noah, cham, you were turned into modus operandi. the political lexicon gets a re brand, traditionally called a cood, a car, now coined regime change, but the deadly results remain the same. this week will examine the anatomy of a qu. what's it look like? how does one develop and who is most often to blame for the former us marine corps intelligence officer, turned un weapons inspector, scott ritter. shed some light on the issue. all right, let's get into the m o me . i say tomato, you say tomato. i say who the u. s. government says regime change when one party or group assumes power by force that usually leads to a lot of bloodshed, whatever the word game that's known, the world over as

a cool day top. but in the age of social media sensitivity and kindness in recent years, terms like bloody coo or a thing of the 20th century in the 21st century pop culture as dictated by and proliferated by the us state department. we now call it regime change, toppling whoever is labeled a dictator. authoritarian or despot regime change is much better packaging for selling a war destabilization against another country or sometimes even against your own. so what is the m o behind a cou? i mean, regime change. how do they spring up, or are they actually grown? so for that, let's turn to a military expert with international experience. he was one of the 1st voices to blow the whistle on w. m. d, 's and iraq,

which we know ultimately found saddam hussein to be on the receiving end of regime change. scott ritter is a former us marine corps intelligence officer and later became un weapons inspector . scott, always good to see you. a coo, coo, that's a 4 letter word. the u. s. government has largely purged that sort of language from its official lexicon. the term is now regime change. recently we heard president biden and others in his administration say the quiet part out loud in regard to vladimir putin. they said this proxy war and ukraine is actually about regime change. so let's 1st address the, the shift in language here. why doesn't the us use the term coo anymore? i mean, as you said, it's a, it's a 4 letter word. it's a dirty word. there's a lot of negative connotation attached to it. many us supported crews in the past

of produce the leadership of that that has been embarrassing to the united states. it's also something that tries in the face of a international law cou implies that we are actively supporting a military junta up to forcefully take over a, from a government oftentimes a democratically elected government. and we don't want to encourage that anymore. so we speak of regime change, see a regime change could be as simple as an election that you voted out a regime. it's very harmless, bloodless, nobody gets hurt. a regime change can also reflect the independent will of a sovereign people who cited to liberate themselves from an oppressive regime. or this is wife. in the case of a, my don in, in the ukraine in 2014, we speak of a revolution, a regime change where the people ousted the pro russian. you know,

a victory on a coach. we don't admit that it was a could a tar carried out by ultra training. osh ultra nationalists of funded and supported by the united states one would be a blatant violation of international law. the other one is the lawful expression of free will by a sovereign people. and indeed, if one takes a look at the sanctions that were imposed on russia a prior because of the special military operation. this was a regime change operation. this was about bringing harm to the russian people of such a scope and scale that the russian people would become alienated, a disenfranchised up from the russian government and rise up and removal at him, recruited from from power a regime change, but never a coo and what are the characteristics other kill, how might one know if they were being code?

generally speaking, we speak or could, could a talk an implication is military. so the, the 1st key is that there are guns involved. there's usually violence involved or the threat of violence regime changes. i said it's a, it's a more, you know, warm and fuzzy thing. an election, you know, maybe a demonstration. but a qu is guys in uniforms. kicking the door down when he guns you're facing, your day is done. you're finished. sometimes they shoot you. other times they arrest you. sometimes just escort you out, put you on an airplane and fly you off. but generally speaking, when we speak of a coup, it sub men in uniforms who are coming in forcefully removing from power. then in replacing you with martial law because of the, the genesis of the crew is center dissatisfaction toward sub there, the kind of constitutional rule that has been transparent. so the idea is to suspend the constitution, replace it with martial law,

and then the military will work to restructure society in a way that suits their needs and then and only then they may seek to transfer power back to civilians. but this time, the civilian population will understand that if they get out of step one more time, they'll be could again, i mean one only has to take a look at the history of turkey. recently, they had a succession, and 1960 seventy's eighty's, ninety's of military coups you knew as a coo tanks were in the street. all right, so i've heard sociologists say that one of the things that are part and parcel of a qu data is being able to shift public opinion. language is one of those methods. it's one of those tools. what would you say are other methods of fomenting echo? i think one of the key aspects, if you get a film into qu, is to create economic discomfort. and it's hard for a military to successfully carry out a qu,

when the population is satisfied. the government hour and, you know, he comes back down to james carville um, and the advice he gave to bill clinton when bill clint was 1st running for president and stop talking about foreign policy analysts. it's the economy, stupid. and that's a lesson that, you know, every american politician understands at the end of the day. it's about, are you better off today than you were when the current power a came in to power? if the answer is no other than they run a risk of you know, being ousted by an election. ok? but if you could do a qu, your bypassing the election, you're going straight to the ouster part of one of the ways that you want to foam into qu, is to take advantage of, you know, economic difficulty to alienate the people from the government by pointing out that the reason why they're suffering economically is because of the bad policies of the government. you generally want to tie the economic difficulties to notions of

corruption. that these are the people you intrusted to look out for your welfare. but instead of looking out for you, they're only looking out for themselves, they're enriching themselves. offshore bank accounts. and so if you want to create this mythology in many cases it's probably true of your corruption of a leadership lead out of touch with the, with, with the people. so these are the, that the kind of sentiment you want to abs because one of the most vulnerable periods of a crew is when it 1st happen. i mean, the person more scared than the president that's being forcefully moved from power . is the people doing it? because you've just taken a big step into the unknown at the qu, fails, you're off to accuse of treason, and you can put up against the wall and you get shot, where you're the one being sent on exam. and one of the best ways to make a cru fail is that the people go to the streets. all right, so, so let me get this right. sanctions that are probably likely a tool then to help foment a to the united states. and it's infinite wisdom is under the impression that we

can exacerbate economic tension in a targeted country. um, by imposing sanctions we, we did this with iraq, a place that i have an intimate experience with. you know, our policy early on in the, in the saddam regime, in the post gulf war period was that, um, we were hoping that there would be a coup that we would get the, his military leadership to apply the $75.00 cent solution, which is the price of $9.00 millimeter board, the back of his head and. and then replace him with someone that looked like saddam talk like saddam. but this was a name saddam and needed some of that didn't work. so then we went into a prolonged period of trying to apply pressure on iraq through economic sanctions under the belief that if we made the right the iraqi people suffer, that they would rise up. and that generals would recognize the suffering and say, we now need to get rid of saddam. but that didn't work. why?

because jane sanctions generally backfire against those people who are imposing them, either politically or in the case of what's going on with russia right now. they just actually blow black and you suffer worse economically. with iraq. what happened is the iraqi people rallied around their leadership instead of alienating the iraqi people from the iraqi leadership. director leadership was to say the economic suffering that you have right now isn't because of me. it's because of these outside powers that are opposing sanctions. you will be hard pressed to find any examples of economic sanctions actually working. generally speaking, when they apply sanctions, they had the opposite effect. instead of encouraging a coup against a leader, you what removed you actually strengthen the hand about leader. it's worked and it's worked against us and iraq. it's worked against us and iran working against us in russia. all right, so who is our never spontaneous events, right? they are engineer, they're a process, they take time and planning,

civil unrest for as organic, as many of them appear oftentimes, especially in this day and age. those 2 are engineers. who tends to be behind the engineering of today's modern civil unrest. whether you know it's domestically or abroad, can you think of any person's or groups or countries that come to mind? i mean, crews are socially engineered. and even though we speak of a military coup it's, it's not the us military's job to go in and, and create conditions for a good, a tough. that's the job of the central intelligence. and that's who's behind the vast majority of the nefarious actions in the world today or the c i. a's job is to go in. and i'm so manipulate societies. they do that by buying off politicians. they do that by funding oppositions. they do that by a deliberately undermining economies. or they do that by planting this information

by taking control the media, seating the media with, with false narratives or narratives to support their point of view. but basically, ah, by manipulating aside from the inside out. it's so it's done by intelligent services and the intelligence services that do this more than anybody else are the united states and the british m. i 6, i think anywhere you go in the world, if you scratch deep enough, you're going to find the cia. and i'll say this, i mean, i know there's people out there who believe the cia has been used. i believe that ca analysis used to be solid when i was doing the soviet target. i had high respect for other than the sober vision within um ca, that was responsible for soviet analysis. and i even had respect for some of the a c i officers who were working the operation side against the soviet target. but today, ah, you know, when i take a look at it, the c, i a,

they bring nothing positive. if you have a cia station in an embassy in your country, they're not there to help you. they're not there to help you, they're hurting their job isn't to, you know, promote your interest. the job is there to solely promote the interest of the united states. and even if you think you have a cooperative relationship with them, it's not, it's only cooperative in. so far as to see, i use it as being beneficial to a larger intelligence plan. a larger intelligence are good. so they're either working with you to try and bring unrest somewhere else in the world, or they're working in your country who full ment. unrest in your country. so they, there is an outcome that beneficial the united states not necessarily beneficial to you. but i would say the number one bad actor in the world today is the central intelligence agency, which basically exists to create the conditions that further american power, usually at the detriment of the nations that they're involved. or it's scott ritter

and don't go anywhere. there's a ton more to unpack here. coming up next. can we blame aku on mark zuckerberg? we'll examine the role of social media in modern day coups. we're going to discuss it when we return, sit tight. the ammo will be right back. ah, ah. hi, i'm rick sanchez and i'm here to plead with you. whatever you do, you do not watch my your show. certainly why watch something that's so different. my list of opinions that you won't get anywhere else. look of it please. if you have the state department, the cia weapons makers, multi $1000000000.00 corporations, choose your facts for you. go ahead. i change and whatever you do. don't watch my

show, stay mainstream because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact, but again, you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change the way things ah, to come to the russian state. little narrative outside, as i told him to ignore some scheme div, asking him the knock ingles all sunset for a coup in the 55 when. okay, so mine is gonna be the one else with the van in the european union, the kremlin. yup. machine. the state on crush us for date and split r t sport neck given our video agency, roughly all band on youtube with

requests with me. at this hour, american and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm iraq, to free its people. and to defend the world from great danger with proof we will bring to the iraqi people, food and medicines and supplies and sleep with

the me mark zack or burn could some of the 21st century cruise. be blamed on facebook. right. like i'm not trying to be sued for libel or slander, so i won't lay these issues squarely at his feet, but nowadays regime change operations happen right before our very eyes on social media. scott ritter is joining us again. scott, thanks for sticking around. still want to talk about so in the 20th century, a post mortem of places like iran, 1953. she lay 1973, bolivia, 1980 iraq, 2001 libya 2011. and i believe future historians will refer to ukraine in

2014 as an example. all had so called us intervention in lieu of the term coo or regime change operation. what's been the result of us intervention for some of these places? well, 1st thing is, none of these places emerged better after the u. s. intervention than they were before us intervention. everything the united states touches when it comes to this kind of activity where there's a dies. there's not a single example where the united states went in and touched the country and said, i'm intervening to achieve a change in regimes and everything came up, smell of roses, it doesn't work that will look at libya under gadhafi priorities, and i must sit here is singing the praises gadhafi. i'm not going to pretend to use some sort of wonderful democratic leader and all this done. so he was gadhafi. we know who he was. what he was is a man who cared about his country, what he was as a man who invested heavily in the infrastructure his country. if you take

a look at the infrastructure of libya, pre 2011, it was a, it was a, it was a nation who is doing okay. i mean the high standard living um, modern uh you know, facility setup. post us intervention. um libby is, is, is, is a hello, it's a, it's an economy is in tatters. it's infrastructure ruined it's, it's a civil war. um, nothing good and we can go across down the road. every single place that we touch is up worse off than it was before we touched what happens when a had a state perhaps st. reject the u. s. o or intervention? oh well, um they probably don't last very long. um. it's rare to have a leader that says we don't want your assistance, we don't want your help. we're going to go it our own way. because normally the united states were not a benevolent nation. we don't have

a tendency go out and offer assistance to people just because they needed and out of the kindness of our heart, we offer assistance when it benefits us when there's an outcome that we desire. and that outcomes usually linked to a geopolitical. um, you know, impact that we want that furthers what we call our national security interests. so a nation refusing help means that they have competed a process of achieving an outcome that the decision makers have made a decision. is necessary for a larger objective. so we can't just simply go, oh okay, i don't want our help. gosh, we'll walk away from this one. if you don't want our help and we're going to find somebody who does one are hell. if you reject american assistance, you're rejecting or you're doing, you're not just rejecting assistance, you're hurting national security. now you become a threat to the united states and threats need to be removed. so we'll find a way to remove you. what role does the traditional legacy media play if

any, in coo, and for this i'm referring specifically to the tv and to print? well, normally speaking, traditional legacy media is that which the majority of a population, you know, gets their information from. and said, generally speaking, it's government troll, depending on where you're in or government influences even here in the united states. the people who report on government things know that there hostages to certain sources of information that are comprised primarily of anonymous senior level government officials who feed them data that allows them to have a headline story. you remove the government source, you really got nothing. so legacy media is there to promote a way of thinking. so you can either gain control of the legacy media if you're cia and start planting stories that undermine facing the government. or is you're the government. you can, um,

you can seize control yourself and only put forth stories that, that, that are favor. would you? this is why there's a new kind of media, the social media, facebook, the twitters telegram, whatever that's out there that allows an entire round to be to put there. um, but even then that's, that's not as effective as one would think. i'm, you know, united states is called it digital democracy where we use visa, the social media platforms to engender public unrest. um a, again, it, it hasn't been the successful it, it failed in egypt. it failed in iran. it failed in turkey. it's failing in russia . it failed just about everywhere that we've we've tried to use it. um and the other thing about legacy media is that it is, it can be used by the government um to a so emissions. so let's say the, the u. s. legacy media, you know, one would think that, you know, russian, we try to exploit it to alter um, you know, the point of view in united states,

but we use it the united states government uses it to shape american opinion and indeed try and influence opinion abroad because american media has historically had a, a rather positive cache attached to people were like, you know, when walter cronkite speaks people listen um, but that they is gone. there are no more walter crack. it's an american media. american media is a total cell up to the us government. we see that ukraine today where it is become a veritable a stenographer for i deliberately misleading and falsified intelligence. information leaked by the u. s. government. they've even acknowledged that they've admitted it. yeah, we're leaking stuff, we know it's not true that we want to get it out there to shape perception. and that's the role of the media to day to shape perception. it's no longer to inform people. it's the shape perception. and that means you're not the media that just meet your simple up and out. and you know, as you mentioned in today's day and age, social media deserves a whole separate address. social media plays an outsider role in our everyday lives

. what's their impact on coups, you know, i was involved with iraq back when there wasn't meaningful social media. so we dealt primarily with the legacy media. and one of the ways that we fomented or supported the notion of a coup and iraq was to reprogram the american public to get them to accept it. face value. anything negative that was said about saddam hussein and saddam hussein's iraq. and that was largely successful. i mean, i was somebody who was empowered with truth 1st hand truth. i did the shop for 7 years. there was no one had better access to the reality of iraqi weapons of mass destruction status than me. but i couldn't get traction in the mainstream media. they were very successful in downplaying, what i had to say and exaggerating a counter opinions. today we have a situation in ukraine where i have taken a contrarian position to the mainstream narrative. and i was able to gain some

traction in social media because it's not controlled release. we thought it was in control by mainstream me. but what we found out. ready is it actually. ready is thanks to the 20162020 elections the united states congress and the powers that be, have determined that social media is through a direct threat to american democracy. because the people who access social media can't be controlled by area of, of it's being shaped by mainstream media. there's alternatives. so the government is what pressure on social media to silence the voices of dissent. him, i've course been famously banned from twitter. what control is this have on cruise? united states again has for some time now been trying to implement a policy of aaliyah, digital democracy. it's basically using social media to foment social unrest. the can lead to regime change type activities and targeted nation. so iran has been

famously targeted for this, or the 2009 green revolution of what's going on today in regards to the, the, the, the, the a, the poor lady who has a lost her life in police custody over a job. you know, was she murdered by the iranians? no, she died of a heart attack apparently, according to a video. but that didn't stop on the cia and my 6 and other a foreign elements using social media to create a narrative to create a perception inside iran that fomented unrest. and that's the role of social media today in that, in that regard. but it's not succeeded of there's a couple reasons why one social media is internet based in the internet to be turned off. and that's the end of it. um, and 2 of the social media works, you know, 2 ways of you. you can promote your idea, but there's a lot of other ideas out there. so oftentimes the targeted information package

you're trying to get out. it's looted by other information. that's that. so that's competing for time. space on the, on the social media it's a, it's an imperfect platform. um, a lot of people. ready believe there's promise and hope in it for changing the way people think. but at the end of the day, a people think the way they're going to think and um, a tweet or facebook posting isn't going to change that reality. scott ritter. thank you so much for staying with us to talk about that. so if you can see a rose by any other name, i forget it at the end of the day, close regime, change intervention, whatever you want to call it, the end result is the same destabilizing of that country. blood death, violence. you get the picture. crews are inherently undemocratic, yet the henge ammons who aid in this, this sort of political destabilization purport to be spreading democracy. i run

it. that's going to do it for this week's episode. i've modus operandi the show that dig deep into foreign policy. i'm your host manila chan. thank you for tuning and we'll see you again next week to figure out the ammo. ah, ah, is ending the conflict in ukraine on the agenda? maybe child that is offered proposal, there appears that you pay france and germany are sounding alpha zalinski became a proposal of their own. all will come to nothing if russian interests are not respected. ah, so i am, my name is frank from a reserves in philadelphia. got in the room in the age of 13 going on 14,

we were violent towards those people because we believe there were this race were here 1st. this is our country being part of that movement. i got your sense of power. when i felt powerless, we got attention when i felt invisible, him accepted when i felt lovable. life after, hey, is an organization that was founded by for a skinhead nazi white supremacists in the u. s. in canada. and they found each other and they knew that they wanted to help other guys get out was 2 parts to getting out of a violent extreme was the 1st part of disengagement which is where you leave the social group. and then the next part is d. radicalization work belief systems audiology are removed. it was very impactful. when someone finally came along with no fear, no judgement, you heard my story did nothing to challenge it. validate with

ah, why hungry from the north stream pipelines a terrorist that calls for an official view and investigation, stressing out such an incident can never be repeated. france will be made a scapegoat for africa is problems or drawn into a tug of war influence that's according to president micron of it's for a nation. 2 of the continents coming a bit much refill the opposition to power is his presence with hearing child politicizing that corona virus. roger, that's beijing's risk.