming that the Congress is going to do its job and have a vote, you know, based on what is best for the Americans and what is best actually for the world. Because when you look at these sold out wars in Congress, what do39/75
you see? And I'm going to repeat that again, sold out wars in Congress. What you're going to see is they are pocketed by people who are profiting from these missiles being sent to Syria. I mean, we just, when we published this, Spiro, we just published this article. See, that is even though it doesn't say it's about Syria, in a way it is about Syria. We just40/75
published an article by our military veteran, Christian Sorensen talking about putting older report. This is not some stupid blogger coming and claiming things. Okay, all the documentation, all the links saying in only 20, half three months, we spent $4 billion, $4 billion on no bid drone contracts. Okay, $4 billion. Who profited from these contracts? And how many percent, how much of that profit goes into the41/75
pockets of those sold out wars sitting in the United States Congress? And I have a proposition. If these types of decision-making issues, these types of war-related intelligence are so secret that Congress can't see, can't look at it and they have no right to vote on it, not that their vote vote even matters or is even legitimate at this point. But let's say it is, why don't42/75
we just go ahead and nullify Congress? I mean, just go ahead and get rid of it. What is it for? You get bunch of people who get elected to sit there, fill their pockets with all the lobby money from the big pharma, from the military industrial complex, from the intelligence industrial complex, from the information industrial complex. And their job is to do nothing, to actually to43/75
actually facilitate all these things that are against the interest of not only America, against the interest of humanity. Is that why we have elected and people go, I'm not participating in this sham elections business in the US. But is this why people go every two years and they elect representatives? They're keeping Americans safe, Sebel. Didn't you hear the president's speech? Well, actually, one of the things44/75
that I always talk about with veterans and including some of them who are part of my whistleblowers organizations, I mean, $4 billion, no accountability, just thrown in there. Trillions of dollars is spent on wars. But look at the way the veterans are being treated. Take a look at the homeless veterans. Then go back and read the stuff that we at NewsBud publish, okay? Go read those45/75
stuff and then put together with the situation of thousands, tens of thousands of veterans who are homeless. That we have all these trillions of dollars to waste and destroy humanity on wars. But we don't even take care of our veterans. I mean, where is the outrage in this country? And that's what I've been wondering. I saw a little bit of that on Alex Jones channel the46/75
other day that even he got being such Trump supporter, he got outraged. And so this is BS basically. And enough is enough. But where is the outrage by the majority of these people who live in these countries who are engaged in these perpetual wars, destroying millions of lives, millions of lives? You know what they are doing? It's so unfortunate because we were all very helpful. We47/75
were very hopeful when we saw the Internet, the birth of Internet, the birth of alternative media and the social media real-time information. Honestly, right now when I'm looking at it, I see the situation even worse than it was before. How are you going to determine which information you are seeing is true? And look at the results of it. Are we in a better place today with48/75
the so-called old alternative media outlets entering, all the idiotic bloggers and all the social media? What do you call that? We were talking about the keyboard warriors. The jobless family less, lazy-ass people who sit and work their keyboards and they are spreading hate because it's the hate between the Democrats and the Republicans. It's the hate from pro-assets and the anti-asset people in Syria. It's the hate49/75
between Muslims and Christians. All we have seen is increase in hatred and actually increase in the amount and the level and the percentage of misinformation, disinformation. So we do not take part as news, but we do not take part in this kind of reporting. That is not what we do. Once we gather facts or once we have enough facts and once we gather enough number of50/75
experts to sit down and have meaningful analysis, meaningful discussions. Of course we are going to do it. But right now, if we were to do this, like a lot of these people do, these useless idiots are doing, we can sit and say this intercepted this one. No, this one did this. Oh no, that doctor is terrorist. Oh, you know what? The trash cans are not being51/75
emptied on the streets in Syria. It's like, what are you doing? You are missing all the macro issues and points that are facing us and I'm talking about matters of life and death all of them. And you're talking about some needy-gritty allegations that is just meaningless. When you look at the big picture, it's meaningless. And the other thing I want to emphasize here, and that's very52/75
important. When I talk about expertise, I'm not talking about only academic expertise, okay? People ask me, they're like, Subel, why don't you talk about the cryptocurrency and econ? Well, I am forget about expertise. I haven't even looked at it that much. I have read some of the articles. I have watched some of the videos produced by some people who are considered experts. That is not my53/75
expertise, okay? With that, I'm not going to go and play the guru. I call that playing the guru and say, well folks, today I'm going to talk to you about why you should use Bitcoin and forget about cash and anybody who's telling you gold, don't listen to them. I'm looking at some of this people. I'm like, wow, wow, they are suddenly guru and expert in every54/75
single thing. We don't do that at news, but we have one of the top econ experts here at news, but, okay? It's pie in. When he talks, I listen, and I actually take notes. Same thing. Although I'm pretty up-to-date reading issues and the cases that have to do with China, it's not my expertise. I haven't lived in China. I haven't studied Chinese history or politics in55/75
that. So for me to get in front of the audience and say, by the way, to do that in order to be that kind of a whole guru, South-Dicklier guru, who's a narcissist, first of all, this site wouldn't have been called NewsBud or predecessor that it had a boiling frog's pose. I would have called it, I got that domain so that nobody else would use it.56/75
I would call it Sebald Edmonds Report because it would be all about me. I'm the guru. Listen to me. I have a bridge to sell you. Today, I'm going to get commissioned and sell you steam it. Tomorrow, I'm going to tell you, forget Bitcoin. I'm getting commissioned from another guy who's starting another piece of crap. Just sell your gold and do that. And tomorrow, the day57/75
after, I'm going to talk to you about price of gold, I mean, or Syria. To me, that's preposterous. And I don't know. There are people, same reason. It's very true. It's the same reason you see people, millions, who are attracted to Kardashian. What makeup do you use? You're the guru of makeup. You're the guru on, I don't know, the butt size, whatever it is. There are