All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 3, 2024 - Judging Freedom - Judge Andrew Napolitano
26:24
Larry Johnson : Who’s Fighting in Syria?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Monday, December 2nd, 2024.
Larry Johnson will be here with us in just a moment on taking Russia seriously and what is happening in Syria.
But first this.
We're taught to work hard for 35 to 40 years.
Save your money, then live off your savings.
Unfortunately, there are too many threats undermining the value of our hard-earned dollars.
The Fed's massive money printing machine is shrinking your dollar's value.
Just the cost of groceries is absurd.
Let me be brutally honest.
I think the dollar is on its way to being extinct.
Not just here, but globally.
The BRICS nations, led by Russia and China, threaten to remove the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
Central banks have been shifting away from the dollar and into gold.
And if we go to central bank digital currency, that will not only destroy the dollar, but we will lose our freedom.
We will lose our privacy.
They can track anything we do.
You need to take care of yourself and your family.
So here's what you need to do.
Immerse yourself in knowledge and information.
The writing is on the wall.
Now is the time to consider shifting some of your dollars into gold and silver as your bedrock financial asset.
Call my friends at Lear Capital, the leader in precious metals, investing for over 27 years.
They help me diversify into gold and silver.
They can help you, too.
Call Lear today at 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com.
Larry Johnson, welcome here, my dear friend.
Nice to see you after the long holiday weekend.
Did the United States take Russia seriously before Oreshnik?
Does the United States take Russia seriously after Oreshnik?
No, I don't think so.
In fact, I think what we're seeing in Syria is an extension of that failure to take Russia seriously.
The perception, I think, that is held currently within the intelligence community Certainly held within the policy community is that Russia's weak, that Russia's on the verge of collapse, that all we need to do is keep applying pressure and Russia's going to crack.
And so that perception then leads to the kinds of actions that we've seen the United States take, such as authorizing Ukraine to fire these short-range missiles.
Farther into Russia to attack Russian territory, as well as talk about deploying both NATO and U.S. forces into Ukraine.
there's still a failure to appreciate what Russia has become.
Russia, Russia is once again, a superpower by every definition and militarily, In terms of air force, it can hold its own.
On the submarine side, it's probably superior.
Naval surface fleets, Russia doesn't have as much as the United States because that has been a critical part of the U.S. You know, military strategy, so-called strategy.
But those systems are now outdated.
They're extremely vulnerable to hypersonic missiles.
Did the U.S. intelligence know about a Resnick before it was fired?
Did they know that it turns whatever it hits into 4000 degrees centigrade?
Were they familiar with its descriptive characteristics as outlined by President Putin over the weekend?
I don't know.
Based upon what I've seen in the past with other systems, you've got some very good analysts, but they'll be limited to trying to draw conclusions based upon overhead imagery.
Taken by satellites, any intercepted electronic signals, whether communication or otherwise what's known as ELINT, and they could draw some suppositions, some speculative conclusions.
What would be interesting to know is, did any of them come close to getting it right, or were they thoroughly, completely surprised?
What we do know is that When Donald Trump walked away from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Agreement, the INF agreement in 2018, that Russia started working on intermediate-range nuclear missiles.
The U.S. intelligence community should have, I can't guarantee that they did, but they should have had that as what's called a collection priority.
Believe it or not, every year They'd come around and ask analysts to draw up the list of what do we need to collect on.
And then they'd actually put together a list of collection requirements, and then those requirements are sent out to the intelligence collectors.
So, for example, the CIA chief of station, he would have to, he would have five or six different things that would be identified as what he needed to, he or she needed to collect on.
And if they didn't collect on it.
The same thing for the National Security Agency.
The same thing for the National Reconnaissance Office that you go for according to these collection priorities.
So I can't even assure you that it was on the collection priority list.
It should have been, but we don't know.
Has the United States developed a comparable weapon?
No.
No.
I can't.
I can't.
Tell you how I know that, but just let me say that no, we haven't.
I'll just leave it at that.
Okay, I appreciate that, Larry, and I appreciate the confidentiality of sources as well.
Switching gears slightly, do the neocons truly and sincerely believe that Iran Is a threat to the national security of the United States, or are they just going along with this because that's what Netanyahu's been preaching?
Well, that's their story.
We have been, in the United States, repeatedly told that Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism in the world, that Iran is the problem.
How do you measure terrorism?
Well, you measure terrorism by number of attacks.
The label slapped on Iran comes principally because of its support for Hamas and Hezbollah.
And that's why I went to some lengths to look into the actual terrorist attacks in Israel, looking at the data collected not by Larry Johnson, not even by the U.S. government, collected by the Israeli government.
It was published on the Foreign Ministry site, which lists every single Palestinian Palestinian attack and remember these are the Palestinians who are backed by Iran from August of 2000 up through current day and I was really shocked to discover that over the course of that 24 years there were only 104 attacks attributed to Hamas.
Now you compare that to attacks that are linked to ISIS in just one year over 500 attacks by ISIS in one year.
And when you go to the U.S. State Department's list of annual report, country reports on terrorism, they list out the top 10 groups every year.
The last report came out, it was published last year, 2023.
It covered the year 2022.
So the State Department's lagging behind what it should be doing.
The report for last year should be out.
But anyway, the report for 2022 showed that the top 10 groups, not a single one of them, Was paid for, sponsored by, trained by Iran.
Not one.
So it's a lie that Iran's the number one sponsor of terrorism.
And then what the United States needs to take responsibility for is the fact we have been conducting and supporting terrorist attacks inside Iran.
You know, after 9-11, we made a big weepy deal about, oh, we're against terrorism.
We're going to take this global war on terrorism.
And yet in the ensuing years, we've been supporting terrorist attacks inside Iran, including the murders of nuclear scientists, civilians, because we say, oh, they're a threat, so we're going to kill them, as well as supporting groups like the Mujahideen al-Qalq, the MEK.
They have been carrying out terrorist attacks throughout Iran.
So our hands are certainly dirty there.
And then when we get into Syria, We have been providing weapons, sometimes indirectly, to Islamic extremists, jihadis, the very type that we accuse of blowing up flying planes into the World Trade Center.
So that's why I say this portrayal of Iran is the great Satan for us, because they call us the great Satan, and frankly, with good reason.
Our hands are not clean when it comes to Iran.
We have a long, long history of medley.
I'm going to ask you about what's going on in Syria in a minute, but your terrific description.
Of America supporting the worst type of terrorist groups reminds me, and I'm not a fan of Churchill, of that one-liner of his.
There are no lasting friendships.
There are no lasting enmities.
There are only lasting interests.
But he was right, and what you've just described is an example of that.
What is going on in Syria today?
Can you even tell us who's fighting whom?
The West is trying to destroy Syria.
And the West is using Turkey and this radical Islamic sect known as HTS as a proxy.
But let's remember, this goes back years.
In 2011, the United States, during the so-called Arab Spring, with the backing of Gulf Arabs, Syria specifically to try to take out Bashar al-Assad.
Why?
Because Assad was seen as too closely aligned with Iran.
This was a way to attack and weaken Iran.
And that attack was entirely to serve Israel's interests, to get rid of Iran, because it's Israel that views Iran as the ultimate threat in the region.
Perhaps with good reason, but Iran is fighting on behalf of the Palestinian people, and Israel is committing genocide on the Palestinian people.
So you go back to 2011 when the United States started collecting weapons in Libya, collecting those, putting them in Benghazi, servicing those weapons, and those weapons were shipped out of Benghazi up to Turkey.
There's an old familiar word, Mrs. Clinton.
Yeah.
And those weapons were shipped to Turkey.
We were coordinating with Turkey back then, and then Turkey would take those weapons and deliver them to these radical Sunni extremists that Alistair Kirk talked about earlier on your show.
You know, they're called takfiri, you know, which means they're the ultimate apostates.
They hate everybody.
They hate Sunnis, they hate Shias, because they think they're the only truth-bearers for Allah.
And so they'll go out and kill everybody.
So that's what the Turks were doing.
In fact, the attack in Benghazi that took place in 2012 occurred because a week before that attack, David Petraeus, CIA director, flew to Turkey and he said, hey guys, we're going to have to suspend this weapons shipment for a bit.
Barack Obama's worried that it could impact on his election because the campaign was heating up, and so we're going to put a halt to that.
Chris Stevens, the ambassador, went to Benghazi specifically to meet with a Turkish counterpart from their embassy in order to finish the arrangements on that, and that's when that attack took place.
So now what's happened is, in part, the United States and Great Britain, I believe, Have created this with Turkey, with Turkey's full cooperation and participation, it now is clear, this offensive that coincided with this imposition of the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon.
And by this pressure to try to destroy the government of Bashar al-Assad and at the same time force the Russians to flood troops into the region.
As well, because, again, remember, the British and American intelligence believe that if they can put this kind of strain on Russia, it'll take some of the heat off in Ukraine.
They don't understand.
Russia's got 1.5 million soldiers.
Russia has ample reserves.
Russia can actually walk and chew gum at the same time, unlike the United States, unlike Great Britain.
Isn't Ukraine effectively over?
Or do these madmen still think?
And I gotta tell you, I heard General Kellogg over the weekend, I don't know if you know him, you certainly know of him, make some comments about the need to resist Russian aggression in Ukraine.
Similar comments to what Mike Waltz said two weeks ago.
Are these people delusional?
Yes, in short.
You know, it goes back to what's called confirmation bias.
Larry, this is supposed to be a new team from a peace president, and it sounds like it's the same mentality as Tony Blinken and Jake Sullivan.
Yeah, if you voted for chocolate ice cream, you're getting vanilla.
So they haven't changed at all.
And part of it, again, it goes back to what people believe about the situation.
They believe that Russia is an authoritarian state.
And Judge, let me emphasize in this.
The way this is presented to the average person, not just in the United States, but around the world, this is sold as some sort of struggle for freedom.
This is based in some sort of ideology.
We're here for freedom and democracy.
And that's a bunch of crap.
That's a lie.
This is about money.
This is about the United States, for example.
Getting rid of the Nord Stream pipeline so Europe has to buy our natural gas.
They don't want Russia selling that cheap natural gas to them because that hurts our ability to make money.
Why do we want Russia?
Russia's got all these natural resources.
They shouldn't have all those.
How about Syria?
Well, Syria's got plans in place that there's hopes to build two pipelines.
One pipeline would come out of Iran.
Go across the rock, through Syria, and then have an oil terminal there in Syria where oil could be picked up from the Mediterranean and shipped all over.
Oh, the West can't have that!
So that's why we're busy trying to overthrow Bashir al-Assad.
Get him out of the way so we can get a friendly ruler in there, and then guess what?
This oil pipeline will come out of Qatar.
It'll go up through Saudi Arabia.
It'll cross Jordan.
It'll then go through Syria.
Gee, where does it end up?
Oh my god, it'll end up in Turkey!
And so Turkey winds up being the economic benefactor.
That's what this is all about.
This is about money.
This isn't about Islam versus Christianity.
This isn't about freedom versus authoritarianism.
Those are all deep state lies.
It is the money.
Follow the money.
Is there any connection between the description you just gave and President Trump's murder of General Soleimani during his first term?
Yeah, I think so.
I kept hearing about, oh, man, Soleimani is such a bad guy.
Look, Soleimani was a general, and the thing we don't like to admit They, you know, we say, oh, their terrorist attack against the Marine barracks.
Well, guess what?
Military target.
We had Marines there.
They get guns.
I don't put that in the same category as some suicide bomber that walks into a cafe where you got...
That, I think, is the actual definition of terrorism.
The use of violence against civilians for political means.
But when you're using violence against soldiers for political means, you know what?
Let me think.
There's a three-letter word.
Oh, yeah, that's called war.
Right.
All right?
And let's stop.
But what we've got away with in the United States now is we have to label everything terrorism so that way we can take away our civil rights.
Because if it's a terrorist threat, then there is no due process.
Then there is no constitution.
Then we have the right to spy on you.
Then we have the right to intercept your phone calls.
We have the right to read your mail.
You have no privacy because that terrorist threat's out there.
It's a pesky thing, and we've got to stop it.
Sorry.
You got me wound up today.
I'm glad I got you wound up.
This will wind you up even more.
I think you'll probably remember Mrs. Clinton's famous, so what?
But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still And that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact.
And the American people could have known that within days.
And they didn't know that.
With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans.
Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans?
What difference at this point does it make?
Well, I'll tell you what difference it makes.
The difference makes it was her decision in part.
She was part of the decision to send Chris Stevens there.
Hey, go talk to the Turkish Consul General and inform him that we're cutting off all further movement of weapons out of Benghazi.
And those weapons are no longer going to go to these Islamic groups.
Well, guess what?
Those Islamic groups got a little upset that they were being cut off.
And that was one of the reasons they attacked that so-called consulate.
It wasn't a consulate.
It was a CIA base.
And the CIA base had over 25 CIA officers along with contractors, which is a very, very large entity.
If you go through Africa, you'd find, you know, probably the average CIA station, you know, supposed to be the main site, would be lucky to have five or six people.
So this was a big operation, and it was completely tied into this covert action that had been started with Hillary Clinton's knowledge and participation.
And one more thing, a good friend of mine, Mark Thompson, who was the deputy, he was the, uh, So he was in charge of military affairs.
And he's the one that's supposed to be coordinating with the Special Operations Forces and the Pentagon if there is going to be any kind of U.S. government response to a terrorist incident overseas.
So he's sitting at his desk and he gets a call from the Delta Force guys down in Fort Bragg.
They're going, "Hey, Mark, listen.
I wanted to coordinate with you.
We're getting spun up to go to Benghazi." And he goes, Benghazi, why?
And they go, haven't you heard?
He goes, no.
So Mark gets on the phone, calls the op center, because the op center should have notified him.
Officer in the operations center said, Secretary Clinton told us not to inform you.
Okay?
Wow.
That's the kind of despicable human being Hillary Clinton is.
And I'm sorry to say I thought she was once qualified to be president.
So people can question my judgment on a variety of things.
You're so refreshingly candid, but you're also so informative, Larry, even if it causes you to second-guess your own opinion of people.
And we all do that all the time.
Ray McGovern sent us a fascinating clip.
This will raise your blood pressure even more.
This is nine years ago.
Clip is of then-General Lloyd Austin defending the expenditure of a half a billion dollars to train anti-Assad Syrian fighters.
And guess how many fighters they train for half a billion?
Watch this interrogation by then-Senator Kelly Ayotte.
It's a small number.
The ones that are in the fight is, we're talking four or five.
As I see it right now, this four or five U.S.-trained fighters, let's not kid ourselves, that's a joke.
And as Ray points out, did you see any apology or any shame or any hesitation on his face?
No.
We spent half a billion dollars training four or five people.
Big deal.
Well, a lot of that money went into the pockets of Turkish.
Military, Turkish intelligence, and President Erdogan and his family, I'm sure, got a taste.
One of the real problems here is Tayyip Erdogan, and he's actually, by foolishly casting his lot now with the United States, with Great Britain.
In this bid to destroy Syria, I think he's probably ended up destroying himself.
Because unlike what happened in 2011, 2012, when that war kicked up against Bashar al-Assad, Assad was all alone with the exception of some support from Iran for about three years until Russia intervened.
And during that entire time, he was standing against all the Gulf Arabs, the Gulf states, and Jordan, and Egypt.
They came out and condemned Assad, and they threw him out of the Arab League.
Now, over the course of the last year, Assad is back in the Arab League, and just this week, the Arab League announced, we're standing with Assad.
So you've got this now growing divide.
The divide is increasing between the United States, the hegemon, and NATO, and the Global South.
That's opening up.
That's not closing.
They're beginning to see now more clearly That the West has zero interest in working with these people in any kind of honest way.
In fact, the West's plan is either we're going to sanction you, we're going to run a color revolution to overthrow you, or we're going to invade you.
That's it.
That's our three-point plan.
There's no diplomacy.
There's no friendship.
There's no mutual understanding.
It's got to be our way or the highway for you.
What a strange character Erdogan is.
Is he still trying to join BRICS while he's doing this?
Yeah, I think his invitation to BRICS will be rescinded.
Or until Turkey has a change in leadership.
I wouldn't be surprised that this is certainly damaged.
He's already betrayed Vladimir Putin a couple of times.
And I think Putin may have reached his limit with this character now.
To call Erdogan a scoundrel would be an insult to scoundrels all around the world.
Larry Johnson, thank you very much, my dear friend.
Great, great explanations of this morass going on there.
And we'll look forward to seeing you at the end of the week with Ray McGovern.
All the best.
Thank you, Judge.
Pleasure, my friend.
▲
Export Selection